Sarah Palin; Just Another Dick In Lipstick ?

as the election campaigns roll along, i've been noticing that sarah palin is beginning to have a resemblance to another vice president; dick cheney.

starting with the flip flop of her initial promise to cooperate with the so called "troopergate" investigation, only to then seek to have the investigation moved from the legislature to a department packed with people she appointed.

when that didn't work, she then declared that she would not cooperate, ordered state employees to do likewise, and finally refused to comply with legally issued suboenas. like cheney, she apparently believes that she can also cover the refusal of her husband via executive priviledge type maneuvers.

although seven of her staffers have relented and agreed to testify in the last day or so, her husband has indicated through their attorney, tom van flein (and advised by mccain campaign attorney, ex justice dept., ed o'callaghan) that todd would not answer any questions in person; but would respond to written inquiries in kind, submitted by attorney van flein.

apparently, like dick cheney, mrs. palin and her husband have an aversion to being questioned under oath.

and that the laws of the united states are really just there to keep joe sixpack in line.

another similarity between sarah and dicky is their grandiose view of the authority of the vice president.

the role of the veep is really just to be a understudy of the sitting president in case of injury death or removal, and to preside over the senate with no vote unless there's a tie.

but cheney's actions have shown he has a view that he can do pretty much anything he wants, and when asked for an explanation, insists that he has executive priviledge for cover. except when he gets cornered on something else and insists that the vice president isn't in the executive branch, but instead a member of the legislature. huh???

palin appears to have a similar view. in her recent interview with katie couric, sarah gave her opinion that:



the thing is, the constitution doesn't say anything about a role beyond presiding over the senate (cavet the president's incapacitation, etc. of course..). the constitution doesn't say anything about allowing "a bit" or "a lot" of authority beyond presiding (caveat a tied vote).

you'd think that someone who is in the "strict constructionist" crowd would not only know that, but be loath to color outside the lines.

sarah palin would "lead with his agenda. That is energy". what, as in an energy task force?

where have we heard that before?

so, let's recap;

* dick cheney has a grandiose vision of the vice presidency, led the energy task force, has refused to release any information regarding the members of the t-force and has repeatedly flaunted a total disregard for subpoenas in particular and the law in general.

* sarah palin has a grandiose vision of what her vice presidency would be, would lead the energy agenda (task force?), and has already demonstrated that she, alsooo, has no respect for the law and it's stinking subpoenas. but is more than happy, like cheney, to use any and all political power she has to confuse and circumvent the law and the constitution.

that's supposed to the real change? that's supposed to be reform?

nahhh, sarah palin is just another dick in lipstick.

dtom.