McCain's VP Pick?

[wmbwinn]

it's frustrating to read such out and out misinformation....or, as obama puts it well, those "trying to score cheap political points".

here, I'll go out of character and show how people can "score cheap political points" on palin:
sarah palin wants to punish women who are violently attacked by criminals with palin forcing these women to carry to full term the daily reminder of their abuse, palin does so by not allowing these victims to terminate a pregnancy caused by the horrendous act that they were subjected to. sarah palin is sentencing these victims of crimes to not only mental anguish on a daily basis, but also the possibility of health problems that many times are associated with the pregnancy. sarah palin is comfortable sacrificing the mother. how evil she is!

do you like them apples? that's exactly how you distort obama's position.

barack obama is not in favor of "infanticide", and has stated his position on partial birth abortions clearly:

On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.

Part of the reason they didn't have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.

As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don't think that's any Republican out there who I've worked with who would say that I don't listen to them, I don't respect their ideas, I don't understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.

Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008

Now you are opening a whole can of worms. I am a doctor and as such am well aware that every abortion done in this country has a medical record that says "For the psychological health of the mother... the procedure was done"

That is the problem. I agree with you that it makes sense to leave a clause in the law for the "health of the mother". There are definitely times when the mother is absolutely going to die and the awful choice comes up...
I do not have a problem with that.

But, the clause "for the health of the mother" is the very clause that is so abused. So, that is why us evil Republicans appear to be so evil about hating that clause...

I don't disagree with you Mavdog. But, I do disagree with how the clause "for the health of the mother" is actually used. That is the political problem. And, the left extreme group just loves to parade around and use the sort of attack that evil Republicans would let a mother die rather than seek an abortion.

I really liked OB/Gyn as a student in school. I loved delivering babies. But, because of the issues of abortion and frivolous lawsuits (every child not born perfectly healthy must be the doctor's fault, lets sue), I chose another specialty.

Now, back to Obama. Unless the media has been unfair, the report is that Obama has never voted against any abortion law. He has a perfect score from the Pro-Choice Special interest groups. He is their hero as much as Palin is their enemy.

I do not disagree with you Mavdog one iota in the details of your abortion stance as far as you have spelled out so far. I would be a moderate also.

But, let us review what the clause "medically necessary due to the health of the mother" means with a late term partial birth abortion. At that point, killing the baby does not help the mother's physical health at all for any reason. And, I literally can think of absolutely no physical health concern at that late stage in pregnancy where there would be a reason for the health of the mother to abort. There just is no advantage to a dead full term baby over a live full term baby... except for the "psychological health of the mother" who just found out that she hates the father because he is having sex with someone else...

In my opinion, that issue does warrant the "for the health of the mother" clause.

I have no personal problem with a lady who has been raped or undergone incest (rape also) having an abortion. Now, many women have chosen to give birth and put the baby up for adoption. I think that is noble but I would not look down on a rape victim whose pregnancy is due to rape having an abortion.

But, this is like the gunshow loophole we talked about. The aborted rape babies are a small fraction of the total. The legitimate "for the health of the mother" abortions are small fraction of the total.

If abortion was rare and restricted for true "for the health/life of the mother" and the rape/incest victim, then we would not be debating this like we are.

Sad thing is that you and I agree with each other on the details I think. At least, we are close on our personal views.

The issues I was debating had nothing to do with my personal thoughts. I was debating whether a moderate would be more attracted to Obama or Palin.

I would say the actual votes on the matter at this point demonstrate a shift to Palin.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so yes, obama and biden are very much in the mainstream of what americans have said is their position regarding abortion rights.

sarah palin on the other hand is not.

Originally Posted by Obama

The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as along as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstituionality.

So you're saying the majority of america feels that doctors should not be placed with the "burden" of keeping babies alive when they are born alive.

I dare say the vast, vast majority of americans believe that human rights begin at birth. Obama fought to keep the term "previable" relevant even after a child was born.

You continue to gloss over this angle.

[chumdawg]

Thig, there are a whole lot of people who oppose abortion and also oppose birth control. They are called Catholics.

And what they do is to take the "potentially viable human" reasoning all the way to its logical end. Well, I'm not sure if they take it all the way, myself not being a Catholic. Taking it all the way would be view to male masturbation (or the spilling of seed, as it were) as also disrespect for the sanctity of human life.

I guess the point is that we all set our own "dividing lines" where we see fit.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Thig, there are a whole lot of people who oppose abortion and also oppose birth control. They are called Catholics.

