McCain's VP Pick?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Good to see we will try and buck that trend.

Good, in what way? Are you disappointed in the VP's we have had this century, for the most part?

[u2sarajevo]

Gore was a joke. But I just think it's putting unintended limitations on a public office that we are told anyone can aspire to. I'm thinking if Adams, Jefferson and Co. thought that was a necessary prerequisite then it would have been included.

I know that if Obama had selected a running mate that had not been either both of you would not be discounting it. That is fact. It's just because it's the Republican choice that doesn't have that experience that it's an issue for you.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

That is fact. It's just because it's the Republican choice that doesn't have that experience that it's an issue for you.

No, the issue is that there are dozens of people more ready than her for the job...and, we realize that...and so, we recognize the choice of Palin for what it is...and what it is, is: good for McCain, bad for us.

You may love Palin (there's a lot there to love, to be sure), but if you love your country and wish the best for it you have to wonder what the hell is going on.

[u2sarajevo]

Why would I? I was concerned about him not being a Conservative. He selected a running mate that mirrors my beliefs. I'm a happy camper.

I know he won't win. But it's nice that I have a choice that fits my beliefs.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Why would I? I was concerned about him not being a Conservative. He selected a running mate that mirrors my beliefs. I'm a happy camper.

I know he won't win. But it's nice that I have a choice that fits my beliefs.

Do you believe that he chose that running mate to reinforce his beliefs, or to add something to them?

[u2sarajevo]

I believe firmly it was to add something to his beliefs. I still am unsure of his standings on key issues (for me).

I am, however, firmly aware of Obama's stance.... so that's not an option for me.

I have a ticket that I can vote for that I know represents part of what I want. Isn't that what you should hope for?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

I believe firmly it was to add something to his beliefs. I still am unsure of his standings on key issues (for me).

I am, however, firmly aware of Obama's stance.... so that's not an option for me.

I have a ticket that I can vote for that I know represents part of what I want. Isn't that what you should hope for?

I'd say you are pretty typical of the voters who will go to the polls in November. Without Palin, you may not have voted for McCain. With Palin, you will vote for McCain, even if you don't know what McCain will do for the country.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

I believe firmly it was to add something to his beliefs. I still am unsure of his standings on key issues (for me).

I am, however, firmly aware of Obama's stance.... so that's not an option for me.

I have a ticket that I can vote for that I know represents part of what I want. Isn't that what you should hope for?

sure, you vote for the candidates who best reflect your opinions.

however, it would be best if the candidates were the most capable and ready for the position, too.

[u2sarajevo]

Well your wrong there chum. At least I know what's being promised now. So nice try.

[chumdawg]

You don't have any idea of what McCain is promising. Not any idea.

[jthig32]

As if anyone knows what a candidate will actually do for a country.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

As if anyone knows what a candidate will actually do for a country.

That's your approach to politics?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

That's your approach to politics?

You were a Bush supporter during the last election. Are you happy with his performance?

It should be everyone's approach to politics. You vote for the person that promises most of what you want. But if you really expect all those promises to come to fruition you're incredibly naive.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

You were a Bush supporter during the last election. Are you happy with his performance?

It should be everyone's approach to politics. You vote for the person that promises most of what you want. But if you really expect all those promises to come to fruition you're incredibly naive.

My approach to politics isn't, as you described your own, that no one can know what a presidential candidate will do for the country. I think we are better informed than that.

Yes, Bush disappointed me in large measure. Yes, I am very unhappy with his performance. And no, I won't be voting for him again in this election.

You say I'm naive for believing half of what politicians say. What, if anything, do you believe, and why is that not at least as naive?

[u2sarajevo]

Exactly. I know as much about my guy as he knows about his.

And I would have voted for McCain before Palin was selected. I always vote for the good side.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Exactly. I know as much about my guy as he knows about his.

And I would have voted for McCain before Palin was selected. I always vote for the good side.

That's interesting. You, evidently, aren't among the crowd that was going to stay home but is now going to vote because Palin was selected.

I suspect there are a lot of those people. Now, how vocal they are in debate I do not know.

[u2sarajevo]

I am feared that the VP debates are going to be a wipeout. I've been told by people that no more about him than me that he is a master debater (no pun intended, I swear).

I have a feeling she is too green. I guess we will have to see.

I am more interested in watching the Presidential debates.

[Mavdog]

trying to lower expectations u2?

