Palin and her attorney are trying to scare the bloggers. I doubt it works. The ones she hates seem to have made it clear that they were reporting rumors. I'm no attorney but I assume as long as they say that "the rumor is...." and not report it as fact that this is a PR stunt and a waste of time.

 

Its not a stunt. Anyone in the chain of information who repeats false information can be liable for defamation. One is not insulated by repeating prior falsehoods.

 

Additionally, if she were being investigated or charged in her capacity as Governor, she would be better off staying "in" office and claiming official immunity, then by resigning and exposing yourself to immediate charge.

 

This does not even come close to "where there is smoke there is fire," its merely libel.

I hate to use the old phrase "apples and oranges", so I'll say...

 

..."oranges and apples."

 

 

Your absolutely right. Choosing to end a life pails in comparison to choosing to resign from a job even if that job is governer.

Its not a stunt. Anyone in the chain of information who repeats false information can be liable for defamation. One is not insulated by repeating prior falsehoods.

 

Additionally, if she were being investigated or charged in her capacity as Governor, she would be better off staying "in" office and claiming official immunity, then by resigning and exposing yourself to immediate charge.

 

This does not even come close to "where there is smoke there is fire," its merely libel.

 

So I can be sued for saying "rumors are that Sarah Palin (fill in the ethics violation)?"

 

I don't buy it.

Imagine that.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-palin5-2009jul05,0,7018263.story

 

If she resigned to waste her time on a presidential run I think that at least puts her above Obama, McCain, Clinton and all the other politicians who cheat their constituants while they pursue their own agenda.

 

I agree. Has anyone ever tried that route before? Quitting their current political job to claim that they wanted their constituants needs take care of by someone on the job instead of by someone out campaigning. It's a bold move, but if her team and her sell it right I think it might work. I mean look how many people believed everything O and his team put out.

And working on his public speaking.

 

If the one speech he had on television is a clue of him vs. Obama, O will wipe the floor with him.

 

True- for better or for worse, President Obama has changed the game- eloquency and public speaking skills are a must.

As for Palin, what a strange, strange situation. I think it is a poor political move, but if she is resigning for family reasons or whatever, I guess it is better that she resign her office than keep the job and neglect her family and professional duties.

 

Regardless of your stance on Palin, her story certianly is unique and interesting to follow, in a National Enquirer sort of way.

As for Palin, what a strange, strange situation. I think it is a poor political move, but if she is resigning for family reasons or whatever, I guess it is better that she resign her office than keep the job and neglect her family and professional duties.

 

Regardless of your stance on Palin, her story certianly is unique and interesting to follow, in a National Enquirer sort of way.

I feel like I'm watching reality TV anytime Palin is involved.

 

This story is truly bizarre and honestly I haven't quite determined how I feel about it.

I feel like I'm watching reality TV anytime Palin is involved.

 

This story is truly bizarre and honestly I haven't quite determined how I feel about it.

 

I asked my buddy about the situation and he said, "I don't read TMZ and I don't follow celebrities posing as politicians. She'll have a successful talk show." He's probably right, at least in the fact that she has the potential to make a ton of money spouting talking points, if she so chooses that direction.

The "your guy does it too" argument is one that's often trotted out when there is no easy refutation/answer to what my guy (in this case, gal) does. I've probably been guilty a time or two myself.

 

Simple fact is that Ms. Palin was WAY out of her depth a few months ago; and this just adds to her lack of credibility on the national stage anytime soon.

 

Perhaps she and Governor Sandford will start some kind of club.

 

I think the fact that she did not have the depth and breadth of national issues that some thought she should to be VP is the very reason she is resigning as Alaska's Governor. I may be wrong, but I see her thinking she can be a good choice as a VP candidate in 12 if she develops a better knowledge of national issues between now and then. Face it, if she remained as Governor, she wouldn't either have the time to develop a strong knowledge about national issues or if she did devote the time, she would be neglecting her gubernatorial duties. Either way she went, she was going to be criticized.

 

No doubt that she will be criticized for "abandoning" the Alaskan people, if my guess as to her plans is correct.