And what they do is to take the "potentially viable human" reasoning all the way to its logical end. Well, I'm not sure if they take it all the way, myself not being a Catholic. Taking it all the way would be view to male masturbation (or the spilling of seed, as it were) as also disrespect for the sanctity of human life.

I guess the point is that we all set our own "dividing lines" where we see fit.

I am aware that Catholics oppose birth control. But the notion that all or even most pro-lifers are against abortion because of the "playing God" angle is absolutely false.

You can make a perfectly logical argument against abortion and for the rights of an unborn child without bringing religious beliefs into the discussion at all.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

You can make a perfectly logical argument against abortion and for the rights of an unborn child without bringing religious beliefs into the discussion at all.

You can also make a perfectly logical argument for abortion, but not without setting those same religious beliefs aside.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Thig, there are a whole lot of people who oppose abortion and also oppose birth control. They are called Catholics.

And what they do is to take the "potentially viable human" reasoning all the way to its logical end. Well, I'm not sure if they take it all the way, myself not being a Catholic. Taking it all the way would be view to male masturbation (or the spilling of seed, as it were) as also disrespect for the sanctity of human life.

I guess the point is that we all set our own "dividing lines" where we see fit.

what? they are against masturbation?

and people actually still go to church there?

incredible!

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

tell me what other medical procedure doctors perform that is restricted like abortions?

regulating the prescriptions is not regulating medical procedures. regulating the doctors competency is not regulating medical procedures.

government shouldn't regulate what an adult does to themselves. are you saying that the state has the right to outlaw suicide too? it's nonsensical, if someone wants to kill themselves the state has the right to place them in jail?



yeah, the woman should just suffer thru a damaged cervix. who cares if she may be unable to have a child in the future, deny her the safest procedure because the nrlc says it's wrong.

as for "barbaric" and "unnatural", its a medical procedure! do we not perform any medical procedures like open heart surgery, after all it's "unnatural". I had my acl replaced, should I not have been allowed to have a new one because it's "unnatural"? do we not harvest organs from the deceased and give them to help the aflicted because the removal is "barbaric"?

So you're comparing replacing an acl with partially delivering a viable baby, poking a hole in its skull and sucking its brains out.

You have now finally explained to me why you do not have an issue with Obama's stance on live birth abortion.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by jthig32

So you're comparing replacing an acl with partially delivering a viable baby, poking a hole in its skull and sucking its brains out.

You have now finally explained to me why you do not have an issue with Obama's stance on live birth abortion.

wow, now you think you can be a doctor, and you can also determine what is "viable".

you also presume that the mother's health is secondary to the fetus.

incredible. this is just what I was referencing with the politicizing of a medical/health issue.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

wow, now you think you can be a doctor, and you can also determine what is "viable".

you also presume that the mother's health is secondary to the fetus.

incredible. this is just what I was referencing with the politicizing of a medical/health issue.

I'm not determining it. Partial birth abortions were regularly performed on viable babies, by the letter of the definition.

And yes, my wife considers her health secondary to our children's. That's not political. It all comes down to when you start considering your baby a baby.

[Mavdog]

no one says it is "free", but it does not equate to a "reduction in our standard of living".

reducing air pollution, which our country has been doing for decades, hasn't been free either, yet it did not reduce our "standard of living".

[Mavdog]

you illustrate that you have not attempted to learn what the procedure is, but rely on political catch phrases.

a woman should not be required to suffer injury due to her pregnancy. that should be a choice that SHE makes, not some politician.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

you illustrate that you have not attempted to learn what the procedure is, but rely on political catch phrases.

a woman should not be required to suffer injury due to her pregnancy. that should be a choice that SHE makes, not some politician.

I know exactly what the procedure is. But thanks for illustrating the typical elitest liberal thinking of "you must not know the issue, otherwise how could you disagree with me".

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I know exactly what the procedure is. But thanks for illustrating the typical elitest liberal thinking of "you must not know the issue, otherwise how could you disagree with me".

How do you label the type of thinking that says "you must not know the issue, so why don't you leave it to the people who do"?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

How do you label the type of thinking that says "you must not know the issue, so why don't you leave it to the people who do"?

Drivel.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

How do you label the type of thinking that says "you must not know the issue, so why don't you leave it to the people who do"?

sounds like the same dogmatic liberal thinking to me.

[jthig32]

Let me ask you this, Mavdog. All political ramifications aside; do you think a baby, born alive accidentally during an abortion procedure, should be cared for? Should measures be taken to ensure the child has every chance to live? Or should the circumstances surrounding the birth still give the mother and doctor the right to let the child die?