I'm still surprised that obama has refused to agree to the 10 debates mccain has proposed. either I'm overestimating obama or underestimating mccain.

we'll know in about 8 weeks nonetheless.

[jthig32]

I didn't say half of what they say. I just said if you expect a presidential candidate to come through with all of the things he promises, you're naive. Do you really disagree with that?

You find a candidate that most clostly matches your beliefs and opinions, vote for that candidate and hope for the best.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I didn't say half of what they say. I just said if you expect a presidential candidate to come through with all of the things he promises, you're naive. Do you really disagree with that?

You find a candidate that most clostly matches your beliefs and opinions, vote for that candidate and hope for the best.

"All" of what they promise? Of course not. But in this case, I think you are going to get most of what you hear.

[jthig32]

Well "all" is what I said when I made the naive comment.

[chumdawg]

In that case, I guess you didn't give enough credit to the people who actually cast votes.

In your own little dream world, that is to say.

[jthig32]

I don't even know what that means.

How many different ways can you make yourself look uppity in the span of 10 posts?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I don't even know what that means.

How many different ways can you make yourself look uppity in the span of 10 posts?

What does "uppity" mean to you? I thought we were having a decent discussion of the issues.

I can't figure you out, dude. You seem very eager to debate certain topics, but you seem to back away from others.

[jthig32]

Backing away from? It's a message board, not a debate. You pick and choose which conversations are interesting enough to you to participate in.

All we're "debating" at this point is your apparant position that you know exactly what your candidate will do if given office, and all of the blind sheep voting for the guy you don't like have no idea what their guy would do in office.

That's uppity. It fits quite nicely with "only people that don't know the facts would disagree with me".

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Backing away from? It's a message board, not a debate. You pick and choose which conversations are interesting enough to you to participate in.

All we're "debating" at this point is your apparant position that you know exactly what your candidate will do if given office, and all of the blind sheep voting for the guy you don't like have no idea what their guy would do in office.

That's uppity. It fits quite nicely with "only people that don't know the facts would disagree with me".

Now, now, thig. You are the one who told rcacomic that if he didn't know the facts he ought to leave the discussion to those who do...and later suggested that this point of view was elitist.

[jthig32]

Not the same thing. What is elitest is the assumption that because someone doesn't share your point of view they must not know the facts.

My statement that rmacomic did not know the facts, right or wrong, was based on statements he made that I felt showed he didn't know much about the basis for the pro-life movement.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Not the same thing. What is elitest is the assumption that because someone doesn't share your point of view they must not know the facts.

My statement that rmacomic did not know the facts, right or wrong, was based on statements he made that I felt showed he didn't know much about the basis for the pro-life movement.

Oh, I see. He just didn't know the facts on your side. And if he did he wouldn't have been elitist.

Gotcha, bro.

[jthig32]

I didn't say anything about him being elitest. Nice strawman.

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I didn't say anything about him being elitest. Nice strawman.

No, you just called me a dumbass, then insinuated I was doing a bit. After that we had a somewhat productive disccusion. But you did kneejerk at me pretty hard.

[rabbitproof]

Jaja: http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=9PxJfaNgDoE

[Mavdog]

we should allow for the hiding of government official's emails because to provide the emails cost money?

are you (and this writer) serious?

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

we should allow for the hiding of government official's emails because to provide the emails cost money?

are you (and this writer) serious?

I imagine it costs money because you have to redact and filter to block personal information/conversations. Privacy is a very serious matter and when it is totally irrelevant to any inquiries or rights of the public, privacy trumps.

[Mavdog]

sorry DirkFTW, "privacy" is not an excuse to hide emails on the state system.

first, state email shouldn't be used for personal use, and second the records show that the staff conspired to use their personal email accounts for the purpose of keeping communications (inc communications dealing with state business) away from ousiders asking questions.

if the cost was determinant on exposing wrong doing by public officials, all the public officials would need to do in order to hide their illegal actions is to make the cost too high.

kinda illogical don't ya think?

public officals have the duty to have their dealings transparent so any question of illegal or self dealing is visible, and this is a case of that not being followed.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

sorry DirkFTW, "privacy" is not an excuse to hide emails on the state system.

first, state email shouldn't be used for personal use, and second the records show that the staff conspired to use their personal email accounts for the purpose of keeping communications (inc communications dealing with state business) away from ousiders asking questions.

if the cost was determinant on exposing wrong doing by public officials, all the public officials would need to do in order to hide their illegal actions is to make the cost too high.

kinda illogical don't ya think?

public officals have the duty to have their dealings transparent so any question of illegal or self dealing is visible, and this is a case of that not being followed.

