Vetting the GOP VP Nominee Online, in Realtime - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 09-09-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Would you ask this question if the gender roles were reversed?

I already did. When Obama announced his candidacy, I did a search on Michelle Obama. She'll be staying with their daughters.

Tully Mars · 09-09-2008, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I think its time to stop with the PALINtology and put the focus back on the top dog.

Palin has energized the social conservative base and that is not likely to change. McCain's policy positions have not changed with her on the ticket and IMO, those are losing positions with many of the swing voters.

Hit him again, harder!

Let her be who/what she is and leave it to Biden to debate her on Oct. 2.

Yep, not gaining ground fight her. But he's hard to hit when he's hiding behind her.
-----Added 9/9/2008 at 06 : 38 : 43-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I already did. When Obama announced his candidacy, I did a search on Michelle Obama. She'll be staying with their daughters.

But why is it important?

jorgelito · 09-09-2008, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Is Todd Palin planning on leaving his businesses in Alaska so he can help to raise the kids in Washington? I'm just curious.

Good question, I'm with Will, I'd like to know too. What are the duties of the Second Husband? Maybe DC can shed some light here. She seems to be pretty knowledgeable on the inner-workings of the federal government.

Willravel · 09-09-2008, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

But why is it important?

It's not. Like I said, I'm just curious.

dc_dux · 09-09-2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Good question, I'm with Will, I'd like to know too. What are the duties of the Second Husband? Maybe DC can shed some light here. She seems to be pretty knowledgeable on the inner-workings of the federal government.

All I know is that Lynn Cheney wrote a sleezy "historical" romance novel that includes brothels, attempted rapes and a lesbian love affair....but that was before Dick was VP.

Oh wait... and the publisher canceled plans to reissue the novel when she was "second lady" because she was concerned that the book did not represent her "best work."

In other words, there is no official role for the spouse of a VP.

Willravel · 09-09-2008, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

All I know is that Lynn Cheney wrote a sleezy "historical" romance novel that includes brothels, attempted rapes and a lesbian love affair....but that was before Dick was VP.

WANT
______________

aceventura3 · 09-10-2008, 12:46 PM

I wonder if Obama/Biden really want the bridge issue front and center? Sen. Demint's opinion piece in the WSJ today helps put the issue in perspective. Considering a govenor does not vote on federal earmarks but senators do, perhaps they should explain their support for the bridge.

Quote:

"But, you know, when you've been taking all these earmarks when it's convenient, and then suddenly you're the champion anti-earmark person, that's not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can't just make stuff up." -- Barack Obama, Sept. 6, 2008

In politics, words are cheap. What really counts are actions. Democrats and Republicans have talked about fiscal responsibility for years. In reality, both parties have a shameful record of wasting hundreds of billions of tax dollars on pork-barrel projects.

My Senate colleague Barack Obama is now attacking Gov. Sarah Palin over earmarks. Having worked with both John McCain and Mr. Obama on earmarks, and as a recovering earmarker myself, I can tell you that Mrs. Palin's leadership and record of reform stands well above that of Mr. Obama.

Let's compare.

Mrs. Palin used her veto pen to slash more local projects than any other governor in the state's history. She cut nearly 10% of Alaska's budget this year, saving state residents $268 million. This included vetoing a $30,000 van for Campfire USA and $200,000 for a tennis court irrigation system. She succinctly justified these cuts by saying they were "not a state responsibility."

Meanwhile in Washington, Mr. Obama voted for numerous wasteful earmarks last year, including: $12 million for bicycle paths, $450,000 for the International Peace Museum, $500,000 for a baseball stadium and $392,000 for a visitor's center in Louisiana.

Mrs. Palin cut Alaska's federal earmark requests in half last year, one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor. It took real leadership to buck Alaska's decades-long earmark addiction.

Mr. Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year and has requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005. His running mate, Joe Biden, is still indulging in earmarks, securing over $90 million worth this year.

Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.

When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.

Mrs. Palin has proven courageous by taking on big spenders in her own party. In March of this year, the Anchorage Daily News reported that, "Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is aggravated about what he sees as Gov. Sarah Palin's antagonism toward the earmarks he uses to steer federal money to the state."

Mr. Obama had a chance to take on his party when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered a sham ethics bill, which was widely criticized by watchdog groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste for shielding earmarks from public scrutiny. But instead of standing with taxpayers, Mr. Obama voted for the bill. Today, he claims he helped write the bill that failed to clean up Washington.

Mr. Obama has shown little restraint on earmarks until this year, when he decided to co-sponsor an earmark moratorium authored by Mr. McCain and myself. Mr. Obama is vulnerable on this issue, and he knows it. That is why he is lashing out at Mrs. Palin and trying to hide his own record.

Mrs. Palin is one of the strongest antiearmark governors in America. If more governors around the country would do what she has done, we would be much closer to fixing our nation's fiscal problems than we are.

Mrs. Palin's record here is solid and inspiring. She will help Mr. McCain shut down the congressional favor factory, and she has a record to prove it. Actions mean something. You can't just make stuff up.

Yes, Palin Did Stop That Bridge - WSJ.com

Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story or empty political rhetoric. Please carry on.

dc_dux · 09-10-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story or empty political rhetoric. Please carry on.

ace...posting a partisan editorial from a Republican colleague of McCain's in the Senate doesnt change the facts.

Here are some facts: Palin lobbied for the earmark for the bridge to nowhere before she opposed it (after it was effectively dead already), as governor, her state was ranked number one (per capita) in earmarks (receiving 10x the national average) and as mayor, she hired a lobbyist to pursue earmarks, which is very rare for a city that size.....but that doesnt make her better or worse than Obama or Biden....but it also doesnt make her a "reformer" as she proclaims.

All the earmark talk is political theater. Earmarks represent an insignificant amount (1%) of the federal budget....which does make it difficult to understand how McCain's earmark reform rhetoric will contribute much to balancing the budget or paying for many of his proposals.
-----Added 10/9/2008 at 05 : 20 : 33-----

BTW...McCain was one of only 14 Senators who voted against last year's comprehensive ethics reform legislation, which included greater transparency in earmarks. (see: CRS summary of the bill, Subtitle B - Earmark Reform)

Not that we dont need more ethics/earmark/lobbying reform, but this bill was better than anything the Republicans proposed when in the majority.

asaris · 09-11-2008, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I wonder if Obama/Biden really want the bridge issue front and center? Sen. Demint's opinion piece in the WSJ today helps put the issue in perspective. Considering a govenor does not vote on federal earmarks but senators do, perhaps they should explain their support for the bridge.

Yes, Palin Did Stop That Bridge - WSJ.com

Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story or empty political rhetoric. Please carry on.

I like how in that article bicycle paths and the International Peace Museum are listed as wasteful earmarks. He also admits that she only changed her mind because of bad publicity: "But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position...." I'm not sure what relevance Obama and Biden's positions on the bridge have -- they're not running as the anti-earmark candidates. And as dux points out, it's an editorial, written by a Republican, so it's a bit biased. Don't you have any facts you can actually cite to?

aceventura3 · 09-11-2008, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

ace...posting a partisan editorial from a Republican colleague of McCain's in the Senate doesnt change the facts.

My question is, does Obama really want this issue on the table? I don't think he does. I think his best course of action is to have his people ignore Palin and her record. Every shot taken at her, in my view, will negatively reflect back on him.
-----Added 11/9/2008 at 11 : 17 : 39-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

I like how in that article bicycle paths and the International Peace Museum are listed as wasteful earmarks. He also admits that she only changed her mind because of bad publicity: "But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position...." I'm not sure what relevance Obama and Biden's positions on the bridge have -- they're not running as the anti-earmark candidates. And as dux points out, it's an editorial, written by a Republican, so it's a bit biased. Don't you have any facts you can actually cite to?

