Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Wow, lots of polls today. Here are some more state polls..

Insider Advantage/Poll Position (Likely Voters)

VA: McCain 48-46
CO: Obama 51-41
GA: McCain 51-43
Big 10 Battleground (Registered Voters)
OH: Obama 46-45
MN: Obama 47-45

Of those, strictly FWIW & IMHO, barring any huge developments (i.e. if the campaign just played out the string from here with no major gaffes/home runs from either candidate)

I figure Obama wins Virginia & Colorado, the Georgia one sounds about right, and I think McCain may actually win both Ohio & Minnesota.

[Young Drachma]

http://chartjunk.karmanaut.com/wp-content/images/taxplans.gif

chartjunk » Blog Archive » Tax Plans (that’s one for you, nineteen for me). (http://chartjunk.karmanaut.com/taxplans/)

[Vegas Vic]

I figure Obama wins Virginia & Colorado, the Georgia one sounds about right, and I think McCain may actually win both Ohio & Minnesota.

These polls are all over the place.

Demographically, the way that these states tie into the popular vote, there is no conceivable way that McCain could win Minnesota while losing Virginia and Colorado.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Demographically, the way that these states tie into the popular vote, there is no conceivable way that McCain could win Minnesota while losing Virginia and Colorado.

Call it a fluky hunch based on a combination of the polling data I'm seeing & a (un)healthy dose of gut.

I've had a bad feeling about Virginia for quite a while now and I've actually been surprised Colorado has been red for as long as it has. Minnesota, for whatever reason, I've had a similar sort of good feeling about in spite of its blue background in recent elections.

Also, considering how split we've been as a country for quite a while, something completely off the wall like the scenario I mentioned would actually make a weird sort of sense. Assuming the two are really very close on election day, the swap of Virginia & Minnesota could happen on the basis
of nothing more than different weather patterns driving turnout up or down.

[Galaril]

I'm disappointed that your reaction was one of agreement, because I believe I would have told my non-American friends to go fuck themselves.

Unlike you I value even dissenting points of view. What sghould I tell me wife and in-laws to go fuck themselves?

[Flasch186]

I love seeing things like the chart above because it borders on indisputable and what you see is what you get, so the ads from either side stating stuff that contradicts the above simply become dressing in an attempt to 'spin'.

[Kodos]

That's a great chart. Really shows who is helping the middle class, and who likes to make the rich richer.

[Galaril]

Oh I'm sorry. What is the proper Obama-like response to "Haw haw, Americans are so stupid"? Besides agreeing, of course.

"No, no, you're getting America all wrong. Despite the fact that many small town Americans feel let down by their government and so therefore cling bitterly to xenophobia, faith in God, or their 2nd Amendment rights, they're still basically decent.

You know, they may listen to the wrong talk radio shows, or watch the wrong television networks, but that doesn't mean they're stupid."

I guess I'm just a jingoist freak, because despite our flaws, I still think this is the greatest country in the world. It's like someone insulting my family. We may have internal arguments, but if someone insults them, I'm going to stand up for my family.

This leads me to the problem I have with a lot of people in this country not just conservatives though they are the primary "offenders'. The fact that many american's feel we are the "big shot hot shots" of the world and can do as we please with no thought for other people. The feeling of if you are against us fuck you get out of our way. This my friends is not the American way my father fought in WW 2 in the Pacific for. We are a nation of 290 million pople on a planet of 6.721 billion! So why should evryone fall in line with basically 120 million peoples views since even half the adult population is against it? That is by the way less than 2% of the world pop. And this may all sound like I am not patriotic or proud of being American and to that I say you would be wrong. I as many others on this board chose to serve my country in my case for 8 years in the military and another 4 years in the government. During that time I was in combat in the Gulf War and spent most of 11 yeras living in foreign country's including living among the locals. This experience has given me invaluable opportunites to learn what others thought as opposed to just talking about what I thought. I guess I just think we should start listening alittle more instead of just talking.IMHO.:)

[ISiddiqui]

http://chartjunk.karmanaut.com/wp-content/images/taxplans.gif

chartjunk » Blog Archive » Tax Plans (that’s one for you, nineteen for me). (http://chartjunk.karmanaut.com/taxplans/)

There is a third chart that is missing from that site, based on total tax burden:

http://scrotty.fileave.com/taxBurden.png

[MikeVic]

Am I reading the chart correctly if I say that Obama wants to lower taxes for the bottom/middle income people?

[TazFTW]

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/connecticut/election_2008_connecticut_presidential_election)

Connecticut, Obama 53 McCain 41. Previous Rasmussen (7/31) Obama 51 McCain 36.

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_jersey/election_2008_new_jersey_presidential_election)

New Jersey, Obama 55 McCain 42. Previous Rasmussen (08/04) Obama 48 McCain 40.

Likely voters.

[Galaril]

"Progressive" might be acceptable.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at. Are you suggesting that Americans should listen to being called "stupid", "uneducated", "ignorant", "small-minded", or something else and just nod our heads?

Folks don't have to only say nice things, but if you're going to say something not so nice, I certainly get to speak my mind in return. Or is this the articulation of the DT policy: "First we turn our cheeks, then we spread 'em."

You are correct sir you do have the right to say what you like in response which is precisely one thing a lot of conservatives would like to take away from Marxist pinkos like myself that won't tow the line. But, the problem is with your response of " go fuck yourself" is that is not meant as a constructive or postive communicative response just as a combative answer.

[Flasch186]

well I guess the first question is where you draw the line to mean 'bottom/middle'?

Then you could say that that may be the plan.

Whether or not one candidate is 'trusted' to accomplish this is another story.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The feeling of if you are against us fuck you get out of our way.

Sums it up pretty well IMO.

This my friends is not the American way my father fought in WW 2 in the Pacific for.

To that I can only say "Bullshit". I'd say that's a significant part of why he was sent there to fight ... along with making sure we handed out a healthy dose of payback of course. Or have you forgotten the colonial nature of quite a few of the allies?

I guess I just think we should start listening a little more instead of just talking.

Depends largely upon what's being said is worth hearing.
And most stuff, frankly, isn't.

[BrianD]

Am I reading the chart correctly if I say that Obama wants to lower taxes for the bottom/middle income people?

He apparently wants to lower taxes for the 95% of the population that is paying 48ish% of the total taxes. More would be cut for those making less.

[CamEdwards]

You are correct sir you do have the right to say what you like in response which is precisely one thing a lot of conservatives would like to take away from Marxist pinkos like myself that won't tow the line. But, the problem is with your response of " go fuck yourself" is that is not meant as a constructive or postive communicative response just as a combative answer.

As opposed to the constructiveness of "There sure are a lot of stupid Americans"?

As to the "Marxist pinkos", I have no problem with them speaking their mind. As a talk show host, it typically gives me a great deal to talk about! It's not conservatives who are pushing for a return to the Fairness Doctrine. It's not conservatives who are sending out blast e-mails demanding that supporters call radio stations and protest conservative guests speaking about politics. It's not conservatives that are setting up "free speech zones" and speech codes on college campuses. Yes, there are plenty of conservatives who would love to see restrictions on speech. There are also plenty of Marxist pinkos who'd love to do the same.


This leads me to the problem I have with a lot of people in this country not just conservatives though they are the primary "offenders'. The fact that many american's feel we are the "big shot hot shots" of the world and can do as we please with no thought for other people. The feeling of if you are against us fuck you get out of our way. This my friends is not the American way my father fought in WW 2 in the Pacific for. We are a nation of 290 million pople on a planet of 6.721 billion! So why should evryone fall in line with basically 120 million peoples views since even half the adult population is against it? That is by the way less than 2% of the world pop. And this may all sound like I am not patriotic or proud of being American and to that I say you would be wrong. I as many others on this board chose to serve my country in my case for 8 years in the military and another 4 years in the government. During that time I was in combat in the Gulf War and spent most of 11 yeras living in foreign country's including living among the locals. This experience has given me invaluable opportunites to learn what others thought as opposed to just talking about what I thought. I guess I just think we should start listening alittle more instead of just talking.IMHO.


There's a difference between recognizing the unique and dramatic contributions that the mere existance of the United States has had on the world, and not giving a damn about the rest of the world.

You spent most of 11 years living in foreign countries, protecting the interests not just of the United States, but of those locals as well. I'd say that's a fairly good demonstration of the United States' concern for other countries in and of itself.

But when I say we're the greatest country on earth, I mean it. It's not through any of MY contributions, and it's more than the contributions of people like yourself, your father, or my own (who also fought in the Pacific in WWII). The fact is that before 1776, no country had ever done what our Founders did, and you could make a case that no country after has ever been as successful at it as we have. Our Commander-in-Chief stepped down after the war to gain independence, instead of becoming a military dictator. He stepped down as President after two terms, instead of serving for life. Our 2nd president stepped down after being defeated, and turned the country over to the rightful winner of the election, despite the fact that the two parties believed the other was veering dangerously close to treasonously violating the ideals of the Revolution.

The Civil War may not have started as an abolitionist movement, but that's what it became. After the war was over, we unified once again. No matter how unstable it might have been, we did not erupt once more into civil war. We live in a melting pot of cultures, with relatively little inter-cultural friction. We have had a stable government for 150 years, despite aquisition of new lands and an end to the days of geographic isolation. And all the time, we continued to grow as a world power, because we understand the world as it is, not how we would like it to be.

Has there ever been a time in history where the civilized world has NOT had a dominant power? Perhaps the Dark Ages would qualify, and we all know what a world that was. It is, IMHO, beyond silliness to think that if America suddenly ceases to be a hyperpower, that some other country won't take its place. So who should that power be? If the United States is not the greatest nation on earth, who would you propose take its place?

[Flasch186]

Depends largely upon what's being said is worth hearing.
And most stuff, frankly, isn't.

well that's just stupid. You should hear everything so that you can decide what to do with it.

[Galaril]

Sums it up pretty well IMO.



To that I can only say "Bullshit". I'd say that's a significant part of why he was sent there to fight ... along with making sure we handed out a healthy dose of payback of course. Or have you forgotten the colonial nature of quite a few of the allies?



Depends largely upon what's being said is worth hearing.
And most stuff, frankly, isn't.

Valid points.

[JonInMiddleGA]

well that's just stupid. You should hear everything so that you can decide what to do with it.

But how many times do you need to hear the same crap that you've already rejected? Crap is crap, regardless of the language.

Or do you actually believe there's a significant amount of anything "new" coming from any quarter (including those I agree with) at this point, i.e. something that hasn't already been said countless times over?

Or do you just have so much spare time that you care to hear the same rejected ideas/concepts in multiple accents?

[Flasch186]

But how many times do you need to hear the same crap that you've already rejected? Crap is crap, regardless of the language.

Or do you actually believe there's a significant amount of anything "new" coming from any quarter (including those I agree with) at this point, i.e. something that hasn't already been said countless times over?

Or do you just have so much spare time that you care to hear the same rejected ideas/concepts in multiple accents?

I guess im being too technical. Im saying that before someone opens their mouth you can't be certain what is going to come out so you *should* listen and then decide to ignore it/consider it/ etc.

[larrymcg421]

Of those, strictly FWIW & IMHO, barring any huge developments (i.e. if the campaign just played out the string from here with no major gaffes/home runs from either candidate)

I figure Obama wins Virginia & Colorado, the Georgia one sounds about right, and I think McCain may actually win both Ohio & Minnesota.

That would be very interesting. Obama likely still wins in that scenario, since he's almost certain to win Iowa. Right now he's got Kerry's 252. Losing MN gets him down to 242. Winning IA (7), CO (9), and VA (13) would get him to 271 electoral votes.

Right now, the most fun scenario is if Obama wins the Kerry states, and adds IA, NM, and NV. That would give each candidate 269 and send the election to the House.

[Big Fo]

Nobody's e-mail is safe. Bored 4chan users got to Barack Obama's GMail account a day after they hacked into Palin's e-mail yesterday.

theonion.com link (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_in_photos/inside_obamas_emails)

The "Need experience? We can help..." Monster.com ad was a nice touch :D

[Jas_lov]

I have to admit, I don't understand the McCain/Palin campaign strategy over the past few days. They're in Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin. He's behind in all of these states, and even if he did win them, they are not states that are going to get him to 270 (if he won these states, they would be getting him to 290 or 300). I don't know why they're wasting their time and resources in these states.

The Big 10 battleground polls that came out today have Iowa tied which really surprised me because I don't think it's that close. The DM Register poll that came out last week had Obama up 12 and they're probably the best pollster in the state.

Maybe McCain has different internal numbers that are showing a big swing from the Palin pick. Huckabee won here in January so there is a base she can get here. McCain came to Iowa last month and reiterated his opposition to ethanol subsidies. He never does well in the Iowa caucuses and I still think it's the surest Red state pickup for Obama so I don't understand McCain's strategy either.

[Galaril]

As opposed to the constructiveness of "There sure are a lot of stupid Americans"?

As to the "Marxist pinkos", I have no problem with them speaking their mind. As a talk show host, it typically gives me a great deal to talk about! It's not conservatives who are pushing for a return to the Fairness Doctrine. It's not conservatives who are sending out blast e-mails demanding that supporters call radio stations and protest conservative guests speaking about politics. It's not conservatives that are setting up "free speech zones" and speech codes on college campuses. Yes, there are plenty of conservatives who would love to see restrictions on speech. There are also plenty of Marxist pinkos who'd love to do the same.



There's a difference between recognizing the unique and dramatic contributions that the mere existance of the United States has had on the world, and not giving a damn about the rest of the world.

You spent most of 11 years living in foreign countries, protecting the interests not just of the United States, but of those locals as well. I'd say that's a fairly good demonstration of the United States' concern for other countries in and of itself.

But when I say we're the greatest country on earth, I mean it. It's not through any of MY contributions, and it's more than the contributions of people like yourself, your father, or my own (who also fought in the Pacific in WWII). The fact is that before 1776, no country had ever done what our Founders did, and you could make a case that no country after has ever been as successful at it as we have. Our Commander-in-Chief stepped down after the war to gain independence, instead of becoming a military dictator. He stepped down as President after two terms, instead of serving for life. Our 2nd president stepped down after being defeated, and turned the country over to the rightful winner of the election, despite the fact that the two parties believed the other was veering dangerously close to treasonously violating the ideals of the Revolution.

The Civil War may not have started as an abolitionist movement, but that's what it became. After the war was over, we unified once again. No matter how unstable it might have been, we did not erupt once more into civil war. We live in a melting pot of cultures, with relatively little inter-cultural friction. We have had a stable government for 150 years, despite aquisition of new lands and an end to the days of geographic isolation. And all the time, we continued to grow as a world power, because we understand the world as it is, not how we would like it to be.

Has there ever been a time in history where the civilized world has NOT had a dominant power? Perhaps the Dark Ages would qualify, and we all know what a world that was. It is, IMHO, beyond silliness to think that if America suddenly ceases to be a hyperpower, that some other country won't take its place. So who should that power be? If the United States is not the greatest nation on earth, who would you propose take its place?

Good post and appreciate the thought you put into it. I agree with alot that you said here. The thing that makes me crazy is that both sides the "Red" and "Blue" forget too often we are all Americans as well as members of the world as well. That is all I am saying. I really wish we all could get back to the USA and less this us against them shit in the US today between the two sides.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm saying that before someone opens their mouth you can't be certain what is going to come out so you *should* listen and then decide to ignore it/consider it/ etc.

But if we're talking about, let's call them philosophical issues/big picture stuff/etc. then probability, past experience with someone on other subjects, other known information, etc. provides a good bit of information that saves time otherwise wasted.

And ultimately, whether you agree or disagree with the other person specifically, what are the odds that they're actually going to say something you haven't already heard, assessed, and formed a position on already? Maybe that's one of those YMMV things but for me it's pretty low.

[ISiddiqui]

Interesting fight over one of Obama's ads:

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Obama’s Limbaugh ad causes stir « - Blogs from CNN.com (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/18/obamas-limbaugh-ad-causes-stir/)

I wonder how much traction this will gain since most informed people know that McCain got a LOT of flack by his party for turning his back on them during the illegal immigration debate. Trying to link him to Limbaugh may provide short term gains, but it may hurt Obama as he gets tarred with the "race-bating" brush.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I really wish we all could get back to the USA and less this us against them shit in the US today between the two sides.

But I'd say there's a great deal of "us vs them" that's a reality, unfortunate or not.

There are significantly fewer widely shared values today than, say, the 1940's. Better, worse, indifferent, whatever, the reality is that "United" is well on it's well to becoming an obvious misnomer.

[ISiddiqui]

Nobody's e-mail is safe. Bored 4chan users got to Barack Obama's GMail account a day after they hacked into Palin's e-mail yesterday.

theonion.com link (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_in_photos/inside_obamas_emails)

The "Need experience? We can help..." Monster.com ad was a nice touch :D

I love the Cheney and Carter emails :D.

LOL!! I just saw the Biden one in the trash folder!

[CamEdwards]

Good post and appreciate the thought you put into it. I agree with alot that you said here. The thing that makes me crazy is that both sides the "Red" and "Blue" forget too often we are all Americans as well as members of the world as well. That is all I am saying. I really wish we all could get back to the USA and less this us against them shit in the US today between the two sides.

Me too, which is why I'm less offended by an American saying "there sure are a lot of stupid Americans" than I am a foreigner saying it. :D

No matter how many differences we have, we will always have at least ONE thing in common with each other. And you're right, it's easy to forget that.

[larrymcg421]

More Big 10 Battleground (RV)....

PA: tied 45-45
MI: Obama 48-44
WI: Obama 45-44
IA: tied 45-45
IN: McCain 47-43
IL: Obama 53-37

Also, Pew Research released a National poll showing a 46-46 tie.

[CamEdwards]

Speaking of the Palin e-mail hack, this is from Wired:

Palin E-Mail Hacker Says It Was Easy | Threat Level from Wired.com (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/palin-e-mail-ha.html)


A person claiming to be the hacker who obtained access to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's private Yahoo e-mail on Tuesday has posted a supposed first-person account of the hack, revealing the relatively simple steps he says he took to crack the private e-mail of the Republican vice-presidential candidate.