 

We'll see if Palin has an political savvy if she again runs for the VP or Pres. office. On paper, she was a much better choice than she became as a live candidate. There was a big segment of the American people that were very upset with the existing "DC insider VP" and bringing in someone fresh and more Main Street on paper looked smart. Unfortunately, I don't think that McCain fully understood the level of concern in America with his age and health, which turned that outsider, Main Street appeal from an asset to a liability. There is probably no one on this site that knows why she took the positions and tones that she did on the campaign trail. Perhaps it was all her call and her natural persona; then again, perhaps she was told by the McCain people that she needed to be the far right attack dog to appeal to the far right Republicans that McCain turned off. If the latter, it may have helped with the Rush segment of the party, but turned off the group that McCain had been attracting: the moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats and Independents and in my opinion, cost McCain the race. So I'm not sure if it was the choice of Palin that was lethal, but rather could have been the strategy developed for her.

 

And for those that like to cite the McCain staffers that have criticized her since the election, please, please tell me that you are smart enough to at least logically wonder if those critics aren't trying to find some scape goat for their own strategic failures. Political staffers and advisors are some of the most egotistical people that I have ever dealt with in my adult life (and I'm a lawyer for Pete's sake that spends a lot of time dealing with other lawyers, so that should tell you something). I've yet to run across a "professional" political advisor that after his/her client lost was willing to publicly admit that he/she gave bad political advise that cost the election. Their egos are too big and besides, it's not good for attracting future business.

So I can be sued for saying "rumors are that Sarah Palin (fill in the ethics violation)?"

 

I don't buy it.

 

So, you won't be seeing a lawyer if I attend a party of your friends and business acquaintances and say that "I've heard that Clyde is a pedophile"; it gets back to your boss and you get fired? Me thinks you would be suing me for slander in short order.

 

Note: the above is a hypothetical made to illustrate a point. I've not heard that Clyde is a pedophile.

True- for better or for worse, President Obama has changed the game- eloquency and public speaking skills are a must.

 

Sorry but Obama did not change the game. There have been other Presidents that used their eloquency and public speaking skills to defeat their, perhaps more qualified, opponents. JFK beating Nixon is probably one of the best examples in "recent" history.

 

And I'm not sure if it is a must or not. If Obama turns off a lot of Americans with his policies over the next 3 plus years, those acolades of public speaking skills will be portrayed as nothing but the skills of a snake oil salesman in future elections and become more of a liability than an asset.

 

Frankly, I think the image of Bill Clinton being a slick talking, tell them what they want to hear even if you don't believe it, public speaker played a big role in W getting elected the first time. And I think W's atrocious public speaking skills played a large role in Obama getting elected. Depending on the mood of the country at the time, eloquent speaking skills can be a liability or an asset.

So, you won't be seeing a lawyer if I attend a party of your friends and business acquaintances and say that "I've heard that Clyde is a pedophile"; it gets back to your boss and you get fired? Me thinks you would be suing me for slander in short order.

 

Note: the above is a hypothetical made to illustrate a point. I've not heard that Clyde is a pedophile.

 

 

First, thank you for the clarification at the end.

 

You do raise an interesting example. However, from what I've read, the fact that they qualified it as rumors and that she is a public figure (unlike me in your example) means that there will be to be proof of "malice" which , according to the author I read, is going to be almost impossible to prove.

 

Lastly, no chance in heck you're invited to a party of my friends.

And I'm not sure if it is a must or not. If Obama turns off a lot of Americans with his policies over the next 3 plus years, those acolades of public speaking skills will be portrayed as nothing but the skills of a snake oil salesman in future elections and become more of a liability than an asset.

 

.

 

 

Agreed. It always comes down to results.

First, thank you for the clarification at the end.

 

You do raise an interesting example. However, from what I've read, the fact that they qualified it as rumors and that she is a public figure (unlike me in your example) means that there will be to be proof of "malice" which , according to the author I read, is going to be almost impossible to prove.

 

Lastly, no chance in heck you're invited to a party of my friends.

 

Come on, you'd love to invite me. You know you would.

 

Not sure qualifying it as a rumor is much different than "I heard"; perhaps it is.

 

And trust me, Clyde my friend, you are a "BGP Public Figure".

LN - NYT v Sullivan says that in the case of a public figure an additional element must be proved. Did the person act with "actual malice?" Did the person making the statement KNOW that it was false when making it?

 

IMO that's why this trumped up charge by her and her attorney will not make it to court.