Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Sarah Palin Speech Facts!

EESCHMan

Member
Since bpmartyr bombards this site with what seems like hundreds of Anti-Obama Posts...here's one against the Republican's Newest Love, Sarah Palin and here speech...
Sorry it's long...

PALIN: “Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems - as if we all didn't know that already. But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.”

REALITY: PALIN SAID SHE WOULD BEG TO DISAGREE WITH ANY CANDIDATE WHO SAID WE CAN’T DRILL OUR WAY OUT OF OUR PROBLEM

Palin Said She Would Beg to Disagree With Candidate Who Said We Can’t Drill Our Way Out of Our Problem. Asked by Invester’s Business Daily “Some politicians and presidential candidates say we can't drill our way out of our energy problem and that drilling in ANWR will have no effect. What's your best guess of the impact on prices?” Palin responded, “I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can't drill our way out of our problem or that more supply won't ultimately affect prices. Of course it will affect prices. Energy being a global market, it's impossible to venture a guess on (specific) prices.” [Investor’s Business Daily, 7/11/08]

PALIN: “In fact, I told Congress -- I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on that bridge to nowhere.”

REALITY: PALIN WAS FOR THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE BEFORE SHE WAS AGAINST IT.

October 2006” Palin Supported Bridge To Nowhere. In 2006, Palin was asked, “Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?” She responded, “Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.” [Anchorage, 10/22/06, republished 08/29/08]

2006: Palin: Don’t Allow “Spinmeisters” To Turn Bridge To Nowhere Project “Into Something That’s So Negative.” "Part of my agenda is making sure that Southeast is heard. That your projects are important. That we go to bat for Southeast when we’re up against federal
influences that aren’t in the best interest of Southeast.' She cited the widespread negative attention focused on the Gravina Island crossing project. 'We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the
spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative,' Palin said." [Ketchikan Daily News, 10/2/06]

REALITY: PALIN ONLY ANNOUNCED OPPOSITION TO ONE “BRIDGE TO NOWHERE,” STILL SUPPORTS THE OTHER ONE

Palin Refused to Fund Ketchikan Bridge, But Did Not Stop Funding for Knik Arm Bridge.“ Among the earmarks: $449 million for what critics have ridiculed as two ‘bridges to nowhere’ -- one in Ketchikan and one across Knik Arm in Anchorage formally named Don Young's Way. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, also a Republican, last month refused to use any more money for the Ketchikan project, redirecting it for other purposes.” [Anchorage Daily News,11/11/07]

As Recently as June, State Asking for Cost Estimate Proposals for Knik Arm. “An independent party will be called in to look at one of the most elusive aspects of a proposed bridge linking Anchorage and Mat-Su: the price tag. Gordon Keith, regional director for the state Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, said his office will be putting the job of estimating the cost of the controversial project out for bids in coming weeks. He said the task of coming up with a price could cost up to $200,000 and take up to 3½ months. ‘The issue keeps swirling around, so we thought it best to go ahead and do an independent estimate,’ he said. The cost to get the estimate is going to be high ‘if you want to do it correctly,’ he said. The cost of a span reaching across Knik Arm from Anchorage to Point MacKenzie has ranged over the years from $450 million to $1 billion, depending on what kind of bridge is envisioned and what starting date is plugged into the formula… Randy Ruaro, a special assistant to Gov. Sarah Palin, said the administration, even in the face of the recent lengthy report from the bridge authority, was having trouble getting an accurate picture of everything that is involved in the project, of the timing of the phases, and of the costs. He said the independent estimate is expected to answer those questions. Mary Ann Pease, spokeswoman for the authority, said she welcomes the effort to get updated costs.” [Anchorage Daily News, 6/22/08]

PALIN: “Senator McCain also promises to use the power of veto in defense of the public interest - and as a chief executive, I can assure you it works.”

REALITY: PALIN OPPOSED CRUCIAL EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE AND SENIORS FUNDING

EDUCATION/CHILDREN

Total: 396,000.