They are people who could have been changing Washington, but did not. It is a reflection of their failure as Senators, it reflects on the emptiness of the "change" slogan. Again, I am not a fan of McCain either. No Senator has the right to say they are a "change" candidate in my view.

We know how dux feels about the WSJ and editorials that appear in the paper, he often comments on it. I am o.k. with liberals being dismissive of editorials or publications that many people respect. If I were a liberal I would actually be interested in what conservatives have to say and how they view "facts" and issues.

Paq · 09-11-2008, 07:19 AM

well, here is how i see the debates going between the vp's:

"Biden is a politician, Palin is just a regular woman, she's not sounding all fancy and whatever, she's just using her 'hockey mom' instincts and she sounds like me, how dare Biden pick on her, Just listen to that..he's so sexist, He thinks she can't do a man's job. Finally, we get a 'real' person in the whitehouse"

bc that is what i heard after Bush's first debate with kerry. only now, it'll be "big mean biden" against "poor helpless 'real' woman"
....
and i think it's in obama's best interest to expose the blatant lies and hypocrisy of what palin and mccain have been saying, including the 'bridge to nowhere' and the "selling the plane on ebay for a profit' when she sold it through a broker at a loss...
-----Added 11/9/2008 at 11 : 28 : 21-----
http://content.vetpalin.com/index.html?show_all even i hadn't heard all these..sheesh

matt damon has a great video on youtube about palin as well

host · 09-11-2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I wonder if Obama/Biden really want the bridge issue front and center? Sen. Demint's opinion piece in the WSJ today helps put the issue in perspective. Considering a govenor does not vote on federal earmarks but senators do, perhaps they should explain their support for the bridge.

Yes, Palin Did Stop That Bridge - WSJ.com

Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story or empty political rhetoric. Please carry on.

ace, I've stopped engaging you for the most part, because your citations are regularly so "over the top", that it gives me a sense of you that persuades me that what you choose to let influence your political thinking puts you and I op-edin such extremely opposite "worlds", that there is no point in dialogue. The following is an effort to give others here, an idea of what I see as so outrageous in your decision to offer the opinion of Sen. Jim Demint, author of that WSJ, op-ed piece you've posted, as some sort of reasonable voice. He's not, ace:

Quote:

Secretive religious group offers Congressmen cheap rent in D.C. (People & Events). | Church & State (June, 2003)
Publication Date: 01-JUN-03
Secretive religious group offers Congressmen cheap rent in D.C. (People & Events).

Finding a nice place to live in the desirable neighborhoods of Washington, D.C., can be tricky, but six members of Congress have stumbled upon a bargain: They reside in a $1.1-million townhouse on Capitol Hill and pay only $600 per month apiece--all thanks to a secretive religious group.

The six members live just blocks from the U.S. Capitol in a three-story house that is owned by an evangelical group called "The Fellowship." The group seeks to help political leaders find ways to integrate their faith into their public lives. Six federal lawmakers currently reside in the house: Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.), Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), Rep. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), Sen. John Ensign (R-Ney.) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.).

The Fellowship was profiled recently in Harper's magazine and by the Associated Press. In the AP interview, Richard Carver, who serves on The Fellowship's board of directors, implied that the group, which runs the annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, wants to affect public policy by influencing politicians.

"Our goal is singular, and that is to hope that we can assist them in better understandings of the teachings of Christ and applying it to their jobs," Carver said.

The members of Congress dine together and meet regularly for Bible study. Carver denied, however, that The Fellowship seeks any type of special access with the lawmakers.

"We have no issue in legislation before the Congress, and nor would we," he said. "And the idea that we would have any quid pro quo is really impossible because there's no quid that we're asking for."

"What concerns people is when you mix religion, political power and secrecy," said Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn told the AP. ....

Washington Wrap, The Latest Political News - CBS News
Washington Wrap
The Latest Political News

WASHINGTON, April, 21, 2003

....The rent is low, only $600 a month, but the tenants must dine together once a week in order to discuss religion in their daily lives. The Fellowship encourages bringing together elected officials as well as world leaders through religion.

"We do have a Bible study. Somebody'll share a verse or a thought, but mostly it's more of an accountability group to talk about things that are going on in our lives, and how we're dealing with them," DeMint explained. .....

Harper's Magazine: Jesus Plus Nothing, p. 2 of 11
Jesus Plus Nothing

Undercover among America's secret theocrats

Ivanwald, which sits at the end of Twenty-fourth Street North in Arlington, Virginia, is known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the organization that sponsors it, a group of believers who refer to themselves as "the Family." The Family is, in its own words, an "invisible" association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men. Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.), John Ensign (R., Nev.), James Inhofe (R., Okla.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Conrad Burns (R., Mont.) are referred to as "members," as are Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.), Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and Bart Stupak (D., Mich.). Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and the Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries. The Family maintains a closely guarded database of its associates, but it issues no cards, collects no official dues. Members are asked not to speak about the group or its activities.....

....During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa's postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand "Communists" killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise. "We work with power where we can," the Family's leader, Doug Coe, says, "build new power where we can't."

At the 1990 National Prayer Breakfast, George H.W. Bush praised Doug Coe for what he described as "quiet diplomacy, I wouldn't say secret diplomacy," as an "ambassador of faith." Coe has visited nearly every world capital, often with congressmen at his side, "making friends" and inviting them back to the Family's unofficial headquarters, a mansion (just down the road from Ivanwald) that the Family bought in 1978 with $1.5 million donated by, among others, Tom Phillips, then the C.E.O. of arms manufacturer Raytheon, and Ken Olsen, the founder and president of Digital Equipment Corporation. A waterfall has been carved into the mansion's broad lawn, from which a bronze bald eagle watches over the Potomac River. The mansion is white and pillared and surrounded by magnolias, and by red trees that do not so much tower above it as whisper. The mansion is named for these trees; it is called The Cedars, and Family members speak of it as a person. "The Cedars has a heart for the poor," they like to say. By "poor" they mean not the thousands of literal poor living barely a mile away but rather the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom: the senators, generals, and prime ministers who coast to the end of Twenty-fourth Street in Arlington in black limousines and town cars and hulking S.U.V.'s to meet one another, to meet Jesus, to pay homage to the god of The Cedars.

There they forge "relationships" beyond the din of vox populi (the Family's leaders consider democracy a manifestation of ungodly pride) and "throw away religion" in favor of the truths of the Family. Declaring God's covenant with the Jews broken, the group's core members call themselves "the new chosen."

The brothers of Ivanwald are the Family's next generation, its high priests in training. I had been recommended for membership by a banker acquaintance, a recent Ivanwald alumnus, who had mistaken my interest in Jesus for belief. Sometimes the brothers would ask me why I was there. They knew that I was "half Jewish," that I was a writer, and that I was from New York City, which most of them considered to be only slightly less wicked than Baghdad or Amsterdam. I told my brothers that I was there to meet Jesus, and I was: the new ruling Jesus, whose ways are secret.

* The Los Angeles Times reported in September that the Fellowship Foundation alone has an annual budget of $10 million, but that represents only a fraction of the Family's finances. Each of the Family's organizations raises funds independently. Ivanwald, for example, is financed at least in part by an entity called the Wilberforce Foundation. Other projects are financed by individual "friends": wealthy businessmen, foreign governments, church congregations, or mainstream foundations that may be unaware of the scope of the Family's activities. At Ivanwald, when I asked to what organization a donation check might be made, I was told there was none; money was raised on a "man-to-man" basis. Major Family donors named by the Times include Michael Timmis, a Detroit lawyer and Republican fund-raiser; Paul Temple, a private investor from Maryland; and Jerome A. Lewis, former CEO of the Petro-Lewis Corporation.

Quote:

S.C. GOP Nominee Regrets Remarks (washingtonpost.com)
S.C. GOP Nominee Regrets Remarks
Gays, Single Moms as Teachers Faulted

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 18, 2004; Page A06

The Republican nominee in South Carolina's hard-fought U.S. Senate race apologized yesterday for saying gays and unmarried mothers should not teach in public schools, but he stopped short of retracting the statements.