The story was briefly posted Wednesday to the 4chan forum where the hack first surfaced. Bloggers have connected the handle of the poster, "Rubico," to an e-mail address, and tentatively identified the owner as a college student in Tennessee.

Threat Level was unable to reach the student by phone because his number is unlisted. A person who identified himself as the student's father, when reached at home, said he could not talk about the matter and would have no comment. The father is a Democratic state representative in Tennessee. Threat Level is not identifying them by name because authorities have not identified any suspects in the case, and the link to the student so far is tenuous.

[cartman]

I'd be highly suspicious of that, because usually when a name is used in a posting at 4chan, it is almost never that person doing the posting. 99% of the time, the posting is done by 'anonymous'. If it is true, then he is one of the dumbest people ever to log on to the intertubes.

[Big Fo]

A person who identified himself as the student's father, when reached at home, said he could not talk about the matter and would have no comment. The father is a Democratic state representative in Tennessee.

:lol:

That's pretty embarrassing.

[Flasch186]

MBBF, this is the inevitable ROI I was talking about earlier. It isn't a reflection on Palin in particular because ROI and it's diminishment, occurs with almost everything:

Palin excitement levels off as Democrats regain lead

(CNN) -- Is America's honeymoon with Sarah Palin over? Polls suggest that might be so.

Sarah Palin and John McCain dropped behind the Democratic ticket in the polls Wednesday.

Palin appears to be losing some of her initial appeal as Democrats make gains in the polls.

The Alaska governor came out swinging at the Republican National Convention, energizing her party's base and shifting the momentum to John McCain's favor.

At rallies in the week following the convention, the McCain-Palin duo saw their best attendance and a newfound zeal, and the Republican ticket took the lead in national polls for the first time.

But polls show that the momentum has shifted once again.

Palin's favorable rating is at 40 percent, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll. That's down 4 points from last week. Her unfavorable rating is at 30 percent, rising 8 points in a week.

The poll was conducted September 12-16 and has a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Former Bush adviser Karl Rove predicted Wednesday that Palin's star power would wear off.

"Nothing lasts for 60-some-odd days," Rove told The Associated Press. "Will she be the center of attention in the remaining 48 days? No, but she came on in a very powerful way and has given a sense of urgency to the McCain campaign that's pretty remarkable."

But this week, the Democrats recaptured the headlines, and Obama regained his lead in the national polls.

CNN's latest poll of polls, out Thursday afternoon, shows him ahead of McCain by 3 points, 47 percent to 44 percent.

The poll of polls consists of six recent surveys: CBS/NYT (September 12-16), Quinnipiac (September 11-16), IPSOS-McClatchy (September 11-15), Gallup (September 15-17), Diageo/Hotline (September 14-16) and American Research Group (September 13-15). It does not have a sampling error.

After a week in which McCain put Obama on the defensive over allegations of playing the gender card, the economic crisis has given Obama an opportunity to go on the offense. Most Americans see Obama as more capable than John McCain when it comes to handling the economy, polls show.

The Illinois senator has been aggressively attacking what he sees as shortcomings in McCain's economic plans.

Also this week, McCain handed Obama ammunition for what has turned out to be a weeklong attack.

Despite the shake up on Wall Street, McCain said Monday that "the fundamentals of the American economy are strong."

The Obama campaign jumped on those remarks, replaying them in a campaign ad, even after McCain clarified his comments. He said what he meant was that American workers are the fundamental strength of the economy and that the country will rebound with their help.

Obama continued to criticize the remark Wednesday at an event in Elko, Nevada: "His campaign must have realized that probably wasn't a smart thing to say on the day of a financial meltdown, so they sent him back out a few hours later to clean up his remarks."

Obama has filled this week's campaign speeches with a focused view of his economic agenda and sound-bite friendly slams to bruise McCain's image.

"This is somebody who has been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he is the one who is going to take on the old boys network. The old boys network, in the McCain campaign, that's called a staff meeting," he said Wednesday.

David Gergen, a senior political analyst for CNN and former presidential adviser, said neither candidate has shown expertise on the economic situation, but Obama has gained more from it than McCain.

"The momentum for John McCain and Sarah Palin has stalled out. There is a little momentum on Barack Obama's part. But he hasn't yet fully seized it, and it is still very close," he said, adding that McCain could still recapture it.

But the Democratic ticket has shown a weakness in regards to the government takeover of insurance giant AIG.

A day after saying the federal government should not come to the rescue of AIG, Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden shifted his position Wednesday, saying he needs to get more details on the terms of the $85 billion takeover.

"The truth is, I don't know what the bailout is yet," Biden said Wednesday afternoon in Mansfield, Ohio.

Obama was slow to respond when asked about the AIG deal. A statement issued from his campaign did not clarify whether he supports or opposes it.

McCain said he didn't want the government to have to take over the company, but it was necessary.

"When AIG was bailed out, I didn't like it, but I understood it needed to be done to protect hard-working Americans with insurance policies and annuities. Sen. Obama didn't take a position. On the biggest issue of the day, he didn't know what to think. He may not realize it, but you don't get to vote 'present' as president of the United States," he said Thursday in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

He also accused Obama of seeing the economic crisis as a "political opportunity."

Obama's campaign responded by accusing McCain of flip-flopping on the issue because he said he opposed the bailout this week.

"Barack Obama does not second-guess the Fed's decision to take unprecedented action to prevent the failure of one of the largest insurance companies in the world from creating an even larger crisis, and he believes it must protect families who count on insurance," said campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

As the McCain campaign tries to regain its footing, it is hitting hard with an ad accusing Obama of wasting taxpayers money.

The ad says Obama's economic policies would severely worsen the country's economic woes.

"When our economy's in crisis, a big government casts a big shadow on us all," the ad's narrator states. "Obama and his liberal congressional allies want a massive government, billions in spending increases, wasteful pork. And we would pay: painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil."

Obama has repeatedly said the notion he will raise taxes on middle-class Americans is untrue.

According to a CNN fact check, Obama's tax plan would increase taxes in 2009 on the wealthiest 20 percent of households while offering tax cuts for the other 80 percent. The largest increases would be on the top 1 percent of earners, according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group whose staff of experts includes former economic advisers to the White House and Congress under both Republicans and Democrats.

By comparison, the Tax Policy Center analysis says, McCain would offer tax cuts across the board. Those at the top end of the scale would get the biggest percentage cuts under McCain, while households with the lowest incomes would receive the largest percentage cuts under Obama's plan.

[lighthousekeeper]

:lol:

That's pretty embarrassing.

Really? I have to admit I'd be a somewhat proud papa.

[SirFozzie]

That your son has initiated his own mini-Watergate and accomplished, absolutely nothing?

[Flasch186]

now this is just ridiculous IMO. He's not going to abide by the subpoena, wow. Troopergate has been hijacked by GOP strategy and that is a shame that, IMO, IMFO, they'd be more apt to hide the truth (whatever it may be) than let it come out:

Palin's husband refuses to testify in probe - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/palin_troopergate)

Palin's husband refuses to testify in probe

By MATT VOLZ, Associated Press Writer 6 minutes ago

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's husband has refused to testify in the investigation of his wife's alleged abuse of power, and a key lawmaker said Thursday that uncooperative witnesses are effectively sidetracking the probe until after Election Day.

Todd Palin, who participates in state business in person or by e-mail, was among 13 people subpoenaed by the Alaska Legislature. McCain-Palin presidential campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan announced Thursday that Todd Palin would not appear, because he no longer believes the Legislature's investigation is legitimate.

Sarah Palin initially welcomed the investigation of accusations that she dismissed the state's public safety commissioner because he refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper. "Hold me accountable," she said.

But she has increasingly opposed it since Republican presidential candidate John McCain tapped her as his running mate. The McCain campaign dispatched a legal team to Alaska including O'Callaghan, a former top U.S. terrorism prosecutor from New York to bolster Palin's local lawyer.

Earlier this week, Alaska Attorney General Talis Colberg said the governor, who was not subpoenaed, declined to participate in the investigation and said Palin administration employees who have been subpoenaed would not appear.

State Sen. Bill Wielechowski, a Democrat, said the McCain campaign is doing all it can to prevent the Legislature from completing a report on whether the GOP's vice presidential nominee abused her power as governor.

Wielechowski, a member of the panel that summoned the witnesses, told The Associated Press that the witnesses can avoid testifying for months without penalty and that court action to force them to appear sooner is unlikely.

Palin fired Walt Monegan in July. It later emerged that Palin, her husband, Todd, and several high-level staffers had contacted Monegan about state trooper Mike Wooten. Palin maintains she fired Monegan over budget disagreements, not because he wouldn't dismiss her former brother-in-law.

Wooten had gone through a nasty divorce from Palin's sister before Palin became governor. While Monegan says no one from the administration ever told him directly to fire Wooten, he says their repeated contacts made it clear they wanted Wooten gone.

Alaska Senate President Lyda Green, a Republican foe of Palin, said Wednesday that the investigation is still on track.

"The original purpose of the investigation was to bring out the truth. Nothing has changed," she said.

Without the testimony, the retired prosecutor hired to head the investigation could still release a report in October as scheduled, based on the evidence he's already gathered. As of Thursday, Steven Branchflower had interviewed or deposed 17 of the 33 people he had identified as potential witnesses in the probe.

The Legislature does not have the leverage to compel any witness to testify before Nov. 4, said Wielechowski, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Wielechowski said he did not know whether Branchflower has enough material for a complete and fair report with so few witnesses. But he said delaying the probe, which began as a bipartisan effort, would only politicize the matter more.

"It would be to appease the McCain camp," Wielechowski said. "They're doing everything they can to delay."

Ignoring a legislative subpoena is punishable by a fine up to $500 and up to six months in jail under Alaska law. But courts are reluctant to intervene in legislative matters and the full Legislature must be in session to bring contempt charges, Wielechowski said. The Legislature is not scheduled to convene until January.

[Mac Howard]

Slowly the American people are beginning to realise that Palin is something of a fraud. Most Americans, many Republicans, are far less right wing than Palin. When Palin says to trust her to attack earmarking in Washington with "I told them "Thanks, but no thanks"" she's selling you bullshit - she only turned against the bridge when Congress refused to increase the earmarking and she had to go to the Alaskan people themselves (who knew the bridge was a waste of money) for the extra funding. Even then she found a legal way of retaining the money without building the bridge.

There was no "no thanks" it was a case of "give me more". She's asking you to trust her while simultaneously lying to you.

Her religion is extreme - it's Pentecostalism which is fundamentalist Christianity at the whacky end. And the Wasilla church is at the whacky end of Pentecostalism. When Pentecostalists say they want creationism taught in science classes they're not talking of the pseudo-scientific ideas of Intelligent Design, they're talking about a literal interpretation of Genesis. How many Americans want "the world was created in 6 days" taught in science classes?

The superficial appeal - the attractive, personable, feisty hockey-mom appeal - is wearing off and reality slowly sinking in. She's hopelessly inexperienced, has views to the far right of most Americans, is disingenuous in representing her experiences and not what you want in charge at the White House (which could well happen because of McCain's age and ill health). It might even be that she can transcend these failings - but there's no way of knowing that at this point and it's a hell of a risk to assume that it's so.

The next president is facing enormous problems, in a collapsing economy, a resurgent Russia and growing China and in climate change. You cannot assume that this woman can make the enormous leap from small town Alaska to most powerful person in the world.

[CamEdwards]

Mac,

You do realize she's not running for president, right? As for the whole "slowly the American people are starting to realize" nonsense, nobody expected that the post-convention bounce was going to be permanent. 2000 was extremely close, 2004 was extremely close, and 2008 looks like it's going to be extremely close.

[VPI97]

she only turned against the bridge when Congress refused to increase the earmarking and she had to go to the Alaskan people themselves (who knew the bridge was a waste of money) for the extra funding. Even then she found a legal way of retaining the money without building the bridge.
The bridge funding went from a congressional earmark to a state transportation project before she was Governor...and retaining the federal money was the work of Sen. Stevens and former Gov Murkowski in 2005.

When Pentecostalists say they want creationism taught in science classes they're not talking of the pseudo-scientific ideas of Intelligent Design, they're talking about a literal interpretation of Genesis. How many Americans want "the world was created in 6 days" taught in science classes?
Her father was a high school science teacher...I assume he didn't teach 'wacky' creationism or the press would have already let us know.

You cannot assume that this woman can make the enormous leap from small town Alaska to most powerful person in the world.
Biden is a senator from small town Delaware. Not much difference, imho.

[law90026]

Mac,

You do realize she's not running for president, right? As for the whole "slowly the American people are starting to realize" nonsense, nobody expected that the post-convention bounce was going to be permanent. 2000 was extremely close, 2004 was extremely close, and 2008 looks like it's going to be extremely close.

I think the point that Marc is trying to make is that if McCain is elected and dies in office at some point, you're stuck with Palin as your new president. It really should be a factor that votes are thinking about.

[VPI97]

I think the point that Marc is trying to make is that if McCain is elected and dies in office at some point, you're stuck with Palin as your new president. It really should be a factor that votes are thinking about.
Not really. The President of the United States receives the best health care in the world and the odds that one will die from health reasons seems about the same as me hitting a hole in one on a par 4. I'd say there are greater odds that a U.S. President dies from a bullet than from failing health...at least that's what history tells us anyway. With that the case, we should be equally concerned about the possibility of Joe Biden as President. That's just as worrisome as a Palin presidency, so it's basically a wash in my mind.

[Mac Howard]

The bridge funding went from a congressional earmark to a state transportation project before she was Governor...and retaining the federal money was the work of Sen. Stevens and former Gov Murkowski in 2005.

I believe you have the timing wrong but it's irrelevant.

Palin is trying to tell you she'd be a crusader against earmarking and tells you that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the money earmarked for Alaska to convince you of her sincerety. You are clearly intended to believe that she turned down the money.

SHE KEPT IT!!!!

Any reasonable interpretation of "No thanks" is that she refused the money. SHE TOOK IT!!! She deliberately misleads Americans even as she asks for their trust!

Her father was a high school science teacher...I assume he didn't teach 'wacky' creationism or the press would have already let us know.

1) would he be allowed to?
2) did he?
3) was he also a pentecostalist?

Your assumptions are all part of a denial process. We know nothing of what her father did or did not do and such "assumptions" (I would suggest "rationalisations") are meaningless.

Biden is a senator from small town Delaware. Not much difference, imho.

With enormous amounts of experience beyond small town admin. Masses of difference - no one could suggest Biden has less relevant experience than Palin (Obama, maybe.)

I don't say Biden is the right man for the job but his experience would push the balance of probabilities very much in his direction.

You can twist and turn as much as you like - Palin's experience does not qualify her for the VP position! She may be capable of rising above it, we can't know. But that's a different matter - her inexperience is a problem and Americans, having now gone beyond the initial appeal, are beginning to realise that.

[Crapshoot]

Me too, which is why I'm less offended by an American saying "there sure are a lot of stupid Americans" than I am a foreigner saying it. :D

No matter how many differences we have, we will always have at least ONE thing in common with each other. And you're right, it's easy to forget that.

Cam, do you really want to extend this logic? Are you actually arguing that factual criticism is invalid if you don't like the source? The next-time some conservative talking head comes on and starts talking about the decline of the African-American family due to single-parenthood, I take it you support the Jesse Jackson / Al Sharpton approach of dismissing criticism because it comes from an "outsider"?

Look, I understand the defense mechanism aspect of a reflex reaction, but criticism should be judged on its value, not that of the critic.

[Galaril]

Not really. The President of the United States receives the best health care in the world and the odds that one will die from health reasons seems about the same as me hitting a hole in one on a par 4. I'd say there are greater odds that a U.S. President dies from a bullet than from failing health...at least that's what history tells us anyway. With that the case, we should be equally concerned about the possibility of Joe Biden as President. That's just as worrisome as a Palin presidency, so it's basically a wash in my mind.

Yeah really. You know McCain has already been diagnosed 3 or 4 times with skin cancer right?

[VPI97]

If you think about that it simply doesn't make sense - if the earmark had already been changed to a transportation project before she was governor she wouldn't have had to make a decision about the bridge would she? Stevens initiated it, Palin took it on as part of her election campaign.
The issue at hand during the gubernatorial election was whether the candidates were in favor of continuing the project with state funding. While the initial earmark was already off the table at that point, the state transportation budget had still allocated over $100 mil for the project in 2005. That's what she said she was in support of continuing. Fast forward two years when the projected cost of the bridges had doubled and tripled...that's when she pulled the plug on the project.

Any reasonable interpretation of "No thanks" is that she refused the money. SHE TOOK IT!!! Again...the money was accepted by Alaska in 2005...when the Governor was Frank Murkowski. You can deny it all you want, but it's actually a matter of looking it up in the public record.

Your assumptions are all part of a denial process. We know nothing of what her father did or did not do and such "assumptions" (I would suggest "rationalisations") are meaningless. No, it's just common sense. I can assume that her father taught science the proper way because if he didn't, the press would have already dug it up and reported on it. That's not an unreasonable assumption. Meanwhile, you have assumed that she's in favor of teaching "wacky" creationism despite the fact that she has explicitly said the opposite. That's not using common sense.

With enormous amounts of experience beyond small town admin. Masses of difference - no one could suggest Biden has less relevant experience than Palin (Obama, maybe.) I don't quite understand why you seem to imply that she has jumped from being a mayor of an Alaskan small town to Vice Presidential candidate...or are you implying that being the governor of Alaska is an easy job that has no relevance?

[VPI97]

Yeah really. You know McCain has already been diagnosed 3 or 4 times with skin cancer right?
...and you know that Obama smoked for over 25 years, right?

Big whoop. The odds that either of them die in office from health reasons are too small to make a difference for anything.

[Daimyo]

I don't quite understand why you seem to imply that she has jumped from being a mayor of an Alaskan small town to Vice Presidential candidate...or are you implying that being the governor of Alaska is an easy job that has no relevance?

