In an act of negligence, reporters are hopping all over this “troopergate” story. Except it’s not “troopergate.” It’s something-else-gate. Troopergate was a story about how, while governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton used state troopers and state facilities to have extramarital affairs (depending on what you mean by sex, of course). This story was reported on by the Spectator in the early 1990s as an example of a story that the media didn’t want to cover because it was too “tabloidy,” but mostly because it didn’t want to malign the then-candidate of Change.
Of course, that was the very story that led to other problems for the Clintons, ones that would eventually lead to the Spectator‘s official unmasking as the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. If it’s a conspiracy to dig up stories where you’re exchanging the public trust for sex, well, pleased to be of service. Ahem.
Yet what’s Palin accused of? Wanting to fire a trooper who might have tazed a kid? Even if Palin were found guilty, is this a crime that rises to the level of absurd corruption we found while digging around Arkansas’s public records? Really?
How about they find another name for the darn thing and move on with it. This is silly. Stop trying to confuse your audiences.