Jim DeMint said he regretted the comments, made in a recent debate, because they distracted voters from "real issues" such as jobs and national security. Repeatedly asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether gays and single mothers should qualify as teachers, DeMint said local school boards should decide. .....

ace.... can you understand, at all....how I have come to view the "jesufied" republican party as a cancer....a pox on all American houses, and, ironically, on the very religion it has elected to wrap itself, around? Does it make any sense that the most hawkish are the religious right who take money from arms manufacturers and enthusiastically align themselves with Saddam Hussein lookalikes, as far as the atrocities they commit in their agenda to strengthen their dictatorial hold on their own countries? Isn't all of this....along with "capitalsim at any price and/or consequence", opposite the teachings of the savior who men like Demint say they are committed to supporting and following?

kutulu · 09-11-2008, 10:26 AM

I think it is asinine how McCain/Palin make such a big deal about earmarks. Total earmark spending accounts for about 0.5% of the total federal budget. Ending earmarks would have almost no measurable impact on federal spending. It is useless grandstanding.

aceventura3 · 09-11-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace, I've stopped engaging you for the most part, because your citations are regularly so "over the top", that it gives me a sense of you that persuades me that what you choose to let influence your political thinking puts you and I op-edin such extremely opposite "worlds", that there is no point in dialogue. The following is an effort to give others here, an idea of what I see as so outrageous in your decision to offer the opinion of Sen. Jim Demint, author of that WSJ, op-ed piece you've posted, as some sort of reasonable voice. He's not, ace:

My citations often present a point of view shared by me and many Americans. Like I wrote, if I were you I would not be as dismissive of alternative points of view. I make a point of engaging those who disagree with me, I watch shows like MSNBC, I read your sources and try to understand them. I ask you and others questions to try and better understand - but that's me. There was a recent post showing some Chaney quotes, and I found it amusing given what Chaney has done (or gotten away with depending on your point of view) while liberals stand there being baffled in disbelief basically not understanding what happened.

Quote:

ace.... can you understand, at all....how I have come to view the "jesufied" republican party as a cancer....a pox on all American houses, and, ironically, on the very religion it has elected to wrap itself, around? Does it make any sense that the most hawkish are the religious right who take money from arms manufacturers and enthusiastically align themselves with Saddam Hussein lookalikes, as far as the atrocities they commit in their agenda to strengthen their dictatorial hold on their own countries? Isn't all of this....along with "capitalsim at any price and/or consequence", opposite the teachings of the savior who men like Demint say they are committed to supporting and following?

I think over time I have gotten a better understanding of how you have come to your "view", although many who share your view seem to be a tad hypocritical. At least I have read posts where you have questioned the apparent hypocrisy. I admit when political gamesmanship is being used on the Republican side, and it is used often and it is used to "win". I try to understand what motivates people to do certain things and to take certain actions. When presented with this information liberals often stand in disbelief, engage in name calling, and take a "holier than thou" view, i.e. profits making in capitalism (greed) is evil while it is necessary for an effective government and to do good. Liberals condemn the profit motive (or greed), call those who are honest about it names, pretend that good can come from nothing, and say they are above such basic motivations like greed. I think I have it nailed, don't you agree?

host · 09-11-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

I think it is asinine how McCain/Palin make such a big deal about earmarks. Total earmark spending accounts for about 0.5% of the total federal budget. Ending earmarks would have almost no measurable impact on federal spending. It is useless grandstanding.

The two main points are McCain's near total abandonment of what he once pretended to "stand for"....he used to distance himself from evangelical christian influence and criticize earmarks....he was so extreme that the result was his Arizona consituents averaged less than $19.00 per capita in funds earmarked to the state, while Alaskans received over $1,000 per head per year, and even more for every Wasilla resident while Palin was mayor.

McCain chose someone he should have never considered, a pork barrel fund seeking, christian fundamentalist, a total lightweight, in terms of experience she brings to the ticket. Mayor of a laughably small town, then short term governor of the most isolate US state with a population half the size of the next least populous state. She went to six different colleges in the six years she pursued a batchelor's degree, and McCain elevates her to the league of Rhodes scholar and Yale law grad, Cinton, Yale grad and Harvard MBA grad, GW Bush, US Navy Academy Grad, decorated Navy figher pilot, former POW held for 5-1/2 years, combined house and senate service of 26 years, McCain, former US sect'y of defense, former congressman, and former white house chief of staff and Haliburton CEO, Cheney, Veteran US Senator of 36 years and chairman of the Senate Foreign relations committee, Biden, Harvard grad and Viet Nam veteran and military journalist, two term senator Gore,,,,and ,,,....Harvard Law grad, editor of Harvard Law Review, constitutional law instructor at major university, state legislator and 4 years US Senator, Obama, and grad of a no name college, salmon fisherman, mayor of tiny town, 20 month governor of smallest US state....earmark queen, Palin:

Quote:

McCain criticized Wasilla earmarks in 2001 - CNN.com
Wed September 10, 2008

McCain criticized Wasilla earmarks in 2001

... McCain and running mate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin have criticized such spending as a central part of their campaign for the White House. McCain has made pork-busting a centerpiece of his maverick pitch for years.

But when Palin served as mayor of her hometown of Wasilla, outside Anchorage, she obtained about $27 million in federal "earmarks" during her last four years in office, according to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

In a 2001 statement opposing a transportation spending bill McCain singled out for criticism about $3 million worth of those projects. McCain's list of "objectionable" spending included a $2.5 million road project for the town that then had a population of 5,500, as well as a $450,000 appropriation for an agricultural processing plant there.

McCain's campaign responded Wednesday by saying the record on pork-barrel spending "is one we are eager to discuss." Video Watch McCain rail against earmarks »

"As mayor of Wasilla, Gov. Palin was forced to work within the current system to obtain critical funding for a growing city," the campaign said in a statement. By comparison, it said, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama "has consciously attempted to manipulate the system by requesting nearly $1 million every working day he has been in the Senate."....

Quote:

Palin's Small Alaska Town Secured Big Federal Funds
Palin's Small Alaska Town Secured Big Federal Funds

By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 2, 2008; A01

ST. PAUL, Minn., Sept. 1 -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, according to an analysis by an independent government watchdog group.

There was $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project -- all intended to benefit Palin's town, Wasilla, located about 45 miles north of Anchorage.

In introducing Palin as his running mate on Friday, Sen. John McCain cast her as a compatriot in his battle against wasteful federal spending. McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, hailed Palin as a politician "with an outstanding reputation for standing up to special interests and entrenched bureaucracies -- someone who has fought against corruption and the failed policies of the past, someone who's stopped government from wasting taxpayers' money."

McCain's crusade against earmarks -- federal spending sought by members of Congress to benefit specific projects -- has been a hallmark of his campaign. He has said earmarks are wasteful and are often inserted into bills with little oversight, sometimes by a single powerful lawmaker.

Palin has also railed against earmarks, touting her opposition to a $223 million bridge in the state as a prime credential for the vice presidential nomination. "As governor, I've stood up to the old politics-as-usual, to the special interests, to the lobbyists, the big oil companies, and the good-ol'-boy network," she said Friday.

As mayor of Wasilla, however, Palin oversaw the hiring of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, an Anchorage-based law firm with close ties to Alaska's most senior Republicans: Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens, who was indicted in July on charges of accepting illegal gifts. The Wasilla account was handled by the former chief of staff to Stevens, Steven W. Silver, who is a partner in the firm.

Palin was elected mayor of Wasilla in 1996 on a campaign theme of "a time for change." According to a review of congressional spending by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington, Wasilla did not receive any federal earmarks in the first few years of Palin's tenure.

Senate records show that Silver's firm began working for Palin in early 2000, just as federal money began flowing.