While I agree to a certain level on this one. There is lots of private information on the state systems that does not need to be public. LOTS of it.

For Example: While working for TDHS -- we could get on the state system and either request or see work records, SS information, birth records, we could request bank account information, credit information, etc.

While I understand the need to be public with information from a public officials point of view.........any information that would be sent (rightly or wrongly) that involves any individual could easily be a lawsuit waiting to happen if you open up said email, etc.

[dude1394]

I think that attacking the messenger is quite appropriate when the messenger is a "player".
The faster this rag is bankrupt, the better off this country will be.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../09/021520.php

Our occasional correspondent Joel Mowbray (jdmowbra@erols.com) writes:

Hell hath no fury like the Gray Lady scorned.

This weekend, the venerable New York Times ran five hit pieces on Sarah Palin: three breathless op-eds, one blistering editorial and a scathing 3,200-word front-page “news” story deficient even in the pretense of balance. (In the interest of thoroughness, at least, the paper also trashed Todd Palin as too involved in his wife’s governorship.)

The paper of record, of course, was hardly the sole perpetrator the Palin Pile-on. It was just the nastiest.

In its sole piece of substantive reporting this weekend on Governor Palin, the Times eschewed a “mixed bag” approach, as evidenced by the headline, “Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes.” No surprises followed.

Despite 75 to 80 percent of Alaskans approving their governor, the Times managed to find the most vocal members of the small minority who feel otherwise. Almost to a man, the locals quoted in the ostensibly fair front-page story furthered the narrative of John McCain’s running mate as someone whose leadership is marked by vindictive cronyism. While the news piece makes two fleeting mentions of her actually having supporters in her home state, both positive references are quickly coupled with critiques.

Perhaps the Times felt it offered balance by not smearing Gov. Palin in a Style section story on her this weekend. That piece was—all 1,000 plus words of it—dedicated to the pressing issues related to the vice presidential candidate’s fashion choices. And that was as kind as the paper got.

Compare this weekend’s coverage to the Gray Lady’s fawning profile of Barack Obama in May. With an unmistakably positive headline of “Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side,” the 5,000 word hagiography managed to bury any mention of Obama’s former financier—and now convicted felon—Tony Rezko almost 2,000 words deep. Even then, the man who at that point was on the cusp of being convicted on corruption charges was mentioned in two brief sentences—treated as nothing more than a mere footnote in Obama’s life.

After doing legitimate reporting on Rezko in June 2007, the Times largely ignored the criminal trial of one of Obama’s closest friends and associates, who helped the candidate and his wife Michelle buy their self-described “dream house.” Never mind that Obama’s name popped up in meaningful fashion several times during the proceedings.

Over the past 15 months, only ten Times articles have devoted significant ink to Rezko’s trial or his relationship with the Democratic nominee. The page numbers where each piece ran, though, tell the real story of the Times’ editorial priorities: 21, 25, 13, 20, 13, 16, 15, 18, 15, 18. The last substantial reporting on Rezko came on June 5, in which the page 18 article announced his felony conviction.

Not one Times columnist expressed serious concern about Obama entering into a high-dollar land deal with Rezko, a man he knew to be under federal investigation and now known to all as a convicted felon. Though apparently not worried about Obama’s judgment, the polemical trio of Bob Herbert, Paul Krugman and Frank Rich are apoplectic about the prospects of Palin moving to Washington.

Watching Palin’s ABC interview, Herbert wrote, made him realize that “dimwittedness is not just on the march in the U.S., but that it might actually prevail.” Ignoring the obvious comparisons to Obama’s paper-thin résumé, Herbert passionately argued that Palin is simply “not ready.” Not to be outdone, Krugman warned that a McCain-Palin administration could be “much, much worse” than the current one. Rich, for his part, labeled Palin a “candidate who embodies fear of change”—and, as he does with impressive regularity, somehow also managed to jab Republicans as racist homophobes.

