Then provide the verification as well as corroborations. So far all I see is his statements, no verification and no corroborations.
Schmidt cited an ethics report on the then-Alaska governor from her home state on an investigation into whether she had improperly used her government position.
“She went out and said, you know, ‘This report completely exonerates me,’” Schmidt said. “And in fact, it — it didn’t. You know it’s the equivalent of saying down is up and up is down. It was provably, demonstrably untrue
That ethics report found Palin entirely culpable, then she went out and lied through her teeth, claiming it exonerated her. The report and her false statements regarding it are both widely available and on record.
Schmidt's other big statement getting press is that Palin couldn't even remember Joe Biden's name during the debate, and that was why she did her infamous "Can I call you Joe?" so as to not embarrass herself at getting his name wrong during the debate.
Palin herself corroborated this on page 289 of Going Rouge:
Going Rogue said:
During rehearsals, I accidently called Randy “Senator O’Biden” — a slip of the tongue combination of Obama and Biden. The blunder struck too often, even tripping up campaign staffers. (Jay Leno later made the same slip on his new talk show, so we were in good company.) We laughed about it but knew that if I said it even once during the debate, it would be disastrous. Then somebody said, “You ought to just call him Joe.” ... So that’s what we decided I would do. We had no idea my mic would already be hot when I walked onstage, crossed over to his turf, and said, “Can I call you Joe?” The “expert” post-debate analysis was that my question was a cleverly devised strategy to disarm my opponent. Yeah, right.
Obviously not every single claim will be independently verified, because Palin and those in her camp have a vested interest in not making her appear unqualified. McCain's camp has no interest in making her appear unqualified either. They have no reason to lie now, the campaign is over and they're not trying to blame her for the loss, but in fact he said she helped the campaign, this guy is just answering questions and giving details about what went wrong.
But you ignore one very7 important part of this....the people that are the topic of the "gossip" regarding their infidelity, their lies, their lack of ethics...are the same people that are ignoring the polls and pushing through legislation that is not necessarily what the people want.
They imply that they lknow what is best for the people and want to do this for the people....but do any of you want people with "questionable" level of ethics to have such power?
I know I dont.
No, this isn't about their ethics. If it were, the book and the reports coming from it would be about how the politicians make deals with their top campaign contributors, powerful individuals, corporate entities, and entire sections of the business world, to enact favorable legislation for money. If it were about their ethics, it would be about them misusing campaign funds, deciding to support policies they knew to be harmful in order to secure more votes, colluding with special anti-democratic interests for power within the beltway, those kind of political ethical concerns that every national politician faces and nearly all (every subject of the book at least) is guilty of violating.
Instead, it is gossip of the checkout line rag variety, no different than "exposés" of who Lindsay Lohan slept with this weekend or what Paris Hilton privately said to her friends about it.
It's personality-driven political crap focused on what tidbits are "juiciest." The kind of shit we were mired in for two years during the Clinton sex scandal that had no real impact on anything except to distract us from actual legislation and policies that have an enormous impact on our lives and should be the focus of our political concerns.