In fiscal 2000, Wasilla received a $1 million earmark, tucked into a transportation appropriations bill, for a rail and bus project in the town. And in the winter of 2000, Palin appeared before congressional appropriations committees to seek earmarks, according to a report in the Anchorage Daily News.

Palin and the Wasilla City Council increased Silver's fee from $24,000 to $36,000 a year by 2001, Senate records show.

Soon after, the city benefited from additional earmarks: $500,000 for a mental health center, $500,000 for the purchase of federal land and $450,000 to rehabilitate an agricultural processing facility. Then there was the $15 million rail project, intended to connect Wasilla with the town of Girdwood, where Stevens has a house.

The Washington trip is now an annual event for Wasilla officials.

In fiscal year 2002, Wasilla took in $6.1 million in earmarks -- about $1,000 in federal money for every resident. By contrast, Boise, Idaho -- which has more than 190,000 residents -- received $6.9 million in earmarks in fiscal 2008.

All told, Wasilla benefited from $26.9 million in earmarks in Palin's final four years in office.

"She certainly wasn't shy about putting the old-boy network to use to bring home millions of dollars," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "She's a little more savvy to the ways of Washington than she's let on."

Silver, reached by phone at his Vienna home, declined to comment. Wasilla's town offices were closed Monday for the Labor Day holiday.

Maria Comella, Palin's campaign spokeswoman, said Palin sought the Wasilla earmarks because she was "working in the best interests of Alaska, working within the confines of the current system."

Palin became a staunch reform advocate after her 2003 appointment to the state's Oil and Gas Commission. She accused another commissioner -- Alaska Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich -- of raising campaign contributions from industries he was regulating. "She realized that the environment around her was no longer what it once was, and elected officials were abusing their power," Comella said.

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, used to secure earmarks for public nonprofits in Illinois, but he announced last year that he would no longer seek earmarks for any entity. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), Obama's running mate, co-sponsored $85.6 million in earmarks for 2008, according to one study.

The Palin earmarks came when Stevens was chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Young was a senior member of the House transportation committee.

In hiring Silver, Wasilla found someone who was a member of each lawmaker's inner circle. Silver has donated at least $11,400 to Stevens's political committees and $10,000 to Young's reelection committee in the past decade, according to Federal Election Commission records.

Sliver's firm employed Stevens's son, Ben Stevens, in the late 1990s as a federal lobbyist, according to multiple media accounts. Ben Stevens was not listed on lobbying disclosure forms as having worked on Wasilla earmarks.

The firm became ensnared in the wide-ranging federal investigation of corruption by Alaska Republican officials. Federal agents reviewed records about its other municipal clients, as well as fishing companies represented by Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh that were close to Ben Stevens.

The investigation has increasingly focused on Veco, a now-defunct energy services company whose chief executive, Bill Allen Jr., pleaded guilty in May 2007 to bribing Alaska officials.

Ted Stevens is awaiting trial on charges that he accepted more than $250,000 in unreported gifts from Allen. Ben Stevens, who has not been charged, has been identified in court documents as having accepted more than $240,000 in consulting payments in exchange for legislative favors while he served in the state Senate.

A Veco executive testified last year in a criminal trial that Allen had ordered him to arrange annual fundraisers for Young. The congressman has not been charged with any crimes.

After becoming governor, Palin became a critic of Young and the Stevenses. She endorsed Young's opponent in a Republican primary last week that is still too close to call, and last year she demanded Ben Stevens's resignation as Alaska's member of the Republican National Committee. She has also criticized Ted Stevens.

In addition, Palin has reversed course on at least one major earmark: After initially supporting the $223 million bridge, which was to connect the town of Ketchikan with a remote island, she reversed course last year and canceled the project because of cost overruns. Critics have dubbed the project the "Bridge to Nowhere."

But her administration remains eager for many other earmarks.

In February, Palin's office sent Sen. Stevens a 70-page memo outlining almost $200 million worth of new funding requests for Alaska.

She fucking "got hers", and she is committed to making sure your city or state does not get the money she built her reputation on wringing out of the federal government.....she and McCain deserve each other, and so do people who vote for them!

aceventura3 · 09-11-2008, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

I think it is asinine how McCain/Palin make such a big deal about earmarks. Total earmark spending accounts for about 0.5% of the total federal budget. Ending earmarks would have almost no measurable impact on federal spending. It is useless grandstanding.

I am in a giving mood. The reason why I read publications like the WSJ is to get an edge, I want to "win". Others who read the publication want to "win" as well. Same with publications like IBD. Earmarks are not an important issue to me, but having people in political power who want to minimize government involvement in my life is. McCain highlighting earmarks is simply McCain telling me that he gets it, and will do what he can when he gets in the White House. We know McCain wants to "win", we know that he can not "win" on a libertarian message. Then if the opposition calls McCain on the issue, the opposition fall into a trap, sort of like a gambit opening in chess. McCain knows the issue is somewhat trivial and knows that, for example Gov. Palin is from a state that benefits from earmarks, but in engaging on this issue McCain takes control over the debate. Control of the debate will lead to victory.

Again, I ask - does Obama really want to take the bait on this issue and make it front and center in the news cycle, in the debates, etc. I would think not.

{added} Do you see how different my view on this is from Host's view? McCain needs people like me to get interested in his candidacy so he can "win". That is why he picked Palin, and it has worked. a month ago, I felt Obama was going to win by 10 to 15%, now I am not so sure.

dc_dux · 09-11-2008, 11:34 AM

ace....I generally read your WSJ and IBD editorials (or op eds) for the infotainment value.

They are marginally informative and, on occasion, entertaining for the simple fact that they represent the opinion of a writer with an agenda (applies to most editorials and op eds, not just WSJ and IBD).

The ones you post often give me insight into the conservative position by presenting only the facts that support that agenda, excluding any facts that dont. Whch is why you rarely see me post or cite editorials as factual.

So when you post such editorials that cherrypick the facts...yet try to make a case that it as factual (like your post 127 - "Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story or empty political rhetoric. Please carry on.")

...it is like asking the TFP audience to view a half painted picture and accept your position that it is a masterpiece.

Nope...for me it is conservative infotainment, pure and simple....not a source for the objective reporting of facts.
-----Added 11/9/2008 at 03 : 40 : 05-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Again, I ask - does Obama really want to take the bait on this issue and make it front and center in the news cycle, in the debates, etc. I would think not.

Sure he can...simply point to McCain's vote against the first ethics/earmark.lobbying bill enacted in more than 10 years and supported by 35 of McCain's Republican colleagues in the Senate.

And also point to the more than 100 lobbyists in the McCain inner circle or finance "bundlers"...including many who lobbyied for foregin governments, telecomms, big oil, etc.

Quote:

In McCain's case, the fact that lobbyists are essentially running his presidential campaign -- most of them as volunteers -- seems to some people to be at odds with his anti-lobbying rhetoric. "He has a closer relationship with lobbyists than he lets on," said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "The problem for McCain being so closely associated with lobbyists is that he's the candidate most closely associated with attacking lobbyists."

....

Public Citizen, a group that monitors campaign fundraising, has found that McCain has more bundlers -- people who gather checks from networks of friends and associates -- from the lobbying community than any other presidential candidate from either party.

By the group's current count, McCain has at least 59 federal lobbyists raising money for his campaign....

The Anti-Lobbyist, Advised by Lobbyists

I'm not suggesting that Obama is clean on this issue (pan already pointed out his connection to Biden's lobbyist son), but he has far less lobbyists grime on his hands than McCain, by any measure.

He can also make the point, supported by a more complete review of the facts than in the DeMint WSJ editorial, that Palin has spent more of her political career (state and local) fighting for earmarks then against them.

aceventura3 · 09-11-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

So when you post such editorials that cherrypick the facts...yet try to make a case that it as factual (like your post 127 - "Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story or empty political rhetoric. Please carry on.")

