WWTBAM Bored

This just in. I can't even find it with Google.

In her RNC speech Palin claimed she fired the governor's cook, "and my children sure do miss her." Some said at that time, "Big deal, she didn't live in the governor's mansion, so she didn't need one." However, it now turns out all she did was to change the job title of the cook, who continued to cook for her family when they were in Juneau!

No second source yet, but I expect details to start coming in tomorrow.

By the way, she billed the state for her and her family's constant travel between her home and Juneau.

What are you? The spokesman for Move On or something?

If you are going to slander people it would be best to wait until there is a trustworthy source to cite.

If there is one, there will be plenty of time then.

If there isn't one, you will have contributed less to the negative energy on these topics.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:What are you? The spokesman for Move On or something?

Worse

If you translate each letter in bobjunch to its numerical value within the alphabet (B to 2, O to 15, B to 2, J to 10, and so on) then multiply the numbers by the previous letters' number with the first letter B or 2 being multiplied by the last letter or 8, then add up the products, you get.....

666

No lie. Check it out.
I didn't find that on Google either.


This just in.....I have too much time on my hands.

Ritterskoop wrote:If you are going to slander people it would be best to wait until there is a trustworthy source to cite.

If there is one, there will be plenty of time then.

If there isn't one, you will have contributed less to the negative energy on these topics.

I have a trustworthy source. This isn't a rumor; it's breaking news. Just because it's not on a news web page doesn't make it so.

Bob Juch wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:If you are going to slander people it would be best to wait until there is a trustworthy source to cite.

If there is one, there will be plenty of time then.

If there isn't one, you will have contributed less to the negative energy on these topics.

I have a trustworthy source. This isn't a rumor; it's breaking news. Just because it's not on a news web page doesn't make it so.

When it first happened, the chef said she would still be working for the state (see the email at the end of the article).

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/story/ ... 6523c.html

The chef went to work for the state legislature.

So, I don't know exactly how much money was actually saved because the state is still paying salary and benefits.

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/288561.html

I am not understanding why this is relevant to anything.

Ritterskoop wrote:I am not understanding why this is relevant to anything.

Palin is attempting to tout her credentials as a deficit hawk. In fact, the two incidents cited did little or nothing to save public money, but she's touting them as though they did. --Bob

Ritterskoop wrote:I am not understanding why this is relevant to anything.

Skoop --

As far as I can tell, in her stump speeches, Gov. Palin is talking about firing the chef to save the state of Alaska money. Mentions it along with the eBay jet and the Bridge.

But, the chef was never "fired." She was reassigned to constituent services and then as chef to the state legislature.

I am guessing that Bob Juch's point was that it's a lie because the chef was never fired and how did reassigning her save the state money?

As one thing on its own, it may not amount to much but, added with other things, could be construed as a pattern.

mellytu74 wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:I am not understanding why this is relevant to anything.

As one thing on its own, it may not amount to much but, added with other things, could be construed as a pattern.

Thanks.

I am just so tired of the mud, I don't know what any of it means anymore.

sick, sick, sick, sick.........


the end.

Skoop, here's an idea for you. I would find it interesting journalism if someone would do an in depth profile of the kind of people who spend their time digging up and disseminating dirt on politicians. (Maybe dig up a little dirt on them, see how they lke it). It seems to be an industry, and it has many willing, unpaid (I assume) participants like our Bob here.

how did reassigning her save the state money?

By reassigning the chef instead of having her continue to work for the gov and hiring someone else to do the stuff she was reassigned to, thereby paying for two chefs instead of one, perhaps?

DISCLAIMER: don't know for a fact if the 'other stuff' would have been left undone if chef had stayed with gov, just thowing the possibilty out there. Trickle-down chefdom, if you will.


t.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Skoop, here's an idea for you. I would find it interesting journalism if someone would do an in depth profile of the kind of people who spend their time digging up and disseminating dirt on politicians. (Maybe dig up a little dirt on them, see how they lke it). It seems to be an industry, and it has many willing, unpaid (I assume) participants like our Bob here.

I'm in sports. When the Obama team meets the McCain team on a field of play, I'll be there with a scorecard and analysis.

If it's basketball, I hear Obama plays a lot. If they play doubles tennis, though, it could be a good match.

Ritterskoop wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Skoop, here's an idea for you. I would find it interesting journalism if someone would do an in depth profile of the kind of people who spend their time digging up and disseminating dirt on politicians. (Maybe dig up a little dirt on them, see how they lke it). It seems to be an industry, and it has many willing, unpaid (I assume) participants like our Bob here.

I'm in sports. When the Obama team meets the McCain team on a field of play, I'll be there with a scorecard and analysis.

If it's basketball, I hear Obama plays a lot. If they play doubles tennis, though, it could be a good match.

This is a sport.

Imagine what we might know about Barack Obama by now if the press had spent even a QUARTER of the time investigating him when he declared for the Presidency as they have Sarah Palin!