Anchorage – Fire Lake Elementary School Replacement of Unsafe Sports Equipment. Palin vetoed $10,000. [FY08 Budget]

Tanana City School District – Repair School Bus. Palin vetoed $36,000. [FY08 Budget]

American Lung Association of Alaska – Asthma Control Program and Champ Camp. Palin voted $350,000. [FY08 Budget]

HOSPITALS/HEALTH CARE

Total: $4,527,500.

Ketchikan General Hospital Surgical Suite Expansion/Relocation. Palin vetoed $4,400,000. [FY09 Budget]

Ketchikan General Hospital – Replacement of Outdated Equipment. Palin vetoed $70,000. [2007 Legislature Supplemental]

Sitka – Community Hospital – Medical Equipment. Palin vetoed $31,000. [2007 Legislature Supplemental]

Kenai Peninsula Borough – Diagnostic Hospital Equipment. Palin vetoed $26,500. [2007 Legislature Supplemental]


SENIORS

Total: $600,000.

Ketchikan Senior Citizens, Inc. – Access Road for Pioneer Heights. Palin vetoed $300,000. [FY08 Budget]

AARP Ketchikan – Access Road for Ketchikan Senior Housing Project Palin vetoed $100,000. [2007 Legislature Supplemental]

Catholic Community Services – Angoon Senior Center Stove, Refrigerator and Freezer. Palin vetoed $20,000 twice. [FY08 Budget, 2007 Legislature Supplemental]

Alpha Omega Life Care, Inc. – Delivery Van and Moveable Building. Palin vetoed $20,000. [FY09 Budget]

Older Persons Action Group – Senior Voice Equipment Upgrade. Palin vetoed $20,000. [FY09 Budget]

Statewide Independent Living Centers – Assistive Technology for Alaska’s Centers for Independent Living. Palin vetoed $125,000. [FY09 Budget]

Kodiak Senior Center – Facilities repair and Equipment. Palin vetoed $15,000. [2007 Legislature Supplemental]



PALIN: “Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.”

REALITY: UNDER PALIN, WASILLA GOVERNMENT SPENDING & DEBT SKYROCKETED.

Total Government Expenditures Increased 63 Percent Under Palin. In fiscal 2003—the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget—the total government expenditures of Wasilla, excluding capital outlays, were $7,046,325. In fiscal 1996—the year before Palin took control of the
budget—the expenditures were $4,317,947. The increase was 63 percent. [Wasilla Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2003, Table 1]

Palin Supported Increasing Wasilla Sales Tax From 2 to 2.5 Percent to Build $14.7 Million Sports Center. “Wasilla residents have given the go ahead to building a new multiuse sports center in town and to raising the city sales tax to pay for it. With the final votes counted
Friday, residents voted 306 to 286 in favor of a measure to raise the city sales tax from 2 percent to 2.5 percent to pay the estimated $14.7 million cost of building the center…Mayor Sarah Palin, who supported the measure, said the tight vote will motivate city officials to keep a close eye on the budget for the center.” [Anchorage Daily News, 3/9/02]

Palin Left Behind Almost $19 Million In Long-Term Debt, Compared to None Before She Was Mayor. In fiscal 2003—the last fiscal year Palin approved the budget—the bonded long-term debt was $18,635,000. In fiscal 1996—the year before Palin took control of the budget—there was no general obligation debt. [Wasilla Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2003, Table 10]

PALIN: “It was the spirit that brought me to the governor’s office, when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau … when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good-ol’ boys network.”

REALITY: PALIN HAS A LT. GOVERNOR WHO IS A FORMER OIL LOBBYIST, HIRED WASILLA’S FIRST FEDERAL LOBBYIST (A FORMER STEVENS STAFFER) & HAD THE SUPPORT OF ENTRENCHED ALASKA POLITICIANS DURING HER 2006 RACE.