You can yes or no it, or explain your reasoning. I think I've gotten a sense of your stance on this based on some of your comments and I'm curious to see if I'm correct.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Let me ask you this, Mavdog. All political ramifications aside; do you think a baby, born alive accidentally during an abortion procedure, should be cared for? Should measures be taken to ensure the child has every chance to live? Or should the circumstances surrounding the birth still give the mother and doctor the right to let the child die?

You can yes or no it, or explain your reasoning. I think I've gotten a sense of your stance on this based on some of your comments and I'm curious to see if I'm correct.

what is "alive"? able to survive on their own, or what? having muscle reflexes?

the short answer is yes.

[jthig32]

You'll notice that we had a productive conversation following that comment. You'll also notice that I stated very explicitely that our difference of opinion on the issue simply came down to a difference in beliefs.

[dude1394]

The NYTimes tries their hands at derailing the barracuda.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5939

Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes

Translation: Palin did not kiss up to the power brokers and gate keepers of political power inside the Political Industrial Complex - she tapped outsiders like herself (from Main Street USA) and kicked butt! And somehow the NY Times thinks this is a problem in a country where they only have support from their news room and a little beyond.

" So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.

Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.

When Ms. Palin had to cut her first state budget, she avoided the legion of frustrated legislators and mayors. Instead, she huddled with her budget director and her husband, Todd, an oil field worker who is not a state employee, and vetoed millions of dollars of legislative projects."

Congressional Approval Rating -- 20%
Sarah Palin Approval Rating -- 80%

I guess the people figured she was doing their business. The NYTimes wouldn't understand that type of governance.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

The NYTimes tries their hands at derailing the barracuda.

Congressional Approval Rating -- 20%
Sarah Palin Approval Rating -- 80%

I guess the people figured she was doing their business. The NYTimes wouldn't understand that type of governance.

and I take it you approve of cronyism, of appointing people to positions for which they have NO background, experience or knowledge about?

sounds a lot like sarah palin as veep come to thnk of it.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

and I take it you approve of cronyism, of appointing people to positions for which they have NO background, experience or knowledge about?

sounds a lot like sarah palin as veep come to thnk of it.

no, but I have no problem with someone who is going up against an entrenched power structure appointing people they might trust, happens all of the time and rightfully so.

I would also expect the NYTimes to take the next step to see how those appointees have been doing their job, well not expect of the NYTimes, expect of a news media that was doing real reporting and not advocacy. But they were not interested in that. Obviously 80% of the alaskan people think they are doing it well.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

no, but I have no problem with someone who is going up against an entrenched power structure appointing people they might trust, happens all of the time and rightfully so.

yet trust is and should not be the primary qualification, it should be secondary to knowledge, experience, capability....

cronyism is not in the best interest of the public. period.

I would also expect the NYTimes to take the next step to see how those appointees have been doing their job, well not expect of the NYTimes, expect of a news media that was doing real reporting and not advocacy. But they were not interested in that. Obviously 80% of the alaskan people think they are doing it well.

no, you do not have any support that "80% of the alaskan people think" the people who have been appointed to the boards and commissions "are doing it well". you are misusing a poll on palin's approval rating. two completely seperate questions.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

and I take it you approve of cronyism, of appointing people to positions for which they have NO background, experience or knowledge about?

sounds a lot like sarah palin as veep come to thnk of it.

Well, I'm sure she'll have plenty of knowledge by the time she's elected. So that one is a non issue. As far as having no background or experience... just how many of the prior VP's of the United States had experience as VP's of the United States before they were voted into office along with the president? It doesn't sound like you have much of an argument with those two either.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

and I take it you approve of cronyism, of appointing people to positions for which they have NO background, experience or knowledge about?

sounds a lot like sarah palin as veep come to thnk of it.

Sounds like another FEMA problem Because of all that cronyism, we had 1000's of deaths in New Orleans.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

and I take it you approve of cronyism, of appointing people to positions for which they have NO background, experience or knowledge about?

sounds a lot like sarah palin as veep come to thnk of it..

ehem. Obama.

[Mavdog]

that's a pretty flimsy argument murph, she'll have a lot to learn by then. her past accomplishments in learning don't speak too well of that ability btw.

let's look at the list of veeps who had not been a congressman or senator....

let's see, cheney was a congressman, gore a senator, quayle a senator, bush a congressman, mondale a senator..so we come to the last veep who was elected without any experience, the infamous Spiro Agnew.

wow, she would be in the same category as spiro agnew?

see what inexperience will get ya?

