There’s a question on the floor over at Kos (first raised by investigative reporter Wayne Barrett in the last section of an extensive article in the Village Voice) . . .
“Did Sports Complex Contractors Build Palin’s House for Free?”
Here’s the summary:
What an unusual situation. Giant construction contracts are being awarded to campaign contributors at the same time that “buddies” who just happen to be contractors are “helping” Todd build their two-story house. At the same time Sarah ensures there will be no public record of building permits. WTF? …
I guess that’s the way it’s done up there in Alaska, ya know? Isn’t Ted Stevens’ “troubles” related to a fancy house?
In fact, sailor. The one contractor the Voice could get to answer their questions was the one who supplied the building materials for the Stevens house and the Palin house.
Indictment material! The most jaundiced Lott-beholden U.S. Attorney in Mississippi would indict for this, wouldn’t he?
I don’t know if I would jump to any conclusions yet. Here’s why: The house is ugly. It is poorly designed. Either no architect or a a bad architect. The windows are horrible. And they are cheap, real cheap. The house sits poorly on the lot. Looks like a true amature effort. We see these things all over the West. It is a house easily built on weekends by friends who bring lots of beer and enjoy listening to ball games on the radio and like to sling clever manly remarks back and forth.
As I posted in another thread: “What good is power if I can’t abuse it?”
SKE, where do they get their building material? Just drop by with a six-pack and a couple of eighteen wheelers full of sheetrock?
SKE, I’m not sure that “ugly house” is an affirmative defense in a case like this.
It’s a bit like denying charges of adultery by saying, “Yeah, right, like I would sleep with THAT?”
Or arguing, “I’m guilty, perhaps, of following too closely, not sodomy.”