Streitz Strikes (Out) Again

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Last week in a post called "Paul Streitz Backstabs Governor Palin," I thought I had dismissed the man who is obsessed with hatin' on the governor for her decision to support Senator John McCain in his re-election campaign. Well, Streitz strikes again.

Ron Devito of USforPalin writes:

Paul Streitz is at it again, accusing Governor Palin of being a RINO, sending out false and misleading emails to build his case.


In his latest email broadcast under the auspices of “CT Citizens for Immigration Control,” Streitz wrote:

“Sarah PAC as of 6/30/09 has raised $732,767 and disbursed $276,200 in expenses and given $10,000 in campaign contributions. One was $5,000 for Lisa Murkowski for US Senate (AK). The other was $5,000 for the 2010 primary for John McCain. The date of this disbursement was 6/23/09.”

The above statement is true. The sentence that follows is a bald-faced lie, to wit:

“How many books would Sarah have sold if this were public knowledge in the fall of 2009?”

Since Streitz co-founded a Draft Committee, he should know full well that FEC disclosures come out every six months. SarahPAC’s (spelled “Sarah PAC” in the FEC database) disbursements to John McCain and Lisa Murkowski were made before June 30, and those disclosures were released the month following. They were public knowledge for over two months before Going Rogue became available for pre-order on September 24, 2009 and books were published on November 17, 2009. The FEC disclosures of these disbursements were then four months old, and there were news stories pertaining to them during this time.

Read the full article here.

Is he really suggesting that Going Rogue would not be the bestseller that it is had people known that Governor Palin donated to John McCain? Streitz's discontent with the governor's decisions is clouding his ability to see which end is up. His insistence on sending out these mass emails is only making him look like a child throwing a temper tantrum after failing to get his way.

His facts are off, his reasoning is off, and frankly, he's starting to tick off those of us receiving these foolish emails.

Take my advice, Streitz: get a grip.


Anonymous,  January 31, 2010 at 10:19 PM  

Let's see, what should we call this club of 'leftovers' (Streitz, Schmidt, et al)? The Sour Grapes Club?

The Constitutional Crusader February 1, 2010 at 8:32 PM  

The old guard is on it's way out, but they aren't going gentle into that good night, as Dillan Thomas once wrote.

Anonymous,  February 7, 2010 at 8:06 AM  

Sarah Palin needs to explain why she is supporting the reelection of a progressive sympathizing RINO named McCain. Is this too much to ask?

Being disappointed that Palin decided to campaign for McCain‘s reelection whose VOTING RECORD establishes he is a progressive sympathizing RINO and votes to subvert our Constitution, is being anti-Palin?

Adrienne Ross February 7, 2010 at 11:21 AM  

Anonymous @8:06 AM,

No, being disappointed is not necessarily being anti-Palin. I clearly articulated that in the first post about Streitz here: So obviously that is not what I said.

Backstabbing, insulting, and encouraging others to do the same IS being anti-Palin, however.

As for Governor Palin needing "to explain," I beg to differ. And those who are complaining about her endorsement of Senator McCain now but supported her run for VP (with McCain as the Presidential nominee, remember?) really need to ask themselves if they thought she was lying then when she spoke well of him. If you voted for them then, is it not hypocritical to be shocked and dismayed that she'd support him now?

The governor, as did Ronald Reagan (and common sense), make it clear that we will not agree 100% with everyone. The point, however, is that she answers to her conscience.

Again, I have no issue with anyone who disagrees. I don't agree 100% with everything she does or says, but I don't need to--and she doesn't need to explain her decisions to me; she doesn't answer to me concerning her endorsements.

Adrienne Ross February 7, 2010 at 11:22 AM  

Disagreement is not the issue; HOW we disagree is.

Post a Comment

  © Blogger template Noblarum by 2009

Back to TOP