[dude1394]

Quite amazing how in the back-pocket the coastal media is for Obama. There is no wonder that a majority of people in this country believe that the media is trying to damage the republican ticket.

From powerline
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../09/021512.php

Sarah Palin, As Described By Her Enemies

The Obama campaign has a long article about Sarah Palin in today's New York Times. Jo Becker, Peter S. Goodman and Michael Powell wrote it for them. The Times reporters evidently scoured Alaska, looking for people who don't like Governor Palin, and pieced together every negative quote they could come up with in the form--more or less--of a newspaper article.

Remarkably enough, the reporters/Obama campaign staff couldn't find room for a single good word about Governor Palin. Thus, while they acknowledge that Palin currently has an approval rating of 80% (86%, actually), making her perhaps the most popular politician in the country, the reader is left to puzzle as to what her constituents could possibly like about her.

Every person who engages in public life has opponents and enemies, and if you talk exclusively to those people, and write an article solely from their perspective, you can easily make the subject look bad. (Imagine, say, an article on Abraham Lincoln that consisted entirely of quotes from Copperhead Democrats.) If the Times wanted to test that proposition, they could send a team of reporters to Chicago to search out and interview people who don't like Barack Obama. Somehow, though, I don't think that's on their agenda.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Quite amazing how in the back-pocket the coastal media is for Obama. There is no wonder that a majority of people in this country believe that the media is trying to damage the republican ticket.

From powerline
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../09/021512.php

"If you don't like the message, attack the messenger"? I mean heck the campaign was invited to answer questions/respond but declined.

here is the article in question. attack away.....

Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes
By JO BECKER, PETER S. GOODMAN and MICHAEL POWELL
This article is by Jo Becker, Peter S. Goodman and Michael Powell.

WASILLA, Alaska — Gov. Sarah Palin lives by the maxim that all politics is local, not to mention personal.

So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.

Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.

When Ms. Palin had to cut her first state budget, she avoided the legion of frustrated legislators and mayors. Instead, she huddled with her budget director and her husband, Todd, an oil field worker who is not a state employee, and vetoed millions of dollars of legislative projects.

And four months ago, a Wasilla blogger, Sherry Whitstine, who chronicles the governor’s career with an astringent eye, answered her phone to hear an assistant to the governor on the line, she said.

“You should be ashamed!” Ivy Frye, the assistant, told her. “Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now!”

Ms. Palin walks the national stage as a small-town foe of “good old boy” politics and a champion of ethics reform. The charismatic 44-year-old governor draws enthusiastic audiences and high approval ratings. And as the Republican vice-presidential nominee, she points to her management experience while deriding her Democratic rivals, Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as speechmakers who never have run anything.

But an examination of her swift rise and record as mayor of Wasilla and then governor finds that her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics — she sometimes calls local opponents “haters” — contrasts with her carefully crafted public image.

Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.

Still, Ms. Palin has many supporters. As a two-term mayor she paved roads and built an ice rink, and as governor she has pushed through higher taxes on the oil companies that dominate one-third of the state’s economy. She stirs deep emotions. In Wasilla, many residents display unflagging affection, cheering “our Sarah” and hissing at her critics.

“She is bright and has unfailing political instincts,” said Steve Haycox, a history professor at the University of Alaska. “She taps very directly into anxieties about the economic future.”

“But,” he added, “her governing style raises a lot of hard questions.”

Ms. Palin declined to grant an interview for this article. The McCain-Palin campaign responded to some questions on her behalf and that of her husband, while referring others to the governor’s spokespeople, who did not respond.

Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell said Ms. Palin had conducted an accessible and effective administration in the public’s interest. “Everything she does is for the ordinary working people of Alaska,” he said.

In Wasilla, a builder said he complained to Mayor Palin when the city attorney put a stop-work order on his housing project. She responded, he said, by engineering the attorney’s firing.

Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.

When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.

“Their secrecy is off the charts,” Mr. Steiner said.

State legislators are investigating accusations that Ms. Palin and her husband pressured officials to fire a state trooper who had gone through a messy divorce with her sister, charges that she denies. But interviews make clear that the Palins draw few distinctions between the personal and the political.