And he's running for PRESIDENT...Palin would just be the VP!

Jeemie wrote:Imagine what we might know about Barack Obama by now if the press had spent even a QUARTER of the time investigating him when he declared for the Presidency as they have Sarah Palin!

And he's running for PRESIDENT...Palin would just be the VP!

The press isn't going around trying to dig up dirt; people are coming to them. If Obama had anything serious in his past, don't you think the same sort of people would be out there talking about it?

Bob Juch wrote:

Jeemie wrote:Imagine what we might know about Barack Obama by now if the press had spent even a QUARTER of the time investigating him when he declared for the Presidency as they have Sarah Palin!

And he's running for PRESIDENT...Palin would just be the VP!

The press isn't going around trying to dig up dirt; people are coming to them. If Obama had anything serious in his past, don't you think the same sort of people would be out there talking about it?

People are talking about Obama's dirt. Wright, Ayers, Rezko, the Annenberg Foundation... none of this is stuff that is a secret. It's fairly openly discussed on anti-Obama and right-wing blogs, talk radio, and a fair number of newspaper articles.

However, the mainstream TV networks (with the exception occasionally of Fox), don't report on it, and when they do, they allow Obama's outrageous denials and avoidances to stand, proclaiming that Obama has put the matter behind him.

The Bridge to Nowhere story is a good example. Biden and Obama both voted for the Bridge to Nowhere earmarks. Fair journalists would have pointed that out every time that the Obama campaign was criticizing Palin about her claims to have stopped the bridge. That would have led to questions of possible hypocrisy on Obama's part.

The American public isn't buying the Obama/media lynch mobs against Sarah Palin, which is why his campaign is foundering right now.

mellytu74 wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:I am not understanding why this is relevant to anything.

Skoop --

As far as I can tell, in her stump speeches, Gov. Palin is talking about firing the chef to save the state of Alaska money. Mentions it along with the eBay jet and the Bridge.

But, the chef was never "fired." She was reassigned to constituent services and then as chef to the state legislature.

I am guessing that Bob Juch's point was that it's a lie because the chef was never fired and how did reassigning her save the state money?

As one thing on its own, it may not amount to much but, added with other things, could be construed as a pattern.

Well, let's be accurate. The position of "Governor's chef" was partially eliminated, and the former chef was placed into other existing positions.

So, rather than having people in two positions, she eliminated one position. The article even says "And the decision to downsize chef time at the Governor's Mansion will save $45,000 between salary and benefits."


As for the travel and per diem issue, I love that this is being raised, as it is easily explained. I hope that it comes up in the Charlie Gibson interview.

Anyone who has worked for the federal or state government understands the per diem and travel payments.

Bob Juch wrote:

Jeemie wrote:Imagine what we might know about Barack Obama by now if the press had spent even a QUARTER of the time investigating him when he declared for the Presidency as they have Sarah Palin!

And he's running for PRESIDENT...Palin would just be the VP!

The press isn't going around trying to dig up dirt; people are coming to them. If Obama had anything serious in his past, don't you think the same sort of people would be out there talking about it?

You aren't really this naive, are you?

Appa23 wrote:

mellytu74 wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:I am not understanding why this is relevant to anything.

Skoop --

As far as I can tell, in her stump speeches, Gov. Palin is talking about firing the chef to save the state of Alaska money. Mentions it along with the eBay jet and the Bridge.

But, the chef was never "fired." She was reassigned to constituent services and then as chef to the state legislature.

I am guessing that Bob Juch's point was that it's a lie because the chef was never fired and how did reassigning her save the state money?

As one thing on its own, it may not amount to much but, added with other things, could be construed as a pattern.

Well, let's be accurate. The position of "Governor's chef" was partially eliminated, and the former chef was placed into other existing positions.

So, rather than having people in two positions, she eliminated one position. The article even says "And the decision to downsize chef time at the Governor's Mansion will save $45,000 between salary and benefits."


As for the travel and per diem issue, I love that this is being raised, as it is easily explained. I hope that it comes up in the Charlie Gibson interview.

Anyone who has worked for the federal or state government understands the per diem and travel payments.

The point is that she lied about it at the RNC: She said the chef had been fired, not reassigned, and that her children missed her cooking, when in fact the chef has continued to cook for her and her family.

Bob Juch wrote:

Appa23 wrote:

mellytu74 wrote: Skoop --

As far as I can tell, in her stump speeches, Gov. Palin is talking about firing the chef to save the state of Alaska money. Mentions it along with the eBay jet and the Bridge.

But, the chef was never "fired." She was reassigned to constituent services and then as chef to the state legislature.

I am guessing that Bob Juch's point was that it's a lie because the chef was never fired and how did reassigning her save the state money?

As one thing on its own, it may not amount to much but, added with other things, could be construed as a pattern.

Well, let's be accurate. The position of "Governor's chef" was partially eliminated, and the former chef was placed into other existing positions.

