Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Palin and rape victims (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/140092-palin-rape-victims.html)

Palin and rape victims

anyone else heard about this yet?

Palin was Mayor of Wasilla, AK from 1996-2002.

This was an article run in Wasilla paper in 2000 about a new state law.

Quote:

Knowles signs sexual assault bill

Published on Monday, May 22, 2000 9:00 PM AKDT
JO C. GOODE / The Frontiersman / May 23, 2000

ANCHORAGE - Gov. Tony Knowles recently signed legislation protecting victims of sexual assault from being billed for tests to collect evidence of the crime, but one local police chief said the new law will further burden taxpayers.

The governor signed House Bill 270, sponsored by Rep. Eric Croft, D-Anchorage, outside the Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) exam room at Alaska Regional Hospital. In attendance at the signing were members of victims advocate groups, law enforcement agencies and legislators.
*
The new law makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to bill victims or victims insurance companies for the costs of examinations that take place to collect evidence of a sexual assault or determine if a sexual assault did occur.

We would never bill the victim of a burglary for fingerprinting and photographing the crime scene, or for the cost of gathering other evidence, Knowles said. Nor should we bill rape victims just because the crime scene happens to be their bodies.

While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.

Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.

In the past weve charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer, Fannon said.

According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases.

Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs, Fannon said.

The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. Id like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things, Fannon said.

Fannon said he intends to include the cost of exams required to collect evidence in a restitution request as a part of a criminals sentencing.

Palmer police chief Laren Zager said that to his knowledge, no sexual assault victim has ever been billed by the city of Palmer for an exam to collect evidence of a crime. Zager, who has been police chief since January, said he would never expect a victim to be burdened with the cost of a police investigation.

Im prepared to pay every dime in an investigation. As long as I am chief, I would never bill a victim, Zager said.

The new bill would also make law enforcement agencies that are investigating a sexual assault responsible for the costs of testing victims for sexually transmitted diseases and emergency contraception.

even if this isn't Palin's doing herself, she did appoint this police chief during her term, and to let this stand on her watch is an outrage. even if the intent is to eventually "pass the cost along to the criminal" on sentencing, making the victim pay at ANY point, even if they are "reimbursed" is rediculous! especially when the reason is to prevent the "burden" from being placed on the taxpayers.

yeah, increasing-white-women-converting-to-mccain-after-obama-overlooked-hillary, this woman really has your back when it matters...

They should charge murder victims for CSI services. Gotta love privatization.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tech (Post 2521961)

yeah, increasing-white-women-converting-to-mccain-after-obama-overlooked-hillary, this woman really has your back when it matters...

Why is it so many white women are getting behind Palen? Is it, "Yes, we had a choice, in our youth - but we don't want our daughters to!"

:confused:

Worry not, the WSJ and Fox will be issuing a talking points mem... I mean story, yeah story, shortly to explain why this makes perfect sense.

"women are behind palin" mostly in the republican dream factory.
it produces smoke.
don't inhale: it's harder than your first puff on a sheesha.

So you're holding Palin responsible for an opinion expressed by someone else?

Quote:

and to let this stand on her watch is an outrage.

To let what stand? Allowing a city employee to express his opinion? Or allowing the police to bill victims' insurance companies? Either way, the article doesn't say or suggest that Palin supports billing victims, or even that she knew this policy was in place. If it turns out that she did support billing victims for exams, then your criticism is valid, but until then you're jumping the gun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by inBOIL (Post 2522069)

So you're holding Palin responsible for an opinion expressed by someone else?

To let what stand? Allowing a city employee to express his opinion? Or allowing the police to bill victims' insurance companies? Either way, the article doesn't say or suggest that Palin supports billing victims, or even that she knew this policy was in place. If it turns out that she did support billing victims for exams, then your criticism is valid, but until then you're jumping the gun.

Not quite.... Palin was the mayor, she is responsible for the city, she appointed the guy who put this in place. She had the authority to stop it but didn't. She shares some of the guilt in this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna (Post 2522093)

Not quite.... Palin was the mayor, she is responsible for the city, she appointed the guy who put this in place.

Did she appoint him, or was he already there when she took office? Did somebody else appoint him? Was he elected? The article doesn't state how Fannon came to be police chief. Even if she appointed him, can she be expected to know what decisions he'll make, or be responsible for all the mistakes he makes?