Last summer State Representative John Harris, the Republican speaker of the House, picked up his phone and heard Mr. Palin’s voice. The governor’s husband sounded edgy. He said he was unhappy that Mr. Harris had hired John Bitney as his chief of staff, the speaker recalled. Mr. Bitney was a high school classmate of the Palins and had worked for Ms. Palin. But she fired Mr. Bitney after learning that he had fallen in love with another longtime friend.

“I understood from the call that Todd wasn’t happy with me hiring John and he’d like to see him not there,” Mr. Harris said.

“The Palin family gets upset at personal issues,” he added. “And at our level, they want to strike back.”

Through a campaign spokesman, Mr. Palin said he “did not recall” referring to Mr. Bitney in the conversation.

Hometown Mayor

Laura Chase, the campaign manager during Ms. Palin’s first run for mayor in 1996, recalled the night the two women chatted about her ambitions.

“I said, ‘You know, Sarah, within 10 years you could be governor,’ ” Ms. Chase recalled. “She replied, ‘I want to be president.’ ”

Ms. Palin grew up in Wasilla, an old fur trader’s outpost and now a fast-growing exurb of Anchorage. The town sits in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley, edged by jagged mountains and birch forests. In the 1930s, the Roosevelt administration took farmers from the Dust Bowl area and resettled them here; their Democratic allegiances defined the valley for half a century.

In the past three decades, socially conservative Oklahomans and Texans have flocked north to the oil fields of Alaska. They filled evangelical churches around Wasilla and revived the Republican Party. Many of these working-class residents formed the electoral backbone for Ms. Palin, who ran for mayor on a platform of gun rights, opposition to abortion and the ouster of the “complacent” old guard.

After winning the mayoral election in 1996, Ms. Palin presided over a city rapidly outgrowing itself. Septic tanks had begun to pollute lakes, and residential lots were carved willy-nilly out of the woods. She passed road and sewer bonds, cut property taxes but raised the sales tax.

And, her supporters say, she cleaned out the municipal closet, firing veteran officials to make way for her own team. “She had an agenda for change and for doing things differently,” said Judy Patrick, a City Council member at the time.

But careers were turned upside down. The mayor quickly fired the town’s museum director, John Cooper. Later, she sent an aide to the museum to talk to the three remaining employees. “He told us they only wanted two,” recalled Esther West, one of the three, “and we had to pick who was going to be laid off.” The three quit as one.

Ms. Palin cited budget difficulties for the museum cuts. Mr. Cooper thought differently, saying the museum had become a microcosm of class and cultural conflicts in town. “It represented that the town was becoming more progressive, and they didn’t want that,” he said.

Days later, Mr. Cooper recalled, a vocal conservative, Steve Stoll, sidled up to him. Mr. Stoll had supported Ms. Palin and had a long-running feud with Mr. Cooper. “He said: ‘Gotcha, Cooper,’ ” Mr. Cooper said.

Mr. Stoll did not recall that conversation, although he said he supported Ms. Palin’s campaign and was pleased when she fired Mr. Cooper.

In 1997, Ms. Palin fired the longtime city attorney, Richard Deuser, after he issued the stop-work order on a home being built by Don Showers, another of her campaign supporters.

Your attorney, Mr. Showers told Ms. Palin, is costing me lots of money.

“She told me she’d like to see him fired,” Mr. Showers recalled. “But she couldn’t do it herself because the City Council hires the city attorney.” Ms. Palin told him to write the council members to complain.

Meanwhile, Ms. Palin pushed the issue from the inside. “She started the ball rolling,” said Ms. Patrick, who also favored the firing. Mr. Deuser was soon replaced by Ken Jacobus, then the State Republican Party’s general counsel.

“Professionals were either forced out or fired,” Mr. Deuser said.

Ms. Palin ordered city employees not to talk to the press. And she used city money to buy a white Suburban for the mayor’s use — employees sarcastically called it the mayor-mobile.

The new mayor also tended carefully to her evangelical base. She appointed a pastor to the town planning board. And she began to eye the library. For years, social conservatives had pressed the library director to remove books they considered immoral.

“People would bring books back censored,” recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin’s predecessor. “Pages would get marked up or torn out.”

Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.

But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.

“Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”

“I’m still proud of Sarah,” she added, “but she scares the bejeebers out of me.”

Reform Crucible

Restless ambition defined Ms. Palin in the early years of this decade. She raised money for Senator Ted Stevens, a Republican from the state; finished second in the 2002 Republican primary for lieutenant governor; and sought to fill the seat of Senator Frank H. Murkowski when he ran for governor.

Mr. Murkowski appointed his daughter to the seat, but as a consolation prize, he gave Ms. Palin the $125,000-a-year chairmanship of a state commission overseeing oil and gas drilling.