So, rather than having people in two positions, she eliminated one position. The article even says "And the decision to downsize chef time at the Governor's Mansion will save $45,000 between salary and benefits."


As for the travel and per diem issue, I love that this is being raised, as it is easily explained. I hope that it comes up in the Charlie Gibson interview.

Anyone who has worked for the federal or state government understands the per diem and travel payments.

The point is that she lied about it at the RNC: She said the chef had been fired, not reassigned, and that her children missed her cooking, when in fact the chef has continued to cook for her and her family.

For someone who has lived everywhere and held every job under the sun, you act like you have never seen or heard election rhetoric.

I hate to be the one who shatters your naivete, but

Spoiler

there are more differences between an actual pit bull and a mother with a kid playing hockey than just lipstick.

Appa23 wrote:

mellytu74 wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:I am not understanding why this is relevant to anything.

Skoop --

As far as I can tell, in her stump speeches, Gov. Palin is talking about firing the chef to save the state of Alaska money. Mentions it along with the eBay jet and the Bridge.

But, the chef was never "fired." She was reassigned to constituent services and then as chef to the state legislature.

I am guessing that Bob Juch's point was that it's a lie because the chef was never fired and how did reassigning her save the state money?

As one thing on its own, it may not amount to much but, added with other things, could be construed as a pattern.

Well, let's be accurate. The position of "Governor's chef" was partially eliminated, and the former chef was placed into other existing positions.

So, rather than having people in two positions, she eliminated one position. The article even says "And the decision to downsize chef time at the Governor's Mansion will save $45,000 between salary and benefits."


As for the travel and per diem issue, I love that this is being raised, as it is easily explained. I hope that it comes up in the Charlie Gibson interview.

Anyone who has worked for the federal or state government understands the per diem and travel payments.

Appa --

How do we know a position was eliminated?

The executive chef position WAS eliminated.

But in the gossipy blurb about Chef Marnon joining the legislative dining room, it didn't actually say she replaced anybody.

So we don't know that she filled an empty position. It said "she landed," without saying anything about a predecessor.

As far as the per diem, I don't think the stink ought to be about getting paid for sleeping in her own house after a commute, I think it ought to be:

1) Why was her husband getting per diem for work done on behalf of the state Department of Labor?

It's was a conference. It wasn't a First Spouse Cuts Ribbon thing.

Does Todd Palin work for the state Department of Labor? I don't think so. That certainly would have been mentioned by now.

There were no actual employees who could have gone?

I think THAT'S where the rub comes in. Why is he going to conferences as a representative of the state when he has no offical role?

2) Why are the travels of her children considered state business? What possible state business can a 7 year old be doing?

As I said earlier, standing alone, it may not be much but lumped together, it could be construed as a pattern.

Edited to add: The transportation home is immaterial, as far as I am concerned.

If Sarah Palin paid it herself, it would still be coming from the taxpayers, who pay her salary. Ditto Joe Biden on AMTRAK.

The public pays their salaries. How else would they pay for things?

Appa23 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Appa23 wrote: Well, let's be accurate. The position of "Governor's chef" was partially eliminated, and the former chef was placed into other existing positions.

So, rather than having people in two positions, she eliminated one position. The article even says "And the decision to downsize chef time at the Governor's Mansion will save $45,000 between salary and benefits."


As for the travel and per diem issue, I love that this is being raised, as it is easily explained. I hope that it comes up in the Charlie Gibson interview.

Anyone who has worked for the federal or state government understands the per diem and travel payments.

The point is that she lied about it at the RNC: She said the chef had been fired, not reassigned, and that her children missed her cooking, when in fact the chef has continued to cook for her and her family.

For someone who has lived everywhere and held every job under the sun, you act like you have never seen or heard election rhetoric.

I hate to be the one who shatters your naivete, but

Spoiler

there are more differences between an actual pit bull and a mother with a kid playing hockey than just lipstick.

That's a non sequitur to beat all non sequiturs.

Bob Juch wrote: The point is that she lied about it at the RNC: She said the chef had been fired, not reassigned, and that her children missed her cooking, when in fact the chef has continued to cook for her and her family.

Sarah Palin never said she fired the chef. The line from her speech is:

" And I thought we could muddle through without the governor’s personal chef, although I got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her."

So we have the media and Obamabots distorting what she said into a "claim" she fired the chef, and when it turns out that what she did was reassign the woman so that the woman kept her job and the state saved money, this is looked at as a "bad" thing. She cuts the amount of per diem expenses she claimed well below what her predecessor did (Alaska is a big state and governors who go to far flung reaches can be expensive) and that's a "bad" thing.

All the while, Joe Biden is billing the taxpayers $200 a day so that he can spend the night in his own bed.

This isn't an attempt to find out if Palin is honest or fiscally responsible. It's an attempt to construct any sort of argument that will result in a "gotcha" moment.