home

McCain on Palin (and Other Issues)

John McCain's latest departures from the truth came on a visit to The View. McCain assured Barbara Walters that Sarah Palin would "reform all of Washington." How?

“By doing what she did in Alaska.”

What, exactly?

“First of all, earmark spending, which she vetoed a half a billion dollars worth in the state of Alaska.”

But she also put earmarks in, Ms. Walters noted.

“Not as governor she didn’t,” Mr. McCain said.

But as governor, she did.

[more ...]

As the Anchorage Daily News, among others, has reported, in Ms. Palin’s first year as governor, she requested 52 earmarks valued at $256 million, and this year, her office asked the Alaska delegation in Washington to help land 31 earmarks valued at $197 million. Also, Citizens Against Government Waste ranks Alaska as having received the “most pork per capita” of all states this year.

McCain is still praising Palin for selling an airplane, although he's no longer claiming that she sold it on EBay.

Ms. Walters noted that she sold the plane at a loss.

“You wanted her to keep it?” Mr. McCain asked.

“No,” said Ms. Walters, “I wanted her to get her money back.”

McCain apparently plans to make Palin the Reform Czar in his administration:

Mr. McCain said that Ms. Palin “freed Alaska for the first time,” saying she “took government out of the hands of the special interests and the oil companies and the old-boy network and gave it back to the people of Alaska” and “that’s what we have to do in Washington.”

But what exactly will she do?

“The same thing,” Mr. McCain replied. “Break the old-boy network, the special interests that control our agenda in Washington.”

You mean like the lobbyists who advise you, Senator?

McCain on the issues (that is, the reasons to vote against him in addition to his poor judgment on Palin):

On the topic of abortion, Mr. McCain said that Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in 1973, was “a very bad decision.” He said he would not impose a litmus test on any of his nominations to the Supreme Court “because that’s not fair to the American people.” But, he said, he would nominate justices who would interpret the constitution as it was written and not legislate from the bench.

In other words, more judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade if given the chance.

< Ebert on Palin | ABC Palin Interview Part II >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    what can I say? (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:32:41 PM EST
    The View did a good interview!

    I'm sure McCain (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:25:02 PM EST
    He probably expected to get some softballs thrown by a "bunch of women".

    What are these women doing all informed, educated and smart?

    Parent

    The Viewsters asked a lot of hard (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:54:21 PM EST
    questions, and challenged some of McCain's garbage, but there were still a lot of McFibs that cried out for correction/clarification.  That whole exchange about how Palin would "free" Washington the way she freed Alaska? What the hell did that mean?

    Did you notice how flustered McCain was when he was asked to explain how Palin would reform D.C.? Someone really ought to tell the GOP the cardinal rule of witness preparation: Tell the truth, it's easier to remember.

    Parent

    They certainly did a better job... (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:01:52 PM EST
    ...than any of the traditional media.  

    As I watched it, I could only think "this man is lying right to my face and he doesn't care one little bit".

    Pathetic.  

    Parent

    He's pathetic (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:21:14 PM EST
    Truly pathetic.  Obviously, the man once had courage. He lived through hell, literally.

    And this is what he's come to: the man who once defiantly called the Dobsons and Falwells and Robertsons of the world "agents of intolerance," reduced to telling brazen lies in order to cover for the neophyte running mate he chose in order to pander to the extreme religious right.

    How can he live with the shame?

    Parent

    I respect his service (none / 0) (#77)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:54:08 PM EST
    But anyone who goes through that, and never gets any kind of psychological treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder...

    He served his country honorably. He did so again when he ran for POTUS in 2000 vs Bush.

    I do not think he has done that in this election cycle. I think he's tried to win the election by any means necessary, even if it means going against everything he has (and may still on the inside) stood for.

    Parent

    You think (none / 0) (#158)
    by gentlyweepingguitar on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:37:35 AM EST
    because Cindy makes more money then he does? You think he's trying to prove himself equal to Cindy's money?

    Parent
    Yes, they did. (none / 0) (#109)
    by lilburro on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:48:28 PM EST
    I hope Jeralyn covers it ;)

    Parent
    Also, Citizens Against Government Waste ranks Alaska as having received the "most pork per capita" of all states this year.
    As we all know earmarks pay for infrastructure almost exclusively. So, states with lots of citizens per mile of road and, therefore high population densities, like NJ, have very low earmark $/citizen.

    And, conversely, those states with lots of miles of roads and bridges and relatively few citizens, and therefor, low population densities, have very high earmark $/citizen.

    Alaska is the lowest population density state in the union, and unsurprisingly, the state with the highest earmark $/citizen.

    After Alaska, in 2005 the state with the next least population density, Wyoming, received ~$375/citizen. The next least population density state, Montana, received ~$200/citizen.

    fwiw, Alaska's pop density is ~ 80% less than Wyoming's, the next lowest pop density state.

    What about McCain's home state of Arizona? (none / 0) (#13)
    by WS on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:47:11 PM EST
    Doesn't McCain have his own pet projects in Arizona relating to water projects?  I also read he wants to steal water from neighboring states.

    Parent
    Opinions differ... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Strick on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:53:08 PM EST
    But even McCain's enemies can't find much in the way of earmarks he's requested.  Probably less than $30 million over the last 24 years and that's disputed.

    Parent
    How about a (none / 0) (#21)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:55:15 PM EST
    link or two?

    Parent
    Link? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Strick on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:59:42 PM EST
    McCain Falsely Claims He Has `Never Asked For A Single Earmark Or Pork Barrel Project' For His State

    This is all Think Progress could come up with.  Surely they'd be on it if there was more.