Palin
Governor of Alaska - 2 years
Mayor of Wasilla - 6 years
City Council Member - 4 years

With that the case, we should be equally concerned about the possibility of Joe Biden as President. That's just as worrisome as a Palin presidency, so it's basically a wash in my mind

Biden
United States Senator - 36 years
County Council Member - 2 years

Are you seriously arguing that Palin has more relevant experience than Biden? Two years at governor isn't long. If she had four years experience at that level it would be one thing, but two?

[Mac Howard]

Again...the money was accepted by Alaska in 2005...when the Governor was Frank Murkowski. You can deny it all you want, but it's actually a matter of looking it up in the public record.

Then why did she say she refused the money?

You're missing the point completely. The complaint is not that she accepted the money but that she told you she'd refused it.

"Thanks, but no thanks!" She clearly intends you to believe she refused the money. SHE TOOK IT!

There is the hypocrisy! "Trust me! I've refused earmarking before."

Oh, but wait .......


I don't quite understand why you seem to imply that she has jumped from being a mayor of an Alaskan small town to Vice Presidential candidate...or are you implying that being the governor of Alaska is an easy job that has no relevance?

You make far too many assumptions. I'm well aware she's governor of Alaska. But 18 months as governor of Alaska does not equip her to be VP and certainly not President. There are many demands that are not remotely required of the governor of such a small state. Not least foreign affairs.

She simply doesn't have the experience and it is ludicrous to suggest she does.

[VPI97]

Are you seriously arguing that Palin has more relevant experience than Biden?
Not at all. I'm arguing that regardless of experience, the prospect of Joe Biden as President is just as unappealing as the prospect of Sarah Palin as President. After his showing in the primary race, I would suspect that most people agree with me.

[Vegas Vic]

Not at all. I'm arguing that regardless of experience, the prospect of Joe Biden as President is just as unappealing as the prospect of Sarah Palin as President. After his showing in the primary race, I would suspect that most people agree with me.

Be patriotic! Pay more taxes!

[VPI97]

The complaint is not that she accepted the money but that she told you she'd refused it.
No...the initial complaint that I was arguing against was that you claimed "she found a legal way of retaining the money without building the bridge." When I informed you that all of that took place prior to her run as Governor, you ignored the facts I put forth and changed your argument to another aspect of the issue.

I really couldn't care less about when she meant by "thanks or no thanks"...I ignore the rhetoric for the most part and instead went about about reading (non-partisan) articles from 2005-07 on the whole bridge deal. When I found out is what I posted. If you choose to ignore what I wrote, that's fine with me.

She simply doesn't have the experience and it is ludicrous to suggest she does.
Considering I never suggested she did, I agree. All I said was that Joe Biden's appeal as President wasn't much different. I guess it wasn't a matter of you ignoring what I wrote...you just didn't bother to read any of it.

[Vegas Vic]

She simply doesn't have the experience and it is ludicrous to suggest she does.

You do understand that the person at the top of the Democratic ticket has the thinnest political resume of any major party nominee in 68 years, right?

[VPI97]

You do understand that the person at the top of the Democratic ticket has the thinnest political resume of any major party nominee in 68 years, right?
"I think [Barack Obama] can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training." - Joe Biden, August 2007

There's your Democrat Vice Presidential candidate.

[Mac Howard]

I really couldn't care less about when she meant by "thanks or no thanks"...I ignore the rhetoric for the most part

It's bullshit, it's lies, it's hypocrisy and it takes place at exactly the moment when she asks you to trust that she is the one to reform the system. That you should write this off as meaningless "rhetoric" merely illustrates denial - that you will continue to see "no evil" whatever comes to light. It's not unknown!

When she asks for my trust with a lie I ask myself "Is she utterly lacking in self-awareness? Does she think I'm an idiot? Couldn't she come up with some justification that is at least half true? Does she expect to win or retain my support with a lie?"

The event itself is unimportant. But what it reveals about the mental attitude that Palin has towards those she seeks to deceive is crucial.

[Mac Howard]

You do understand that the person at the top of the Democratic ticket has the thinnest political resume of any major party nominee in 68 years, right?

Of course. I have no problem recognising what is patently obvious.

[Chief Rum]

I guess im being too technical. Im saying that before someone opens their mouth you can't be certain what is going to come out so you *should* listen and then decide to ignore it/consider it/ etc.

Ah, but does one need to flip a coin 1000 times before one can conclude that only heads or tails will come up?

[fantom1979]

The bridge funding went from a congressional earmark to a state transportation project before she was Governor...and retaining the federal money was the work of Sen. Stevens and former Gov Murkowski in 2005.


I am very curious about your source on this statement. Everything I have read implies that Palin and the state of Alaska was seeking money for the Gravina Island Bridge until September 21st, 2007. According to the Governor of Alaska website, Alaska kept $36 million in federal funds upon the decision to cancel the project on the above date.

Gravina Access Project Redirected
September 21, 2007, Juneau, Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin today directed the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to look for the most fiscally responsible alternative for access to the Ketchikan airport and Gravina Island instead of proceeding any further with the proposed $398 million bridge.
“Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer,” said Governor Palin. “Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Governor Palin added. “Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.” The Department of Transportation has approximately $36 million in federal funds that will become available for other projects with the shutdown of the Gravina Island bridge project. Governor Palin has directed Commissioner Leo von Scheben to review transportation projects statewide to prepare a list of possible uses for the funds, while the department also looks for a more affordable answer for Gravina Island access.
“There is no question we desperately need to construct new roads in this state, including in Southeast Alaska, where skyrocketing costs for the Alaska Marine Highway System present an impediment to the state’s budget and the region’s economy,” said von Scheben.
“The original purpose of this project was to improve access to Gravina Island, and we will continue to work with the community to help them attain that goal,” von Scheben said.
The commissioner said his department would continue to work with local officials to discuss future plans for development of Gravina Island.


My Source:
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (http://gov.state.ak.us/archive-28635.html)

[Mac Howard]

I am very curious about your source on this statement. Everything I have read implies that Palin and the state of Alaska was seeking money for the Gravina Island Bridge until September 21st, 2007. According to the Governor of Alaska website, Alaska kept $36 million in federal funds upon the decision to cancel the project on the above date.



My Source:
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (http://gov.state.ak.us/archive-28635.html)

What I understand, fantom1979, - though the detail keeps shifting - is that the money was granted to Stevens in Nov 2005 before Palin was governor. However the bridge by that time was coming under severe criticism which caused Congress to grant it under this state transport project. The reports conflict a little here, one saying that this meant Alaska could spend the money as they wished providing it was on a transport project.

But Palin took up the bridge (two bridges in fact) project as part of her election campaign for governor in 2006 criticising those who criticised the bridge for insulting the people who lived "nowhere" (ie where the bridge led). Building the bridge became part of her appeal as governor. This is confirmed by two of her campaign managers who have criticised her since deciding against the bridge.

From the figures I've seen the original cost of the Gavina bridge was around $300 million. As you see from Palin's press release (the one you report) the cost has risen to $398 million and Palin was told by Congress they would not provide any further funds. It was then that Palin decided to cancel the bridge because it had become too expensive and would have involved extra Alaskan funds to complete it.

A second source has said that Palin built the road mentioned above in order to retain the funding. I think it's more complex than that because two thirds of the grant was for the second bridge which may still be built. So exactly what the position was with the grant as a whole is open to debate.

[GrantDawg]

I think that McCain never imagine that Palin was going to be a permenant boost in the polls. It really isnt even why she was picked. She was picked to shore up the RR base of the GOP, who are very luke-warm at best on McCain. They were never going to vote for Obama, but there was a real danger of a low turn-out among that sector as they mustly dislike/distrust McCain. With Palin on the ticket, they now have a reason to go because they get to vote one of them. She was definitely not a pick to pull from the middle, but any choice he could have made to try that would have turned off that base even more.

[Flasch186]

I think that McCain never imagine that Palin was going to be a permenant boost in the polls. It really isnt even why she was picked. She was picked to shore up the RR base of the GOP, who are very luke-warm at best on McCain. They were never going to vote for Obama, but there was a real danger of a low turn-out among that sector as they mustly dislike/distrust McCain. With Palin on the ticket, they now have a reason to go because they get to vote one of them. She was definitely not a pick to pull from the middle, but any choice he could have made to try that would have turned off that base even more.

+1

[Flasch186]

Ah, but does one need to flip a coin 1000 times before one can conclude that only heads or tails will come up?

I think humans are more complicated than a coin.

[ISiddiqui]

I think that McCain never imagine that Palin was going to be a permenant boost in the polls. It really isnt even why she was picked. She was picked to shore up the RR base of the GOP, who are very luke-warm at best on McCain. They were never going to vote for Obama, but there was a real danger of a low turn-out among that sector as they mustly dislike/distrust McCain. With Palin on the ticket, they now have a reason to go because they get to vote one of them. She was definitely not a pick to pull from the middle, but any choice he could have made to try that would have turned off that base even more.

+2

Picking Palin is the only reason McCain has a fighting chance. Picking Liebermann or Pawlenty would have sunk him as the RR wouldn't have come out in the numbers they have for Bush. The RR are the on-the-ground forces and the counter for Obama's highly regarded ground game.

[JPhillips]

I don't really disagree, but I think Palin was also aimed at independent women. From the initial announcement the McCain camp played up the vagina vote angle.

[albionmoonlight]

I agree that Palin was a RR pick.

Why do you think that he picked her and not Huckabee? I always figured he was the go-to guy if the campaign decided to go RR/base excitement.

Is it just the vagina thing?

[flere-imsaho]

Also, Rasmussen decided to waste time and money by polling Vermont. Obama is up 60-36 among Likely Voters there.

This is funny. (http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080918/NEWS02/809180364) Vermont has one Representative in the House, and he is Democrat Peter Welch. This year, the Republicans didn't even bother to run anyone for their party's nomination. However, a bunch of people did vote on the Republican side of the ballot, and wrote Welch in, apparently enough so that he's not only won the Democratic nomination for his seat, but also the Republican nomination as well.

It's like Chicago, but without the corruption. :D

[Passacaglia]

fivethirtyeight.com had had McCain as the favorite for at least a week, with a low to mid 50s percent chance of winning. Now they've got him with a 38.8% chance of winning. Crazy.

[flere-imsaho]

You do realize she's not running for president, right?

I don't understand this argument. What is the office of the Vice President if not the "just-in-case" President? I think Americans do recognize this. Has everyone forgotten 1988 - 1992, when we all prayed that George H.W. Bush wouldn't die in office?

Palin is to Quayle as Biden is to L.B.J. There's a reason people are more worried about Palin's credentials than Biden's.

The other thing I think people are forgetting is the time it takes for voters to get exposed to a candidate. Obama's been in the national public eye for four years now, which is about as long as Reagan had been, and longer than Clinton or JFK had been. Voters have had time to look at him and his record and decide whether or not they're comfortable having him as President.

Obviously for Biden & McCain, they've been in the public eye for so long, this is not an issue.

So then what we're seeing here is Palin, who's been in the national public eye for two weeks, not having a comfort level with a large number of voters. Unless you agree intrinsically with her policy positions (i.e. you're a member of the GOP social conservative base) you're probably thinking that Palin is, right now, how she's been packaged by the McCain campaign. You don't really know her, and that makes you uncomfortable thinking that she's one heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Simply put, the American electorate still does not have enough experience with Palin to decide if she's a reasonable person who is being maligned by the campaigning process or if she's a wingnut who just happened to get elected governor of Alaska.

[GrantDawg]

I don't really disagree, but I think Palin was also aimed at independent women. From the initial announcement the McCain camp played up the vagina vote angle.

I agree that Palin was a RR pick.

Why do you think that he picked her and not Huckabee? I always figured he was the go-to guy if the campaign decided to go RR/base excitement.

Is it just the vagina thing?

I think there was a few reasons they went with Palin over say Huckabee.

1) The Vagina. She was never going to pull any die hard Clinton supporters. I think possibily the early polls showed some shift from that corner but they quickly moved back once they learned who she was. But there is always a segment of voters (not picking on women, but of any group) that vote less on issues and more on "like me" or other superficial reasons. She being a she will help on that front.

2) The unknown factor. Though there has been a lot of baggage that has been played out, she doesn't have the long-term baggage other well known candidates might bring. She hasn't been on the stage long enough for people to truly hate her yet.

3) The control ability factor. I think they believe they can hold her in check much better than they could say a Huckabee. She's new to the national stage, and much more willing to be steered because of the shock of what it is like to deal with it.

4) Charisma. McCain has none. Again, of the segment of votes that votes based on fluff, Obama had the edge by far. She hedges some of that off.

Really, when it is down to brass tacks, she was a very good pick. She gives McCain a much better chance to win than he had, and there are very few other choices he had to go with that would have helped him as much.

[Mac Howard]

I think that McCain never imagine that Palin was going to be a permenant boost in the polls. It really isnt even why she was picked. She was picked to shore up the RR base of the GOP, who are very luke-warm at best on McCain. They were never going to vote for Obama, but there was a real danger of a low turn-out among that sector as they mustly dislike/distrust McCain. With Palin on the ticket, they now have a reason to go because they get to vote one of them. She was definitely not a pick to pull from the middle, but any choice he could have made to try that would have turned off that base even more.

I think that's correct, too. It was clearly meant to confirm the right wing vote that he couldn't bring in himself. I think there might have been a hope that she would pick up some of the Clinton women voters but I don't think there would be many of those - Clinton and Palin or polar opposites but there may be a few who would simply vote for a woman.

So I think McCain has probably been happy with the effect she's had but I think the gloss is wearing off now as voters are taking a more sober view of her and realise that there are problems there when you get beyond the electoral appeal and think of her in the White House.

[lungs]

Where have all the McCainiacs gone? It's gotten awfully quiet in this thread.

[ISiddiqui]

Aroo? There are plenty on this page itself.

[Passacaglia]

Maybe he has them all on ignore.

[lungs]

Yeah, but it doesn't seem the same as it was, say, even less than a week ago.

[lungs]

Maybe he has them all on ignore.

Nah, why would I ignore anybody?

Ignore lists are stupid.

[Passacaglia]

Nah, why would I ignore anybody?

Ignore lists are stupid.

It was just a joke. If you really had them on ignore, it seems odd that you would then ask where all the people you ignored were.

[lungs]

It was just a joke. If you really had them on ignore, it seems odd that you would then ask where all the people you ignored were.

Your humor went above my head. I've only got my grade 10.

[JPhillips]

Here's a question for everyone. What happens to each of the candidates if they lose?

The first two are easy.

Biden: He'll have one or two more terms in the Senate
McCain: Finish this term, maybe run for reelection. He'll be a pain in the ass for an Obama administration.

Obama: I think he'd get tired of being in the Senate. He might serve a second term, but it wouldn't surprise me to see him leave the Senate for a foundation and the speaker's circuit.

Palin: This is the most difficult. If McCain wins she'll almost certainly be a Presidential candidate in four or eight years. However, if McCain loses I don't think she'll have a good shot at winning a Presidential election. She could be a Senator for life if she wanted, but that doesn't seem to fit her well. I see her finishing her term as Governor and relocating to be closer to Washington. She'll get writing and speaking jobs and run for the Presidency in 2012, but by then the newness will be gone and she won't win the primary. After that she stays moderately visible as a sometimes writer/talking head with forays into lower cabinet level positions.

[Young Drachma]

Here's a question for everyone. What happens to each of the candidates if they lose?

The first two are easy.

Biden: He'll have one or two more terms in the Senate
McCain: Finish this term, maybe run for reelection. He'll be a pain in the ass for an Obama administration.

Obama: I think he'd get tired of being in the Senate. He might serve a second term, but it wouldn't surprise me to see him leave the Senate for a foundation and the speaker's circuit.

Palin: This is the most difficult. If McCain wins she'll almost certainly be a Presidential candidate in four or eight years. However, if McCain loses I don't think she'll have a good shot at winning a Presidential election. She could be a Senator for life if she wanted, but that doesn't seem to fit her well. I see her finishing her term as Governor and relocating to be closer to Washington. She'll get writing and speaking jobs and run for the Presidency in 2012, but by then the newness will be gone and she won't win the primary. After that she stays moderately visible as a sometimes writer/talking head with forays into lower cabinet level positions.

Obama will probably run for Governor of Illinois if he loses the Presidential race.

Palin will get tired of the lifestyle. No way she moves to Washington. She might run for the Senate for a while to keep her name in the news, but really, if she's the lightweight people seem to fashion her, she'll fade into bolivian.

[ISiddiqui]

Biden and McCain will stay in the Senate for a few terms. Yes, McCain will be a pain for Obama's administration and will likely be the top Republican, even though he won't have a leadership role (like Ted Kennedy for the Dems these past 8 years).

Obama, I will think will serve at least 2 more terms. He may decide to be a Kennedy like Senator (ie, serve for life and be the liberal voice), or he may end up being a Secretary of State or something for the next Democratic President and then go into foundational stuff.

Palin, I think will run for Senate and will run for President in 2012. I think she may have a decent shot at winning, actually, but will fall short.

[Mac Howard]

Obama will probably run for Governor of Illinois if he loses the Presidential race.

Palin will get tired of the lifestyle. No way she moves to Washington. She might run for the Senate for a while to keep her name in the news, but really, if she's the lightweight people seem to fashion her, she'll fade into bolivian.

The typo gave me a chuckle :)

[DaddyTorgo]

JPhillips - you think Palin (win or lose) will be a Presidential hopeful? I guess I just really don't see that *cringes at the thought*.

[JPhillips]

I think if McCain wins she'll definitely run in four or eight years. If McCain loses it's less likely she'll win, but she's ambitious and has a powerful part of the party behind her, so I'd expect her to give national office at least more more shot.

[DaddyTorgo]

aaaah the wingnut part of the party

[Dutch]

Finally, the Associated Press is getting serious about the issues now.


