McCain's VP Pick?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

That's your approach to politics?

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

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

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

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

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

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

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

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

[jthig32]

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

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

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

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

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

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

[jthig32]

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

[chumdawg]

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

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

[jthig32]

I don't even know what that means.

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

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I don't even know what that means.

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

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

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

[jthig32]

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

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

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

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

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

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

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

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

[jthig32]

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

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

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jthig32

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

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

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

Gotcha, bro.

[jthig32]

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

[rabbitproof]

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

[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.

[Mavdog]

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

are you (and this writer) serious?

[rmacomic]

Originally Posted by jthig32

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

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

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

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

are you (and this writer) serious?

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

[Mavdog]

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

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

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

kinda illogical don't ya think?

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

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

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

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

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

kinda illogical don't ya think?

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

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

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

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

[dude1394]

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

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

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

Hell hath no fury like the Gray Lady scorned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mavdog]

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

By WESLEY LOY
wloy@adn.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mavdog]

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

Sunday, September 14, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

[dude1394]

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

[Mavdog]

nothing like a little bending of the truth to charge up a crowd....
-----------------------------------------------------------
Palin spells out her role in McCain administration
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

Vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said Monday she would concentrate on energy, government reform and helping families with special needs children if Republicans win the White House this fall, and drew cheers when she said, "too often government is the problem" rather than the solution.

Campaigning on her own, the Alaska governor also said Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama "wants to raise income taxes and raise payroll taxes and raise investment income taxes and raise business taxes and raise the death tax.

"But John McCain and I know that's not the way you grow the economy," she added.

In fact, independent groups such as the Tax Policy Center have concluded that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposal, which include higher income and payroll taxes only for the wealthiest wage-earners.

McCain's selection of Palin more than two weeks ago has brought renewed enthusiasm to his campaign, particularly among conservatives who have long been wary of him. Yet the governor, with little experience outside her own state, has largely been kept out of public view while aides seek to bring her up to date on a range of issues.

The current trip is her first outside her home state without McCain, and the schedule was relatively light, with only a speech in Colorado and a fundraiser in Ohio. The governor has had only one substantive media interview since joining the ticket, and she and her husband, Todd, ignored reporters' shouted questions throughout the day.

Aides went to unusual lengths to maintain her privacy aboard her chartered campaign jet, pulling a curtain across the center aisle to separate the Palins and their top aides from the rest of the passengers.

Appearing before an enthusiastic crowd in swing-state Colorado, Palin struck populist themes. She said that as governor of Alaska she had broken "the old oil monopoly that had controlled" the state, and eliminated the "good-ol'-boys network of lobbyists and special interests" once in power.

She also referred to her time as mayor of Wasilla in terms that echoed former President Reagan, a hero to many conservatives.

"We became part of the fastest growing area of the state because businesses wanted to be there," she said. "They also knew that they would have elected leaders knowing that government isn't always the answer. In fact, too often government is the problem."

Presenting her credentials as a reformer, she told her audience that she had told Congress "thanks, but no thanks" when it came to the so-called Bridge to Nowhere, designed to link a small Alaskan town with its airport on a nearby island. She made no mention of the fact that she favored federal funding for the structure before she turned against it.

She also said, without elaboration, that "too often, the government gets in the way when innovators take on cancer or Parkinson's or Alzheimers.

"To help Americans overcome these terrible diseases, our administration will lead efforts to find new treatments and cures," said Palin. The governor did not mention embryonic stem cell research, which many advocates say holds the key to treatment or even cures of numerous diseases. Palin, along with many other conservatives, oppose federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. McCain's campaign is currently airing a radio commercial that indicates support for an expansion of the federal involvement in stem cell research.

The speech was the first time Palin has indicated what role McCain might give her in his administration.

She said Alaska has nearly 20 percent of the nation's supply of oil and gas and said her job as vice president would be to help McCain, "implement his 'all of the above' strategy for energy independence."

She also said she would play a role in an effort to reform government.

"I've got another idea that I think Senator McCain likes. In Alaska, we took the state checkbook and put it online, so everyone can see where their money goes. We're going to bring that kind of openness to Washington," she said.

In fact, there already is a searchable database that allows the public to track federal grants and contracts, and Obama was a principle force behind the 2006 law that created it, along with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act is one of Obama's few legislative accomplishments in his short Senate tenure.

Palin, who has a 4-month-old son with Down Syndrome, said she would ensure government is on the side of families with special needs children.

[chumdawg]

I think we are now past the days when Palin made any impact on this race.

[Mavdog]

^^^ (tongue firmly planted in cheek)

[Murphy3]

I seriously doubt that chum... surely you're smarter than that.

[chumdawg]

Her act is already starting to wear thin, and will only continue to do so. It's one thing when you are shiny and no one knows anything about you. It's quite another thing when everyone knows everything about you, and you have a thin bit to offer.

[u2sarajevo]

^I was thinking the same thing about Obama.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

^I was thinking the same thing about Obama.

A year ago?

[Flacolaco]

A year ago..today....pretty much the whole time.

[chumdawg]

Look, I'm just saying, when it comes to Palin, I think she has peaked.

[u2sarajevo]

That's what I meant chum... that Obama has peaked. He finally looked vulnerable.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

That's what I meant chum... that Obama has peaked. He finally looked vulnerable.

Yeah, I don't think there is any doubt he has already seen his peak. By June or so that peak had come and gone. But...he didn't peak like a flash in a pan for one short week or two, and then have to try to keep it up for seven more.

Palin certainly energized the base. But the enthusiasm she brought in the wake of her selection won't last all the way to the election, in my opinion.

Eventually folks will realize that she isn't actually at the top of the ticket, and the race will get down to Obama vs. McCain, like it always has been.

[Flacolaco]

The nastier and more bitter Obama gets, the more he slides in the poles.

What happened to "the politics of change?"

It was a mirage to begin with. He's just a nasty as everyone ever has been.

Unfortunately for America, all he has to do is continue to smile and he'll win this race easily going away.

[Flacolaco]

and the race will get down to Obama vs. McCain, like it always has been.

Well then advantage McCain.

Communism doesn't work. It's been proven.

[u2sarajevo]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Yeah, I don't think there is any doubt he has already seen his peak. By June or so that peak had come and gone. But...he didn't peak like a flash in a pan for one short week or two, and then have to try to keep it up for seven more.

Palin certainly energized the base. But the enthusiasm she brought in the wake of her selection won't last all the way to the election, in my opinion.

Eventually folks will realize that she isn't actually at the top of the ticket, and the race will get down to Obama vs. McCain, like it always has been.

I fully agree.

[Murphy3]

I don't see why anyone would believe that it's going to come down to simply McCain vs Obama.. Obviously the VP candidates will bring in some votes.. Enough to swing a state? Well, I suppose it depends upon how close the states are... You just never know how close it might be....

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

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

Sunday, September 14, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

Yawn....