    Parent

    Hope he's not planning on any (none / 0) (#22)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:55:34 PM EST
    from CA, lol!~

    I was wondering if McCain was bringing any money to his state in transparent ways vs considering it all pork. I'd be pissed if my Senators weren't getting some infrastructure $$$ etc from the Feds.

    Parent

    Steal? (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:56:58 PM EST
    Question (none / 0) (#57)
    by daring grace on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:09:19 PM EST
    As someone from the aging infrastructure rich/state coffer poor state of New York, I look at the bulging state purse in Alaska and wonder how it is considered fiscally conservative to make other Americans' tax dollars pay for improvements Alaska can clearly afford to make itself.

    snip:

    ""Some of the things she knocked out were legitimate. A lot of times you put things in the capital budget you don't necessarily like that much either, but you've got to have them there to get it passed," said state Rep. Kevin Meyer, co-chairman of the House Finance Committee.

    "But we did want to see more money being spent on infrastructure, museums, schools, bridges and things like that," Meyer said. "We're a fairly new state and our infrastructure is way behind the times. You can't even go from Anchorage to Bethel because there's no road."

    So is that why she's not spending on Alaska infrastructure so much with Alaska money, because she too knows earmarks are for infrastructure?

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#151)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:00:20 PM EST
    the money for earmarks comes from all Americans and all states. If you want AK to fend for themselves, to be fair, you should let them keep their own tax dollars to do it. Right?

    Parent
    Don't Want Them To Fend For Themselves (none / 0) (#163)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 09:28:00 AM EST
    But as to fiscal conservatism, as argument can be made that in order to be truly fiscally conservative a state would use its own surpluses first rather than dipping into the federal trough.

    It doesn't translate then into states with no surplus or, in fact, with deficits, fending for themselves. It questions how conservative it is to aggressively seek other funds (that could go to places that need it more but lack the lobbyist/connections) to fund your state's projects when your state is sitting on ample funds to do it already.

    Parent

    I don't think any state (none / 0) (#166)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 09:59:36 AM EST
    can/would live up to your personal definition of "truly fiscally conservative." And I question the opinion that feels that other states "need it more."

    If we want to talk about personal opinions, then just do so. Let's not present it as fact though.

    Every state's taxes contribute to the funds that get "earmarked." Earmarks generally go toward infrastructure improvement/maintenance/etc. AK has a ridiculous amount of infrastructure miles/capita and as a result needs lots of money to keep that infrastructure from falling apart and that means lots of earmark $/capita.

    States like NJ, with many fewer miles of infrastructure/capita logically receive much less earmark $/capita.

    Parent

    I Saw Your Argument About AK vs. NJ (none / 0) (#167)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 10:06:03 AM EST
    Governor Palin is being lauded on one side and attacked on the other over her alleged credentials as a fiscal conservative. That's what I was addressing.

    I personally have no issue with every state getting what they can from the federal gov't to offset state expenditures on everything, including infrastructure.

    But if we're going to argue that a governor is a fiscally conservative reformer who seeks and accepts millions of dollars in federal earmark money when her state itself has the means to pay for some of those expenditures, I think there should be a new definition of fiscal conservatism and reform.

    Parent

    Fair enough. You are commenting on (none / 0) (#179)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 04:36:30 PM EST
    the definition of fiscal conservatism. My comment was about the fallacy of the "earmark $/capita" argument.

    Parent
    One of the purposes of appropriations for (none / 0) (#169)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 10:52:29 AM EST
    infrastructure is to help states pay for what they don't have the money to pay for themselves. AK has a six billion dollar budget surplus. NJ and WY have no such thing. It is not appropriate to pig out on Federal money when you have the money to do it yourself, and other states don't, and still need what they need. That's the difference.

    Parent
    Well, if AK has such a surplus, (none / 0) (#180)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 04:47:33 PM EST
    doesn't that suggest it's a state that's fiscally conservative? ie., it lives w/in it's means? Seems like a good thing, no?

    imo, Palin has a bunch of legitimate criticisms - that AK (or any state) does not give billions of dollars of its own tax money to Congress and then say "aw heck, just give it all to NJ and WY, we don't want any of it back" is not one of them...

    Parent

    Shorter point: (none / 0) (#181)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 04:50:07 PM EST
    It's not Federal money, it's the state's money. It is not a reasonable criticism, imo, for the states to want it back.

    Parent
    The six billion is oil and gas and other mineral (none / 0) (#182)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 07:01:25 PM EST
    royalties. What makes no sense is for a state which has alternative resources to supply infrastructure  which it chooses to construct, to get ten times the per capita in pork of other states from the Federal Government, who do not have that oil, gas and mineral royalty in the bank and available for whatever the state chooses. You noticed that she was only too happy to take the Federal money for the Bridge to Nowhere, but when the Feds would not allow it and it was the state paying for it or killing it, that's when she killed it. Not worth it if the state itself had to pay.  Unless you're a Republican who believes that the rich should get richer and the poor (states) are out of luck.

    Parent
    Again, "per capita" is fallacious. (none / 0) (#184)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 10:22:02 AM EST
    Why not measure infrastructure improvement earmarks as "per meth lab?" It's about as relevant.

    Parent
    Fundamentally, in general, states with low population densities and therefor high miles of infrastructure/capita (and AK has the lowest population density of any state - about 80% lower even than WY, the next lowest population density state) by definition get high earmarks/capita to maintain that infrastructure compared to states with high population densities and therefor low infrastructure miles/capita.

    Not to mention the extreme weather in AK likely causes more damage to infrastructure there than many/most/any other state.

    But, hey, you are certainly free to do your own primary research for 2007 while Palin was Gov to dispute the fundamental point, if you dare...

    Parent

    The Other Bridge To Nowhere (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:17:20 PM EST
    There's another Bridge to Nowhere that Palin is supporting, along with the Road to Nowhere.