Palin’s Oil & Gas Appointee Is Former Lobbyist for TransCanada. “Marty Rutherford, who leads Gov. Sarah Palin’s gas pipeline team, made $40,200 in 2003 while consulting in Juneau for a pipeline subsidiary of TransCanada. TransCanada is one of the companies bidding for a state license to build a pipeline to carry gas to market from Alaska’s North Slope. It’s not a disqualifier, but the past connection deserves a second thought.” [Anchorage Daily News editorial, 12/15/07]

Palin “Counting on Her Lieutenant Governor Candidate… Former Oil Lobbyist” to Help Win Oil Industry Support. “The defiantly grass-roots nature of the campaign may have distanced her from certain traditional centers of power in Alaska. The oil industry is one -- but the campaign says it is counting on her lieutenant governor candidate, Parnell, a former oil lobbyist and legislator, to help there.” [Anchorage Daily News, 10/24/06]

Palin’s Former Chief of Staff is Stevens’ Campaign Manager. “Monegan says pressure came from those around Palin, including former Palin chief-of-staff Mike Tibbles, Department of Administration Commissioner Annette Kreitzer, and director of boards and commissions Frank Bailey. Tibbles, who is now the campaign manager for Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, said Friday he couldn't comment on whether he spoke to Monegan about Wooten.” [Anchorage Daily, 7/19/08]

As Mayor, Palin Hired a Washington Lobbyist to Help Get Earmarks for Wasilla – Lobbyist Was Former Chief of Staff for Indicted Senator Ted Stevens. “And as mayor of the small town of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002, Palin also hired a Washington lobbying firm that helped secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, known as earmarks, according to public spending records compiled by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste and lobbying documents. Wasilla's lobbying firm was headed by Steven Silver — a former chief of staff to Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, a key proponent of the bridge project.” [USA Today, 8/31/08]

The Usual Alaska Suspects - Ted Stevens, Don Young, And Lisa Murkowski Fundraised For Palin. “Will we see Ted Stevens stumping for Sarah Palin? Palin said this morning that Stevens appeared at a fund-raiser for her in Ketchikan and gave a speech about ‘moving Alaska forward.’ But does that mean he’ll pop up in any advertisements? (Remember his arguably pivotal role at the end of the Knowles and Murkowski Senate race?) Palin said she doubts it and hasn’t asked… She said Don Young came to one of her fund-raisers two days ago, and she expects Lisa Murkowski at an upcoming event. Tonight she planned to talk with John Binkley, who she says is writing a letter to his supporters on her behalf, and she planned to meet with Frank Murkowski tomorrow morning.” [“The Trail” blog, Anchorage Daily News, 10/13/06]

In Her 2002 Campaign for Lieutenant Governor, Palin Raised ‘About 10 Percent Of Her Campaign Fund’ From Veco, An Oil Company At the Heart of Federal Investigation. “While mayor of Wasilla, Palin ran for lieutenant governor in 2002. She gathered $5,000 -- or about 10 percent of her campaign fund -- from Veco officials or their wives along the way.” [Anchorage Daily News, 9/6/06]

PALIN: “I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.”

REALITY: PALIN SIGNED WEAK ETHICS REFORM BILL & HAS HAD NUMEROUS ETHICAL FLAPS OF HER OWN.
Palin Signed Ethics Reform Legislation That Anchorage Republican Bob Roses Said Didn’t Go Far Enough. “An ethics reform package for state officials was signed into law Monday by Gov. Sarah Palin, just minutes after a former state representative was convicted on seven federal extortion and bribery counts. Palin said the law will help re-establish trust between the public and elected officials by improving on existing statutes. … Ethics reform had been a recurring theme throughout Palin's election campaign, and she pushed hard for the bill to become a bipartisan effort in the Legislature this session. She said she remains determined to clean up Alaska politics. … Rep. Bob Roses, R-Anchorage, who succeed Anderson in the Legislature when Anderson didn't seek re-election in 2006, said the law didn't go far enough. Campaign contributions should be available for immediate public scrutiny, he said, and all contributions should be reported, even those below the current $1,000 threshold. ‘Quite frankly, I thought some of the things should have been a little tighter than what they were, but this is a first step,’ he said.” [The Associated Press State & Local Wire, 7/10/07]