• Poll: Voters prefer Obama as football-watching buddy (http://www.yahoo.com/s/956113)
Poll: Obama tops McCain as football-watching buddy
By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer Fri Sep 19, 6:46 AM ET


<!-- end storyhdr -->
WASHINGTON - People would rather watch a football game with Barack Obama than with John McCain — but by barely the length of a football.


Way to go, AP and Yahoo for sticking to the issues. Of course, with the 3 point margin of error, this may not even be true seeing how Obama only won this poll 50-47, but what's accuracy in reporting these days? We've got an election to win.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080919/capt.dc42f84688ff425a911cda89cf6b6d58.ap_yahoo_poll_footbal_wx101.jpg?x=180&y=221&q=85&sig=IHZQGcFYG7AIPWdOg92hdg-- (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Barack-Obama-Democratic-presidential-candidate-Sen-Barack-Obama-File/photo//080919/483/dc42f84688ff425a911cda89cf6b6d58//s:/ap/20080919/ap_on_el_pr/ap_yahoo_poll_football;_ylt=ArANfS6yRI3FdDOwFzSVAm1h24cA)

BARACK OBAMA FOR PREZ
Because he can hold a football better than John Kerry.
ROCK THE VOTE!

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTefNYytNIHl4AIm2jzbkF/SIG=13oa81e3u/EXP=1221925848/**http%3A//content.clearchannel.com/Photos/gov_photos/Election2004/kerry/kerry_fears_football_SJaffe.jpg

[albionmoonlight]

If Obama Wins:

I think, had Palin not been tapped, she would be more likely to be a serious contender in the future. She would have had the next 4-8 years to start doing the kinds of national and presidental things that governors do when they plan to run for president.

Depending on how this campaign goes, she might end up making it less likely that she gets a chance to run for predisent in 4 or 8 years. She could commit the kind of gaffe or get hit with the kind of slander that makes a recovery impossible.

That said, McCain was smart to pick her, and she was smart to accept. She makes it more likely that he will win. And, from her perspective, a ~50% chance of being VP (and the clear front runner for the next presidental nomination) is way better than whatever chance she would have had had she stayed in Alaska and kept her nose to the grindstone.

[Young Drachma]

The typo gave me a chuckle :)

It was intentional. Mike Tyson will never make saying it any other way the same again.

[albionmoonlight]

BARACK OBAMA FOR PREZ
Because he can hold a football better than John Kerry.

Well, if that was the standard, then my grandma would be president :)

[Young Drachma]

Bobby Jindal has a much brighter future in '12 than Sarah Palin does. She's having problems in the media in her first month, no way she can last four years after being on the ticket AND beat the Brown Reagan at her own game four years from now.

She'll resurface, but no way in a national office.

[ISiddiqui]

Jindal has his own stuff (the exorcism story), but it hasn't really come out because he's still Gov of Louisiana.

[lungs]

Finally, the Associated Press is getting serious about the issues now.



Way to go, AP and Yahoo for sticking to the issues. Of course, with the 3 point margin of error, this may not even be true seeing how Obama only won this poll 50-47, but what's accuracy in reporting these days? We've got an election to win.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080919/capt.dc42f84688ff425a911cda89cf6b6d58.ap_yahoo_poll_footbal_wx101.jpg?x=180&y=221&q=85&sig=IHZQGcFYG7AIPWdOg92hdg-- (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Barack-Obama-Democratic-presidential-candidate-Sen-Barack-Obama-File/photo//080919/483/dc42f84688ff425a911cda89cf6b6d58//s:/ap/20080919/ap_on_el_pr/ap_yahoo_poll_football;_ylt=ArANfS6yRI3FdDOwFzSVAm1h24cA)

BARACK OBAMA FOR PREZ
Because he can hold a football better than John Kerry.
ROCK THE VOTE!

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTefNYytNIHl4AIm2jzbkF/SIG=13oa81e3u/EXP=1221925848/**http%3A//content.clearchannel.com/Photos/gov_photos/Election2004/kerry/kerry_fears_football_SJaffe.jpg

How fitting that the lefty is a lefty.

[Galaril]

You do understand that the person at the top of the Democratic ticket has the thinnest political resume of any major party nominee in 68 years, right?

So didn't Abe Lincoln among others.

[Kodos]

So every story has to be hard news? They can't do both?

By all means, we should be paying more attention to her efforts to thwart the investigation in Troopergate.

[Flasch186]

dont get me started.

[albionmoonlight]

Obama has to be somewhat concerned that, even with one of his largest national leads right now, Ohio is pretty much a toss-up. I can't see November being better for him than right now. And any movement toward McCain probably paints Ohio red.

[JPhillips]

I'm not sure he can win Ohio. I said a while back that the more likely path to the White House is through Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado.

[larrymcg421]

National polls...

Gallup (RV) - Obama 49-44
Hotline/FD (RV) - Obama 45-44
Rasmussen (LV) - Tied 48-48
Battleground (LV) - Tied 47-47

State polls

Marist (LV)

MI: Obama 52-43
OH: Obama 47-45
PA: Obama 49-44

Rasmussen (LV)

IN: McCain 49-47

[digamma]

Palin will get tired of the lifestyle.

The Palins are swingers? I hadn't read that.

[ace1914]

What does GOP actually stand for?

Grand Old Party
or
Government of the People?

I'm asking in all seriousness.

[ISiddiqui]

Grand Old Party

[JonInMiddleGA]

The Palin's are swingers? I hadn't read that.

Sheesh. Give the media time to do their thing will ya? ;)

In all seriousness though, would that particular revelation actually come as a big shock to the majority of people? It definitely wouldn't surprise me in the least, just be one more thing for her to discuss with Jerry Springer but maybe I'm just too cynical.

[TazFTW]

Rasmussen Reports&trade;: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/maine/election_2008_maine_presidential_election)

Maine (9/17), Obama 50 McCain 46. Previous Rasmussen (8/12) Obama 49 McCain 36.

500 Likely Voters.

[Big Fo]

I'm not trying to make any political point here, but Bill O'Reilly is not intelligent.



Bill: "But if your grandma sends you $50 in the mail..."

Lawyer: http://eddddie.googlepages.com/facepalm.jpg

[st.cronin]

If Bob Barr wins this election, I'm moving to Madagascar.

[SirFozzie]

This bit of facepalm science comes from The University of Nebraska, and their conclusions were, basically.. "The more conservative you are, the easier it is to make you afraid". (rolls eyes)

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/918/2

[GrantDawg]

This bit of facepalm science comes from The University of Nebraska, and their conclusions were, basically.. "The more conservative you are, the easier it is to make you afraid". (rolls eyes)

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/918/2


Does this some how surprise anyone?

[Big Fo]

The sample size was only 46...

[Flasch186]

Investigator: Palin probe to end before election - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080919/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate)

Investigator: Palin probe to end before election

By MATT VOLZ, Associated Press Writer 26 minutes ago

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - The Alaska lawmaker directing an abuse-of-power investigation of Gov. Sarah Palin promised Friday the probe will be finished before the election, despite refusals by key witnesses to testify, including the governor's husband.

After waiting 35 minutes for Todd Palin and two state administrative employees to appear under subpoena before the state Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Hollis French condemned their refusal to testify and the attorney general's broken promise that seven other witnesses would testify who were not subpoenaed.

French said the retired prosecutor hired by the Alaska Legislature to investigate Palin, Stephen Branchflower, will conclude his investigation by Oct. 10. Still, that report will not include testimony from the Republican vice presidential nominee, her husband or most of the top aides Branchflower hoped to interview.

Sarah Palin's allies hoped the investigation would be delayed past the election to spare her any troublesome revelations — or at least the distraction — before voters have made their choice. Palin's reputation as clean-government advocate who takes on entrenched interests is central to her appeal as Republican John McCain's running mate, and possibly at risk in the probe.

Palin initially promised to cooperate in the investigation, telling the Legislature to "hold me accountable." Lawmakers were investigating accusations she dismissed the state's public safety commissioner because he refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper. She now opposes the investigation.

Palin spokesman Bill McAllister declined to comment Friday. The McCain campaign said there are concerns about the effect of political influence on the Legislature's inquiry and Palin will provide any information needed to a separate investigation by the Alaska State Personnel Board.

The committee subpoenaed six people to appear Friday to testify or meet for private interviews with Branchflower. French said three of those six had complied. Todd Palin, special assistant Ivy Frye and Randy Ruaro, who is the governor's deputy chief of staff, did not.

Todd Palin's attorney sent French a letter Thursday listing Palin's objections to the Legislature's investigation of his wife. Among them, the attorney said, were jurisdiction questions, separation of power issues and an inconvenient travel schedule.

Subpoenas were approved on seven other government employees, but not served because the state attorney general's office had agreed to cooperate, French said. But Attorney General Talis Colberg earlier this week reversed himself, saying the governor declined to participate and that Palin administration employees would not appear.

French said subpoenas will be issued for those seven people, ordering them to testify on Sept. 26.

Witnesses who refuse to testify can be found in contempt under Alaska law. But the full Legislature must be in session, which won't happen until January. That means witnesses can stonewall without penalty beyond the Nov. 4 election, lawmakers said.

One of them, Sen. Gene Therriault, opposed the subpoenas. He said Friday the investigation was intended to uncover whether the governor was justified in firing Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, and he believes she was.

Palin fired Monegan in July. It later emerged that Palin, her husband and several high-level staffers had contacted Monegan about state trooper Mike Wooten.Palin maintains she fired Monegan over budget disagreements.

Wooten had gone through a nasty divorce from Palin's sister before Palin became governor. Monegan has said no one from the administration ever told him directly to fire Wooten, but he said their repeated contacts made it clear they wanted Wooten gone.

[SirFozzie]

Sorry, I should have made it clear that yes, with the limited subsection, and.. um.. rather sensational conclusions (especially given the time frame), I considered it junk science

[Vegas Vic]

fivethirtyeight.com had had McCain as the favorite for at least a week, with a low to mid 50s percent chance of winning. Now they've got him with a 38.8% chance of winning. Crazy.

Not really, considering the way this guy is revising the way that he weights the polls. It's his untested, unproven opinion.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, there's only one site that nailed the 2004 election, RealClearPolitics.com. Right now, they've got Obama up by 2 in the popular vote, and winning the Electoral College 273-265.

Pay close attention to where this thing stands in mid-October, after the first couple of debates. Whoever is leading the electoral college projection at that point is extremely likely to be the next president.

[Swaggs]

Not really, considering the way this guy is revising the way that he weights the polls. It's his untested, unproven opinion.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, there's only one site that nailed the 2004 election, RealClearPolitics.com. Right now, they've got Obama up by 2 in the popular vote, and winning the Electoral College 273-265.

Pay close attention to where this thing stands in mid-October, after the first couple of debates. Whoever is leading the electoral college projection at that point is extremely likely to be the next president.

I think that Electoral College count has a pretty good chance of being correct if Obama does win. I think it is pretty likely that Obama carries the Kerry states (with New Hampshire a possible exception) and Iowa + New Mexico. I see Colorado as the Florida '00 or Ohio '04 in this election.

[JPhillips]

Bet you'll be seeing this a lot. McCain wrote this for a current issue of an actuarial trade magazine.

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

[Arles]

I'm not trying to make any political point here, but Bill O'Reilly is not intelligent.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KpndIvUGPwA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KpndIvUGPwA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Megyn Kelly is great. O'Reilly.... not so great ;)

[Flasch186]

He was just stuck in his stupidity and wouldnt listen to anything other than what would solidify his stupid position.

[Vegas Vic]

He was just stuck in his stupidity and wouldnt listen to anything other than what would solidify his stupid position.

Say what you will about O’Reilly, but he did something tonight that you’ll probably never see again. He got Kelly Anne Conway (Republican hack) and Tanya Acker (Democrat hack) to both admit that their candidate’s recent ads targeting Hispanic voters were misleading and inappropriate.

I think it’s safe to assume that you’ll never see anything like that from Wolf Blitzer, Chris Matthews or Larry King.

[Schmidty]

I think this is the first election that I didn't give even tiny bit of a fuck about.

Wake me up in December.

[Big Fo]

John McCain has played in important role in burying information about Vietnam POWs that never made it home.

The article is rather long so I'll just paste in the opening three paragraphs and here is a link to the rest (http://www.nationinstitute.org/p/schanberg09182008pt1)



John McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn't return home. Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus the war hero who people would logically imagine as a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books.

Almost as striking is the manner in which the mainstream press has shied from reporting the POW story and McCain's role in it, even as the Republican Party has made McCain's military service the focus of his presidential campaign. Reporters who had covered the Vietnam War turned their heads and walked in other directions. McCain doesn't talk about the missing men, and the press never asks him about them.

The sum of the secrets McCain has sought to hide is not small. There exists a telling mass of official documents, radio intercepts, witness depositions, satellite photos of rescue symbols that pilots were trained to use, electronic messages from the ground containing the individual code numbers given to airmen, a rescue mission by a special forces unit that was aborted twice by Washington—and even sworn testimony by two Defense secretaries that "men were left behind." This imposing body of evidence suggests that a large number—the documents indicate probably hundreds—of the US prisoners held by Vietnam were not returned when the peace treaty was signed in January 1973 and Hanoi released 591 men, among them Navy combat pilot John S. McCain.

...

[SirFozzie]

Please forgive me if I take this "story" with a grain of salt the size of Albany. At the least, its politically unbalanced to cast McCain in the worst possible light, and at the worst, it's about the same level of "journalism" as the Swift Boating of Kerry in 2004.

[Big Fo]

Well it wasn't written by some random hack, Schanberg is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. While he may or may not have overstated the degree of McCain's involvement in the cover-up he presents a lot of compelling evidence backed up with sources, it is a very disturbing article.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I thought the name was familiar. Schanberg is probably most easily recognizable as the guy Sam Waterson plays in The Killing Fields.

[Mac Howard]

I'm not trying to make any political point here, but Bill O'Reilly is not intelligent.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KpndIvUGPwA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KpndIvUGPwA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Megyn's softened her image :)

Bill's had a bad week this week - Neil Cavuto gave him a going over on Monday about the naivete of his view on gas prices. At one point O'Reilly was getting over-heated and Cavuto started to repeat what he had to say. It went something like:

O'Reilly: "I know, I know, I heard that already"

Cavuto (ever so calmly) "You were shouting, Bill, you were shouting. So I'll say it again".

He tied O'Relly up in knots :)

He also had an argument with Newt Gingrich - though I must admit I was with O'Reilly on this.

Hell, I can't believe I said that :eek:

[stevew]

Loofah

[Flasch186]

Say what you will about O’Reilly, but he did something tonight that you’ll probably never see again. He got Kelly Anne Conway (Republican hack) and Tanya Acker (Democrat hack) to both admit that their candidate’s recent ads targeting Hispanic voters were misleading and inappropriate.

I think it’s safe to assume that you’ll never see anything like that from Wolf Blitzer, Chris Matthews or Larry King.

I would LOVE to see that. Can you post a link?

[BrianD]

I'm not trying to make any political point here, but Bill O'Reilly is not intelligent.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KpndIvUGPwA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KpndIvUGPwA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Does Bill post here? A stubborn refusal to believe someone with actual knowledge on a subject and reliance on crazy analogies that have nothing to do with the current topic...we see that a lot around here.

[GrantDawg]

Does Bill post here? A stubborn refusal to believe someone with actual knowledge on a subject and reliance on crazy analogies that have nothing to do with the current topic...we see that a lot around here.


Did he say that she was wrong on the law, or was he saying the law is wrong? I got the latter out of that. I didn't hear him refusing to believe her on the law. I heard him restating that it shouldn't be so.

[BrianD]

Did he say that she was wrong on the law, or was he saying the law is wrong? I got the latter out of that. I didn't hear him refusing to believe her on the law. I heard him restating that it shouldn't be so.

I had a hard time distinguishing between the two. On one had it sounded like he was stating that the law shouldn't be so because it made no sense, but on the other had it also sounded like the law couldn't be so because it made no sense. She was clearly stating that she doesn't necessarily like the law as written, so him arguing with her made it sound like he didn't agree with the reading of the law.

[Vegas Vic]

I would LOVE to see that. Can you post a link?

Here you go.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/S417X0RsHks&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/S417X0RsHks&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Arles]

well, that was a pretty decent job by O'Reilly. Maybe he does serve a purpose ;)

[Flasch186]

good for Bill and a monkey is running around my office and my butt hurts.

[DaddyTorgo]

idk why i didn't post this days ago when i got it -- funny (to both parties) video

http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm

[Dutch]

well, that was a pretty decent job by O'Reilly. Maybe he does serve a purpose ;)

Good for Bill O'Reilly. I've see O'Reilly do this quite a bit, along with bringing a lot of left-wing guests on to his show that hold their own. You hardly ever see this from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or MSNBC's counterparts. Because "conservative opinion (or 50/50 opinion in this case) doesn't sell on TV" is their usual rationale.

[Flasch186]

welp that covered 'em all, Dutch. O'Reilly gets a 'quite a bit' though. mmmmk at least you gave a sleight nod to the idea that other media outlets dont have a liberal bias but a ratings bias. You just slathered it in 'liberal bias' mantra. still tastes good though.

[JPhillips]

Good for Bill O'Reilly. I've see O'Reilly do this quite a bit, along with bringing a lot of left-wing guests on to his show that hold their own. You hardly ever see this from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or MSNBC's counterparts. Because "conservative opinion (or 50/50 opinion in this case) doesn't sell on TV" is their usual rationale.

Let's see,

on Face the Nation, David Brooks is a regular
on This Week George Will is a regular
on Meet the Press Mike Murphy is a regular
on CNN Alex Castellanos and Amy Holmes are regulars
on Headline News Glenn Beck has his own show
on MSNBC Joe Scarborough has his own show

[Arles]

And Fox News has Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, Geraldine Ferraro, Susan Estrich, Jill Zuckman, Nina Easton, Geraldo and Alan Colmes as regulars commenting from the left. So, given all those names, they must be balanced, right?

The point is about content, not token commentators. If you look at overall content, Fox is biased right, while the networks, CNN and MSNBC are biased left. I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise.