    But remember, McCain said today on the View that Palin had NEVER asked for earmarks as Governor. NEVER.

    If you've ever been to Alaska, (none / 0) (#81)
    by tootired on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:59:06 PM EST
    and if you haven't I suggest you go, you would know that every bridge is a bridge to nowhere, and every road is a road to nowhere. The only way "nowhere" will ever become "somewhere" is if roads and bridges get built. Whether that would be a good thing for Alaska is another question. I kind of like it the way it is, but I don't live there.

    Parent
    I've been, it's beautiful (none / 0) (#84)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:04:15 PM EST
    and I don't think the fact she wanted to build a bridge is necessarily the problem here...

    It's that they are contradicting themselves on reality.

    I don't understand why they are doing it, it would be really easy to just tell the truth and nobody would care.

    "Yeah, I supported the bridge, it would've provided access to a beautiful part of our great state. But as the price increased, both Congress and I both believed the money would be better spent on other projects, and we decided to stop it. I'm a believer in spending money in the right places and will do the same in the White House."

    Boom - easy answer and it never would've raised an eyebrow.

    Parent

    Nah (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:19:34 PM EST
    I don't think the Clinton line is going to hurt Obama at all. In fact, I think Palin's arrogance and hubris is going to smack many Clinton voters in the face. She hasn't earned the right to be VP. Clinton did. I understand why Obama didn't choose her. Palin is just Bush in a dress.

    Then you obviously don't understand (none / 0) (#88)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:14:15 PM EST
    That there is NO comparison between the accomplished politician that Hillary is and who Palin is pretending to be.

    Parent
    Legislate from the bench? (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:24:26 PM EST
    The Supreme Court does not legislate - at least as far as I know.

    The Supreme Court decides what laws are or are not constitutional.

    In Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    The people who created these draconian abortion laws are the ones who were legislating.

    Why do people let politicians like McCain get away with inferring or outright saying that Roe v. Wade amounted to "legislating from the bench"?

    well, that's the argument (none / 0) (#50)
    by txpublicdefender on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:58:55 PM EST
    The argument of those who oppose Roe is that the justices didn't simply interpret the Constitution to find that the legislation outlawing abortion was unconstitutional.  They argue that the Court wrote a right into the Constitution that wasn't there, hence the complaint that they are "legislating from the bench."

    I don't agree with this argument re: Roe, but that is their position.

    Parent

    A question (none / 0) (#55)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:06:44 PM EST
    What "right" do they claim the Justices wrote into the Constitution?

    Parent
    The right to privacy (none / 0) (#60)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:18:24 PM EST
    It's never mentioned in the Constitution

    Parent
    interpretation vs legislation (none / 0) (#89)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:15:29 PM EST
    Its an old argument. For example: The right to privacy stands at the heart of abortion rights. And, in terms of judicial interpretation, it wasn't until 1965 that the concept of privacy was spelled out by Justice Douglas et al in Griswold v. Connecticut, wherein it was found that a group of amendments as a "penumbra" and taken together (primarily, the 9th and a few others) must necessarily grant a privacy right. (Griswold struck down a state prohibition involving birth control.) The privacy argument, inevitably, formed the cornerstone of Roe. While I always supported Griswold and the 9th amendment expansion, I do understand that the "strict constructionists" have a legitimate form of argument. Of course, central to all of this is that Supreme Court decisions--just like electoral college results--are often trailing indicators of popular positions. So far as Palin goes, the difficulty for many feminists may well reside in her "populist" position that the "right" is determined by the people state-by-state. On some level, the populist argument has appeal as a pragmatic position; but, in terms of guarateed rights, it can be quite troubling to those who seek that guarantee. Whether common ground can ever be reached at some level is the ultimate issue. (Of course, both sides would adamantly say "no.")

    Parent
    What ever happened to rights not enumerated in (none / 0) (#170)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 10:55:52 AM EST
    the Constitution being reserved to the states or the people ?  Just because they are not listed by name in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments does not mean that those rights do not exist and may be disregarded.

    Parent
    I have always been troubled (none / 0) (#176)
    by jar137 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:11:53 PM EST
    by the concept of substantive due process (which includes the right to privacy).  I have always argued that the privileges and immunities clause is the proper basis for the right to privacy, as well as others.  The SC should overturn the Slaughterhouse cases and revive the P&I clause.  This is one of my pet issues.

    Parent
    Make One Little Mistake (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by WakeLtd on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:41:05 PM EST
    I know we are not supposed to be doing post-mortems on the Hillary "Not a Good Fit For VP" fiasco. But, we do see now the fall-out when a brilliant political decision is not made. It really doesn't matter if Joe Biden is pro-choice, or if Obama is pro-choice, in the present context of the media's gender "Mea Culpa". What matters is that the most qualified Democrat to be Obama's running mate is working her heart out on other, more mundane, chores for the campaign. If Obama had asked Hillary and she had agreed to be his running mate, THAT would be the headlines, the story with legs, from now until November. McCain could have selected Sarah Connor instead of Sarah Palin to be his running mate and it would not have mattered. (Yes I know she is a fictional character.) Now, Whoopi is reduced to asking if McCain wants to make her a slave "again". This fight against the Perils of Palin would have been much easier if it was being conducted by Hillary Clinton as part of the ticket.

    so is palin (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by pluege on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:05:15 PM EST
    "Yes I know she [Sarah Connor] is a fictional character."

    Parent
    Just watched 5 minutes of (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by NYShooter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:49:47 PM EST
    Olbermann....couldn't watch any more.  If demoting him and Mathews was supposed to have a mellowing effect on that wombat, they better try another medication. He has completely "lost it." The wild-eyed, gum bleeding hatred this psycho has for Sarah Palin is impossible to exaggerate. "SHE DIDN"T KNOW WHAT THE BUSH DOCTRINE WAS!!!!"