Uncorking the most venom, though, was the paper’s editorial titled “Gov. Palin’s Worldview.” Wasting no time, the Times stats in the opening paragraph: “As we watched Sarah Palin on TV the last couple of days, we kept wondering what on earth John McCain was thinking.” Though the Times’ editorial page never once expressed concern about Obama’s judgment in light of his financial dealings with a man he knew to be under investigation in Rezko, McCain’s selection of Palin “raises profound questions about his judgment.”

The Times’ unbridled hysteria over Palin has undoubtedly “raised profound questions” about the paper’s judgment in the minds of voters. Palin, like any politician, has failings worthy of examination, but the sheer level of deranged panic only batters the paper’s already-diminished reputation.

By savaging her, the Times and its mainstream media peers actually could help the woman who strikes such fear in their hearts. Once this initial wave of attacks subsides, Palin may well still be smiling, still exuding the can-do attitude at the core of her appeal. The more desperate the media get, the classier she looks.

Just don’t expect that story line to sneak into the Times.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I think that attacking the messenger is quite appropriate when the messenger is a "player".
The faster this rag is bankrupt, the better off this country will be.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../09/021520.php

man I am tired of the whining coming form YOU and the rest of the boo-farkin-hoo-ers


Yes, Palin is getting alot of press... and Yes, it is press digging for and into negative aspects of her past... that is what the press does. With Palin the story is just uuber compressed BECAUSE the repupublicans specifically selected someone that has NOT been scrutinzed by the press yet.

When was the last time you saw a big story about the Keating 5? WHAT do you think WOULD be happening if McCaine had just burst out of no-where into the national spotlight? There would be 70 stories a day on that scandal, and it would be NEWS. As it is, the keating 5 story, and its part in John McCain's profile, is part of the common conciousness, and it only occassionally receives oblique references.

I actually believe the republicans SPECIFICALLY chose an obscure candiate PURPOSELY with a little dirt in her past just so they could play the "boo-hoo-whine-my-panties-hurt-because-the-big-bad-mean-liberal-elite-are-picking-on-us" card. Apparently it was a good strategy for the immidiate term, as hordes of the masses are currently knocking each down to lap up the pathetic sob-story.

[Mavdog]

this is getting very, very interesting...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawmakers vote to subpoena 13 in Troopergate
NEW LEAD: Investigator wants to know if a workers' compensation employee was pressured.

By WESLEY LOY
wloy@adn.com

(09/13/08 04:27:08)
State legislators voted Friday to subpoena witnesses including Gov. Sarah Palin's husband, Todd, as part of the Troopergate inquiry, and an investigator disclosed intriguing new details during a tense 2½-hour hearing.

Steve Branchflower, a retired state prosecutor who legislators hired to probe Palin's firing of former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, said someone in the governor's office might have pushed one of the 13 people on the subpoena list to deny workers' compensation benefits to state trooper Mike Wooten.

The trooper was involved in a contentious divorce from Sarah Palin's sister, and Monegan has said in media interviews he believes he lost his job because he wouldn't bend to pressure from the Palin family and at least one of the governor's aides to fire the trooper.

Among the complaints the Palins have lodged against Wooten is that he filed a workers' comp claim even though he wasn't really injured.

Branchflower testified Friday at a joint hearing of the Alaska House and Senate judiciary committees in Anchorage. The hearing room was jammed with reporters and television cameras attracted to the Troopergate affair because of Palin's newfound fame as John McCain's vice presidential running mate.

Committee members vigorously debated whether to take the rare step of issuing subpoenas, with one lawmaker, North Pole Republican Sen. Gene Therriault, predicting that doing so might lead to a "smackdown" court battle between the executive and legislative branches of the state government.

Therriault and Sen. Lesil McGuire, R-Anchorage, argued for delaying the issuance of subpoenas, if not the investigation itself, until after the Nov. 4 election.

Others, however, argued for getting on with Branchflower's investigation.

"I say let's just get the facts on the table, the sooner the better," said Sen. Charlie Huggins, a Wasilla Republican who came to the hearing dressed in camouflage, saying he took time out from a moose hunt to attend.

Huggins joined Senate Finance Committee Chairman Hollis French and Sen. Bill Wielechowski, both Anchorage Democrats, in supporting Branchflower's request for subpoenas. Therriault and McGuire voted against.

The House Judiciary Committee, whose role in the joint hearing was advisory only, concurred with the Senate committee.

Legislators launched the probe in late July, well before Palin was announced as a vice presidential candidate. The lawmakers voted to spend up to $100,000 on Branchflower's investigation.