[fantom1979]

I really like Keith Olbermann, but I can only watch him in small doses at a time. It would be nice if he would get someone with a different opinion every once in a while. Its pretty boring watching him talk about an issue for 10 minutes and then interview someone who just confirms his opinion for another five.

[Arles]

I really like Keith Olbermann, but I can only watch him in small doses at a time. It would be nice if he would get someone with a different opinion every once in a while. Its pretty boring watching him talk about an issue for 10 minutes and then interview someone who just confirms his opinion for another five.
I agree 100%. I find him witty, funny and even enjoy his NBC/NFL rants. Still, he gets way too loony too quick. I much prefer to watch Matthews on MSNBC.

[JPhillips]

And Fox News has Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, Geraldine Ferraro, Susan Estrich, Jill Zuckman, Nina Easton, Geraldo and Alan Colmes as regulars commenting from the left. So, given all those names, they must be balanced, right?

The point is about content, not token commentators. If you look at overall content, Fox is biased right, while the networks, CNN and MSNBC are biased left. I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise.

It isn't about bias. Dutch said these sort of left/right debates hardly ever happen, but somehow every Sunday show and every cable news network show left/right debate all the time. It's part of the problem. Balance is more important than accuracy.

[flere-imsaho]

These kind of left/right debates happen every day, several times a day, in a far less heated format, on NPR's Morning Edition, All Things Considered and PBS' Newshour with Jim Lehrer.

[Vegas Vic]

These kind of left/right debates happen every day, several times a day, in a far less heated format, on NPR's Morning Edition, All Things Considered and PBS' Newshour with Jim Lehrer.

Yes, these debates happen, but getting back to my original point -- this is the first time that I've ever seen a host get both parties to admit that their campaigns were disingenuous and misleading in their political ad. You won't see that on any of the other talk shows.

[Flasch186]

And Fox News has Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, Geraldine Ferraro, Susan Estrich, Jill Zuckman, Nina Easton, Geraldo and Alan Colmes as regulars commenting from the left. So, given all those names, they must be balanced, right?

The point is about content, not token commentators. If you look at overall content, Fox is biased right, while the networks, CNN and MSNBC are biased left. I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise.

its the list and the word 'hardly' arles.

[Vegas Vic]

Sarah Palin drew a crowd of 60,000 (http://news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080921/NEWS0107/80921022) at a campaign rally in central Florida today. It is the largest crowd in Florida history for either a presidential or vice-presidential candidate.

[Jas_lov]

That's a pretty impressive crowd. Better send her to North Carolina. I saw a link on 538 that said McCain is moving more resources there so he must be somewhat worried about it. The same goes for Obama and Minnesota. He is moving resources out of North Dakota and into Minnesota.

[DaddyTorgo]

Sarah Palin drew a crowd of 60,000 (http://news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080921/NEWS0107/80921022) at a campaign rally in central Florida today. It is the largest crowd in Florida history for either a presidential or vice-presidential candidate.




The fire chief estimated the crowd at 60,000.



we've already been over in this thread how reliable those estimates are. i don't doubt it was a sizeable crowd, but i highly doubt it was 60k

[Young Drachma]

Sarah Palin's Florida speech draws tens of thousands - 09/21/2008 - MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/campaign-2008/story/696050.html)

Palin made her Florida debut in The Villages, one of the fastest-growing retirement communities in the country and a treasure trove of Republican voters. President Bush put it on the map when he campaigned here in the homestretch of the 2004 campaign.

But Palin drew thousands more than the estimated 20,000 people that turned out for Bush. A fire rescue official estimated the crowd at 25,000 to 30,000, while the Republican Party of Florida pegged the audience at twice that size.

[Big Fo]

Maybe the Republicans' inability to count has something to do with their inability to balance a budget.

[Flasch186]

Well I guess he either got it then, or he gets it now.

McCain says economy in crisis - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080922/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_economy;_ylt=AjZW9VuL7Vh6CJNMm7lr.tOyFz4D)

McCain says economy in crisis

2 hours, 48 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Republican presidential nominee John McCain, who only a week ago said the economy was fundamentally sound, now says the U.S. financial system is facing a major crisis.


Speaking Monday on NBC's "Today" show McCain said, "We are in the most serious crisis since World War II."

He also said that despite the ballooning national debt he would not raise taxes if elected president.

McCain said "history shows us that if you raise people's taxes in tough economic times that makes problems worse."

[DaddyTorgo]

so how's he plan on paying down the debt or at least holding it steady without raising taxes? slashing everything else in the budget? geee that sounds great.

[Kodos]

Maybe the Republicans' inability to count has something to do with their inability to balance a budget.

Maybe the Supreme Court stepped in and decided it was 60,000.

[DaddyTorgo]

this just in -- okay maybe not just in, but first i'd heard of it.

Palin's town charged women for rape exams - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/index.html)



Palin's town charged women for rape exams
Story Highlights

While Sarah Palin was mayor, Wasilla charged victims for their rape exams
Interviews, review of records show no evidence Palin knew victims were charged
Former state representative says it seems unlikely Palin was not aware of issueFrom Jessica Yellin
CNN

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's hometown required women to pay for their own rape examinations while she was mayor, a practice her police chief fought to keep as late as 2000.
Former state Rep. Eric Croft, a Democrat, sponsored a state law requiring cities to provide the examinations free of charge to victims. He said the only ongoing resistance he met was from Wasilla, where Palin was mayor from 1996 to 2002.
"It was one of those things everyone could agree on except Wasilla," Croft told CNN. "We couldn't convince the chief of police to stop charging them."
Alaska's Legislature in 2000 banned the practice of charging women for rape exam kits -- which experts said could cost up to $1,000.
Palin (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Sarah_Palin), the Republican nominee for vice president, often talks about her experience running Wasilla, population approximately 7,000, and that has prompted close scrutiny of her record there. Wasilla's practice of charging victims for their rape exams while she was mayor has gotten wide circulation on the Internet and in the mainstream media. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/tabs/video.gifWatch CNN's Jessica Yellin check the facts in Wasilla » (http://cnn.site.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Palin%27s+town+charged+women+for+rape+exams+-+CNN.com&expire=-1&urlID=31170760&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2008%2FPOLITICS%2F09%2F21%2Fpalin.rape.exams%2Findex.html&partn#cnnSTCVideo)
Some supporters of Palin say they believe she had no knowledge of the practice.But critics call it "outrageous" and question Palin's commitment to helping women who are the victims of violence.
For years, Alaska (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Alaska) has had the worst record of any state in rape and in murder of women by men. The rape rate in Alaska is 2.5 times the national average.
Interviews and a review of records turned up no evidence that Palin knew that rape victims were being charged in her town. But Croft, the former state representative who sponsored the law changing the practice, says it seems unlikely Palin was not aware of the issue.
"I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it," Croft said.
During the time Palin was mayor of Wasilla, her city was not the only one in Alaska charging rape victims. Experts testified before the Legislature that in a handful of small cities across Alaska, law enforcement agencies were charging victims or their insurance "more than sporadically."
One woman who wrote in support of the legislation says she was charged for her rape exam by a police department in the city of Juneau, which is hundreds of miles from Wasilla (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Wasilla).
But Wasilla stood out. Tara Henry, a forensic nurse who has been treating rape victims across Alaska for the last 12 years, told CNN that opposition to Croft's bill from Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon was memorable.
"Several municipal law enforcement agencies in the state did have trouble budgeting and paying for the evidence collection for sexual assault victims," Henry said. "What I recall is that the chief of police in the Wasilla police department seemed to be the most vocal about how it was going to affect their budget."
Croft has a similar memory. He said victims' advocates suggested he introduce legislation as a way to shame cities into changing their practice, and Wasilla resisted.
"I remember they had continued opposition," Croft said. "It was eight years ago now, but they were sort of unrepentant that they thought the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for that."
He does not recall discussing the issue with then-Mayor Palin.
The bill, HB270, was before the legislature for six months. In testimony, one expert called the practice of billing the victim "incomprehensible." Others compared it to "dust[ing] for fingerprints" after a burglary, only "the victim's body is the crime scene."
During a rape exam, the victim removes her clothing and a medical professional gathers DNA evidence from her body. There is also a medical component to assess her injuries. That component has led some law enforcement agencies to balk at paying.
Henry, the forensic nurse, said charging victims "retraumatizes them."
"Asking them to pay for something law enforcement needs in order to investigate their case, it's almost like blaming them for getting sexually assaulted," she said.
The Alaska Legislature agreed. The bill passed unanimously with the support of the Alaska Department of Public Safety, the Alaska Peace Officers Association and more than two dozen co-sponsors.
After it became law, Wasilla's police chief told the local paper, The Frontiersman, that it would cost the city $5,000 to $14,000 a year -- money that he'd have to find.
"In the past, we've charged the cost of the exams to the victim's insurance company when possible," Fannon was quoted as saying. "I just don't want to see any more burden on the taxpayer."
He suggested the criminals should pay as restitution if and when they're convicted. Repeated attempts to reach Fannon for comment were unsuccessful.
Judy Patrick, who was Palin's deputy mayor and friend, blames the state.
"The bigger picture of what was going on at the time was that the state was trying to cut their own budget, and one of the things that they were doing was passing on costs to cities, and that was one of the many things that they were passing on, the cost to the city," said Patrick, who recalls enormous pressure to keep the city's budget down.
But the state was never responsible for paying the costs of local investigations. Patrick was also a member of Wasilla City Council, and she doesn't recall the issue coming before council members, nor does she remember discussing the issue with Palin.
She does recall Palin going through the budget in detail. She said Palin would review each department's budget line by line and send it back to department heads with her changes.
"Sarah is a fiscal conservative, and so she had seen that the city was heading in a direction of bigger projects, costing taxpayers more money, and she was determined to change that," Patrick said.
Before Palin came to City Hall, the Wasilla Police Department paid for rape kits out of a fund for miscellaneous costs, according to the police chief who preceded Fannon and was fired by Palin. That budget line was cut by more than half during Palin's tenure, but it did not specifically mention rape exams.
In a statement, Jill Hazelbaker, communications director for Sen. John McCain (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/John_McCain)'s presidential campaign, said that "to imply that Gov. Palin is or has ever been an advocate of charging victims for evidence gathering kits is an utter distortion of reality."
"As her record shows, Gov. Palin is committed to supporting victims and bringing violent criminals to justice," Hazelbaker said. "She does not, nor has she ever believed that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence gathering test."
Those who fought the policy are unconvinced.
"It's incomprehensible to me that this could be a rogue police chief and not a policy decision. It lasted too long and it was too high-profile," Croft said.
The rape kit charges have become an issue among Palin critics who say as governor she has not done enough to combat Alaska's epidemic problem of violence against women. They point to a small funding increase for domestic violence shelters at a time when Alaska has a multibillion-dollar budget surplus. Victims' advocates say that services are lacking and that Palin cut funding for a number of programs that treat female victims of violence.
In the past week, Alaska's challenges with sexual assault have been in the spotlight again -- in connection with an ongoing inquiry into whether Palin abused her power by firing the head of Alaska's Department of Public Safety. Palin's office released e-mails showing that one area of disagreement between her and Department of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan was his lobbying in Washington for $30 million to fund a new program of sexual assault response teams.
The McCain-Palin campaign insists that fighting domestic violence and sexual assault are priorities for Palin. And they say she has been looking at other programs to support. As governor, Palin approved a funding increase for domestic violence shelters -- $266,200 over two years. And she reauthorized a Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Looks like the McCain campaign has decided to go on the attack. New ad linking Obama with Chicago corruption.

YouTube - Chicago Machine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ0cq4Nytu8)

McCain campaign has also privately stated that more ads about Obama's connection to Ayers and Wright are part of the plan.

[ace1914]

Looks like the McCain campaign has decided to go on the attack. New ad linking Obama with Chicago corruption.

YouTube - Chicago Machine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ0cq4Nytu8)

McCain campaign has also privately stated that more ads about Obama's connection to Ayers and Wright are part of the plan.

McCain looks like he's grasping for straws. Law of diminishing returns will kick in if he tries to uses Ayers and Wright.

[Flasch186]

I dont know about that. He has allowed the Rev. Wright thing to die down long enough that he may be able to roll it out with a different sweater on and get people on it again.

[Flasch186]

Obama: McCain wants to 'gamble' with Social Security

Obama: McCain wants to 'gamble' with Social Security - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/22/social.security.candidates/index.html)

THE VILLAGES, Florida (CNN) -- As the stock market goes through stomach-turning ups and downs, Sen. Barack Obama is accusing Sen. John McCain of wanting to "gamble with Social Security," a charge the Republican presidential nominee rejects as fear mongering.
Sen. Barack Obama campaigns in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Sunday.

McCain is promoting a plan that would divert a portion of payroll taxes taken from workers' paychecks into personal savings accounts that would be invested in the stock market. McCain says the accounts are necessary because if no changes are made to the traditional Social Security system, it won't be able to pay all of the benefits promised to baby boomers.

Obama made the accusation Saturday during a speech in Daytona, Florida.

"If my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would have had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week ... millions would've watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes," the Democratic presidential nominee said.

The charge, however, is misleading, and the McCain camp said that Obama is only trying to scare seniors in Florida, a critical battleground state.

The Arizona senator is advocating personal savings accounts only for those born after 1950, meaning that the benefits seniors are now receiving from the Social Security system would not be affected, and that even if personal savings accounts were currently in place for individuals, it is unlikely that their nest eggs would disappear.

McCain also points out that his plan would supplement, not replace, the traditional Social Security program, which is expected to pay benefits to nearly 80 million Americans over the next two decades.

"You have to go to the American people and say we won't raise your taxes. We need personal savings accounts, but we've got to fix this system," McCain said.

But Democrats argue that diverting any portion of payroll taxes that support Social Security into the stock market would undermine a system that, they say, is the sole support retirees can count on as companies cut back or eliminate pensions and the stock market experiences turbulence.

According to his Web site, Obama would help Social Security stay solvent by increasing the payroll tax by 2 to 4 percent for those making over $250,000.

"President Bush and John McCain have been pushing privatization for eight years -- not a joke. John still pushes it," Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, said Saturday during a campaign stop in Castlewood, Virginia. "Here's what I want to ask you to think about when you're deciding who to vote for: Imagine if your mother or father's Social Security were invested in the stock market.

With the race so tight -- particularly in Florida -- and economic worries weighing heavily on voters, one McCain supporter suggested that the Republican nominee not push his contentious plan to supplement Social Security with private savings accounts.

"I don't think he's going to go through with it, cause he knows a lot of us are against it. I believe that, anyhow," said Toni Maggiore, the supporter.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Obama: McCain wants to 'gamble' with Social Security

Obama: McCain wants to 'gamble' with Social Security - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/22/social.security.candidates/index.html)

Lord, these color-coded articles from Flasch are going to throw my eyesight to hell in a handbasket.

[Flasch186]

luckily Im sure you have health insurance with a vision supplement so you can get that checked out and lets keep religion out of it ;)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Hadn't seen this mentioned yet. More Hollywood actors deciding to voice their biased opinions in a public forum not intended for politics. I don't think these people have any idea how much their comments are hurting the liberal cause. This year's Emmy show was the lowest rated ever............

Political digs slipped into Emmys - Entertainment News, Los Angeles, Media - Variety (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117992594.html?categoryId=14)

It's obviously a shame that SNL chose to bring in Al Franken to write the skit for this week's SNL opening. Last week's Palin/Clinton skit was hilarious. This week's attempt at Palin humor by Franken fell flat on its face.........

NBC jokes: Todd Palin has sex with daughters (http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75852)

[DaddyTorgo]

Hadn't seen this mentioned yet. More Hollywood actors deciding to voice their biased opinions in a public forum not intended for politics. I don't think these people have any idea how much their comments are hurting the liberal cause. This year's Emmy show was the lowest rated ever............

Political digs slipped into Emmys - Entertainment News, Los Angeles, Media - Variety (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117992594.html?categoryId=14)

It's obviously a shame that SNL chose to bring in Al Franken to write the skit for this week's SNL opening. Last week's Palin/Clinton skit was hilarious. This week's attempt at Palin humor by Franken fell flat on its face.........

NBC jokes: Todd Palin has sex with daughters (http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75852)

FWIW Mizzou (reaching across the aisle if i'm not mistaken) I agree with you on both these points.

For actors to think that their political inclination is going to get anyone to change their vote is the height of egotism. I wish they'd all collectively (D+R) STFU. They can fundraise all they want - hell they can even attend private parties and act out plays or whatever for the people there...I don't give a shit. But for them to babble on and on is insulting -- because I'm fairly certain the vast majority of them have less time to think about and research politics than the average american, so frankly the opinion of the guy next to me on the train who's been paying more attention is likely to be more informed.

and as for the humor -- there's a line there to be sure. i didn't see SNL this week, but if the title of that clip is any indication, that's over the line.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Incidentally, this is the second board I've seen a conservative fail to realize that the NYT/Palin skit was a poke at the liberal media. Both linked to the same article as well.

I understand that claim, but using a 'Palin molests his children' tact for the skit to make that point was WAY out of line. There are plenty of other topics that could have been used to make that point.

Would it have been just as funny a skit if it was FOXNews that was insinuating that Obama molests his daughters? It certainly would not have been for me.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

SNL has long been a bastion of good taste, and this most recent change from that is SHOCKING.

So your original 'conservatives don't get the humor' argument fell flat on its face, so you switch to sarcasm? Pretty weak.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Well, you hadn't indicated that you got the humor in your original post whatsoever - if you are truly bemoaning the downfall of quality humor in SNL recently, then consider your point made. I find that difficult to swallow, however.

There's this groundswell of false outrage (on both sides behalf, by the way) that everyone is just so damn eager to let loose. It's moronic.

It's only false outrage if you can't put yourself in the position of the Palin family. I'd want to F somebody up if they even made that kind of statement in a joking manner about myself and my daughter, even if my wife were running for office. It's ridiculously over the line.

[larrymcg421]

Today's Polls...