I continue having a problem understanding the point of view of you and others on this "cherry picking" concept. In the universal set of facts and information, if someone is going to support an argument isn't it by definition that they will "cherry Pick" information to support that argument?

Just because someone "cherry picks" facts, data or information does that then mean that the person had to have ignored other facts, data or information? Is it possible that a person can objectively give differing weight to what could be conflicting information? Why assume other information was ignored? Why shouldn't the otherside simply make the case for the other information, engaging in real debate?

When "the otherside" presents "facts", why aren't those facts considered "cherry picked" assuming they do not list every possible related piece of information?

On the editorials, there are often two ways to read them. I agree with you I read them for the entertainment value, but I also read them for the data points and the sources to other information listed. I often go to the original sources cited in an editorial and look at that information, no different than when I go to an original source from what you may post. I separate the editorial content from the fact based content.

Given the differences - you make conclusions about me and my approach and I do the same regarding you and others. As you know (and as odd as it sounds, I am not trying to be offensive to you or anyone as an individual), I think my approach is more honest.

dc_dux · 09-11-2008, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I continue having a problem understanding the point of view of you and others on this "cherry picking" concept. In the universal set of facts and information, if someone is going to support an argument isn't it by definition that they will "cherry Pick" information to support that argument?

Just because someone "cherry picks" facts, data or information does that then mean that the person had to have ignored other facts, data or information? Is it possible that a person can objectively give differing weight to what could be conflicting information? Why assume other information was ignored? Why shouldn't the otherside simply make the case for the other information, engaging in real debate?

When "the otherside" presents "facts", why aren't those facts considered "cherry picked" assuming they do not list every possible related piece of information?

On the editorials, there are often two ways to read them. I agree with you I read them for the entertainment value, but I also read them for the data points and the sources to other information listed. I often go to the original sources cited in an editorial and look at that information, no different than when I go to an original source from what you may post. I separate the editorial content from the fact based content.

Given the differences - you make conclusions about me and my approach and I do the same regarding you and others. As you know (and as odd as it sounds, I am not trying to be offensive to you or anyone as an individual), I think my approach is more honest.

IMO, you dont seem to want to differentiate between editorials (with a bias and an agenda) as opposed to news reporting (which, while also possibly appearing biased, is subject to a far greater level of screening and fact-checking by most reputable news publications - at least most of the time!).

I dont think it is more honest when you ignore a significant subset of the facts yet declare: "Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story or empty political rhetoric. Please carry on."

But hey, we can agree to disagree and I wont infer that you, or all conservatives or republicans, are ignorant or a liar.

aceventura3 · 09-11-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

But hey, we can agree to disagree and I wont infer that you, or all conservatives or republicans, are ignorant or a liar.

I have explained the basis of my view, and I have continued providing examples. The latest being the scam on the public regarding the illusion that "aid" in higher education makes it more affordable and more accessible. The people who push that as a real solution either knowingly lie or don't understand.

I will continue supporting my view.

And, I remember specifically asking for help, help to change such a cynical viewpoint. No one has come to my aid. I am a man in need and I thought liberals believed in kindness and compassion. Gee, again...why...why am I such a cynic. It is a curse, consider yourself lucky being normal.

dc_dux · 09-11-2008, 01:59 PM

ace... I dont how we got from earmarks to higher ed aid.

Back to "Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story or empty political rhetoric. Please carry on."

I will carry on as requested.

Do you think these "facts" should get in the way:

McCain speaking in Virginia yesterday, with Palin at his side: “We’re never going to spend $3 million again to study the DNA of bears in Montana.”

White sitting at a desk somewhere in Congress are the dozens of FY 09 earmark requests from Palin's administration, including: a request for $3.2 million from the Alaska Dept of Fish and Game for "monitoring ice seal population....research on genetics of harbour seals..."

Earmarks requested by the State of Alaska (pdf...the source doc from the State of Alaska website)

...or might it reasonably be viewed by some as "empty political rhetoric" on the part of McCain.

Paq · 09-11-2008, 07:56 PM

straight from the horses mouth:
gibson/palin interview:

ABC News part 1-experience issue visited

ABC News part 2-on war and god.

as for my thoughts: i've seen better interviews for highschool president. seriously, at one point " Pressed about what insights into recent Russian actions she gained by living in Alaska, Palin answered: "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."...personally, i live next door to a dentist....is anyone willing to let me give them a root canal...

seriously, does that mean every texan has experience bc of proximity to mexico. north dakota bc of proximity to canada? I'm surprised she didn't claim canada AND russia as her credentials.

shaking my head slowly...

aceventura3 · 09-12-2008, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

and you're not being a gentleman by always coming to the aid of women. i'll say it. you're being a chauvinist.

Peggy Noonan says I am gallant. I think I like that better than being a chauvinist.

Quote:

And—it still lives!—gallantry.

Declarations - WSJ.com

And,

for those really interested in equal pay for equal work for woman, Republican administrations have a better record than Democratic administrations. Perhaps policies promoting entrepreneurship and real economic growth is what will really solve the problem.

Vote Republican If You Want Equal Pay - WSJ.com
-----Added 12/9/2008 at 11 : 04 : 41-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

McCain speaking in Virginia yesterday, with Palin at his side: “We’re never going to spend $3 million again to study the DNA of bears in Montana.”

White sitting at a desk somewhere in Congress are the dozens of FY 09 earmark requests from Palin's administration, including: a request for $3.2 million from the Alaska Dept of Fish and Game for "monitoring ice seal population....research on genetics of harbour seals..."

Earmarks requested by the State of Alaska (pdf...the source doc from the State of Alaska website)

...or might it reasonably be viewed by some as "empty political rhetoric" on the part of McCain.

McCain's banter on earmarks is empty political rhetoric. It won't impact the lives of 99.999% of Americans.
-----Added 12/9/2008 at 11 : 23 : 35-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paq

straight from the horses mouth:
gibson/palin interview:

ABC News part 1-experience issue visited

ABC News part 2-on war and god.

as for my thoughts: i've seen better interviews for highschool president. seriously, at one point " Pressed about what insights into recent Russian actions she gained by living in Alaska, Palin answered: "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."...personally, i live next door to a dentist....is anyone willing to let me give them a root canal...

seriously, does that mean every texan has experience bc of proximity to mexico. north dakota bc of proximity to canada? I'm surprised she didn't claim canada AND russia as her credentials.

shaking my head slowly...

Look at it this way:

Palin without doubt or hesitation believes she is qualified and ready to be VP. She is a winner, she has courage, she is confident.

Biden on the otherhand, doesn't think he is as qualified as Clinton to be VP and thinks she may have been a better choice. He did not endorse Obama because of his friendship with Clinton during the primaries.

O.k., I am just going to let you know what I was thinking when I heard Bidden.

Remember this was just in my head: He has got to be kidding - what a loser. No, he is either lying or he is an idiot - what a loser. If he thinks Clinton would be a better VP why did he accept the role - what a loser? If he really thinks that why would he say it - what a loser! Are people actually buying this false humility? Why was he running for President if he thinks Clinton would be a better VP - what a loser? Does he think Clinton should have been the nominee? So, he did not endorse Obama because he either did not have the courage to tell Clinton or now he is supporting his second or third choice - what a loser!

Forgive me for sharing this, I apologize to losers who may be offended with being connected with bidden.

Poppinjay · 09-12-2008, 07:26 AM

That's fine, Ace. Don't let competence get in the way of choosing who you'll vote for.

jewels · 09-12-2008, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

Don't let competence get in the way of choosing who you'll vote for.

Competence? Irrelevant. As long as they wear the right clothes and can speak confidently and sarcastically at the same time, we'll rally 'round 'em.