AUGUST 2008: Ethics Complaint Filed Against Gov. Palin Over Alleged Involvement in Hiring a Campaign Contributor. In August 2008, former state House member Andree McLeod filed against Gov. Sarah Palin and her staff today with the Attorney General’s Office. It accuses the governor’s office of using its pull to get a Palin supporter hired to a [Department of Transportation] job in Fairbanks.” McLeod said “‘Executive branch employee shouldn’t be getting involved in the recruitment process unless it’s based on merit,’ said Andree McLeod, who wrote the complaint based on a series of e-mails between members of Palin’s team…The complaint accuses Palin, her acting chief of staff and others of breaking executive ethics branch and hiring rules. It centers on the hiring of surveyor Tom Lamal, who once co-hosted a Palin fundraiser, for a state right-of-way agent job in Fairbanks.”

The complaint is available at Invalid Link Removed Ethics Complaint1.pdf [Anchorage Daily News, Invalid Link Removed, 8/6/08; Anchorage Daily News, Invalid Link Removed, 8/7/08]

July 2008: Special Counsel Appointed Last Month to Investigate Palin Abuse of Power Claim. In July 2008, the Alaska State Legislator voted 12-0 to approve $100,000 for a special investigator to begin an investigation into claims Palin fired a former state official because he would not fire a state trooper who was involved in a bitter custody battle with Palin’s sister. The legislator’s intent was to investigate the events surrounding the termination of former Dept. of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan and potential abuses of power
and improper action by Palin and her administration. [KTVA 11, 07/28/08]

PALIN: “I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.”

REALITY: ALASKA HAS REQUESTED $589 MILLION IN PORK SINCE PALIN TOOK OFFICE & AS MAYOR, SHE HIRED WASILLA’S FIRST FEDERAL LOBBYIST TO SECURE EARMARKS FOR THE TOWN.
Over $589 Million in Federal Pork Requests During Palin’s Tenure as Governor. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, Invalid Link Removed, under Palin’s tenure as Governor the state of Alaska has asked for $589,599,715 in pork barrel projects. [2007 and 2008 Pig Book, www.cagw.org]

Alaska Has Sought 31 Earmarks Worth $197.8 Million in Next Year’s Federal Budget. “But under her leadership, the state of Alaska has requested 31 earmarks worth $197.8 million in next year's federal budget, according to the website of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.” [LA Times, 9/1/08]

As Mayor, Palin Hired a Washington Lobbyist to Help Get Millions in Earmarks for Wasilla – Lobbyist Was Former Chief of Staff for Indicted Senator Ted Stevens. “And as mayor of the small town of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002, Palin also hired a Washington lobbying firm that helped secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, known as earmarks, according to public spending records compiled by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste and lobbying documents. Wasilla's lobbying firm was headed by Steven Silver — a former chief of staff to Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, a key proponent of the bridge project.” [USA Today, 8/31/08]

Under Palin, Wasilla Received $26.9 Million in Earmarks. “As mayor of Wasilla, Palin made regular trips to Washington seeking federal aid. The city received $26.9 million in earmarks during her tenure from fiscal year 2000 to 2003, according to the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense, which tracks pork barrel spending.” [LA Times, 9/2/08]

McCain Criticized Earmarks that Palin Sought as Mayor. “Three times in recent years, McCain's catalogs of "objectionable" spending have included earmarks for this small Alaska town, requested by its mayor at the time -- Sarah Palin… In 2001, McCain's list of spending that had been approved without the normal budget scrutiny included a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in Wasilla. The Arizona senator targeted $1 million in a 2002 spending bill for an emergency communications center in town -- one that local law enforcement has said is redundant and creates confusion. McCain also criticized $450,000 set aside for an agricultural processing facility in Wasilla that was requested during Palin's tenure as mayor and cleared Congress soon after she left office in 2002. The funding was provided to help direct locally grown produce to schools, prisons and other government institutions, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group.” [LA Times, 9/3/08]

PALIN: “But we are expected to govern with integrity, and goodwill, and clear convictions…”

REALITY: PALIN UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR ABUSE OF POWER.