National

Gallup (RV): Obama 48-44
Rasmussen (LV): Obama 48-47
Battleground (LV): McCain 48-47
Research 2000/DKos (LV): Obama 49-43

State

VA: Obama 51-45 (Survey USA LV)
NC: McCain 50-47 (Rasmussen LV)
MN: Obama 52-44 (Rasmussen LV)
NV: McCain 46-45 (Suffolk University LV)
PA: Obama 46-44 (NBC-Mason Dixon LV)

[JPhillips]

I didn't see the skit as I generally find SNL over the past few years to be a gigantic waste of my time, but it's troubling to see a general consensus that SNL should self censor. If they're going to be pushing the line on political humor it's inevitable that they'll offend people. There's way too many people comfortable with limiting speech that offends them on both sides of the aisle.

It's a sketch show that few people watch doing something over the top, big fucking deal.

[cartman]

Yeah, who could forget the groundswell of disgust when SNL intoned that Sean Connery buggered Alex Trebek's mom. Or Alec Baldwin's Scoutmaster character molested Adam Sandler's Canteen Boy.

:rolleyes:

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I didn't see the skit as I generally find SNL over the past few years to be a gigantic waste of my time, but it's troubling to see a general consensus that SNL should self censor. If they're going to be pushing the line on political humor it's inevitable that they'll offend people. There's way too many people comfortable with limiting speech that offends them on both sides of the aisle.

It's a sketch show that few people watch doing something over the top, big fucking deal.

Yes, defense of Palin in this situation is 'self-censorship'. I'm sure you'd claim the same if it was Obama knocking up his daughters.

[JPhillips]

I actually prefer if less deference was shown to our political class. I'm fine with a comedy show having a Obama as crack dealer skit or a McCain POW skit if they wish. Comedy shows like SNL should more frequently push the boundaries of outrage IMO.

Now a campaign commercial or news show is completely different, but satire shouldn't worry about offending people.

[Fidatelo]

For actors to think that their political inclination is going to get anyone to change their vote is the height of egotism. I wish they'd all collectively (D+R) STFU. They can fundraise all they want - hell they can even attend private parties and act out plays or whatever for the people there...I don't give a shit. But for them to babble on and on is insulting -- because I'm fairly certain the vast majority of them have less time to think about and research politics than the average american, so frankly the opinion of the guy next to me on the train who's been paying more attention is likely to be more informed.

I'm not sure I agree that actors have less time to think about and research politics than the average american. Why would they have less time? I would think your average big shot actor would have tonnes of time to follow current events. They are constantly traveling, which is a great time to read or watch news, they spend inordinate amounts of time schmoozing with people, which likely leads to political discussions that can only serve to increase interest if not potentially inform the participant, and otherwise they don't have any of the other day-to-day 'life nonsense' to deal with that you average american does (nanny raises the kids, housekeeper cleans, chef cooks, etc).

Now sure, a vast majority of actors are likely total morons or too coked up to make rational decisions, but that's a different argument. :D

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm not sure I agree that actors have less time to think about and research politics than the average american. Why would they have less time? I would think your average big shot actor would have tonnes of time to follow current events. They are constantly traveling, which is a great time to read or watch news, they spend inordinate amounts of time schmoozing with people, which likely leads to political discussions that can only serve to increase interest if not potentially inform the participant, and otherwise they don't have any of the other day-to-day 'life nonsense' to deal with that you average american does (nanny raises the kids, housekeeper cleans, chef cooks, etc).

Now sure, a vast majority of actors are likely total morons or too coked up to make rational decisions, but that's a different argument. :D

This is a much more accurate assessment of the situation. :)

[cartman]

Hmm, not sure how the Republican base is going to respond about McCain working towards amnesty for those the country illegally. This is from a speech this morning.

<object width="320" height="240">

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mDMKYlKMaLA"> </param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mDMKYlKMaLA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="240"> </embed> </object>

[flounder]

Yeah, who could forget the groundswell of disgust when SNL intoned that Sean Connery buggered Alex Trebek's mom. Or Alec Baldwin's Scoutmaster character molested Adam Sandler's Canteen Boy.

:rolleyes:

Actually I think there was a big uproar over the Canteen Boy sketch. So much so that the next time Baldwin hosted, they did a politically correct version of the skit for his opening monologue.

No real point here. Continue fighting amongst yourselves.

[ISiddiqui]

Hmm, not sure how the Republican base is going to respond about McCain working towards amnesty for those the country illegally. This is from a speech this morning.


<OBJECT height=240 width=320>
</p>&nbsp
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mDMKYlKMaLA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="240"> </embed> </OBJECT>

Hasn't that always been his position? Hence part of the reason the right wing wasn't all that enamored with him?

[larrymcg421]

Hasn't that always been his position? Hence part of the reason the right wing wasn't all that enamored with him?

He definitely backed away from it to get the nomination. He's probably getting back on the train because he sees the polling in New Mexico.

[cartman]

Hasn't that always been his position? Hence part of the reason the right wing wasn't all that enamored with him?

He disavowed amnesty back during the primaries, saying during one the debates that he wouldn't have voted for his own bill anymore, because it had amnesty.

edit: found it

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PgvFkICnRoo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PgvFkICnRoo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[larrymcg421]

And there was a memorable debate exchange between McCain and Romney where Romney denied calling McCain's plan amnesty, despite running ads where he does just that.

[ISiddiqui]

He definitely backed away from it to get the nomination. He's probably getting back on the train because he sees the polling in New Mexico.

Not entirely. He said he'd push for border security first because that's what the people wanted. If you recall, McCain-Kennedy died a horrible death and McCain realized people wanted the border secure... but the "amnesty" (as some call it) was always there in the background.

[Arles]

He disavowed amnesty back during the primaries, saying during one the debates that he wouldn't have voted for his own bill anymore, because it had amnesty.

edit: found it

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PgvFkICnRoo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PgvFkICnRoo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
McCain said he wouldn't vote for it because he knows it has no chance of passing and he'd rather have the border security pass then revisit his "pseudo amnesty" plan. That's been his MO on nearly every bill he's passed. Come out with what he wants, it fails, then he works with democrats/republicans on a compromise. He did that with Kennedy on immigration and education, he did that with Feingold on campaign finance, he's done it on taxes and he's made adjustments to his energy plan. The only thing he hasn't compromised on is national security.

It's one of the reasons the right has been extremely frustrated with him. But, if "working with the other side" is as attractive as it seems, it may just get him elected president. So, McCain has always been in favor of this plan for citizenship, he just tabled it to try and get the border security issue passed.

[cartman]

McCain said he wouldn't vote for it because he knows it has no chance of passing and he'd rather have the border security pass then revisit his "pseudo amnesty" plan. That's been his MO on nearly every bill he's passed. Come out with what he wants, it fails, then he works with democrats/republicans on a compromise. He did that with Kennedy on immigration and education, he did that with Feingold on campaign finance, he's done it on taxes and he's made adjustments to his energy plan. The only thing he hasn't compromised on is national security.

It's one of the reasons the right has been extremely frustrated with him. But, if "working with the other side" is as attractive as it seems, it may just get him elected president. So, McCain has always been in favor of this plan for citizenship, he just tabled it to try and get the border security issue passed.

It is just interesting that he's decided to bring it to the forefront when it is such a poison pill to a large part of his base. I guess he is banking on getting more votes from independents than he'd lose from the anti-amnesty crowd.

[Flasch186]

he was for it before he was against it. It's like we've seen this before....Deja Vu.

[Arles]

The more accurate statement would be "he was for it before he realized it wouldn't pass and changed it". ;)

[larrymcg421]

The more accurate statement would be "he was for it before he realized it would sink his chances at the nomination and changed it". ;)

Fixed.

[SirFozzie]

Ouch. Seems Bill O'Reilly got a bit of a backlash. he went nuts on the hacking of Sarah Palin's yahoo mail account.. (which as I said, was completely counterproductive)..

and in turn, a seperate bunch of hackers hacked O'Reilly's website and posted details for 200+ premium members (not including CC#, but names, address, the whole 9 yards).

(sighs)

[larrymcg421]

A couple more polls released...

CNN/Opinion Research (LV): Obama 51-47
Hotline/FD (RV): Obama 47-42

Plus, a Democratic Poll (PPP) has Obama up 53-42 in New Mexico.

[Big Fo]

How many people out there really give a fuck what Matt Damon or whoever the hell else thinks about this year's election? Maybe his family, his agent, and Mizzou B-Ball fan? I don't think any of them live in swing states.

[ISiddiqui]

Fixed.

Is that also why he was for more comprehensive campaign finance reform (starting in 1994) and then changed it to the McCain-Feingold bill that passed in 2002?

I mean if you listen to the quote, that can't be something the right wingers like to hear. He wouldn't vote against McCain-Kennedy because he's a true believer, but because it wouldn't pass as it was and he'd rather change it to get what he wanted. The elephant in the background is, of course, that after the border was secured... well, here comes the "amnesty" again that he's never disavowed.

[JPhillips]

The somewhat unfair immigration ads from Obama have put McCain in a box. He needs to respond or fall further behind with Latinos, but responding can effect his base. Given the way the map looks, I guess McCain figured he needs every Latino vote he can in FL, NV, NM and CO.

[JonInMiddleGA]

But, if "working with the other side" is as attractive as it seems, it may just get him elected president.

Unless, of course, it's a break even or losing proposition when he demotivates voters from the core.

At the risk of repeating myself, if the Dems had run anybody but Obama this thing would already be over. And if McCain wants to start touting amnesty again then it might be over anyway. (No idea whether he is or isn't, that's just the gist of what I'm gathering from a quick check of this thread at the moment)

I'm starting to wonder if he's borderline schizophrenic ... let's move to the right, no wait, I mean move to the left, no back to the ... At some point, I think he runs a risk of simply making everyone unhappy & leaving himself with a constituency of none.

[larrymcg421]

Is that also why he was for more comprehensive campaign finance reform (starting in 1994) and then changed it to the McCain-Feingold bill that passed in 2002?

I mean if you listen to the quote, that can't be something the right wingers like to hear. He wouldn't vote against McCain-Kennedy because he's a true believer, but because it wouldn't pass as it was and he'd rather change it to get what he wanted. The elephant in the background is, of course, that after the border was secured... well, here comes the "amnesty" again that he's never disavowed.

I'm just saying he seems to have come a long way from the debate when he was clearly upset with Romney calling his plan amnesty. I'll have to do more research on it, though.

Speaking of Romney, does anyone think that now it might have been a mistake to pass him over as VP? Sure, Palin energized the base and for a short time seemed to steal independent females. However, it seems Romney would have given the ticket alot of credibility in dealing with the financial crisis.

[Arles]

Speaking of Romney, does anyone think that now it might have been a mistake to pass him over as VP? Sure, Palin energized the base and for a short time seemed to steal independent females. However, it seems Romney would have given the ticket alot of credibility in dealing with the financial crisis.
Given the craziness with the market and the fact that democrats (esp when a rep is in the white house) usually benefit when bad news on the economy comes out, this election would be over now if Palin had not been named. McCain needed every bit of the 10-15 point swing he got from Palin and it still may not be enough. If he named Romney, he *maybe* picks up 5 points and is down around 10-15 right now.

As Jon said above, it is amazing that McCain is still in the race. No one cares about foreign policy or Iraq, it's all about the economy and banks/mortgage issue. The democrat nominee should be winning by 15-20 points given McCain's weakness on the economy and the uncertainty. I expect the democrats understand this and will do everything possible to delay the "bailout bill" to ensure we get at least another 1-2 weeks of a bad stock market. That should pretty much ensure Obama wins (unless he makes a massive error). Palin is the only chance McCain has and it's looking less and less likely to carry him.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm just saying he seems to have come a long way from the debate when he was clearly upset with Romney calling his plan amnesty. I'll have to do more research on it, though.

Well, because it isn't exactly amnesty. I mean, he requires a fine and the immigrants to learn English (and maybe go back and come back in, I'm not sure). It isn't just a blank check, which is what "amnesty" implies.

[ISiddiqui]

At some point, I think he runs a risk of simply making everyone unhappy & leaving himself with a constituency of none.

To be quite honest, that was McCain's position from about 2002-2006. Dems liked to work with him, and he was very popular for bucking his own party, and because of that, he was a power player in consensus building. But it wasn't like he had a constituency or leader of any distinct movement or side. He basically won the Republican nomination because of the rest of the choices were so God awful.

[larrymcg421]

You really have to reach a bit to say Palin gave McCain a 10-15 pt. bump. The only way to do that is to take, for example, Gallup's +8 for Obama at the end of the Dem convention and compare it to Gallup's +5 for McCain after the GOP convention. By doing that, you're completely disregarding the effect of the Dem convention bump and completely disregarding the natural GOP convention bump. To say that +13 is solely due to Palin is ludicrous.

A more reasonable way to look at it is to compare the polls from before both conventions and after both conventions. In Gallup, McCain gained 3 points. In Rasmussen, McCain actually lost a point. In CNN, the race stayed the same. In Hotline/FD, he gained 4 points. With FOX News, he gained 6 points.

[ISiddiqui]

One must also take into consideration Palin's speech though, and how much impact that had on the bump. After all, plenty of commentators took to calling it "Palin's Convention" after it was all done.

[larrymcg421]

I don't deny that she caused a bump for the campaign. I just don't think it was 10-15 points. And I think picking Romney might have put him in a better situation over the next 6 weeks.

[Fighter of Foo]

As Jon said above, it is amazing that McCain is still in the race. No one cares about foreign policy or Iraq, it's all about the economy and banks/mortgage issue.

Really? Perhaps if we didn't spend a couple of trillion on Iraq and our foreign adventures we wouldn't be quite as screwed.

[Flasch186]

Who knows. Palin may turn out to be the better short term play for McCain, but not the better long term choice, say Romney. Unfortunately for McCain or whomever was advising him on his VP selection they couldnt have both. So it was a gamble and seemed to pay big dividends in the short run and it's perks (fundraising, stifling the response from a possible Dem convention success, etc.)

[Buccaneer]

From Rollins on cnn.com

In the midst of the financial crisis last week, it was John McCain's turn to pick up the ball and run with it. He didn't do it very well. He used the Bush administration talking points on Monday: The "all the fundamentals are fine" speech! It was perceived as a disaster.

Barack Obama's response wasn't much better. He took no position but jumped on McCain for saying things were OK. On Tuesday, McCain switched positions from "no bailouts" to "bailouts are needed." Obama still took no position.

His running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, said rich Americans should be patriotic and pay more taxes. A more idiotic statement has never been uttered! But then he also said last week that people in financial trouble should be able to renegotiate their interest and the principal on their housing loans. The idea of renegotiating how much you borrowed is a novel approach that should thrill the banks.

By Friday, McCain was back against bailouts. Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson wanted to bail out everybody with taxpayers' money. (How about all the guys who lost on the first two weeks of the football season?)

Obama's position was: I think I am going to support Paulson's bailout, but I am going to wait and see what Bush and the Congress propose before I offer my solutions.



Look, I know Rollins is biased but if we have a candidate that doesn't have a clue what to think and the other candidate that doesn't have a clue period, I vote we start over with two new candidates and just have a 6 weeks campaign season.

[larrymcg421]

Fox News/Rasmussen (LV) state polls...

OH: McCain 50-46
PA: Obama 48-45
FL: McCain 51-46
VA: McCain 50-48
MI: Obama 51-44


Plus, some interesting state polls from Rasmussen...

MN: Coleman 48, Franken 47, Barkley 3
NC: Hagan 51, Dole 45
SC: Graham 50, Conley 41

[Vegas Vic]

I expect the democrats understand this and will do everything possible to delay the "bailout bill" to ensure we get at least another 1-2 weeks of a bad stock market. That should pretty much ensure Obama wins (unless he makes a massive error). Palin is the only chance McCain has and it's looking less and less likely to carry him.

This thing is far from being over for McCain. I would play close attention to the polls that come out early next week, after the first debate on Friday night. If McCain is within 2 or 3 points of Obama, he's got a decent shot at winning the election. I'm also standing by my prediction that Obama's actual vote will be 2-3 points lower than his final polling numbers on November 3 (and maybe 3-4 points lower in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan). I know a lot of you guys disagree with me on that, but we'll see what happens. Juan Williams has gone on record stating that if Obama isn't up by at least 6 in the final polls, he's not going to win the election.

[Arles]

I don't deny that she caused a bump for the campaign. I just don't think it was 10-15 points. And I think picking Romney might have put him in a better situation over the next 6 weeks.
Obama was up around 7-8 points after his speech and gaining. The Palin nomination ended that (IMO, it could have gotten to 11-12 if Romney/Liebermann/Pawlenty had been named). Right after the republican convention, McCain was up between 4-7 points. McCain needed every bit of that to handle the bad economic news.

I don't know if it's 10-15 points, but it is pretty close, IMO. If McCain names Romney, Obama is up 8-10 points going into a very lackluster republican convention. Maybe they cut it by half and get it to a 4-5 point Obama lead. But then there's no Palin to take bullets for 3-4 weeks and Obama completely focuses on McCain and I'm guessing Obama would be up 10-15 points now with the bad economic news. Even if Romney cut a little more into the bleeding, McCain would still be down 7-10 points.

Like I said, about every card is stacked against McCain now, but it would be even worse without Palin. I also find it real interesting how everyone on the left continues to state what a bad choice Palin was, yet she's the only thing keeping the McCain camp afloat.

[miked]

I expect the democrats understand this and will do everything possible to delay the "bailout bill" to ensure we get at least another 1-2 weeks of a bad stock market. That should pretty much ensure Obama wins (unless he makes a massive error). Palin is the only chance McCain has and it's looking less and less likely to carry him.

Maybe they are actually listening to their constituents, who I think recent polling has shown are vastly against a "bailout bill" in a blank check form. Nobody wants the market to tank, but whether or not a 700B check will affect that is largely controversial.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm also standing by my prediction that Obama's actual vote will be 2-3 points lower than his final polling numbers on November 3.