Tully Mars · 09-12-2008, 07:35 AM

I liked her answer when asked what insight she has on the recent actions of Russia-

"They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

Maybe confused "sight" with "insight?"

roachboy · 09-12-2008, 07:37 AM

yeah--ms palin told us last night that one is "wired" for this sort of thing, so it is a matter of essence, not actual skill, intelligence or experience. one is "wired" so as to "not blink"--and we all know that blinking is the signal of namby-pambyness and that the ability to not be namby-pamby FAR outweighs any actual skill, intelligence or experience. that is why ms. palin said that she supports sending american troops into south ossetia, or would send them into the ukraine should "something" happens--and she would of course "not blink" because, well.

what a fucking idiot.
seriously.
no wonder the right wanted to keep her wraps for a while and instead try to set into motion a content-free campaign, one of colored gas and empty memes.

Tully Mars · 09-12-2008, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jewels

Competence? Irrelevant. As long as they wear the right clothes and can speak confidently and sarcastically at the same time, we'll rally 'round 'em.

I thought it was the glasses.

abaya · 09-12-2008, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

She is a winner, she has courage, she is confident.

So that's all you need to believe in her? Interesting standards. I know a shit-ton of people who can live up to those standards.

As for Biden, well... I'll take humility (even fake humility!) any day, over someone who thinks she's "wired" to be VP. But hey, as long as SHE says she's "ready to lead," it MUST BE TRUE!!! Because if you say something, it becomes real, right? Maybe we really do live in Harry Potter-land.

aceventura3 · 09-12-2008, 07:57 AM

Understand that the "qualifications" for being President or Vice President are in the Constitution. When they wrote it they could have listed as many requirements as they wanted, they listed two. The suggestion that Palin, or even me, are not qualified because we have not been to an Ivy league school, been in the Senate, graduated law school, had lunch with foreign leaders, shared a bed with a President, etc. - is absurd. Character tells me more about how a person would approach the job than how many times they visited France. Give me a "winner", a person with resolve, confidence, a true leader any day over a person who would project false humility.
-----Added 12/9/2008 at 11 : 59 : 45-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by jewels

Competence? Irrelevant. As long as they wear the right clothes and can speak confidently and sarcastically at the same time, we'll rally 'round 'em.

What does what they wear have to do with it. And they call me a chauvinist. Seems the only people concerned about appearance are liberals. Go figure.

Tully Mars · 09-12-2008, 08:02 AM

Yep the qualifications of POTUS and VPOTUS are in the Constitution, plain and clear. Which of course means Carrot Top (Scott Thompson) is qualified to be either. I'm not voting for him if he runs either, even if his claims to be qualified.

aceventura3 · 09-12-2008, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

So that's all you need to believe in her? Interesting standards. I know a shit-ton of people who can live up to those standards.

The job is not that hard. This is true for people who are confident in their character, values and beliefs. I would be more comfortable with average people making decisions than some of the pseudo-intellectuals currently in D.C.

Quote:

As for Biden, well... I'll take humility (even fake humility!) any day,...

What about honesty?
-----Added 12/9/2008 at 12 : 05 : 49-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Yep the qualifications of POTUS and VPOTUS are in the Constitution, pain and clear. Which of course means Carrot Top (Scott Thompson) is qualified to be either. I'm not voting for him if he runs either, even if his claims to be qualified.

Right, I am not voting for Carrot Top, nor am I voting for Obama/Bidden. That is what is good about democracy. Voters decide.

dc_dux · 09-12-2008, 09:11 AM

McCain speaking last year in the early days of the campaign: Mayors, Govs Don't Have Nat'l Security Experience

YouTube - McCain: Mayors, Govs Don't Have Nat'l Security Experience

YouTube - McCain: Mayors, Govs Don't Have Nat'l Security Experience

I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time."

Yep...he is prepared...but it sure sounds like he didnt believe mayors or governors are prepared.

But I understand the new caveat...they are qualified if they are governor of a state from which they can "see" Russia!

abaya · 09-12-2008, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The job is not that hard. This is true for people who are confident in their character, values and beliefs. I would be more comfortable with average people making decisions than some of the pseudo-intellectuals currently in D.C.

Oh, darn those Pseudo- Intellectuals In DC! Always fouling things up for Average Folk, aren't they?

God forbid that intelligence and critical thinking skills should play a part in someone becoming president or vice-president of the United States of America.

Clearly, Democrats who have any kind of IQ should not even bother running, because it doesn't get them anywhere with the average population. Really, the Democrats shoot too high, that's their problem. People can't take anything Above Average in this country, after all.

Now, about honesty. Really? We're talking about politicians, here. None of them can be honest, it's just part of the job. But talking about any kind of foreign policy from the perspective of being able to "see Russia from here!"... yeah. I just can't even fathom how that begins to appeal to anyone, but obviously I am one of those meddling elites, right?

Well, that's fine. I'll go sit in my Elite Chair now and read some Elite News and have some Elite Dinner, and give my Elite Nerves a break before an Elite Screw comes loose.

/done here for a while.

Paq · 09-12-2008, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

Oh, darn those Pseudo- Intellectuals In DC! Always fouling things up for Average Folk, aren't they?

God forbid that intelligence and critical thinking skills should play a part in someone becoming president or vice-president of the United States of America.

Clearly, Democrats who have any kind of IQ should not even bother running, because it doesn't get them anywhere with the average population. Really, the Democrats shoot too high, that's their problem. People can't take anything Above Average in this country, after all.

Now, about honesty. Really? We're talking about politicians, here. None of them can be honest, it's just part of the job. But talking about any kind of foreign policy from the perspective of being able to "see Russia from here!"... yeah. I just can't even fathom how that begins to appeal to anyone, but obviously I am one of those meddling elites, right?

Well, that's fine. I'll go sit in my Elite Chair now and read some Elite News and have some Elite Dinner, and give my Elite Nerves a break before an Elite Screw comes loose.

/done here for a while.

that was far more diplomatic and eloquent than i could ever have stated. when did being above average disqualify you from the presidency...2000?

jewels · 09-12-2008, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

Well, that's fine. I'll go sit in my Elite Chair now and read some Elite News and have some Elite Dinner, and give my Elite Nerves a break before an Elite Screw comes loose.

Wait for me! You rock, abaya. ABAYA FOR PREZ!

Tully Mars · 09-12-2008, 06:11 PM

Caught a little of her interview with Gibson tonight. Gibson lobbed her a softball regarding Hilary. That aside I thought Gibson was pretty even with her and her lack of understanding, knowledge and even honesty was clearly apparent. Just hearing her answers regarding earmarks alone were complete horse shit. It's not that they're getting and spending earmarks that's bad, it's the fault of the congress for sending them in the first place. What kind of bizzaro logic is that? For that to even come close to making sense you have to forget she hired a lobby firm to secure the freaking earmarks to begin with. And what's with the "Well I reduced the earmarks" BS? I mean I like the fact she's cut spending- but her state is number one or two when it comes to earmarks. How can she run on an anti-ear mark platform if she's been the governor of the state getting the most ear marks?

A friend e-mailed me and said she stated, during the send off ceremony for her son's guard unit to Iraq, that they were going there to fight those who attacked us on 9-11. I didn't see it but if that's true that a new low even for her... which is saying a lot.

host · 09-12-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

.....A friend e-mailed me and said she stated, during the send off ceremony for her son's guard unit to Iraq, that they were going there to fight those who attacked us on 9-11. I didn't see it but if that's true that a new low even for her... which is saying a lot.

These hysterical MFs tell nearly the same worn out, discredited lies.... why not elect a new regime of them..... would you expect the American electorate to do anything better than vote Palin into the vice-presidency? I don't.....

Quote:

AFP: Palin sends son to fight 'righteous cause' in Iraq
Palin sends son to fight 'righteous cause' in Iraq

23 hours ago

FAIRBANKS, Alaska (AFP) — Republican vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin sent her son off to fight for a "righteous cause" as his Army unit prepared to deploy to Iraq.

Palin promised the 4,000 troops gathered on a tarmac at Fort Wainwright Thursday that she was honored to be there to see them "go forth in defense of America and America's cause -- and it is a righteous cause."