    It just so happens that I sit on the editorial board of this upstate NY city's newspaper (Pop. Approx 30,000) it's primarily a Republican County, and has been.... forever. We had our bi-monthly meeting today, and 5 editors (4 R's, 1 D) were present. I asked the question I had been waiting to ask since Palin's first interview; "What exactly is the Bush Doctrine?"

    The answers differed, but they could be boiled to roughly what my answer would've been; It depends what you mean. Do you mean the text of the actual law? Do you mean the general Bush policy? Do you mean the law, with, or without the signing statements? Do you the way its implementation changes with each day's changing situation? In other words, educated, politically astute, and knowledgeable people perceived the question through different prisms.

    I, not that I'm any genius, would've had to stop and think, especially knowing that Gibson wasn't looking for a sincere answer, but rather was looking to atone for his disastrous prior interview with Obama, and he had the air about himself that only by "nailing" Palin would he receive absolution from his fellow fraternity of "Journalists."

    And seeing KO go ballistic tonight confirms my fear that the group that tried to "Nail" Hillary, but wound up severely wounding itself, (almost mortally) made a blood oath pact that since they have no respect left to redeem, only by utterly destroying Palin could they keep from going flat-line and becoming totally irrelevant.

    It looks like they never heard the one about, "when you're in a hole, the first thing.........."  


    While I understand you (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:01:12 PM EST
    and can't stand KO...

    Shouldn't someone who is just a breath away from being the leader of the free world KNOW what the Bush Doctrine is?

    He had to explain to her what it was.

    It WAS a gaffe.

    She SHOULD know what it is was, and if she needed clarification, she should've asked specific questions on the context.

    It's obvious she didn't know, and this is NOT the only thing she doesn't know.

    I have no problem with her not knowing it... as long as she's not quite possibly close to being in control of the most powerful military in the world.

    Parent

    The Bush Doctrine (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:30:20 PM EST
    If me or Six Pack Joe doesn't know what it is, no harm, no foul.

    But the person we're electing to VP, they ought to know. And if they don't, we're in trouble.

    Parent

    Certainly, I agree with you..... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by NYShooter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:37:16 PM EST
    But my point was the motive behind the interview. Gibson wasn't there to illustrate that a politician who was unknown to the American public two weeks ago, and who's focus rightfully was State Gov't. might not be up to speed on issues that much more experienced politicians find confusing; He was there to destroy Sarah Plain, poor and simple.

    I don't remember the specifics, and GWB shouldn't have even been allowed to visit the Oval Office, let alone occupy it, but he was also questioned like that when he first ran against Gore. You remember? Name some of the leaders of the newley independent eastern block break-away countries? Most people couldn't have answered those questions, and I thought it was unfair to pull a "gotcha" like that at that time too.

    Why is so hard to understand that Sarah Palin can't possibly have all the knowledge and facts necessary to fullfil the duties and responsibilities of a V.P. or President.....at this moment in time? But if "judgement" is the measuring stick for Obama, and he's permitted to learn the other stuff a.s.a.p. Why a different metric for Palin?

    Parent

    I believe there is a huge gap (none / 0) (#142)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:43:01 PM EST
    Between the ability of Obama to be POTUS and Palin.

    I think he has proved that fairly well through all he has accomplished to up this point.

    As much as I hated watching Obama on O'Reilly, it really was the best interview I've seen where he got totally grilled on questions where he couldn't just say "change" - he had to provide specifics.

    Obama is a brilliant brilliant mind, and I would take his current credentials, with Biden as his backbone - over McCain (at 72) with Palin as his.

    Maybe it's my choice in candidate that's blinding me?

    Parent

    You're comparing Obama's ability (none / 0) (#154)
    by BeeD on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:44:18 PM EST
    to answer policy questions after 19 months of running for President and prepping by hundreds of advisors to Palin's first interview after running for 2 weeks?? I remember well that Obama was not particularly quick on his feet back then (still not very good in interviews - that's why press conferences are limited and staged). But as long as he could recite his speech, over and over again, to adoring crowds, it didn't seem to matter.

    Parent
    I agree with everything you've said (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by otherlisa on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:20:31 AM EST
    except your dig on wombats. Wombats are cool critters. It's totally unfair to wombats to compare them to Olbermann.

    Parent
    definitely... (none / 0) (#168)
    by marian evans on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 10:15:00 AM EST
    a slight on cute wombats - in fact the entire marsupial community has been wrongfully brought into disrepute by this analogy.

    Lawyers have been briefed...

    Parent

    How can I atone.....` (none / 0) (#178)
    by NYShooter on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:41:47 PM EST
    ...for my unforgiveable (almost) Blasphemous slur vis-a-vis Wombats?  A life-long, (prior to today, good, ) progressive like I thought I was has committed the unforegiveable; denigrating an entire species, which heretofore had no "dog in this hunt," by blurring the line between decency and demonic. Comparing Wombats to KO is comparing Mensa to Amoeba.
    Forgiveness for a wretch like me is out of the question,; I understand and accept that, but does the fact that I had "Instant" this morning instead of "Fresh Brewed" count for anything?


    Parent
    Message from Wombat Headquarters: (none / 0) (#183)
    by marian evans on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 09:34:30 PM EST
    Come home, all is forgiven.

    Parent
    It is people like you and the author's/owner's (none / 0) (#87)
    by mogal on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:14:11 PM EST
    that make this such a great blog.

    Parent
    I was referring to NYshooter- (none / 0) (#90)
    by mogal on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:16:18 PM EST
    how do you get your reply under the correct post?

    Parent
    Don't worry (none / 0) (#96)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:29:25 PM EST
    It is!