Ms. Palin discovered that the state Republican leader, Randy Ruedrich, a commission member, was conducting party business on state time and favoring regulated companies. When Mr. Murkowski failed to act on her complaints, she quit and went public.

The Republican establishment shunned her. But her break with the gentlemen’s club of oil producers and political power catapulted her into the public eye.

“She was honest and forthright,” said Jay Kerttula, a former Democratic state senator from Palmer.

Ms. Palin entered the 2006 primary for governor as a formidable candidate.

In the middle of the primary, a conservative columnist in the state, Paul Jenkins, unearthed e-mail messages showing that Ms. Palin had conducted campaign business from the mayor’s office. Ms. Palin handled the crisis with a street fighter’s guile.

“I told her it looks like she did the same thing that Randy Ruedrich did,” Mr. Jenkins recalled. “And she said, ‘Yeah, what I did was wrong.’ ”

Mr. Jenkins hung up and decided to forgo writing about it. His phone rang soon after.

Mr. Jenkins said a reporter from Fairbanks, reading from a Palin news release, demanded to know why he was “smearing” her. “Now I look at her and think: ‘Man, you’re slick,’ ” he said.

Ms. Palin won the primary, and in the general election she faced Tony Knowles, the former two-term Democratic governor, and Andrew Halcro, an independent.

Not deeply versed in policy, Ms. Palin skipped some candidate forums; at others, she flipped through hand-written, color-coded index cards strategically placed behind her nameplate.

Before one forum, Mr. Halcro said he saw aides shovel reports at Ms. Palin as she crammed. Her showman’s instincts rarely failed. She put the pile of reports on the lectern. Asked what she would do about health care policy, she patted the stack and said she would find an answer in the pile of solutions.

“She was fresh, and she was tomorrow,” said Michael Carey, a former editorial page editor for The Anchorage Daily News. “She just floated along like Mary Poppins.”

Government

Half a century after Alaska became a state, Ms. Palin was inaugurated as governor in Fairbanks and took up the reformer’s sword.

As she assembled her cabinet and made other state appointments, those with insider credentials were now on the outs. But a new pattern became clear. She surrounded herself with people she has known since grade school and members of her church.

Mr. Parnell, the lieutenant governor, praised Ms. Palin’s appointments. “The people she hires are competent, qualified, top-notch people,” he said.

Ms. Palin chose Talis Colberg, a borough assemblyman from the Matanuska valley, as her attorney general, provoking a bewildered question from the legal community: “Who?” Mr. Colberg, who did not return calls, moved from a one-room building in the valley to one of the most powerful offices in the state, supervising some 500 people.

“I called him and asked, ‘Do you know how to supervise people?’ ” said a family friend, Kathy Wells. “He said, ‘No, but I think I’ll get some help.’ ”

The Wasilla High School yearbook archive now doubles as a veritable directory of state government. Ms. Palin appointed Mr. Bitney, her former junior high school band-mate, as her legislative director and chose another classmate, Joe Austerman, to manage the economic development office for $82,908 a year. Mr. Austerman had established an Alaska franchise for Mailboxes Etc.

To her supporters — and with an 80 percent approval rating, she has plenty — Ms. Palin has lifted Alaska out of a mire of corruption. She gained the passage of a bill that tightens the rules covering lobbyists. And she rewrote the tax code to capture a greater share of oil and gas sale proceeds.

“Does anybody doubt that she’s a tough negotiator?” said State Representative Carl Gatto, Republican of Palmer.

Yet recent controversy has marred Ms. Palin’s reform credentials. In addition to the trooper investigation, lawmakers in April accused her of improperly culling thousands of e-mail addresses from a state database for a mass mailing to rally support for a policy initiative.

While Ms. Palin took office promising a more open government, her administration has battled to keep information secret. Her inner circle discussed the benefit of using private e-mail addresses. An assistant told her it appeared that such e-mail messages sent to a private address on a “personal device” like a BlackBerry “would be confidential and not subject to subpoena.”

Ms. Palin and aides use their private e-mail addresses for state business. A campaign spokesman said the governor copied e-mail messages to her state account “when there was significant state business.”

On Feb. 7, Frank Bailey, a high-level aide, wrote to Ms. Palin’s state e-mail address to discuss appointments. Another aide fired back: “Frank, this is not the governor’s personal account.”

Mr. Bailey responded: “Whoops~!”