"You will be there to win," she told the soldiers preparing for a 12 month deployment. "You will see victory."

Palin warned that there were "hardships to be endured and sacrifices to be accepted" before the war was won but said it was a "just and vital" battle.

"You'll be there to defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the deaths of thousands of Americans because America can never go back to that false sense of security before September 11, 2001," she said on the seventh anniversary of the attacks.

A link between Iraq and the attacks was touted by the White House before the US invasion but no longer. However, Al-Qaeda has since moved into the country.

Palin praised the sacrifice of the 32 troops from Wainwright who had died in Iraq and told the soldiers standing before her "you'll be there to serve the same cause of freedom from tyranny and from violence."...

Palin is a seamless replacement for the current vice-president, who, nearly a year after his president, Bush, conceded there was no relationship between al-Zarqawi and Saddam or his government, was still claiming that there was such a relationship...(see bottom quote...)

Four more fucking years of these same deluded, incompetent, war criminals, cast your vote for more!

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=130169
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130169&page=1
Bush Calls Off Attack on Poison Gas Lab
Calls Off Operation to Take Out Al Qaeda-Sponsored Poison Gas Lab

By John McWethy

W A S H I N G T O N, Aug. 20 (2002)

President Bush called off a planned covert raid into northern Iraq late last week that was aimed at a small group of al Qaeda operatives who U.S. intelligence officials believed were experimenting with poison gas and deadly toxins, according to administration officials....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html
President Bush October 7, 2002

...We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030205-1.html

For Immediate Release
February 5, 2003

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the U.N. Security Council
.. But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an associated in collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants.

Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialities and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqaqi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq.
Colin Powell slide 39

Slide 39

POWELL: You see a picture of this camp. ....

... Zarqawi's activities are not confined to this small corner of north east Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day.

During this stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These Al Qaida affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030206-17.html
President Bush February 6, 2003

...Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. The network runs a poison and explosive training center in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. The head of this network traveled to Baghdad for medical treatment and stayed for months. Nearly two dozen associates joined him there and have been operating in Baghdad for more than eight months.

The same terrorist network operating out of Iraq is responsible for the murder, the recent murder, of an American citizen, an American diplomat, Laurence Foley. The same network has plotted terrorism against France, Spain, Italy, Germany, the Republic of Georgia, and Russia, and was caught producing poisons in London...

http://web.archive.org/web/200304012...?bid=3&pid=371
Capital Games By David Corn
Powell's One Good Reason To Bomb Iraq--UPDATED
02/06/2003 @ 12:12am

...But here's the first question that struck me after Powell's presentation:
why hasn't the United States bombed the so-called Zarqawi camp shown in the slide? The administration obviously knows where it is, and Powell spoke of it in the present tense.

http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=8&gl=us

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, Feb 7, 2003 by GREG MILLER

SHOWDOWN ON IRAQ
Why not hit terrorist camp?
Lawmakers question lack of military action

By GREG MILLER Los Angeles Times

Friday, February 7, 2003

Washington -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell spent a significant part of his presentation to the United Nations this week describing a terrorist camp in northern Iraq where al-Qaida affiliates are said to be training to carry out attacks with explosives and poisons.

"Why have we not taken it out?" Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) asked Powell during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. "Why have we let it sit there if it's such a dangerous plant producing these toxins?"

Powell declined to answer, saying he could not discuss the matter in open session.

"I can assure you that it is a place that has been very much in our minds. And we have been tracing individuals who have gone in there and come out of there," Powell said.

Absent an explanation from the White House, some officials suggested the administration had refrained from striking the compound in part to preserve a key piece of its case against Iraq.

"This is it, this is their compelling evidence for use of force," said one intelligence official, who asked not to be identified.

But neither Powell nor other administration officials answered the question: What is the United States doing about it?...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20030208.html

President Bush March 6, 2003

Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference

,,THE PRESIDENT: ,.Colin Powell, in an eloquent address to the United Nations, described some of the information we were at liberty of talking about. He mentioned a man named Al Zarqawi, who was in charge of the poison network. He's a man who was wounded in Afghanistan, received aid in Baghdad, ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen, USAID employee, was harbored in Iraq. There is a poison plant in Northeast Iraq. To assume that Saddam Hussein knew none of this was going on is not to really understand the nature of the Iraqi society...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040617-3.html

June 17, 2004

... THE PRESIDENT: The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda. We did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. For example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in the Sudan. There's numerous contacts between the two.

I always said that Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States of America, just like al Qaeda. He was a threat because he had terrorist connections -- not only al Qaeda connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations; Abu Nidal was one. He was a threat because he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi, who is still killing innocent inside of Iraq.

No, he was a threat, and the world is better off and America is more secure without Saddam Hussein in power. ..

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040618-1.html
June 18, 2004

President Bush Salutes Soldiers in Fort Lewis, Washington
Remarks by the President to the Military Personnel
Fort Lewis, Washington

..And we're beginning to see results of people stepping up to defend themselves. Iraqi police and Civil Defense Corps have captured several wanted terrorists, including Umar Boziani. He was a key lieutenant of this killer named Zarqawi who's ordering the suiciders inside of Iraq. By the way,
''he was the fellow who was in Baghdad at times prior to our arrival. He was operating out of Iraq. He was an Al Qaeda associate.

See, he was there before we came. He's there after we came. And we'll find him.''..

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040923-8.html
September 23, 2004

President Bush and Prime Minister Allawi Press Conference

...PRESIDENT BUSH: Imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein were still in power. This is a man who harbored terrorists -- Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Zarqawi...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060320-7.html
March 20, 2006

THE PRESIDENT:..We also did say that Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. .....but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
August 21, 2006.

...Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. ...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060910.html
September 10, 2006

..Q Then why in the lead-up to the war was there the constant linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's a different issue. Now, there's a question of whether or not al Qaeda -- whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11; separate and apart from that is the issue of whether or not there was a historic relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. The basis for that is probably best captured in George Tenet's testimony before the Senate intel committee in open session, where he said specifically that there was a pattern, a relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and al Qaeda....
..we know that Zarqawi, running a terrorist camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, after we went into 9/11 -- then fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02..

.Zarqawi was in Baghdad after we took Afghanistan and before we went into Iraq. You had the facility up at Kermal, a poisons facility run by an Ansar al-Islam, an affiliate of al Qaeda..

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
Press Conference by the President
August 21, 2006.

the President:...... who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. ...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060912-2.html
Press Gaggle Spetember 12, 2006

.....Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?

MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.

Q There was a link --

MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.

Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?

MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it. ....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html
Press Conference by the President September 15, 2006

Watch the video: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/15/bush-zarqawi-iraq/

THE PRESIDENT:....Martha.

Q Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And, yet, a month ago you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?

THE PRESIDENT: The point I was making to Ken Herman's question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship. .....

So Bush himself could not back his own accusation....he demonstrated that it was empty, misleading bullshit, a twist of the truth for four long years, and....he has never said it again....since that August 21, 2006 quote.

Bush and Cheney used the same reference about Zarqawi to justify taking out Saddam and "fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here, Since Sept. 15, 2006...Note that Bush has never said it again.

Bush on video, in response to this line from Martha Raddatz:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Raddatz 09-15-06

A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the President 08-21-06

......Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East. .......

Quote:

Originally Posted by the President 09-15-06

The point I was making to Ken Herman's question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. I never said there was an operational relationship. .....

Cheney Oct. 19, 2006 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...061019-10.html

Q Are you saying that you believe fighting in Iraq has prevented terrorist attacks on American soil? And if so, why, since there has not been a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq established?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. Mr. Zarqawi, who was the lead terrorist in Iraq for three years, fled there after we went into Afghanistan. He was there before we ever went into Iraq. The sectarian violence that we see now, in part, has been stimulated by the fact of al Qaeda attacks intended to try to create conflict between Shia and Sunni...