    Parent
    Great response! another reason why I enjoy (none / 0) (#103)
    by mogal on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:36:42 PM EST
    this blog.

    Parent
    Disgusting (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by WS on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:50:21 PM EST
    I have even lower regard for Palin after I heard that she hunts wolves in such a cowardly manner.  If you want to hunt a wolf for population control purposes, at least have the honor of facing off on solid terrain. I can't believe anyone would be sadistic enough to find that behavior laudatory.    

    Does she hunt the wolves? (none / 0) (#116)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:01:21 PM EST
    Or did she ok it for the Dept of Fish and Game? And is terrain there an issue?


    Parent
    What's the difference? (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:08:57 PM EST
    Even if she said: "I endorse the inhumane slaughtering of animals and will provide money to those who show me their kills...

    Oh but I don't do it myself."

    No distinction to me.

    Parent

    Is this an example of (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by coolit on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:31:03 PM EST
    PDS?

    Parent
    Well, there is quite a bit of difference (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:44:36 PM EST
    especially since you seem to be basing your, ahem, "facts" on limited info.

    You may want to look up HER position and statements on the issue and the actual facts. If you only listen to PETA and some of these other groups, you end up with a very distorted view of the situation.

    Parent

    I already know the answer (none / 0) (#152)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:03:59 PM EST
    She supports it.

    Perhaps you don't know the answer?

    Parent

    There are studies about wolves which (none / 0) (#172)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:13:41 AM EST
    may shed light, although I haven't read them recently and don't know if they can be linked. In what I think was Makinaw island in Lake Superior,  a closed environment because it was an island, there were 40 wolves and 900 moose, consistently. The number of wolves who could hunt moose kept the moose population down to where it didn't eat the island by culling the old and the sick and the calves, and the number of moose and other prey available as prey kept the wolf population stable but not growing. I read this one in college.

    There was also a program on I think it was National Geographic about why the plant patterns in Yellowstone were changing, and affecting water and a lot of other things, which had to do with eliminating all predators to elk and deer, which thereupon overfed on some of the plants which were on riverbanks until they were gone, with water  and other plant life and environmental changes resulting. The pattern supposedly reversed when wolves were introduced and controlled the elk and deer population to some degree and the older plant life patterns returned, and flooding lessened.

    The conclusion was that Nature struck a balance between predators and prey which would have other consequences if disrupted.

    Unlike some other places, Alaska does not have a huge cattle and sheep population whose owners have a bias for grazers and don't want their own herds culled of the old and the sick  and the unguarded calves and lambs by wolves or bears. Eliminating the top predators who could take large game made land safe for cows, but also for elk and deer. I really don't understand what the point is for culling wolves in Alaska, much less by plane.

    Parent

    I have trouble believing (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by kenosharick on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:25:31 PM EST
    that anything coming from dailykos (if that is where info came from) is the truth.

    A better write up of what people (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:35:31 PM EST
    need to hear.  I wish you had led with this though

    On the topic of abortion, Mr. McCain said that Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in 1973, was "a very bad decision." He said he would not impose a litmus test on any of his nominations to the Supreme Court "because that's not fair to the American people."

    And saved Palin for the making the second point on McCains many failings.....placing her where she belongs in the national debate.  The majority of Americans do not want Roe v. Wade overturned, they need to hear McCain say such things very clearly without distractions.

    With all due respect... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Southsider on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 12:16:18 AM EST
    ...you misunderstand this issue.  Palin okayed the hunting of wolves from the air not for sport, but rather as a means of culling the population in an effort to save the moose and deer population from being decimated.  You won't see me defending Palin on policy very often (as opposed to sexism), but she's perfectly fine on this one.  It's a conservation move, if anything.  The "hunting from the air" aspect of it was merely for convenience's sake -- this was all business, not pleasure.

    Here's an ugly fact: PETA is behind this ad, and I frankly wouldn't trust PETA with anything I valued.  I believe in conservation and preservation of the environment, which puts me at odds with those guys.  They're nucking futs in their extremism.  

    With all due respect as well (none / 0) (#160)
    by WS on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 07:25:10 AM EST
    some people here protect Sarah Palin like she was Hillary Clinton.  PETA may be crazy but they're not the only ones who complained as they include Defenders of Wildlife, Alaska for Wildlife, and the Alaska chapter of the Sierra Club.

    And yes, Sarah Palin used $400K of Alaska money to defeat Measure 2, a proposal that would prohibit hunting wolves and grizzly bears from the air for sport.

    Measure 2 from Alternet

    Measure 2 from the Alaska Star

    Some people here need to get off the Palin love train because she's a Republican (who will be bad for the environment until proven otherwise) and not the second coming of Hillary Clinton in this race.

    I follow BTD's advice of ignoring Sarah Palin to focus on McCain but her position on this is disgusting and cowardly.  It speaks to her character that she finds this acceptable.  

         

    Parent

    Fixed the link (none / 0) (#161)
    by WS on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 07:27:09 AM EST
    On Abortion: (none / 0) (#1)
    by KVFinn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:31:08 PM EST
    I've seen something like this posted many times:

    Palin is personally opposed to abortion, but she wouldn't change the laws to make it illegal for everyone else.  

    The implication is that one need not be concerned about abortion rights when considering a McCain vote.  But by that definition, isn't Obama a pro-life candidate?  He too is personally opposed to it, but he wouldn't change the laws to make it illegal for everyone else.  That is what it means to be pro-choice.  

    The definition of pro-life is that you want to change the laws, isn't it?  If it wasn't, you'd call yourself pro-choice.

    McCain (none / 0) (#6)
    by TChris on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:37:24 PM EST
    wants to change Roe v. Wade.  The post doesn't talk about Palin's view of abortion.

