Wall Street Journal Reveals Sarah “Barracuda” Palin Was FOR Ted Stevens’ “Bridge To Nowhere” Long Before She Was Against It
Traitorous, so-called “reporters”, Elizabeth Holmes and Laura Meckler of The Wall Street Journal have stepped COMPLETELY over the line to dig up old memories of “Sarah Palin THEN” versus “Sarah Palin NOW”.
Shameful, the other fact they FAIL to bring up yet another fact Él Presidenté “wannabe” Señor J. Sidney McCain of Arizona Panama’s top choice for Dick “Shotgun” Cheney’s heir apparent reserves the RIGHT to change her mind — a “woman’s prerogative” many non-feminist ladies will quickly rush to defend. No matter which side of the political aisle you hail from, it’s hard to ignore “The Barracuda Bump” Señor J. Sidney M. is currently enjoying…
And hey — as a married American male, what can I say? That’s the end of the so-called “story”. Claiming “Executive Privilege” doesn’t come even CLOSE to holding the same “WHAMMO!” an Executive of the female variety claiming the “Woman’s Prerogative Privilege” does. “Sarah Barracuda” was FOR disgraced Senator Ted Stevens’ “Bridge To Nowhere” before she was against it. She was AGAINST aboriginal Eskimos before she married one (i.e., “First Dude”, Todd Palin) and gave birth to a two-story igloo full of aboriginal Eskimos — remember that one, folks?
Enough is ENOUGH– again — Executive Privilege A Woman’s Prerogative trumps any court of law, including the SCOTUS or any other sub-branch of that “pesky” Judicial Branch, friends. Leave Miss Congeniality and Miss Alaska runner-up, Sarah Heath-Palin alone, for cryin’ out loud. While Señor J. Sidney McCain for Él Presidenté might very WELL have, Darwinically exposed himself to be cordially challenged by his non-Police State opponents as just one of another of MANY of the “Keating Five” variety of “Flip-Flopping”, Washington, D.C. Republicans, one cannot, in good concience, say the same for Mrs. Todd Palin, the Governor of my home state of Alaska.
After all, as a former classmate of “Sarah Barracuda” (frankly, I don’t remember anybody in school calling her that, by the way), I feel pretty confident in my assumption The Queen Of Alaska Herself would glibly refer to her support, followed by her NON-SUPPORT of disgraced Senator Ted Stevens’ “Bridge To Nowhere” as nothing less than “A Woman’s Prerogative”.
And do NOT mistake this as a “sexist” point of view; it’s the point of view coming from a former classmate of both Sarah’s AND Todd’s. That’s REALLY how they actually THINK. That is, unless they’ve changed a LOT in the last twenty or so years. And hey, that’s always a possibility, isn’t it? After all, that would be their “prerogative”, wouldn’t it now?
***









4:10 pm on September 9th, 2008 1
The willingness to change your position in light of new information is a characteristic I would support in anyone, expecially candidates for office. Too often they cling (bitterly) to the party line and use increasingly lame justifications, just to avoid the “flip-flop” label.
11:54 am on September 10th, 2008 2
GTL
So Gov. Palin came around to the right decision. Is this kinda like Sen. Obama being for the 2nd Amendment after he was against it?
12:00 pm on September 10th, 2008 3
Heh… very much so — great comparison
1:09 am on September 11th, 2008 4
Or like Senator McLame’s being for a dirty, deceitful, and negative campaign after first being against it.