Quote:

She had the authority to stop it but didn't. She shares some of the guilt in this.

Most of the cities I'm familiar with have some kind of council that makes or approves decisions. I didn't realize that the mayor of Wasilla has carte blanche to dictate policy without the approval of others.

Quote:

She had the authority to stop it but didn't.

I don't see how you came to this conclusion based on the article posted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid (Post 2522108)

I don't see how you came to this conclusion based on the article posted.

Actually, it's correct. A mayor is ultimately responsible for police leadership and policies. They oversee all city departments including the police department.

Sarah Palin did appoint the police chief in question. She fired the previous Chief because he wanted SOME gun control and then found Fannon to replace him.

Palin is an asshole. There, I said it, it's out there (to the small TFP crowd). How can anybody support her? She's for all the bad things and none of the good things the GOP represents.

Wow Will. You got a lot more out of that article than I did.

There's more information out there than what's just in the article, but the Huffington Post did reference one of the issues surrounding his dismissal: he wasn't willing to play ball with the NRA. It's a strange story, and it makes Palin look like a grade A moron. A corrupt moron.

It is pretty clear that Palin has control of who is the chief of police... she fired one for personal reasons and it has become a big scandal. Also as Will said there is more information on this than just that one article.

I am actually finding it quite hilarious that Palin is causing such fits of apoplexy in the liberal and liberal minded community.
Like a politician has never used their power to advance their cause and/or help friends in the past. And I'm not talking about just these 2 articles either. If you listen to the press, its like she is the second coming of Satan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid (Post 2522761)

Unfortunately the Democrats don't get it. If they keep up this obsessive attack campaign on Palin, they will lose the election which will be too bad. Instead, they should focus on what was working before: unity, inclusion, "change", issues, and policy.

Obama, my vote is pretty much yours to lose. Don't blow it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fotzlid (Post 2522761)

You should listen to some the TV preachers and read some right wing blogs. To then Obama isn't the second coming of Satan - he is Satan.

But I agree with jorgelito, the Dems are losing this by the way they're handling Palin. They're falling for some new spin on some real old tricks. "You're hitting her just because she a woman, you're a sexist" "You can't hit her she a woman, if you do hit her she's a victim." This is all silly, like the lipstick on a pig BS. McCain can use it in talking about Hilary's health ideas, that's cool. Obama says it about McCains policies, that a sexist remark aimed at Palin.

Palin's a politician and her record, experience and thoughts on policy should be an open book. Her family? Her children be left alone. Her husband, if he has been CC'ed State Gov. e-mails and is a member of the AIP, she should be asked about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito (Post 2522775)

I agree. Let Palin bury herself.

To win the Dems need to concentrate their message on the positive. Argue for what you are going to do not what is bad about the other side.

There has been enough negativity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan (Post 2522802)

There has been enough negativity.

The sad fact is in the US negative ads and campaigning has been very effective time and time again.

As the race stays tight and time runs short the mud will fly. Obama basically gave the 527's a green light recently. The rights 527's are gearing up too. It's going to get very ugly, IMHO.

Every time I see Obama speak, I see him repeating a positive message.
I also see him repudiating any people disparaging his opponents.

The only people I've heard say he ok'ed 527 attack ads are news reporters telling the audience that they heard it somewhere.
some democrats I've never heard much about may attack Palin, and op-eds may attack her, but I don't know how this transfers to Obama...

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth (Post 2522808)

Obama can't directly communicate to the 527 groups, nor can McCain. Which leave them both sending messages and signals through the press.

Like this-

From The Altlantic

Quote:

There's been a spurt of 527 activity on behalf of Sen. John McCain, but Barack Obama campaign has suddenly gone silent on the subject.

That's because, after a year of telling donors not to contribute to 527 groups, of encouraging strategists not to form them and of suggesting that outside messaging efforts would not be welcome in Obama's Democratic Party, Obama's strategists have changed their approach.

An Obama adviser privy to the campaign's internal thinking on the matter says that,with less than two months before the election and with the realization that Republicans have achieved financial parity with Democrats, they hope that Democratic allies -- what another campaign aide termed "the cavalry" -- will come to Obama's aid.

The Obama campaign can't ask donors to form outside groups; it can only communicate, through the public and the media, with body language, tells and hints.