Cheney April 5, 2007 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070405-3.html

Q It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08 is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes. But they're going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill -- and, thus, official government language -- of that term. Does that give you any indication of their motivation or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure -- well, it's just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton; I worked closely with Ike when I was Secretary of Defense. He's Chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike is a good man. He's just dead wrong about this, though. Think about -- just to give you one example, Rush, remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, al Qaeda affiliate; ran a training camp in Afghanistan for al Qaeda, then migrated -- after we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the al Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene, and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni. This is al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq. ..

Cheney June 3, 2007 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20070603.html

The Vice President:..The worst terrorist we had in Iraq was a guy named Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian by birth; served time in a Jordanian prison as a terrorist, was let out on amnesty. Then he went to Afghanistan and ran one of those training camps back in the late '90s that trained terrorists. Then when we launched into Afghanistan after 9/11, he was wounded, and fled to Baghdad for medical treatment, and then set up shop in Iraq. So he operated in Jordan, he operated in Afghanistan, then he moved to Iraq..

Palin is making the same false linking of the Iraq war to "fighting the enemy who attacked us on 9/11..... why not....Cheney contradicted Bush's 9/15/06 admission that Saddam and his regime had no relationship with the "al-qaeda smoking gun", al-Zarqawi, after Bush finally reversed his oft pronounced lies linking al-Zarqawi to Saddam, as late as on June 3, 2007.

ottopilot · 09-13-2008, 05:37 AM

So Palin is Dick Cheny? hmmm... I suppose anything's possible.

dc_dux · 09-13-2008, 07:18 AM

otto...do you really think its honest for any politician to keep inferring that there was some connection between 9/11 and Iraq?

With Cheney, at least we know its a clear case of attempting to manipulate the facts and perpetuate a falsehood for political purposes.

With Palin, we dont know if that is the case of if she is simply ignorant of the facts.

We do know that on several occasions,McCain seemed to have a hard time being able to distinguish between Shiia and Sunni.

IMO, neither Paln's intentional or ignorant 9/11-Iraq reference nor McCain's Shiia-Sunni confusion inspires alot of confidence.

09-11-2008, 07:19 AM	#131 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	well, here is how i see the debates going between the vp's: "Biden is a politician, Palin is just a regular woman, she's not sounding all fancy and whatever, she's just using her 'hockey mom' instincts and she sounds like me, how dare Biden pick on her, Just listen to that..he's so sexist, He thinks she can't do a man's job. Finally, we get a 'real' person in the whitehouse" bc that is what i heard after Bush's first debate with kerry. only now, it'll be "big mean biden" against "poor helpless 'real' woman" .... and i think it's in obama's best interest to expose the blatant lies and hypocrisy of what palin and mccain have been saying, including the 'bridge to nowhere' and the "selling the plane on ebay for a profit' when she sold it through a broker at a loss... -----Added 11/9/2008 at 11 : 28 : 21----- http://content.vetpalin.com/index.html?show_all even i hadn't heard all these..sheesh matt damon has a great video on youtube about palin as well __________________ Live. Chris Last edited by Paq; 09-11-2008 at 07:28 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

09-11-2008, 01:59 PM	#141 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace... I dont how we got from earmarks to higher ed aid. Back to "Let's not let facts get in the way of a good story or empty political rhetoric. Please carry on." I will carry on as requested. Do you think these "facts" should get in the way: McCain speaking in Virginia yesterday, with Palin at his side: “We’re never going to spend $3 million again to study the DNA of bears in Montana.” White sitting at a desk somewhere in Congress are the dozens of FY 09 earmark requests from Palin's administration, including: a request for $3.2 million from the Alaska Dept of Fish and Game for "monitoring ice seal population....research on genetics of harbour seals..." Earmarks requested by the State of Alaska (pdf...the source doc from the State of Alaska website) ...or might it reasonably be viewed by some as "empty political rhetoric" on the part of McCain. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 09-11-2008 at 02:23 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

09-11-2008, 07:56 PM	#142 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	straight from the horses mouth: gibson/palin interview: ABC News part 1-experience issue visited ABC News part 2-on war and god. as for my thoughts: i've seen better interviews for highschool president. seriously, at one point " Pressed about what insights into recent Russian actions she gained by living in Alaska, Palin answered: "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."...personally, i live next door to a dentist....is anyone willing to let me give them a root canal... seriously, does that mean every texan has experience bc of proximity to mexico. north dakota bc of proximity to canada? I'm surprised she didn't claim canada AND russia as her credentials. shaking my head slowly... __________________ Live. Chris

09-12-2008, 07:26 AM	#144 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	That's fine, Ace. Don't let competence get in the way of choosing who you'll vote for. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

09-12-2008, 07:35 AM	#146 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	I liked her answer when asked what insight she has on the recent actions of Russia- "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." Maybe confused "sight" with "insight?" __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

09-11-2008, 10:26 AM	#133 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	I think it is asinine how McCain/Palin make such a big deal about earmarks. Total earmark spending accounts for about 0.5% of the total federal budget. Ending earmarks would have almost no measurable impact on federal spending. It is useless grandstanding.

09-12-2008, 07:37 AM	#147 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	yeah--ms palin told us last night that one is "wired" for this sort of thing, so it is a matter of essence, not actual skill, intelligence or experience. one is "wired" so as to "not blink"--and we all know that blinking is the signal of namby-pambyness and that the ability to not be namby-pamby FAR outweighs any actual skill, intelligence or experience. that is why ms. palin said that she supports sending american troops into south ossetia, or would send them into the ukraine should "something" happens--and she would of course "not blink" because, well. what a fucking idiot. seriously. no wonder the right wanted to keep her wraps for a while and instead try to set into motion a content-free campaign, one of colored gas and empty memes. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-12-2008, 08:02 AM	#151 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Yep the qualifications of POTUS and VPOTUS are in the Constitution, plain and clear. Which of course means Carrot Top (Scott Thompson) is qualified to be either. I'm not voting for him if he runs either, even if his claims to be qualified. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club Last edited by Tully Mars; 09-12-2008 at 08:13 AM..

09-12-2008, 06:11 PM	#157 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Caught a little of her interview with Gibson tonight. Gibson lobbed her a softball regarding Hilary. That aside I thought Gibson was pretty even with her and her lack of understanding, knowledge and even honesty was clearly apparent. Just hearing her answers regarding earmarks alone were complete horse shit. It's not that they're getting and spending earmarks that's bad, it's the fault of the congress for sending them in the first place. What kind of bizzaro logic is that? For that to even come close to making sense you have to forget she hired a lobby firm to secure the freaking earmarks to begin with. And what's with the "Well I reduced the earmarks" BS? I mean I like the fact she's cut spending- but her state is number one or two when it comes to earmarks. How can she run on an anti-ear mark platform if she's been the governor of the state getting the most ear marks? A friend e-mailed me and said she stated, during the send off ceremony for her son's guard unit to Iraq, that they were going there to fight those who attacked us on 9-11. I didn't see it but if that's true that a new low even for her... which is saying a lot. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

09-13-2008, 05:37 AM	#159 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	So Palin is Dick Cheny? hmmm... I suppose anything's possible. __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 09-13-2008 at 05:43 AM..

09-13-2008, 07:18 AM	#160 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	otto...do you really think its honest for any politician to keep inferring that there was some connection between 9/11 and Iraq? With Cheney, at least we know its a clear case of attempting to manipulate the facts and perpetuate a falsehood for political purposes. With Palin, we dont know if that is the case of if she is simply ignorant of the facts. We do know that on several occasions,McCain seemed to have a hard time being able to distinguish between Shiia and Sunni. IMO, neither Paln's intentional or ignorant 9/11-Iraq reference nor McCain's Shiia-Sunni confusion inspires alot of confidence. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 09-13-2008 at 07:37 AM..