    Parent
    Whoops (none / 0) (#11)
    by KVFinn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:44:26 PM EST
    McCain is personally opposed to abortion, but he wouldn't change the laws to make it illegal for everyone else.

    Just wanted to make the point that if you don't want to change laws, it's a pro-choice position.

    Parent

    But (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by TChris on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:49:25 PM EST
    McCain does want to change the law.  The law is Roe v. Wade.  McCain wants to change it.  He wants to appoint judges who don't "legislate from the bench" like (he believes) the judges in Roe v. Wade did.  That's what he said on The View, and that's what he says on his website:

    John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

    McCain will change the law.

    Parent

    And Palin is further to his right (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:50:42 PM EST
    GIBSON: John McCain would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest. Do you believe in it only in the case where the life of the mother is in danger?

    PALIN: That is my personal opinion.

    GIBSON: Would you change and accept it in rape and incest?

    PALIN: My personal opinion is that abortion allowed if the life of the mother is endangered. Please understand me on this. I do understand McCain's position on this. I do understand others who are very passionate about this issue who have a differing.



    Parent
    It would have been unconstitutional for (none / 0) (#68)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:40:00 PM EST
    her to do anything about abortion as Governor.

    As President, that would be another story.

    Parent

    The President cannot ban abortion (none / 0) (#75)
    by tootired on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:50:10 PM EST
    all by herself. She would need to either request that the congress and senate pass a constitutional amendment that banned abortion or appoint a supreme court justice who would help overturn Roe v. Wade the next time an appropriate case came before it. In the second case abortion would not be outlawed. It just wouldn't be a constitutional right, and each state would be free to determine its own laws on abortion, which BTW is Governor Palin's preferred position on abortion. It should be up to the individual states. Agree or disagree with her, but don't give her super powers.

    Parent
    In addition (none / 0) (#177)
    by jar137 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 03:22:02 PM EST
    Congress could then pass laws restricting abortion rights (eg, outlawing cross state lines to have an abortion (a law that presently applies to minors)).  The right wing will get very creative in making an abortion as difficult as possible to obtain.

    Parent
    I completely agree! (none / 0) (#25)
    by KVFinn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:59:23 PM EST
    Sorry about the confusion.  

    Trying to preemptively debunk: "McCain is pro-life, he's personally opposed to abortion, but he doesn't want to make it illegal for others."  

    The definition of pro-life is that you want to change the law, otherwise you are pro-choice.  McCain is pro-life, as he has said many times.


    Parent

    So does she (none / 0) (#14)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:47:36 PM EST
    GIBSON: Roe v. Wade, do you think it should be reversed?

    PALIN: I think it should and I think that states should be able to decide that issue.



    Parent
    Can we all agree that you have the right (none / 0) (#31)
    by dailygrind on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:05:01 PM EST
    to vote for you want, but also request you no simply make stuff up. Ending legal abortion is a basic part of the Christian rights, and by being the base of the GOP's, McCain and Palin's platform. McCain and Palin have said as much several times, including with Palin in the case of rape, incest and the health of the mother. These are just the facts. You disagree about how Americans view abortion but you aren't entitle to keep pretending as if this is simply  McCain's personal view when has repeatedly said it's not.

    Parent
    I was too clever by half. (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by KVFinn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:09:03 PM EST
    Was trying to make the point that this statement is bunk: "McCain is personally opposed to abortion, but he wouldn't change the laws to make it illegal for everyone else." This Obama's position, this is a pro-choice position.  McCain is clearly pro-life, which be definition means he does want to change the law.

    Anyway, like I said, too clever by half.  Thank god it's Friday.

    Parent

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#3)
    by call me Ishmael on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:33:15 PM EST
    the way to run against both McCain and Palin is to stress all the things that McCain says about Palin that aren't true.  Not only does that get the issues out about her but calls his judgment into question again.  

    well (none / 0) (#5)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:36:19 PM EST
    I think the McCain-as-liar line is solid.  The conservatives were crying that about McCain themselves just a few months ago when he hit Romney.   Hannity and Coulter called McCain a liar too.

    Parent
    Or does McCain even know anything about (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:43:00 PM EST
    the person the Religious Right made him put on his ticket?

    He wanted to be the maverick (with Joe lord help us), but in the end, he kowtowed to James Dobson.

    Parent

    gibson asks palin about earmarks tonight (none / 0) (#4)
    by votermom on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:35:44 PM EST
    She answers basically that it's ok for states to ask for funding transparently; she's against pols & lobbyists making deals to sneak them in hiddenly.

    http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5791089

    I guess that explains (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by TChris on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:39:35 PM EST
    her decision to hire a lobbyist to lobby on Alaska's behalf rather than transparently asking for the earmarks herself.

    Parent
    Palin's earmark wishlist for Feb. 2008 (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:06:15 PM EST
    http://stevens.senate.gov/earmarks/Approps-StateofAlaska.pdf

    Sorry, tinyurl would not work wiht this one.

    Parent

    good point (none / 0) (#9)
    by votermom on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:43:31 PM EST
    But her answer did sound good on teevee.

    Parent
    So she can't revise her position? (none / 0) (#17)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:50:22 PM EST
    I don't think she ran her Mayoral campaign on earmark or lobbyist reform?

    And honestly, not all earmarks/lobbyists are bad. It's just the process. The bridge to nowhere was on a bill that both Obama and Biden signed and I'm sure it wasn't the only one. It's the reckless way they go about these and really, where's the oversight?

    I think she answered some of the questions in tonights interview well. She seemed more comfortable. Her backyard is to die for!

    Parent

    Too bad (none / 0) (#27)
    by borisbor on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:59:54 PM EST
    she wants to drill here, drill now, drill everywhere. Her backyard won't look very nice that way will it.