The upshot: Obama's campaign will no longer object to independent efforts that hammer John McCain, just as, in their mind, the McCain campaign has not objected to those efforts targeted at Obama. "I assume with their 527s stirring, some [Democratic] ones will as well," another senior campaign official said.

The money is there. The top two 527s -- the Service Employees International Union and America Votes -- are liberal in orientation. The SEIU fund has contributed to other 527 efforts, and America Votes has earmarked most of its money for what it calls the "largest grassroots voter mobilization" in history. The third largest 527 -- American Solutions Winning the Future -- belongs to Newt Gingrich, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The AFL-CIO has budgeted more than $53 million for messaging and turnout efforts and has run a limited flight of ads featuring veterans criticizing McCain. But they've shied away from larger-scale campaigns in part because they believe -- or believed -- that the Obama campaign did not want them mounted.

In April, after Progressive Media USA, a group formed headed by Republican-turned-Democratic media critic Matt David Brock (originally, by Tom Matzzie), announced plans for a $40 million ad campaign against McCain, the Obama campaign send word through associates that donors would be discouraged from raising money for it. After the primaries ended, Brock turned the group into a much-less expensive opposition research concern. Brock bowed to the reality that the Obama campaign wanted to centralize everything -- message, advertising and field operations -- in Chicago.

The campaign cannot coordinate with most outside groups, and they worry that a major 527 effort by Republicans could tilt a balanced electorate toward McCain and erase the resource advantage that Obama and Democrats have accumulated.

The New York Sun reported Monday that a Sacramento Republican linked to a McCain bundler is raising money for a new group called "Leadership for America's Future."

** The American Issues Project is spending $3m on a battleground state ad campaign that ties Obama to ex-Weatherman William Ayres.

** Freedom's Watch, which plays mostly in House elections, has spent nearly $500,000 worth of hard money on ads against Obama.

** Vets for Freedom plans a $10m campaign on ads touting the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

** The Republican Majority Campaign has tallied more than $1.3 million in independent expenditures against Obama.

Marc Ambinder (September 09, 2008) - Quietly, Obama Campaign Calls In The Cavalry

Exactly what I said: reporters claiming they heard something from somewhere.

I've seen every Obama speech and snippet and have never witnessed him indicate through body language, hinting, or otherwise that he wishes any attack ads on McCain or Palin. In fact, it's the opposite. When you paste something indicating Obama is personally ok'ing personal attacks in any way shape or form, I'll retract my stance.

EDIT: btw, even if accurate, "hammering" someone is not the same as smearing or sliming an opponent. There are tons of legitimate issues to hammer both McCain and Palin on that are factually correct and damning. The ads against Obama, however, have been gross mischaracterizations of the reality and his political stances.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth (Post 2522814)

Since he can't legally do that be prepared to remain on your stance.

All this stuff happens through staffers and behind the scenes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth (Post 2522814)

EDIT: btw, even if accurate, "hammering" someone is not the same as smearing or sliming an opponent. There are tons of legitimate issues to hammer both McCain and Palin on that are factually correct and damning. The ads against Obama, however, have been gross mischaracterizations of the reality and his political stances.

I agree with some of that. But Palin's also been attacked on false and made up issues. I think the difference is Palin's been attacked in the press and by the bloggers. Obama's been hit directly by the McCain camp in ads and speeches that are full of complete BS.

My concern is we go into full shiftboat mode on either or both sides.

or we drown in an ocean of lint.
but no matter what happens, come november it will be presented as legitimate.
so it doesn't matter if we drown in an ocean of lint or not.

personally i have found that if you do not want to entertain the notion of drowning in an ocean, it's best not to swim in it.

how does one go about not swimming in the ocean of conservative lint? like the other ocean, it seems everywhere. and repetition is power--redundancy, you know--what shapes the distinction signal--noise. there's no a priori. redundancy is determinate. repetition is power.

If you believe that Obama is secretly signaling to people to start sliming his opponents then you should not vote for him. My understanding is that he wants to elevate the current political discourse because he believes that's what the general population wants and, as a result, a genuine campaign will prevail on the issues alone.

