Find me the list of Deceiver “facts” that are in fact ‘untrue’ about John Edwards? I can find about 12 things that ended up not being true in La Times about Palin in the last 3 weeks. Which is funny, because that is the ammount of time they ignored the Edwards story…

All I can say, we disagree on Sarah Palin.

Then I’ll hold you to it: That’s all you can say on this topic. This blog is not going to be yet another clearinghouse for a smear campaign. It’s not like you can’t find this crap anywhere else on the Internet. Everywhere else on the Internet.

All I can say, we disagree on Sarah Palin.

She’s not the first governor to fire a cop for good cause and she won’t be the last.

There may be dirt on Palin yet, but its not in Troopergate, its not in her faking her pregnancy, and its not in her husband’s past business partner’s non-sealed divorce paperwork.

Finally, the John Edwards Love Child scandal had a 10 month MSM news blackout followed by an admission. Many Hillary Clinton followers believe the news blackout specifically changed the course of the election and ultimate Democratic nominee, an argument with merit that can never be proven true nor false.

The simple truth is that had Edwards not admitted to having a love child, and had the MSM continued to sit on its hands, the Sarah Palin faked pregnancy and child pregnancy stories could never have even been discussed.

However, I do say this: when it came to John Edwards, no rumour, no gossip, no idle speculation was left untouched.

That would be a good one to back up. And it might calm you down a bit to remember that we were one of the only blogs even talking about the Edwards story for three weeks. Do you think Deceiver is the only place you can discuss the latest debunked Sarah Palin rumor? Or has been, since about 10 seconds after McCain brought her onstage?

Facts, rumors, what’s the difference, right? Again: It’s obvious that this woman is the target of a smear campaign. “The other 70 unsubstantiated rumors about her this week fell through, but this one is gold!” I, for one, refuse to be duped into it, and trying to link it to the solid facts we found on Edwards is bizarre.

Do as you like, but the more you protest our supposed hypocrisy, the less inclined I am to assist you.

Snoop, I have no control over what the rest of the country does. If the rest of the country wants a repeat of Bush-Cheney, then let em’. I never underestimate the ability of people to vote against their own best interests.

Fortunate Son, the point is, which you seem to keep missing, is that Sarah Palin did not have the authority to fire Wooten. She fired Monegan (which was in her authority) because he couldn’t fire Wooten based on old charges for which Wooten had already been punished. It’s not that Monegan wouldn’t fire Wooten–he couldn’t. His hands were tied. I don’t know what is so hard to understand about that. Wooten is still on the job. Repeat: Wooten is still on the job and by accounts, doing a good job.

Bruce, to fire every senior Police Official is kinda like amputating your legs because you don’t have any shoes. Think about it.

As for vicious, vile rumours, I’ve heard quite a doozy regarding Track Palin, but I won’t repeat it–one, it’s unsubstantiated, and two, it’s unsubstantiated. And I’ve heard quite a few regarding the Obamas, and I won’t repeat them either for the same reasons.

However, I do say this: when it came to John Edwards, no rumour, no gossip, no idle speculation was left untouched.

When it came to the Clintons, no smear was too low: Hilary killed Vince Foster, Clinton fathered a child out of wedlock, etc. The smear machine was in full swing.

Now, when concerned people ask legitmate questions about how Palin governs, how she was vetted, this apparent abuse of power, her misstatements, her role in the AIP, etc., we get slammed.

Okay to savage John Edwards, but hands off Sarah Palin.

Independent of the valid single argument that he should’ve been immediately dismissed for tasering a 10 year old child, let’s consider the drinking on duty argument.

I understand that if you lived one of two municipalities with a history of some tolerance for naughty police behavior or outright corruption, you may not understand that drinking alcohol while on duty is a huge no-no, but in almost every police department other than Chicago or New Orleans, that will get you fired immediately also:

The 65,100 cited instances of cops fired for drunk driving:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cop+fired+for+drunk+driving