    Revise her position? SHES LYING ON THE PODIUM EVERY NIGHT.  McCain is saying she's an ear-mark reformer.    SHES NOT. Sure, you can revise your position, but don't call yourself an earmark reformer when you're not. You're an ear-mark reformer wanna-be.

    Parent

    Revising from the time (none / 0) (#30)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:04:22 PM EST
    where she was hiring Lobbyists to now when she's cutting earmarks (notice I didn't say eliminate, so spare the outrage pls.)

    Parent
    The L word (none / 0) (#36)
    by WS on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:12:39 PM EST
    Obama should start throwing out the word lie/lying/liars now.  "Swift Boat" isn't going to cut it now and he needs to call a spade a spade.  

    Parent
    Budget Battle (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by WS on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:45:06 PM EST
    If McCain is President, I'm wondering about the crippling effect of budget battles over earmarks in DC.  McCain hates earmarks but loves the war in Iraq that costs 20 times more than earmarks do every year. Will government shutdowns be the norm in a McCain Presidency? Hopefully, we won't have to find out.    

    Parent
    Plus (none / 0) (#19)
    by indiependy on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:52:22 PM EST
    Remember, he's selling his soul to the hard right in return for their backing. So if he so even hints at one cent of a tax increase the knives will be out. Count on nothing but corporate and high net individual tax cut after tax cut. The budget, deficit, economy, all down the drain.

    Parent
    Plus... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Strick on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 05:55:58 PM EST
    She did cut the earmarks by 44% in two years.  Not perfect, but a major improvement.

    Parent
    And maybe (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by borisbor on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:00:41 PM EST
    if she said that instead of outright lying about saying no thanks to the bridge to nowhere, she wouldn't look like such a, ya know, LIAR.

    Parent
    Requested Link (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Strick on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:00:57 PM EST
    I don't understand what that means (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:57:41 PM EST
    Is she saying that its okay to ask for earmarks as long as you aren't wearing an invisibility cloak?

    Parent
    BLJ: Big Liar John (none / 0) (#32)
    by pluege on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:05:43 PM EST
    Mccain is an incorrigible liar, bereft of integrity and decency - standard republican fare

    Earmarks state by state (none / 0) (#39)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:19:47 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/6b4xjs

    Place cursor over the state and the stats appear for that state.

    This link ranks Alaska (none / 0) (#40)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:21:12 PM EST
    as 10th in the state for earmarks.

    Parent
    Or 1st in per capita earmark spending. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by JoeA on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:46:35 PM EST
    I didn't see the interview (none / 0) (#52)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 06:59:29 PM EST
    What was the "Clinton line"?

    Palin on Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:10:57 PM EST
    "I think he's regretting not picking her now, I do. What, what determination, and grit, and even grace through some tough shots that were fired her way -- she handled those well," the Alaska governor told Charles Gibson in her third and final exclusive interview with ABC News.

    Parent
    she ripped the band aid off with that one. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Lil on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:47:02 PM EST
    Oh my, YES! (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by wasabi on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 07:47:59 PM EST
    It sounds so darn sincere when Republicans praise Hillary Clinton!

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:11:24 PM EST
    I don't buy for ONE second this praise of Clinton or her millions of voters. Clinton went out, campaigned, and EARNED her voters on her own merit and political accomplishments.

    Especially when the Republican forums all refer to her as "Hildabeast".

    I'm not buying it for one second.

    Parent

    The GOP netroots done got smart. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Southsider on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:29:02 PM EST
    You won't find "Hildabeest" cracks about Hillary anywhere these days, anywhere since Obama started overtaking her in the primaries at least.  Why?  They've never flagged in their contempt for Hill, of course, but they know a wedge issue when they see it.  So it's been nothing but "Oh, we don't support Hillary but my oh my isn't the way she's been treated unfair!"  

    They've been extremely good at staying on message, the bastards.

    Parent

    On the boards I checked out (none / 0) (#98)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:30:48 PM EST
    As recently as today... was still seeing that term used.

    Parent
    I guess I don't really troll GOP boards (none / 0) (#106)
    by Southsider on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:41:49 PM EST
    I just check out right-wing blogs on a semi-regular basis.  On the major ones the tone has remained remarkably restrained -- again, not out of conviction but rather opportunism.  They know they've got a good thing goin' here.

    Parent
    More importantly what was Obama's (none / 0) (#85)
    by mogal on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:10:40 PM EST
    add based on?????

    Has anyone seen this? (none / 0) (#92)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:20:48 PM EST
    An animal rights group made an ad attacking Palin on her inhumane way of handling the wolf population in Alaska?

    Pretty harsh stuff... not sure this helps

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQobIUE1zTU

    Speaking of animals... (none / 0) (#99)
    by mogal on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:30:54 PM EST
    Sarah said she was a pit bull. Hillary said she was a work horse.

    So, as far as I know the men haven't said but sadly I am reminded of the turtle and the hare and we know who won that race.

    Parent

    Give me the workhorse every time. (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Southsider on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:32:10 PM EST
    Every single time.

    Parent
    Me too! (none / 0) (#105)
    by mogal on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:40:25 PM EST
    how so? (none / 0) (#114)
    by kredwyn on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 08:56:48 PM EST


    Palin doesn't understand what an entitlement is... (none / 0) (#118)
    by klem4708 on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:06:56 PM EST
    Does this bother anyone?

    Or how about her idea that we can contain entitlements with agency "efficiencies?"

    Palin is struggling (none / 0) (#127)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:20:14 PM EST
    She can't answer any questions with concrete direct answers.

    Everything is just a ramble about not having a big government and doing "things" to make the economy better.

    kind of like "CHANGE" (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by kenosharick on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:27:30 PM EST
    and "bringing everyone together" are concrete and meaningful, huh?

