Too. Much. This post is the equivalent of putting your hands in your ears and yelling "lalalalala". The AP is a "leftwing bloggger" the local paper who ran this story EIGHT YEARS AGO, was hoping to torpedo Sarah Palin's political career. And they went so far as to fabricate the name of the chief of police (who btw has been mentioned in other stories about Palin in the media) AND they fabricated this policy? All to smear her? Dude....you're making some wild accusations here.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

I had construed your post that you might be expressing doubt whether the linked article is fictitious or somehow unreliable concerning its authenticity.

I'll take the rest a bit out of order . . .

I'm the first to admit I know jack squat about website formatting. It's just on their website, and it's a real paper. The paper isn't writing anything declaring it's a bogus article or anything similar being said out there. The media is also relying upon it, which assumes they have verified it to be authentic given they are quoting from it and are still further investigating the matter.

I differ.

Facts and inferences readily lead to acceptable conclusions. For example, if a guy is accused of stealing your spare TV and tools from your garage, and the man is caught walking down the street with the TV and tools in his hands, you don't know him, he doesn't know you, you say you didn't give permission to him to take it, etc, but the guy claims he just found it all on the sidewalk and picked it up, people are going to conclude guilt from that even though the guy denied he stole it.

Unless and until she can, if able, rebut it with genuine evidence to the contrary, I'm going to conclude she knew and approved. I already stated many of the facts and inferences drawn in my OP. Moreover, let's look at Palin's response to this from the USAToday article linked in the OP:

That's a boilerplate denial, cloaked in self-serving puffery language, much like all defendants do when arrested and/or in court, even when they're guilty as sin.

The boilerplate denial is coming from Camella, Palin's spokesperson and authorised representative, but Palin is saying nothing herself and avoiding any further comment.

Palin's spokesperson refused to answer any questions beyond the boilerplate 'outrage' statement, including questions as to when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it.

I draw an adverse inference against Palin on that. It is to be expected from Palin or her authorised spokesperson to answer such questions because any reasonable person would do so if the answers were acquitting to her, but she has refused to answer. Therefore, the proper conclusion is that she is refusing to answer them because answering the questions would betray her boilerplate denial.

Further, Palin's spokesperson instead cited to other irrelevant matters to the subject matter of the topic and questioning, which is a red herring diversionary/misdirection tactic.

Avoiding answers on the direct topic and seeking red herring diversions is a logical fallacy intended to misdirect and fool the recipient, and from that I also conclude Palin's denial is false.

__________________

Actually, about Fannon from the USAToday article:

__________________

Source?

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

"Well, how dare that little hussy get herself raped in our decent god fearing town. Just like those little liberal looseys, running around with those big breasts of hers. Well, she can have her big la de da investigation if she likes, but it's gonna cost her. "

Brilliant.

Seriously, though, this is draconian, this policy. What possible reason could there be to keep this policy in place when she was mayor? I can't comprehend it at all.

For what it's worth, another take on this. Amanda Carpenter :: Townhall.com :: The Palin Rape Kit Myth

__________________
Obama Low Effort Wealth Spread. I can't believe it's not earned!

Thanks for that. It does give a bit of background on the names involved in this story: Knowles, Fallon, etc., so that's helpful. And it states, through Palin's spokesperson that Palin never believed that rape victims should pay. That's good, too (but I'd rather hear Palin say it). So, I'm still wondeing why it was a policy in Wasilla when she was mayor if that was not and is not her belief?

What I also get from the bottom of your quote is that she was such a popular mayor that people were faking her endorsement to help them get elected.

__________________
Obama Low Effort Wealth Spread. I can't believe it's not earned!

Can we all agree that townhall.com is a rightwing blog and thus will be engaging in all kinds of massive spin on this story. I might also add that OSB's previous post really responds to the statement by her spokesman:
1. Why didn't the spokesman say she knew or didn't know about the policy?
2. Why wouldn't her spokesman even ANSWER whether she had tried to overturn the policy.
There's an UGLY pattern developing. She's "family values." But she fired the police chief who wouldn't keep the bar hours open later, uh....what? And the guy who she does endorse, Fannon openly opposes the legislation paying for rape kits AND was accused of sexual harassment soon after taking the job. Gross.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

If you have the source for the information about Fannon's sexual harassment situation, that would be great. It's good to see all the information about this story.

After digging through things I've read recently, another police chief Palin hired, not Fallon had to resign after two weeks due to a sexual harassment charge in his past. Source.
Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

The liberal biased media btw has not yet picked up this rape kit story. MSNBC, CNN, FOX all radio silent. Hmmmmm. Running against false media bias say what?

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

Forgive me if this has already been addressed, but I didn't want to read thru what looked to be 5 pages of bickering and nitpicking semantics. The original articles and citations posted don't seem to differentiate between charging the victim, which I think we all can agree is not a good approach, and charging their insurance company if it will cover it. (To cynical me, it seemed to purposely Avoid the differentiation - If I've killed countless ants over the years and one sole butterfly that flew into my windshield, it's still an accurate statement to say I've "killed thousands of ants and butterflies," but it hardly leaves an accurate impression of my behavior.) Perhaps there are extenuating details I don't know about, but if the victim both has insurance that will cover the test(s) and agrees to seeking their payment, that strikes me as nothing but good fiscal stewardship for the town.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

So if the family of a murder victim have insurance and agree to it, should they pay for the forensic work to find the murderer? That's just double taxation.

Maybe because it's a story unsupported by facts? Hmm? Could that be the reason?

__________________
Andy
Cynical Optimist