Former State Official Accused Palin, Palin’s Former Chief of Staff and Current Ted Stevens Campaign Manager and Palin’s Husband Of Pressuring Him to Fire Trooper. In July 2008, former state official Walt Monegan accused Palin, Palin’s former Chief of Staff and current Stevens’ campaign manager Mike Tibbles and husband Todd Palin of pressuring him to fire Palin sister’s ex-husband Mike Wooten. [Anchorage Daily News, 07/18/08]

July 2008: Special Counsel Appointed Last Month to Investigate Palin Abuse of Power Claim. In July 2008, the Alaska State Legislator voted 12-0 to approve $100,000 for a special investigator to begin an investigation into claims Palin fired a former state official because he would not fire a state trooper who was involved in a bitter custody battle with Palin’s sister. The legislator’s intent was to investigate the events surrounding the termination of former Dept. of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan and potential abuses of power and improper action by Palin and her administration. [KTVA 11, 07/28/08]
 
PALIN: “As Governor, I have a record of being a strong fiscal conservative and have vetoed millions in special projects pushed by legislators.”

Palin Increased Taxes on Oil Companies to Pay for $1,200 Giveaway to Every Resident in the State. “One of her most significant accomplishments as governor was passing a major tax increase on state oil production, angering oil companies but raising billions of dollars in new revenue. She said the oil companies had previously bribed legislators to keep the taxes low. She subsequently championed legislation that would give some of that money back to Alaskans: Soon, every Alaskan will receive a $1,200 check.” [New York Times, 8/30/08]

PALIN: “I understand that we must reduce our dependence on foreign energy. I’ve worked with our state’s energy producers to expand our production so that we can have a safe, reliable supply of energy produced here in the United States.”

REALITY: PALIN SUPPORTED EXPORTING NATURAL GAS WHILE ALASKA BUSINESSES CLOSED BECAUSE OF SHORTAGES

Palin Backed A Two-Year Extension Of The Export License To Export Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) To Japan And Other Asian Countries— Criticized Because Alaska’s Gas Reserves Are Declining. “Alaska producers can continue shipping gas to Asia after DOE last week approved an extension of the export license for the Kenai liquefied natural gas plant owned by ConocoPhillips and Marathon. The companies will be allowed to export up to 98.1 Bcf to Japan and other Pacific Rim countries over a two-year period through March 31, 2011. […] The
application came under fire from local end-users, including gas distribution companies Enstar and the Chugach Electric Association, as well as fertilizer maker Agrium, all of which claimed the exports would exacerbate the problem of declining gas reserves in south-central Alaska. Agrium permanently closed its plant near Kenai due to an inability to find enough local supply for the facility that used 53 Bcf/year. In January, ConocoPhillips and Marathon reached a deal in which they agreed to step up development in the Cook Inlet region in return for the state's support of the export license extension. The producers also agreed to divert gas from the LNG plant as needed to meet the peak winter supply needs of the local utilities. […] Alaska Governor Sarah Palin welcomed the DOE approval. "In these times of economic uncertainty, this is great news for the state and its residents. This extension will secure a future for the LNG operation and is another step toward ensuring energy supplies and energy security for Alaska," the Republican Governor said. [Platts Inside FERC, 6/9/08]
Press Release, 6/26/06]

• Agrium Closed Manufacturing Plant Because Of Gas Shortage. “Reserves of gas in producing fields in South-central Alaska are declining, posing concerns for supply to local utilities. A manufacturing plant on the Kenai Peninsula owned by Agrium Corp.recently announced it would close because the gas shortage.” [Alaska Journal Of Commerce, 11/25/07]

• Gov. Palin: Agrium Closure Is Unfortunate. “Agrium announced yesterday that the plant will close in December due to a shortage in the supply of Cook Inlet natural gas, leaving about 100 of the 140 employees without employment. ‘It's unfortunate to see the closure of a facility that has provided so many jobs that support families on the Peninsula,’ said Governor Palin. ‘I am heartened to hear that Agrium is willing to keep its options open if sufficient long-term supplies of gas can be found. We know there is more gas to be found and developed in Cook Inlet, so I remain hopeful that those jobs can be preserved.’” [Palin press release, 9/26/07]

