McCain's VP Pick?

[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.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

This is one of the dumbest points I've ever read, in any setting. If you don't know anything about an issue just leave it to the people that do.

This is what I was wondering about...

[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 wmbwinn

If the fetus is alive that late in the process, then the abnormalities discovered are not inconsistent with life. You just have a mother that doesn't want a Down's syndrome baby.
The process of a partial birth abortion is a birth that is simply interrupted by intentionally killing the baby. The only "advantage" to the process for the "health" of the mother is that the baby's head is crushed to make it smaller to make passing the Down's syndrome baby's head pass easier.

There is absolutely no good medical excuse for a partial birth abortion. There is just a mother who doesn't want a Down's syndrome baby or a baby with some other abnormality which abnormality is consistent with life...

Besides, if we are talking about the "psychological health of the mother" then how in the heck is psychologically healthy to tell the doctor to do that horrific procedure in the last trimester? How do you live with yourself after that?

Now, before you flame me for that last question, limit the flaming to the topic at hand which is the partial birth abortion in the last trimester of a baby who is viable.

downs? where do you come up with that? surprising as you say you're in medicine.

the typical D&X procedure is not done due to a down syndrome fetus, as the test done most commonly to determine downs is amniocentesis. amnio is done typically in the second trimester, so terminating the pregnancy at that stage doesn't involve D&X.

the D&X is prevalent when a fetus with hydrocephalus is discovered. a fetus with hydocephalus can have a head enlarged 20x the normal. a woman cannot vaginally deliver that size a baby without damage or death to her. and the fetus doesn't reach consciousness, although it could be "alive".

the american college of obstetricians and gynecoligists said in 1997 that "an intact D&X.... may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision."

I say let's listen to the doctors who know most about the subject. they clearly disagree strongly with your conclusion.

[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.

[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.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

downs? where do you come up with that? surprising as you say you're in medicine.

the typical D&X procedure is not done due to a down syndrome fetus, as the test done most commonly to determine downs is amniocentesis. amnio is done typically in the second trimester, so terminating the pregnancy at that stage doesn't involve D&X.

the D&X is prevalent when a fetus with hydrocephalus is discovered. a fetus with hydocephalus can have a head enlarged 20x the normal. a woman cannot vaginally deliver that size a baby without damage or death to her. and the fetus doesn't reach consciousness, although it could be "alive".

the american college of obstetricians and gynecoligists said in 1997 that "an intact D&X.... may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision."

I say let's listen to the doctors who know most about the subject. they clearly disagree strongly with your conclusion.

Like I implied/stated earlier, we are talking about the gunshow loophole. We are talking about a small number of appropriate procedures.

I am not an OB/Gyn as I stated earlier.

Nonetheless, we still have the debate about whether the unborn child is a person with civil rights. We don't euthanize Hydrocephalic persons on this side of the uterus.

I will grant that you came up with an example of when a partial birth abortion might be the best procedure. In other words, I will admit that I was wrong and did not think of that example. So, I said I was wrong.

Nonetheless, we are stlil left with the debate about when a fetus gets rights as a person. That is the debate behind the reason why Obama would not vote for the bill demanding life saving efforts for a baby born alive despite a doctor's best effort to kill it...

After we finish debating partial birth abortion, we still have to acknowledge that the vast majority of abortions occur for "personal choice, my uterus/my decision" type reasons. Those are not medically necessary and have nothing to do with the "health of the mother" other than the fact that all these procedures have a doctor's note saying it was done for the "psychological health of the mother".

rmacomic's abortion had nothing to do with medical necessity.

In my opinion, the last remaining significant civil rights battle in the USA is the fight for the rights of the fetus and the debate about what legal decision authority a man has in the issue of the fetus (as it is genetically half his).

That civil rights battle is tremendous...

[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 wmbwinn

Like I implied/stated earlier, we are talking about the gunshow loophole. We are talking about a small number of appropriate procedures.

I am not an OB/Gyn as I stated earlier.

Nonetheless, we still have the debate about whether the unborn child is a person with civil rights. We don't euthanize Hydrocephalic persons on this side of the uterus.

I will grant that you came up with an example of when a partial birth abortion might be the best procedure. In other words, I will admit that I was wrong and did not think of that example. So, I said I was wrong.

well, let's just say that you didn't consider other situations. thanks for the clarification.

Nonetheless, we are stlil left with the debate about when a fetus gets rights as a person. That is the debate behind the reason why Obama would not vote for the bill demanding life saving efforts for a baby born alive despite a doctor's best effort to kill it...

After we finish debating partial birth abortion, we still have to acknowledge that the vast majority of abortions occur for "personal choice, my uterus/my decision" type reasons. Those are not medically necessary and have nothing to do with the "health of the mother" other than the fact that all these procedures have a doctor's note saying it was done for the "psychological health of the mother".

rmacomic's abortion had nothing to do with medical necessity.

In my opinion, the last remaining significant civil rights battle in the USA is the fight for the rights of the fetus and the debate about what legal decision authority a man has in the issue of the fetus (as it is genetically half his).

That civil rights battle is tremendous...

that is true, the vast majority of abortions are of convenience.

that is why all sides of the debate should unite in the goal of having fewer unplanned pregnancies.

which btw is the mission behind planned parenthood (hence the name...), and why imo having sex education given to early to mid teens is an excellent idea. people would be shocked to hear how much misinformation teenagers have in regard to sex and fertility.

as for the "civil rights" of a fetus, you will have to explain how and when that occurs. does the fertilized egg have "civil rights"? how about the zygote of a few weeks? an embryo of a couple of months?

sorry, and I know this will come as a shock to you, i do not see any "civil rights" until there is a recognized person, and that is typically when a birth certificate is issued.

[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.

[wmbwinn]

Mavdog:

as for the "civil rights" of a fetus, you will have to explain how and when that occurs. does the fertilized egg have "civil rights"? how about the zygote of a few weeks? an embryo of a couple of months?

sorry, and I know this will come as a shock to you, i do not see any "civil rights" until there is a recognized person, and that is typically when a birth certificate is issued.

You are right. I am shocked that you would apply no civil rights until after a birth certificate is available which happens days to weeks after birth...

As Chum brought up earlier, some would drag this back to eggs and sperm. I do not view eggs and sperm as having civil rights because they represent only 50% of the human genetic structure until they are united.

Should the zygote have civil rights? Rarely does a person find out they are pregnant at the zygote stage, but newer pregnancy tests are getting closer to that. Nonetheless, it is a good question.

At this point in medicine, we can take a 20 week fetus born spontaneously or taken electively alive due to true medical need in the fetus or the mother (see, there are Life options for these circumstances) and succeed at a high percentage in seeing them through to healthy childhoood. My little sister has one of these miracles who is doing very well now.

I am not proposing that we assign civil rights at the point of 20 weeks. But, I am proposing that we should not fail to assign it by then. If the medical community can take a fetus at that point and provide it with care adequate to produce a healthy 40 week term baby at 40 weeks, then we should not deny a 20 weeker civil rights.

Now, a person could counter with specific examples of fetuses who would survive to 20 weeks but who have no chance of viability outside the womb. Again, nit picking the details is like the gunshow loophole- it represents the rare exception rather than the usual scenario.

[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.

[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.

[u2sarajevo]

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

[Mavdog]

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

[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.

[u2sarajevo]

Good to see we will try and buck that trend.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

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

That's your approach to politics?

[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.