Mr. Bailey, a former midlevel manager at Alaska Airlines who worked on Ms. Palin’s campaign, has been placed on paid leave; he has emerged as a central figure in the trooper investigation.

Another confidante of Ms. Palin’s is Ms. Frye, 27. She worked as a receptionist for State Senator Lyda Green before she joined Ms. Palin’s campaign for governor. Now Ms. Frye earns $68,664 as a special assistant to the governor. Her frequent interactions with Ms. Palin’s children have prompted some lawmakers to refer to her as “the babysitter,” a title that Ms. Frye disavows.

Like Mr. Bailey, she is an effusive cheerleader for her boss.

“YOU ARE SO AWESOME!” Ms. Frye typed in an e-mail message to Ms. Palin in March.

Many lawmakers contend that Ms. Palin is overly reliant on a small inner circle that leaves her isolated. Democrats and Republicans alike describe her as often missing in action. Since taking office in 2007, Ms. Palin has spent 312 nights at her Wasilla home, some 600 miles to the north of the governor’s mansion in Juneau, records show.

During the last legislative session, some lawmakers became so frustrated with her absences that they took to wearing “Where’s Sarah?” pins.

Many politicians say they typically learn of her initiatives — and vetoes — from news releases.

Mayors across the state, from the larger cities to tiny municipalities along the southeastern fiords, are even more frustrated. Often, their letters go unanswered and their pleas ignored, records and interviews show.

Last summer, Mayor Mark Begich of Anchorage, a Democrat, pressed Ms. Palin to meet with him because the state had failed to deliver money needed to operate city traffic lights. At one point, records show, state officials told him to just turn off a dozen of them. Ms. Palin agreed to meet with Mr. Begich when he threatened to go public with his anger, according to city officials.

At an Alaska Municipal League gathering in Juneau in January, mayors across the political spectrum swapped stories of the governor’s remoteness. How many of you, someone asked, have tried to meet with her? Every hand went up, recalled Mayor Fred Shields of Haines Borough. And how many met with her? Just a few hands rose. Ms. Palin soon walked in, delivered a few remarks and left for an anti-abortion rally.

The administration’s e-mail correspondence reveals a siege-like atmosphere. Top aides keep score, demean enemies and gloat over successes. Even some who helped engineer her rise have felt her wrath.

Dan Fagan, a prominent conservative radio host and longtime friend of Ms. Palin, urged his listeners to vote for her in 2006. But when he took her to task for raising taxes on oil companies, he said, he found himself branded a “hater.”

It is part of a pattern, Mr. Fagan said, in which Ms. Palin characterizes critics as “bad people who are anti-Alaska.”

As Ms. Palin’s star ascends, the McCain campaign, as often happens in national races, is controlling the words of those who know her well. Her mother-in-law, Faye Palin, has been asked not to speak to reporters, and aides sit in on interviews with old friends.

At a recent lunch gathering, an official with the Wasilla Chamber of Commerce asked its members to refer all calls from reporters to the governor’s office. Dianne Woodruff, a city councilwoman, shook her head.

“I was thinking, I don’t remember giving up my First Amendment rights,” Ms. Woodruff said. “Just because you’re not going gaga over Sarah doesn’t mean you can’t speak your mind.”

[dude1394]

When the messenger is the NYTimes...they don't have any credibility here.

[chumdawg]

It was a damning article, that much is sure.

[Mavdog]

why don't you show why the article is not correct?

for instance, do you believe that circumventing the state email system to hide their e mails is kosher? I don't.

I thought this campaign was about a break from the past...these attacks such as on the times article sure are right out of the rove playbook.

that is: damn the facts, just obfuscate and create the message that fits your objective.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

why don't you show why the article is not correct?

for instance, do you believe that circumventing the state email system to hide their e mails is kosher? I don't.

Me, I see it as evidence of the under-the-table government they ran up there. I don't take too fondly to politicians taking painful measures to hide things from the folks who elected them.

But of course, that's just me. The people will weigh in.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

why don't you show why the article is not correct?

I'll let someone else do it. Not the media, for sure.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/bl...hp/rubin/30252

The New York Times does the all-so predictable Sarah Palin bill of indictment for its Sunday front page. It certainly sounds compelling in the paragraph called the “nut graf”:

Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.

But what is so remarkable is how little there is in the page after page of minutiae thrown against the wall by the Times. And indeed there’s plenty of favorable material there. Up front we learn:

Ms. Palin has many supporters. As a two-term mayor she paved roads and built an ice rink, and as governor she has pushed through higher taxes on the oil companies that dominate one-third of the state’s economy. She stirs deep emotions. In Wasilla, many residents display unflagging affection, cheering “our Sarah” and hissing at her critics.

