Even though the speech was disturbing, I was somewhat heartened to find one or two people making relatively honest and even insightful comments vis à vis GINO's latest ethics complaint. One of them referred to the 'Sarah-can-do-no-wrong gang' as sycophants. An online dictionary I visited says that a synonym for sycophant is parasite. Para rhymes with Sarah, so from now on, I'll refer to Maet Haras and other Palinbots as "sarasites." I kind of like it! The image below, well, it's really a parasite but I think it fits.
I think M. Knight is a sarasite. His post, as you can guess from the title, suggests—no, claims outright—that there is a "group of Alaska liberals, with the apparent cooperation of members of the Alaska Democratic Party" who are filing baseless and "even fairly deranged" ethics charges with the express purpose of destroying the Palin family's finances so they are left destitute after GINO leaves office.
Sounds like quite a conspiracy! What does M. Knight use to support his/her assertions? Well, nothing really, except he/she goes on to relate that David Bonior (misspelling the name as Bonoir), a House Democratic Whip in the 1990's, filed lots of ethics complaints against Newt Gingrich for political reasons. Therefore this new cluster of Alaska liberals must have resuscitated the tactic, only they don't care about politics, just personal destruction... GINO's personal destruction, that is.
I mentioned that the post was filled with hyperbolic outrage. This first quote gets me humming the Subway commercial -- five, five hundred, ...
From just September till now, Sarah Palin has accumulated a personal dept [sic] of over $500,000 in legal fees defending herself against fake/false/frivolous ethics charges. That’s Five Hundred Thousand Dollars.Then this one, a rather stunning accusation (not to mention totally off the mark):
These people want to bankrupt the Palins and leave them destitute. They want to empty their bank accounts so that they cannot afford the basics and necessities of life after Governor Palin leaves office.
Oh no, not the poorhouse!
This one refers to GINO's whine that she'll have to set up a legal fund:
And then we have the obligatory declaration of who's evil:But it’s the fact that she has to consider doing this to keep her and her husband’s life savings - a man and woman with minor children at home - from disappearing altogether that should sicken all of us - I don’t know about any of you, but I’m literally shaking with rage here.
I knew the Left’s tactics were ugly, but this … this is beyond wrong, this is pure evil.M. Knight calls out the ugly tacticians by name: McLeod, Henning, Biegel, etc., but offers no evidence that they are participants in such a conspiracy -- with each other or anyone else, for that matter. Yet he would like to see their names "turned to mud in Alaska and all over America." Why? For "depriving the people of Alaska of the services of their governor because of nothing more than hate." Oh my. You mean, an ethics complaint could get GINO removed from office? Gee, why didn't I think of that? :)
M. Knight also asserts that every one the ethics charges against GINO was filed after she was selected as the Republican VP candidate, except for "the partisan ethics complaint [Troopergate]..." I'm not sure how he/she can say this. First of all, the initial Troopergate inquiry was set in motion by a unanimous vote of a bipartisan 12-person council. It didn't become partisan until later, and it wasn't the Democrats who turned it into a partisan issue. Second, we don't know how many ethics complaints there have been or when they were filed, since at least some of them have not been made public. Third, at least one of Andree McLeod's complaints was filed pre-August 29, 2008, when McCain announced his VP pick.
After reading the post and the 100 or so comments that were there, I decided to blog about it here instead of adding my own comment over there. The sarasites were out in force, and it was quite an education in denial, delusion, deflection, and general dirt-under-rug-sweeping!