Just FTR (not that it makes a damn to anybody other than me I imagine), I'd say that's a good prediction. I'd probably qualify my own expectations with a little more variance in states where it's reallyreallyclose and a little less in states where it's a foregone conclusion (as lukewarms will be more likely to stay home if they know for sure that their vote isn't going to matter)

[Mac Howard]

I'm starting to wonder if he's borderline schizophrenic ... let's move to the right, no wait, I mean move to the left, no back to the ... At some point, I think he runs a risk of simply making everyone unhappy & leaving himself with a constituency of none.

But that's inevitable, Jon. The spectrum of politics is so wide and multidimensional that any one candidate can only cover around 30% of it. But to win the election he has to cover 50% or more. The "real" McCain I suspect covers the third from centre through soft right. But he needs the right also - hence Palin.

But in the end it's the Presidential race that matters and McCain has in some way to stretch his appeal right across the centre to right spectrum and that means "schizophrenic" behaviour. Not a lot he can do about that.

Whether this is worse than simply appealing to his natural constituency and risking the right staying away remains to be seen.

Watching Larry King over the weekend someone commented that, considering the significant problems facing any Republican candidate, only McCain would stand a chance in this election and I think there's some truth in that.

[JAG]

I don't know if it's 10-15 points, but it is pretty close, IMO.

RealClearPolitics - HorseRaceBlog - The State of the Race (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/09/the_state_of_the_race.html)

The State of the Race

There's been a lot of talk about this dynamic race - "game changers" and "moments" and things of that nature. Regular readers of mine know that I don't subscribe to the view of politics inherent to that kind of analysis.

As an alternative to discussing Fannie, Freddie, lipstick on pigs, hacked emails, and patriotic 1040 filers - I thought I would put some simple numbers on the board to give us a sense of exactly what has changed since June 3rd.

I've broken the national polling into two sorting categories. First, we sort by pollster. We group the Gallup polls together, then the Rasmussen polls, then the remaining polls.

Second, we sort by date. We group the polls for June, then for July, then for August prior to the conventions, then for today.

Here are the results.

[table doesn't paste alas, have to go to the above link]

Let's analyze the data by one pollster category at a time. Rasmussen had fewer undecided/other voters to begin with, and this group has declined in size over time. Since June, the gain has been to McCain - though Obama is currently better positioned than he was in July or August.

We find something similar with the other pollsters (and the "today" category reflects the polls in the current RCP average that are not from Gallup or Rasmussen). Today, Obama is basically where he was in June while McCain is 4 points better off. Perhaps not coincidentally, the number of undecided has dropped by 3.7 points. Combined with Rasmussen, this suggests that McCain's convention helped him solidfy his core electorate. My general rule of thumb is that candidates should receive at least 45% of the vote in an open, two-way race. With the completion of a successful convention, McCain has now reached this floor.

Gallup shows something different. It had Obama performing more weakly at the beginning of the summer - and today it has him up. Meanwhile, McCain has barely improved since June. This implies that Obama, not McCain, has benefited from the drop in undecided voters. Of course, Gallup has moved very dramatically over the last three days. Such movement has not been uncommon for Gallup's daily tracker. It bounced a good bit for Obama's Europe trip, then the Democratic convention, then the Republican convention. Each time it has slowly made its way back toward a tighter race. Obama's recent bump in Gallup might correspond to market jitters, and it will be interesting to see if, as the jitters subside, Gallup finds a tighter race.

Let's analyze the race from a higher altitude. What do we see?

We see remarkable stability. Contrary to what one might think if one's only source for information was the political class - there has not been a lot of movement. The movement we have seen seems to have been pretty orderly - with McCain solidifying his Republican base.

We also see a group of undecided voters who have not yet made a choice. They will probably be decisive. In a race with only two salient candidates - the goal is to hit 50%-plus-one. Both McCain and Obama can still do that via the undecided voters, who are becoming the critical voting block.

I am not surprised by the fact that neither candidate has yet obtained enough support to win. This is an open election with no incumbent to evaluate, nor even a candidate from the incumbent administration. This is a bad year for the Republican Party, but the GOP nominated a guy who has built a reputation opposing his own party. The Democrats nominated a candidate with a background dramatically different from any major party nominee in American history. Between 4% and 8% of the country still does not know what to make of it yet. They were probably part of the 7% to 12% that were undecided in June.


My intuition is that this group is going to sort itself out late. I'd guess that they are the true independents, i.e. those without strong party attachments. [Many people say they are independent but they actually behave like partisans.] I'd also wager that they have not been paying a lot of attention yet. The debates might move them, but I wouldn't be surprised if these folks sort themselves out in late October.

It is not unreasonable to expect a close race. Some perspective is called for here. We have in our collective memory the blowouts of 1984, 1972, and 1964. However, presidential elections in the 19th century were persistently close. Between 1876 and 1896 - all five presidential elections were decided by 5% or less. The country was also closely split in the ante-bellum period. Between 1836 and 1860, only William Henry Harrison was able to pull substantially more than 50% of the vote. Typically, one saw multi-candidate fields, as the two major parties (Democratic and Whig) were unable to organize politics into the binary choice we have today. So, sustained periods of close elections and even splits in public opinion are as much a norm as anything in this country - and we might have recently re-entered such a phase.

[JPhillips]

Obama was up around 7-8 points after his speech and gaining. The Palin nomination ended that (IMO, it could have gotten to 11-12 if Romney/Liebermann/Pawlenty had been named). Right after the republican convention, McCain was up between 4-7 points. McCain needed every bit of that to handle the bad economic news.

I don't know if it's 10-15 points, but it is pretty close, IMO. If McCain names Romney, Obama is up 8-10 points going into a very lackluster republican convention. Maybe they cut it by half and get it to a 4-5 point Obama lead. But then there's no Palin to take bullets for 3-4 weeks and Obama completely focuses on McCain and I'm guessing Obama would be up 10-15 points now with the bad economic news. Even if Romney cut a little more into the bleeding, McCain would still be down 7-10 points.

Like I said, about every card is stacked against McCain now, but it would be even worse without Palin. I also find it real interesting how everyone on the left continues to state what a bad choice Palin was, yet she's the only thing keeping the McCain camp afloat.

Looking back, both candidates got a fairly typical convention bounce. Obama's was cut short and McCain's faded pretty close to what 538 predicted. It's a two point race, IMO, unless something massive happens in the debates.

[JPhillips]

This thing is far from being over for McCain. I would play close attention to the polls that come out early next week, after the first debate on Friday night. If McCain is within 2 or 3 points of Obama, he's got a decent shot at winning the election. I'm also standing by my prediction that Obama's actual vote will be 2-3 points lower than his final polling numbers on November 3 (and maybe 3-4 points lower in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan). I know a lot of you guys disagree with me on that, but we'll see what happens. Juan Williams has gone on record stating that if Obama isn't up by at least 6 in the final polls, he's not going to win the election.

So RCP now won't be accurate on Nov. 3?

[JPhillips]

Unless, of course, it's a break even or losing proposition when he demotivates voters from the core.

At the risk of repeating myself, if the Dems had run anybody but Obama this thing would already be over. And if McCain wants to start touting amnesty again then it might be over anyway. (No idea whether he is or isn't, that's just the gist of what I'm gathering from a quick check of this thread at the moment)

I'm starting to wonder if he's borderline schizophrenic ... let's move to the right, no wait, I mean move to the left, no back to the ... At some point, I think he runs a risk of simply making everyone unhappy & leaving himself with a constituency of none.

Except election after election the right votes for a Republican that promises the moon and delivers little. The financial side of the party runs things because they'll actually leave if they don't get what they want.

[GrantDawg]

Except election after election the right votes for a Republican that promises the moon and delivers little. The financial side of the party runs things because they'll actually leave if they don't get what they want.

The financial side runs the party because they own the party. The social side will leave long before they will.

[Flasch186]

Palin lawyer meets with investigator in probe - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate)

Bear in mind that this is not the 'Troopergate 1' investigation but a seperate concurrent probe that was started...'Troopergate redux'

Palin lawyer meets with investigator in probe

By MATT VOLZ 14 minutes ago

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Less than a week after balking at the Alaska Legislature's investigation into her alleged abuse of power, Gov. Sarah Palin on Monday indicated she will cooperate with a separate probe run by people she can fire.

An attorney for the GOP vice presidential nominee met with an investigator for the state Personnel Board to discuss sharing documents and schedule witness interviews, McCain spokeswoman Meg Stapleton said. Neither she nor McCain spokesman Ed O'Callaghan had further details about the meeting and said they did not know if the governor or her husband would be interviewed.

Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein said in an e-mail that information on who will be interviewed and when will be known on Tuesday. He said additional coordination meetings with the investigator, Anchorage attorney Timothy Petumenos, are likely.

After that, however, Petumenos wants to keep the progress of the investigation confidential and the campaign will not have any further comment, McCain spokesman Taylor Griffin said.

Both the Legislature and the personnel board have hired investigators in separate inquiries of whether Palin abused her power when she fired Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan this summer. Monegan refused to dismiss a state trooper who went through a bitter divorce with her sister before Palin's became governor.

Palin has refused to participate in the Legislature's investigation since becoming Sen. John McCain's running mate.

The other investigation is overseen by the state Personnel Board, a three-member panel appointed by the governor. Panel members can be fired by the governor for cause. Two members are holdovers from the previous governor and Palin reappointed the third.

One, Alfred Tamagni Sr., donated $400 to Palin's 2006 campaign. Petumenos has donated money to several Democratic candidates.

Separately, two Alaska Democrats urged state police to investigate why subpoenaed witnesses, including Palin's husband, did not testify before the legislative committee last week. The lawmakers, Rep. Les Gara and Sen. Bill Wielechowski, said state law bars witness tampering, but that they did not have enough information to file a formal complaint in the case.

Griffin said the campaign has not advised any witnesses on how to respond to subpoenas.

[JPhillips]

The financial side runs the party because they own the party. The social side will leave long before they will.

They keep threatening, but in the end they always come back. Social conservatives are the most reliable voters in the US.

[DaddyTorgo]

the whole troopergate-refusing-to-testify thing really needs to get more play in the media -- frankly it's fucking disgraceful. if she has nothing to hide everyone ought to be cooperating with every investigation. the fact that she is refusing to cooperate (as are others she has control over -- aka her husband) indicates to me that she's guilty as sin, as it should to any reasonable person.

[Arles]

Has she been subpoenaed yet? As far as I can tell, she hasn't. Also, it was the AG who said the staff didn't have to testify. At this point, it is turning extremely political and there's no reason to think it will ever become the "actual" investigation it once was back in June-July. If I were Palin, I wouldn't let anyone near these people until the election. The tone of the questions will be "when did you stop beating your wife?" and I would want no part of that.

Now, if they have cause to subpoena Palin, they should do it and be over with it. The more this goes on, the more it looks like a fishing expedition. They've had a ton of testimony and evidence gathered (had it back in June). If they having nothing at this point, I wouldn't expect Palin to help them out (esp in this climate).

The big point here is that the onus is on them to prove she acted against ethical standards - not on her to prove her innocence (bolded for Flasch ;) ).

[DaddyTorgo]

Has she been subpoenaed yet? As far as I can tell, she hasn't. Also, it was the AG who said the staff didn't have to testify. At this point, it is turning extremely political and there's no reason to think it will ever become the "actual" investigation it once was back in June-July. If I were Palin, I wouldn't let anyone near these people until the election. The tone of the questions will be "when did you stop beating your wife?" and I would want no part of that.

Now, if they have cause to subpoena Palin, they should do it and be over with it. The more this goes on, the more it looks like a fishing expedition. They've had a ton of testimony and evidence gathered (had it back in June). If they having nothing at this point, I wouldn't expect Palin to help them out (esp in this climate).

The big point here is that the onus is on them to prove she acted against ethical standards - not on her to prove her innocence (bolded for Flasch ;) ).

count on Arles for spin control. i know it's pointless to even attempt to engage you in a reasonable non-spun discussion of this Arles, so I won't even bother.

[Mac Howard]

Social conservatives are the most reliable voters in the US.

On Larry King Live over the weekend two financial commentators were commenting on the current financial crisis. Despite their political differences they were in complete unison about the causes (deregulation) and solution (better regulation) and that McCain would have a problem overcoming the fact that he had repeatedly been in favour of deregulation.

At the end of the interview the Democratic commentator ribbed the Republican about the consensus and suggested he might vote for Obama. The reply was something like "I'm pro-life. I couldn't".

Interesting that even for an economist pro-life trumps everything :rolleyes:

[Big Fo]

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Less than a week after balking at the Alaska Legislature's investigation into her alleged abuse of power, Gov. Sarah Palin on Monday indicated she will cooperate with a separate probe run by people she can fire.

Awesome job on the coloring here, usually I think it's crazy and a waste of time but this one gave me a chuckle. Shame it doesn't show up in quotes.

the whole troopergate-refusing-to-testify thing really needs to get more play in the media -- frankly it's fucking disgraceful. if she has nothing to hide everyone ought to be cooperating with every investigation. the fact that she is refusing to cooperate (as are others she has control over -- aka her husband) indicates to me that she's guilty as sin, as it should to any reasonable person.

But the "liberal media" is out to get her dontcha know :lol:

[ISiddiqui]

Interesting that even for an economist pro-life trumps everything :rolleyes:

Why a roll eyes for the idea that values trumps economics? I'd vote for a Socialist over a Republican or Democrat who advocated a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Free Speech (either for national security reasons or hate speech reasons or whathaveyou).

[Chief Rum]

You guys are still talking about this election thing?!?

[larrymcg421]

I'm pro-life and there is zero chance that I will be voting for McCain. However, I agree with ISiddiqui that there are certain values that are important enough to where I could not support a candidate if they went against them. Free Speech was a good example.

[fantom1979]

You would think that in 34 years (controlling the white house for 22 of them and congress for half of them) that the Republicans could have removed Roe v Wade by now. Maybe its just not that important once you get in office compared to running for office. ;)

[larrymcg421]

You would think that in 34 years (controlling the white house for 22 of them and congress for half of them) that the Republicans could have removed Roe v Wade by now. Maybe its just not that important once you get in office compared to running for office. ;)

It's important, but sometimes they just kept screwing up. Reagan may have had an idea that O'Connor would be pro-choice, but he certainly didn't expect Kennedy to join her. He only went 1 for 3 in appointing anti-Roe justices. Bush Sr. similarly screwed up by trying a stealth candidate that only proved to be stealth for the other side. He did get his other pick right. Still, it's pretty funny that the 3 justices who wrote the opinion upholding Roe were Reagan-Bush appointees.

Clinton and Dubya were much better at the justice game, getting exactly what they wanted and expected with their picks. For all Dubya's gaffes, he was able to get the most openly anti-Roe justice confirmed, with a majority of the public supporting the pick.

[Mac Howard]

Why a roll eyes for the idea that values trumps economics? I'd vote for a Socialist over a Republican or Democrat who advocated a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Free Speech (either for national security reasons or hate speech reasons or whathaveyou).

It just came out as an extremely surprising comment. After ten minutes or so of sophisticated economics argument when the McCain supporter had grudgingly accepted that McCain was not the man for the job that he suddenly mumbled his comment about pro-life. It was just so out of context with the debate that he said it almost apologetically.

But you underestimate the "values" in economics. If the financial system collapses and America plunges into depression and the world with it then the price paid in deaths from poverty, ill-health, malnutrition etc will be measure in millions. Not a lot of pro-life in that. I think the abortion debate can hold fire until the financial system is brought back under control.

But that's getting deeper than I intended :)

[Vegas Vic]

So RCP now won't be accurate on Nov. 3?

I think the final average of the polls on RCP will be off by a couple of points on election day.

[Arles]

count on Arles for spin control. i know it's pointless to even attempt to engage you in a reasonable non-spun discussion of this Arles, so I won't even bother.
So, I give a different perspective and get the "I'm going to take my ball and go home response". IMO, this investigation turned from a real investigation into a witch hunt the moment Palin was named VP. There wasn't much there to begin with and the independent investigation was going fine in early August. Palin had completely cooperated and a $100K limit was set ( McClatchy Washington Bureau | 07/28/2008 | Alaska legislature will probe Palin's firing of state's top cop (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/45779.html) ).

Here's some of the information filed:

Now, according to papers filed by Palin's legal team, this was not the only instance of insubordination from Monegan. On December 9th of '07 Monegan held a press conference with Hollis French to push his own bulletin plan. On January 29th of this year, Palin's staffers had to rework their procedures to keep Monegan from bypassing normal channels for budget requests. In February of this year, Monegan publicly released a letter he wrote to Palin supporting a project that she had vetoed. And in June 26th, Monegan bypassed the governor's office entirely, contacted Alaska's congressional delegation to gain funding for a project.
There was one tape in the middle of August that involved a staffer asking about the trooper, but that was also handled. The case looked like it was going to end with little action and a report issued in early October with the results.

Then, on August 29 (coincidentally the same day Palin was named VP), everything changed. Suddenly the 100K limit went out the window and the previously content Hollis French seemed to think we needed a ton of subpoenas and needed to bring in Palin's husband and primary aid for full scale interrogation. On Sept 2, French (also on Obama's Alaska campaign team) said this:

"If they had done their job they never would have picked her," said French. "Now they may have to deal with an October surprise," he said.
So, in those 3 days, French "postponed" the report to the end of October and made the above comments.

Now, with all this, I think it is very prudent for Palin to not do anything above what is specifically required by law to help in this witch hunt. The AG came in days after the "subpoenas" were issued and said they were not valid. So, Palin decided not to subject her husband and staffers to French's kangaroo court. Again, people can rip her for it - I understand that point of view and think it's fair. But I fail to see why Palin should go above what is required by law to help in an obvious witch hunt. That's my opinion and one view on the issue. I guess I am not being as "reasonable" and "non-spun" as DaddyTorgo. I'm just offering a different perspective given the information I have seen.