In his testimony Friday, Branchflower explained why he needed to subpoena witnesses, most of whom are state employees who either declined to submit to his questioning or who initially agreed but later canceled appointments.

One "especially important" witness on the subpoena list, Branchflower said, is Murlene Wilkes, owner of an Anchorage company called Harbor Adjustment Service. The company holds a state contract to process and pay workers' comp claims.

Branchflower said in August he heard that "someone from the governor's office or someone from the state" advised Wilkes to deny Wooten's claim. So Branchflower said he called Wilkes to check it out.

Branchflower said Wilkes told him she had never talked to anyone in the governor's office about the Wooten file, nor had she seen photos of Wooten riding a snowmachine while on workers' comp.

But later, he said, an employee under Wilkes who handled Wooten's claim -- Branchflower didn't disclose her name -- called his investigative tip line to say Wilkes told her "something to the effect that either the governor or the governor's office wanted this claim denied."

Branchflower said the employee, during a recorded interview, told him she felt pressured.

"I don't, you know, care if it's the president who wants the claim denied. I'm not going to deny it unless I have the medical evidence to do that," Branchflower said, quoting from the employee's statement.

Now, Branchflower said he wants to take a sworn statement from Wilkes, who he said was possibly "not truthful" in her initial talk with him. Wilkes, he said, canceled a Thursday appointment for an interview on the advice of an attorney.

"She obviously is a key player because she handles all of the workmen's compensation claims for the state of Alaska," Branchflower said. "She may have a financial motive," he added, due to her contract with the state.

Efforts to reach Wilkes for comment were unsuccessful. A reporter visited her Benson Boulevard office early Friday afternoon, and a receptionist said she couldn't talk because she was tied up in a meeting for about an hour. On a second visit later in the afternoon, the receptionist said Wilkes had left for the day.

Tom Van Flein, an Anchorage attorney representing the governor, couldn't say whether someone with the governor's office contacted Harbor Adjustment on the Wooten claim. But Van Flein said state officials did investigate "potential workers' comp fraud," based on information from Todd Palin.

State officials on Friday were unable to fully specify details of the state's current contract with Harbor.

Brad Thompson, the state's risk management director and one of the people who will receive a subpoena, furnished a copy of a one-year contract, signed in 2003, paying Harbor $1.2 million to handle workers' comp claims.

Thompson, in an e-mail, said the state has signed "several extensions" since that initial contract, but he didn't respond to questions as to the current contract term or dollar amount.

Branchflower said he wants to subpoena Todd Palin as the "principal critic" of Wooten's continued employment as a trooper. He told legislators Todd Palin had a meeting with Monegan in the governor's office in January 2007, not long after his wife was sworn in, to show him the results of a private investigation into the trooper's alleged misconduct, including photos of Wooten riding a snowmachine.

Two people who Branchflower hopes to interview, but who legislators decided not to subpoena, are the governor herself and her former chief of staff, Mike Tibbles, now working as campaign manager for U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.

Branchflower is aiming to finish his report by Oct. 10.

[Mavdog]

would, no could, anyone explain how drilling for more oil will make america more "energy efficient"?
"efficient"?
now THAT's a misstatement!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palin makes first solo appearance, in Nevada
Kathleen Hennessey, Associated Press

Sunday, September 14, 2008

(09-14) 04:00 PDT Carson City, Nev. -- Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin made her first solo campaign appearance outside her home state Saturday, sticking largely to a speech that has boosted her popularity among Republican faithful but drawn criticism for having misstatements.

The Alaska governor repeated her claim to have killed the now-famous Bridge to Nowhere, which her running mate, John McCain, has derided as wasteful pork. Palin first approved of the project, and turned against it only after it proved to be a political embarrassment.

"We're going to take our case for reform, that needed reform in D.C., to voters of every background, every party, no party," she said. "We're going to shake things up."

Palin spoke less than 20 minutes at the Saturday evening event in a roller hockey rink in northern Nevada. She drew a loud and boisterous crowd eager to get their first look at the largely unknown candidate who's brought a fresh energy to the McCain bid. A group of roughly 5,000 broke into chants of "Drill, baby, drill!" and "Sarah! Sarah!"

"We are going to drill now to make this nation energy efficient," she said. "You're right, drill, baby, drill!"

[dude1394]

Obama said, “Let’s not play games. What I was suggesting — you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.