    Parent
    The view "interview" (none / 0) (#128)
    by kenosharick on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:20:44 PM EST
    will just be considered more media/left wing piling on and attacking of mccain/palin by most people- especially considering the way they treated Obama.

    Are they telling the truth? (none / 0) (#129)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:21:40 PM EST
    That's the question.

    Yes they are.

    Palin didn't talk to ANY media for about 14 days.

    When you do that, you LET them define you. You LET them find questions to ask about you.

    That's what they've done. I don't see any problem at all in vetting her and raising important questions about her.

    This is the Vice Presidency we are talking about.

    Hilarious (none / 0) (#144)
    by elonepb on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:13:00 PM EST
    The media have done anything BUT grill McCain and Palin (because she hasn't been allowed to talk).

    He says "I was a POW!" and they stop asking.

    He repeats lies and they don't question them.

    I'm appalled you think anyone believes you are a Democrat or ever a Hillary supporter.

    Parent

    He has (none / 0) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:42:18 PM EST
    not been vetted. The GOP will do that in the next few weeks.

    I hope So (none / 0) (#164)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 09:32:46 AM EST
    I hope the Republicans do start vetting Obama on his qualifications to be POTUS.

    So far all they've vetted him on is how to respond to lies, distortions, and evasions of the policy issues.

    Parent

    ha (none / 0) (#143)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 09:50:22 PM EST
    McCain doesnt have to do anything. He just needs to mumble and hope women vote Palin.  His campaign has certainly leaked the strategy often enough. "Not about issues", "We get Hillary votes or we lose".

    they said (none / 0) (#150)
    by Amiss on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 10:49:33 PM EST
    that she billed the state $60 per nite in per diems for staying in her own home and she stayed in her home in Wasilla over 300 nites in the year! They also said it was allowed, although personally just because something is allowed or someone else charged more, does not make it the RIGHT thing to do, IMHO. My question is, how is she going to handle it if she is elected vice-president  and expected to stay in Washington or does she plan on living in Wasilla and billing the american taxpayers per diems?

    I think it was certainly fair of the View hosts (none / 0) (#155)
    by BeeD on Fri Sep 12, 2008 at 11:48:57 PM EST
    to ask the questions they did. But I do take issue with Barbar Walters' rude behavior, not letting him finish his sentences. Seemed like she was trying too hard to look like the "hard-hitting journalist" she still aspires to be. I also noticed that McCain kept very cool throughout. If she was trying to get hiim to lose his temper and see the McCain temper, she failed.

    Well, they were right to object to his notion (none / 0) (#171)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 10:59:35 AM EST
    that the reason he could lie in his ads was that Obama had not taken him up on his particular "town hall" proposal, as if one had anything to do with the other. That was his answer to the 'lies' issue, other than to insist they were true without explaining and then shooting off to the town hall issue.  

    Parent
    How Do You Reform "All" (none / 0) (#159)
    by bob h on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 05:36:49 AM EST
    of Washington when earmarks in toto are a tiny fraction of the Federal outlays?

    McCain and Palin Are Liars (none / 0) (#162)
    by john horse on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 08:40:18 AM EST
    My friends let me give you a little straight talk.

    McCain and Palin are liars.

    McCain is lying about being against Social Security privatization.

    McCain is lying about being against corporate lobbyists.

    McCain's sex ed ad was a lie.

    McCain's "lipstick on a pig" comments was a lie.

    Palin's claim to be against earmarks and the bridge to nowhere was a lie.

    McCain and Palin's plan to balance the budget by cutting discretionary spending is a lie.

    And finally, McCain and Palin are lying about being reformers because true reformers don't lie and run negative ads and aren't funded by corporate lobbyists.

    Palin, Alaska, oil royalty checks (none / 0) (#165)
    by Dadler on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 09:42:36 AM EST
    Interesting to note that when the lower 48 get gouged for gas and pay more, Alaskans get bigger oil royalty checks.  So on the biggest issue in her state that relates to the biggest issue in this race, energy independence, Palin's  entire house of cards hinges on the fact that Alaska is almost entirely funded by Big Oil, as are those nice checks she gets to dole out to everyone -- quite the incentive to get off oil.    

    ya (none / 0) (#173)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:16:53 AM EST
    I found it interesting to read how many Alaskans have a sense of it as being "their oil" and they are sharing it with us.  Reading that stuff you can understand the existence of the Alaskan Independence Party.  They do have a strange us vs them mentality that I wasnt aware of previously.

    We bought and developed that land with federal money.

    Parent

    There is a Palin v. Big Oil issue. (none / 0) (#174)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Sep 13, 2008 at 11:23:24 AM EST
    I posted on it for Great Orange Satan with links, and commenters added additional links, but the gist is this:  One of the persons who was responsible for masterminding the Transcanada Pipeline proposal, which was supposed to beat out big Oil, was a Department of Natural Resources Deputy Commissioner from 1992 to 2005 who in 2003 was a partner in a lobbying firm which worked for Foothills Pipelines, Ltd. bought in that year by Transcanada, and who got paid $40K for doing what she claimed was research and analysis for Foothills' own pipeline bids. According to NYT, she didn't vote on it for the state but discussed it busily with people who did.  That person was reported in the Alaska Daily News as also being the person assigned by DNR to work specifically on the Transcanada bids,  over against the bids which the former governor liked, and was reappointed by Palin as soon as she got into office as Deputy Commissioner, as the Transcanada project went forward and forward. Transcanada is a huge pipeline company and as much a part of Big Oil and Gas as other companies, and had the person who was doing work for it for pay working on it thereafter for the State of Alaska, until it got the bid. So much for Palin being a reformer against Big Oil.