In just the first few paragraphs you have testimony that she was “effective and accessible.” So where are we going here? Well, despite the testimony that she was ”accessible,” others find her “secretive” and inclined to put a premium on “loyalty.” The evidence? The Governor’s office declined a request for emails that would have cost over $400,000. Proof positive. Oh, and the records sought (about Polar Bears and such) were in fact obtained.

Then there is the ” she blurs personal and public behavior” charge. The evidence? A phone call from Todd Palin to a state legislator about the latter’s chief of staff, which Palin denies was mentioned. Pretty thin gruel.

Next we have her tenure as mayor, where again all heck breaks loose because — are ya sitting down? — she brought in her own team. No! Unheard of. Jeeez. Next she’ll be firing the town museum director. Oh no– it’s true! Palin says (”Oh yeah, she says,” you can hear the Times reporters hrrumphing) she was cutting the budget.

This is pathetic, really. Is there something illegal here? Is there something nefarious? What is the point?

The next offense: while she was mayor city employees were told not to talk to the press. The horror! Might there have been a procedure, a public affairs or press person for that? We don’t know and the Times doesn’t tell us.

Then we get to the book banning. But if you read carefully there is no banning, no censorship, no list and no nothing other than someone became “scared” of Palin:

“People would bring books back censored,” recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin’s predecessor. “Pages would get marked up or torn out.”

Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.

But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.

“Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”

“I’m still proud of Sarah,” she added, “but she scares the bejeebers out of me.”

So Palin talked “about” removing books — but the piece doesn’t tell us what was said. And we hear about Palin’s distaste for a book about homosexual parenting. Again, is there some story in here? We’re up to page three and it hasn’t popped out yet.

We then learn that she did take on her own Republican Party and won the election for Governor by, goodness gracious, preparing for debates with notecards. Color-coded no less.

Then on page four of this eye-popping account, we learn as Governor she had the temerity to have ”surrounded herself with people she has known since grade school and members of her church.” No! She hired people she knew? And people she trusted because she had just run against a hostile machine of her own party? The Lieutenant Governor offers up that they were “competent, qualified, top-notch people,” but are you going to believe him? And then the kicker: it seemed to, well, work out pretty well. We learn:

To her supporters — and with an 80 percent approval rating, she has plenty — Ms. Palin has lifted Alaska out of a mire of corruption. She gained the passage of a bill that tightens the rules covering lobbyists. And she rewrote the tax code to capture a greater share of oil and gas sale proceeds.

“Does anybody doubt that she’s a tough negotiator?” said State Representative Carl Gatto, Republican of Palmer.

The nerve — hiring trusted people and running a competent, popular administration. So we veer back to “secrecy” –dastardly tales of using a private email account and reliance on a circle of close advisors. Once again, the sheer banality of it all is both numbing and humorous. Surely the Old Grey Lady hasn’t devoted all this space for nothing? But that’s the conclusion one reaches as we stumble into page five. And that seems to have more of the same — people who didn’t get emails returned or thought she was too adversarial, harboring a “siege-like” mentality against her foes.

Wow, are you shocked and appalled yet? Me neither, and I can’t for the life of me figure out the point of the story. Ah, yes: the reporters were told to “get the goods” and this is all they found. But being the New York Times they made it really long, put it on the front page, and hoped people wouldn’t read it all that closely and say, “I guess she has a pretty good record if that’s all they had.”

And if you are looking for any detailed description of any of her accomplishments — presumably the reason for her 80 percent popularity — forget it. No room for that.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I'll let someone else do it. Not the media, for sure.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/bl...hp/rubin/30252

I was looking for more information about how the Alaskan people feel about the silly charges and accusations against Sarah...

I found it:

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I was looking for more information about how the Alaskan people feel about the silly charges and accusations against Sarah...

I found it:

That's a voter whose oppinions I want to agree with.

[wmbwinn]

I found that funny also and just had to drop it in here...

I think he has an opinion or two...

[u2sarajevo]

So only ex or current Senators, Congressmen have experience to be veeps?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

So only ex or current Senators, Congressmen have experience to be veeps?

Historically, yes. Governors have generally not followed the path of VP.

[Mavdog]

yes, ex senators or congresspeople have the experience of what is a veep's job.

[u2sarajevo]

Good to see we will try and buck that trend.