I may be wrong or right, but I fail to see why my POV is signficantly more off base than those bearing torches against her over the past week. To be honest, these type of responses are why very few conservatives respond here (outside of MBBF and Vegas). A lefty fires off something, he gets 10 "attaboys". A righty tries to give a differing point of view and he gets 10 "he's just too partisan and not worth talking with".

[larrymcg421]

That was a stupid comment by French, but what I don't understand is why the Republican controlled legislature doesn't have him replaced? Palin wants the probe transferred, but they can't get it done. Doesn't make sense to me.

It's going to be hard to paint this as a partisan investigation when the Republicans have the majority in both houses.

[Chief Rum]

You don't understand why a Republican legislature wouldn't want to remove a biased committee lead very publically gunning for a their VP candidate? You have any idea what it would look like if they did that?

I am also guessing that there would be a lot more defense of Palin by the Republican legislators on this issue if they thought there was something to it. My guess is the Dems are pushing this hard to try to discredit Palin, but that their hand is pretty weak.

[larrymcg421]

You don't understand why a Republican legislature wouldn't want to remove a biased committee lead very publically gunning for a their VP candidate? You have any idea what it would look like if they did that?

I don't see how it would look any worse than trying to move the investigation to a group more favorable to Palin, which is what the Palin camp wants to do right now.

I am also guessing that there would be a lot more defense of Palin by the Republican legislators on this issue if they thought there was something to it. My guess is the Dems are pushing this hard to try to discredit Palin, but that their hand is pretty weak.

Well their silence makes the "partisan" argument look pretty silly. It's like if Bush was impeached in 2004 and called it a partisan witchhunt.

[Chief Rum]

I don't see how it would look any worse than trying to move the investigation to a group more favorable to Palin, which is what the Palin camp wants to do right now.

Then you're looking at it from the perspective of someone who wants this to go bad for Palin. Those more favorable to the GOP know that the media would have a field day if the Republicans actually made an overt attempt to remove French in the midst of an investigation of their own VP candidate. It would "play" awful.

Well their silence makes the "partisan" argument look pretty silly. It's like if Bush was impeached in 2004 and called it a partisan witchhunt.

Or they know it doesn't amount to much, and to go to a hue and cry about it would only make it out to be a bigger deal than it is.

[Arles]

Also don't underestimate the dislike some of the Alaskan republicans have for Palin:

It will be fascinating to see the Alaska Republican delegation front and center at this week’s Republican National Convention now that Alaska governor Sarah Palin will be on the ticket.

This is a state party whose establishment faction, to put it mildly, isn’t too enamored with their reform-minded governor.

This is a state party whose chairman, Randy Ruedrich, has been feuding with Palin for years. Palin exposed Ruedrich for ethical violations in 2004 when both served on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission — and their relationship has been frosty ever since.

Ruedrich declined to comment at the historic nature of having an Alaskan on the national ticket for the first time in the state’s history.

And this is a governor who bucked the establishment in endorsing her lieutenant governor, Sean Parnell, over Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who has represented the state in Congress for more than three decades.

The legislative leadership of the Alaska Republican Party isn’t enamored with Palin’s selection, either, according to the Anchorage Daily News.

State Senate President Lyda Green said she thought it was a joke when someone called her at 6 a.m. to tell her the news.

"She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Green, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"

Green, who has feuded with Palin, brought up the big oil tax increase Palin pushed through last year. She also pointed to the award of a $500 million state subsidy to a Canadian firm to pursue a natural gas pipeline that's far from guaranteed.

House Speaker John Harris, a Republican from Valdez, was also astonished at the news. He didn't want to get into the issue of her qualifications.

"She's old enough," Harris said. "She's a U.S. citizen."

It's striking to see the state's Democratic congressional nominee effusively praising Palin, while the leading Alaska Republicans are shunning her.

Taking on the GOP establishment is a central part of her appeal — and a major reason why McCain picked her — but her frosty relationship with much of her own statewide party will make for some interesting Alaska delegation breakfasts next week.

The Scorecard: 2008 Congressional campaign news and analysis - Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0808/Alaska_Republicans_offer_frosty_reaction_to_Palin_pick.html)

[larrymcg421]

Well then it might be better to call it a crooked investigation, which it may well be. Calling it partisan just sounds stupid.

[Arles]

I think it's partisan against Palin, but there's no desire from the republicans in Alaska to put a stop to it. Quite honestly, I think some of them are enjoying seeing her on the hot seat after some of the things she did to them as governor. It seems to me to be a big "good ole' boy" network out there and she didn't seem to play well with them.

[JPhillips]

Maybe we should all agree that all investigations are partisan and just let our elected officials do whatever the hell they want. Oversight is the new Charlie Gibson is the new Al Queda.

[ISiddiqui]

It's important, but sometimes they just kept screwing up. Reagan may have had an idea that O'Connor would be pro-choice, but he certainly didn't expect Kennedy to join her. He only went 1 for 3 in appointing anti-Roe justices.

Reagan's primary concern at the time wasn't anti-Roe justices, but pro-Federalism justices. Reagan was probably more for states rights vs. federal power than he was anti-abortion. Recall that this was a time before US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison and the feds could basically do anything they wanted under the Commerce Clause. Reagan's first goal appeared to be to institute a New Federalism and give Rehnquist the justices he needed to do so.

Roe was secondary.

[Flasch186]

Has she been subpoenaed yet? As far as I can tell, she hasn't. Also, it was the AG who said the staff didn't have to testify. At this point, it is turning extremely political and there's no reason to think it will ever become the "actual" investigation it once was back in June-July. If I were Palin, I wouldn't let anyone near these people until the election. The tone of the questions will be "when did you stop beating your wife?" and I would want no part of that.

Now, if they have cause to subpoena Palin, they should do it and be over with it. The more this goes on, the more it looks like a fishing expedition. They've had a ton of testimony and evidence gathered (had it back in June). If they having nothing at this point, I wouldn't expect Palin to help them out (esp in this climate).

The big point here is that the onus is on them to prove she acted against ethical standards - not on her to prove her innocence (bolded for Flasch ;) ).

Where's the Arles from a few pages ago that wanted the truth to come out? See that's the problem. I dont care the results of the investigation (or any investigation for that matter) other than the fact that we find out the truth. You can't subpoena people without cause and I'd bet that threshold is even greater when youre the governor (sans the fact that she said she supported this earlier). If the other people subpoenaed cooperate and then nothing comes of it, than great! However this smacks of corruption WHEN people stop cooperating int he middle, people subpoenaed dont cooperate, and the environment changes to rhetoric instead of substance. Her camp needs to cooperate so that they can say "see, nothing here." but the whole country gets to see the right fold their wing over this and fly in the face of this transparency theyre touting. Dont flip here, Arles, stand up to corruption and stand up for the truth to come out. when she's absolved of this you can stand even taller in her defense. Oh, forgot, you admitted to bias. Total horsehsit you said it spun out of control when she was named VP but looking at the timing of your posts and your feelings in them you just started coming off of the tracks after that....you held the troopergate thread just long enough to be able to state you also wanted truth to come out, but now that's completely gone. Eh, who cares about credibility or truth when youve got spin to hang onto.

[ISiddiqui]

Biden and Obama seem not to be lockstep with each other:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/Biden_criticizes_Obama_ad_hitting_McCain_as_technologically_inept.html?showall

Joe Biden offered perhaps his most off-message statement yet since being tapped as Barack Obama's running mate, saying in an interview that he thought one of his campaign's own ads was "terrible" and hadn't know about it in advance.

Asked by CBS's Katie Couric about an ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ2I0t_Twk0) Obama released earlier this month mocking John McCain for not being able to use a computer, Biden criticized the commercial and suggested it had been aired without his knowledge.

"I thought that was terrible by the way," Biden said of the computer ad in an interview broadcast tonight on the CBS Evening News

Asked why it was aired, Biden said: "I didn't know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we would have never done it."

WOW. I don't I've ever seen a VP nominee pull something like this about their running mate.

[ISiddiqui]

And apparently Conservatives are bit upset today because McCain's recommendation for Cox's replacement as Chair of the SEC is Democratic AG of NY, Andrew Cuomo.

[JPhillips]

Reagan's primary concern at the time wasn't anti-Roe justices, but pro-Federalism justices. Reagan was probably more for states rights vs. federal power than he was anti-abortion. Recall that this was a time before US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison and the feds could basically do anything they wanted under the Commerce Clause. Reagan's first goal appeared to be to institute a New Federalism and give Rehnquist the justices he needed to do so.

Roe was secondary.

Arguing that Roe should be overturned is great for conservative politicians. Actually overturning Roe would be a disaster.

[sterlingice]

At the risk of repeating myself, if the Dems had run anybody but Obama this thing would already be over.

Hillary, probably. But anyone else?

Biden would have been painted with the usual "most liberal northeast senator in the senate" (which he's not), Richardson isn't exactly Mr Personality, John Edwards had that whole little scandal problem, Dennis Kucinch is Dennis Kucinich which is like being the Ron Paul of the Democrats- fun for a soundbyte but too wacky to lead the party, and then there were a couple of others who also never really had a chance (Dodd, Gravel, etc).

SI

[sterlingice]

Maybe we should all agree that all investigations are partisan and just let our elected officials do whatever the hell they want. Oversight is the new Charlie Gibson is the new Al Queda.

Unless it's related to the economy. Then it's the new panacea ;)

SI

[JPhillips]

Maybe the debates won't have as much effect as I thought. Here's a chart I got from 538 that shows how little the numbers have moved after debates since 1988. It's not really predictive, but still interesting.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VW8l01J93zY/SNfHPUPjUFI/AAAAAAAAAOM/POwgnddaxNM/s400/debatetable.png

[larrymcg421]

Maybe the debates won't have as much effect as I thought. Here's a chart I got from 538 that shows how little the numbers have moved after debates since 1988. It's not really predictive, but still interesting.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VW8l01J93zY/SNfHPUPjUFI/AAAAAAAAAOM/POwgnddaxNM/s400/debatetable.png

I don't know. A 2 point movement one way or the other would be crucial in this election.

Those numbers aren't very surprising, either. The second debate in 1992 was the town hall debate where Bush screwed up a question on how the deficit has affected him, and Clinton came behind him to give the correct answer in his "feel your pain" way. The first debate in 2004 was clearly Bush's worst performance and nearly cost him the election.

[Arles]

Where's the Arles from a few pages ago that wanted the truth to come out? See that's the problem. I dont care the results of the investigation (or any investigation for that matter) other than the fact that we find out the truth. You can't subpoena people without cause and I'd bet that threshold is even greater when youre the governor (sans the fact that she said she supported this earlier). If the other people subpoenaed cooperate and then nothing comes of it, than great!
When they "stopped cooperating", here's what Palin and company had presented on Monegan:


- subordination item #1 - In one message, the governor’s budget director, Karen Rehfeld, wrote that she was “stunned and amazed” that Monegan appeared to be working with a powerful state legislator, Anchorage Republican Rep. Kevin Meyer, to seek funding for a project Palin previously had vetoed.

- subordination item #2 (12/9/07): Monegan holds a press conference with Hollis French to push his own budget plan.

- subordination item #3 (1/29/08): Palin’s staffers have to rework their procedures to keep Monegan from bypassing normal channels for budget requests.

- subordination item #4 (February 2008): Monegan publicly releases a letter he wrote to Palin supporting a project she vetoed.

- subordination item #5 (June 26, 2008): Monegan bypassed the governor’s office entirely and contacted Alaska’s Congressional delegation to gain funding for a project.
So, we have 5 specific and documented instances of Monegan acting directly against the governors wishes independent of the trooper issue. Once again, Monegan's sole role is to serve at the pleasure of the governor. Here's his direct quotes after he was removed from his post and refused to accept a different job (as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board):

"If the governor was upset with me for one thing or another, it had never been communicated to me," he said in an interview Saturday evening.

Monegan joked that he's "getting a complex," but said the kinds of jobs he's had lately are ones where you serve at the pleasure of your boss.

"They can call me in and say, you know, 'I don't like your hair; you're fired,' " Monegan said.
He didn't seem to feel any "pressure" before the removal. In fact, he had no idea why he was removed. Again, that would be odd if he had been pressured to do something against his will and then got fired.

So, to summarize, Palin presented a case that had 5 instances of insubordination from a cabinet post (one is enough cause for removal). There was no outcry from Monegan when he was initially removed and everything seemed to be fairly clear with the investigation until she was named VP. Then, suddenly French makes a huge issue out of the "lack of information" he has, starts sending off trumped up subpoenas and says this:

"If they had done their job they never would have picked her," said French. "Now they may have to deal with an October surprise," he said.

I don't know how anyone with common sense can think this isn't a complete political witch hunt. There was no crime, no official criminal charges, just some ethical complaints. And those ethical complaints were easily dealt with when the 5 instances of insubordination were proven and documented. There is not evidence of the governor or her staff specifically threatening Monegan to remove Wooten or be fired. And, without that, there is no case given the information presented. All French is trying to do right now is fish around for a comment from her husband or the staff he can use to keep this investigation alive. At this point, there's really nothing to it and that's why Palin stopped participating. She's proven she had cause to remove him and they have no evidence she (or her staff) threatened Monegan. So, unless they can dig up something new, the case is dead.

Anyone who looks at the actual reason for the investigation (ethical claims involving Monegan's removal), the evidence Palin has presented (5 cases of insubordination) and the evidence given against her (one staffer asking why Wooten was still employed given his documented reprimands and a conversation between Monegan and her husband where Todd Palin DID NOT threaten Monegan or even asked for Wooten to be fired) can see this is paper thin. In fact, there has been very little discussion of that here. It's been more on talking points from the left or soundbites where the main outcry is that Palin is "preventing" them from making a case against her (just the claim itself sounds ridiculous).

It's their job to prove she threatened or had her staff threaten Monegan. They haven't done that to this point, French is panicking and now trying whatever he can do to keep the case alive. Palin has more than done enough to prove her innocence and had she not been named VP, it would already been done and put to bed for the Oct report.

[JPhillips]

Palin has more than done enough to prove her innocence and had she not been named VP, it would already been done and put to bed for the Oct report.

Saying you're innocent should be good enough.

[Fighter of Foo]

Yeah, not sure how anyone could think that... (http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/092108/sta_334953142.shtml)



The presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin has taken effective charge of the Alaska state government's response to the legislative investigation into abuse of power allegations against Palin.



An investigation that began on a bipartisan basis with several pledges from Palin to participate, is now being manipulated to protect Palin by campaign attorneys who appear to be directing the Palin administration's response, top legislators say.



"The state of Alaska and the Alaska Attorney General's Office don't need any help from a national campaign," said Sen. President Lyda Green, R-Wasilla.



Green said the Palin administration's response seems more geared to help the McCain campaign by shutting down the investigation that's become known as "Troopergate" than informing the Alaska public.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Yeah, not sure how anyone could think that... (http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/092108/sta_334953142.shtml)

The presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin has taken effective charge of the Alaska state government's response to the legislative investigation into abuse of power allegations against Palin.

An investigation that began on a bipartisan basis with several pledges from Palin to participate, is now being manipulated to protect Palin by campaign attorneys who appear to be directing the Palin administration's response, top legislators say.

"The state of Alaska and the Alaska Attorney General's Office don't need any help from a national campaign," said Sen. President Lyda Green, R-Wasilla.

Green said the Palin administration's response seems more geared to help the McCain campaign by shutting down the investigation that's become known as "Troopergate" than informing the Alaska public.

I've seen a few interviews of Lyda Green on TV. Anyone who doesn't think she has a chip on her shoulder from past political run-ins with Palin is fooling themselves. This woman is hell-bent on revenge, despite the fact that the Palin's have done plenty to prove that this investigation doesn't have any legs.

[JPhillips]

Everything Arles says needs to be archived for reference if Obama is President.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Everything JPhillips says needs to be archived for reference if Palin, errrrr McCain is President.

Fixed.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Found some very interesting work by DJ Drummond on the weighting of polls and just how misleading those results can be........

There Is No Alternate Universe (Wizbang) (http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/09/22/there-is-no-alternate-universe.php)

Here are the calculations from the past few weeks of Gallup polls showing the results using support by voter group. Last week's results are the most telling of the bunch. Despite McCain support remaining steady or climbing over the last week in every voting group and Obama losing support in some groups, the change in weight resulting in an Obama gain being reported by Gallup. Certainly some very interesting analysis........

Errata (Wizbang) (http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/09/20/errata.php)

[Honolulu_Blue]

I just read this on another website and found it funny:

Hey! But Palin can see Russia from Alaska. But, then again, Tyler Thigpen can see the endzone from his own 20 yard-line, but that doesn’t make him qualified to be a quarterback.

[DaddyTorgo]

I just read this on another website and found it funny:

Hey! But Palin can see Russia from Alaska. But, then again, Tyler Thigpen can see the endzone from his own 20 yard-line, but that doesn’t make him qualified to be a quarterback.

EPIC....BURN

:D

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I just read this on another website and found it funny:

Hey! But Palin can see Russia from Alaska. But, then again, Tyler Thigpen can see the endzone from his own 20 yard-line, but that doesn’t make him qualified to be a quarterback.

It's not even remotely close to a fair comparison. Thigpen is a disaster (three hours of my life I'll never get back). Palin at least has some experience and will be a backup rather than the starter.

[Honolulu_Blue]

It's not even remotely close to a fair comparison. Thigpen is a disaster (three hours of my life I'll never get back). Palin at least has some experience and will be a backup rather than the starter.

It's totally on point. Thigpen had some experience (as a starting college QB, an apt comparison if there ever was one to being the mayor of Backwater, AL and the governor of AL for 2 years) was a backup rather than a starter. Palin will be a disaster (could be three years of your life you'll never get back).

Game. Set. Match.

[Arles]

I just read this on another website and found it funny:

Hey! But Palin can see Russia from Alaska. But, then again, Tyler Thigpen can see the endzone from his own 20 yard-line, but that doesn’t make him qualified to be a quarterback.
True or not, that is pretty darn funny. Also, chalk me up as someone who has really enjoyed the SNL skits of the past 2-3 weeks. I'm hoping for even better material once the debates start.