I doubt he wants your vote if you view him with cynicism. I know I don't want cynical people in our camp as it undermines the ideology of our movement for which he stands.

i should perhaps have made clear that i would hope obama figures out a way to not only maintain that posture on the road, but also to impose it on television. that seems to me the problem---i read some recent stats: 94/100 americans have at least one television--65% say that they rely on television as their primary infotainment source.

what's happening is the division of the campaign--the one that happens in 3-d and the one that happens in 2-d. the republicans, having nothing to say but hoping to reduce the election to a personality contest, are running a campaign fitted to 2-d. obama's so far has been better fitted to 3-d. i'd rather see the 2 and 3-dimensions closer together--so far the republicans have been able to dominate the 2-d register by streaming lint into to. and we're chumped too---look at the number of palin threads and what they're about. this is an expression of wedge politics. i still smell rove lurking, a fetid cloud.

addendum: *this* is why letting sarah palin anywhere near power is a terrible terrible idea.
read about the war with russia...
jesus fuck. what planet is she on?

Quote:

Sarah Palin shows hawkish streak in first interview

· Vice-presidential hopeful challenges Russia
· Democrats turn to Clinton for advice on campaign

* Suzanne Goldenberg and Ewen MacAskill in Washington
* The Guardian,

A hawkish and occasionally combative Sarah Palin warned last night she might commit US troops to a war against Russia in defence of Georgia and Ukraine in her first interview since John McCain chose her as his running mate.

Palin, who admitted last night she made her first trip outside North America last year, also said she was certain she was ready to step in for McCain as president, if the Republican nominee were to be incapacitated. She said repeatedly she would not hesitate to use all options in an international crisis or resort to force against Islamist extremists.

"I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink. You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink," Palin told ABC television.

Palin's interview was carefully stage-managed to counter criticism that she lacks foreign policy experience and to deflect media scrutiny of her personal life. But her occasionally stilted answers and uncompromising view of the world could sit uneasily with American voters, weary of the war on Iraq and the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.

In sometimes tense exchanges, Palin demonstrated a more bellicose posture towards Russia than the Bush administration during the conflict with Georgia. She also supported military action against Islamist extremists in Pakistan even without the support of the Islamabad government.

Asked whether Nato membership would commit the US to going to war on behalf of Ukraine and Georgia if they were attacked, Palin said: "Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a Nato ally. If another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help. What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a large power is something for us to be vigilant against."

She advocated speeding up full Nato membership for Georgia and Ukraine despite warnings from Moscow that it views attempts to expand US influence among the former Soviet states as provocative. Russia's invasion of Georgia was "unprovoked", she said and warned that America could not allow Moscow to control vital energy supplies. "We've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable," she said.

Last night's broadcast was the first of four programmes based on interviews with Palin conducted in her home town of Wasilla and Fairbanks both in Alaska.

The broadcasts will include footage of Palin's soldier son, Track, who was scheduled to deploy to Iraq yesterday. The Alaska governor, who touts herself as a moose-hunting, salmon-fishing, hockey mom turned political reformer, has faced a steady drip of negative stories about her record and her family including daughter Bristol, who is pregnant at 17.

Until the interviews, she had not taken questions from reporters, and at campaign rallies stuck closely to a scripted speech that is largely a distillation of her address to the party convention.

McCain's strategists are working hard to capitalise on Palin's appeal to Republican women as well as some former supporters of Hillary Clinton. Palin's instant popularity and the success of Republican effort to present her as a feminist icon, have put the Democrats off balance.

Meanwhile Barack Obama made a belated personal appeal to Bill Clinton yesterday for advice on how to mount a fightback and reverse a slide in the polls.

Talking to journalists before they began lunch, Clinton said: "I predict that Senator Obama will win and win pretty handily."

Obama added: "You can take it from the president of the United States. He knows a little something about politics."

Obama said he saw parallels between his campaign and Clinton's in 1992: a relatively unknown politician fighting the Republicans against a backdrop of an ailing economy. After the lunch, a joint statement issued on behalf of the two by Obama's team, said: "They discussed the campaign briefly, but mostly talked about how the world has changed since September 11 2001. They also spoke about what the next president can do to help make the economy work for all Americans, as it did under president Clinton."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...08.sarahpalin1

COHEN: But if you want change, you want the Democratic party, Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus who our minister prayed about, Pontius Pilate was a governor.

So now we are comparing Palin to the guy that killed Jesus?? That is ok for a democratic leader to do!????

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth (Post 2522832)

Sorry, but I'm a cynic. None of this happens on accident. My e-mail is loaded with calls for donations from Move-on and Brave New PAC this morning.

I'm still voting for Obama.