PALIN: “And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.” This

REALITY: PALIN IS CLOSE TO THE OIL INDUSTRY

Sierra Club Director Carl Pope Said “No One is Closer to the Oil Industry Than Governor Palin.” "No one is closer to the oil industry than Governor Palin," said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club in comments reflecting the views of a cross section of environmental activists. They cite her eagerness to embrace expanded offshore oil development, her lawsuit against further protection of polar bears so as not to hinder oil drilling in Alaska's ice-filled waters and her ardent support to allow oil companies into the Alaska wildlife refuge. [Associated Press, August 30, 2008]

Palin Took $13,000 from Lobbyists Representing the Oil Industry in Her2006 Campaign for Governor. The lobbyists who donated to her campaign represent a range of industries, including oil and gas, tobacco, education and the Native Alaskan community. "She's fought oil companies and party bosses and do-nothing bureaucrats and anyone who puts their interests before the interests of the people she swore an oath to serve," Mr. McCain said Friday at an Ohio rally to introduce her as his running mate. But since Mrs. Palin leads a major oil-producing state, that industry is one of her top donors. She collected nearly $13,000 from lobbyists who represent oil and gas industries in her primary and general campaigns, according a review of her campaign donations and 2006 registered state lobbyists.[Washington Times, September 1, 2008]

PALIN: “Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we’re going to lay more pipelines … build more new-clear [ed: must be nuclear] plants … create jobs with clean coal … and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources.”

REALITY: PALIN CUT FUNDING FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY

2007: Palin Vetoed $20 Million Toward A Fire Island Wind Farm Project.“[Sen. Hollis] French and [Anchorage Mayor Mark] Begich both lamented the [Palin] veto of $20 million toward a Fire Island wind farm project and connecting transmission lines. That money was part of Railbelt Energy Fund cash that Palin said she doesn't want to spend until a study on energy needs is finished.” [Anchorage Daily News (Alaska),7/30/07]

2008: Palin Cut $20 Million For Chugach Electric Association WindFarm. As part of a large package of budget cuts, in June 2007, Gov.Sarah Palin, R-AK, cut $20 million in funding for a Chugach Electric Association wind farm. The funding was expected to come from a fund called the Railbelt Energy Fund. Palin said she cut the $20 million because she wanted more information before dipping into the Railbelt Energy Fund. [Anchorage Daily News, 6/30/08]

PALIN: “Taxes are too high … he wants to raise them.”

REALITY: PALIN HAS REPEATEDLY SUPPORTED TAX INCREASES

Palin Supported Increasing Wasilla Sales Tax From 2 to 2.5 Percent to Build $14.7 Million Sports Center. “Wasilla residents have given the go-ahead to building a new multiuse sports center in town and to raising the city sales tax to pay for it. With the final votes counted Friday, residents voted 306 to 286 in favor of a measure to raise thecity sales tax from 2 percent to 2.5 percent to pay the estimated$14.7 million cost of building the center…Mayor Sarah Palin, whosupported the measure, said the tight vote will motivate city officials to keep a close eye on the budget for the center.” [Anchorage Daily News, 3/9/02]

Palin Increased Taxes on Oil Companies to Pay for $1,200 Giveaway to Every Resident in the State. “One of her most significant accomplishments as governor was passing a major tax increase on state oil production, angering oil companies but raising billions of dollars in new revenue. She said the oil companies had previously bribed legislators to keep the taxes low. She subsequently championed legislation that would give some of that money back to Alaskans: Soon,every Alaskan will receive a $1,200 check.” [New York Times, 8/30/08]
 
PALIN: “It was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our nominee because he refused to hedge his commitment to the security of the country he loves.

With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost - there was no hope for this candidate who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war.

But the pollsters and pundits overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off.

They overlooked the caliber of the man himself - the determination,resolve, and sheer guts of Senator John McCain. The voters knew better.”

REALITY: PALIN COUNTED MCCAIN OUT TWICE

February 2008: Palin Wouldn’t Endorse McCain. “Top Alaska Republicans were downcast Thursday as Mitt Romney suspended his presidential campaign just two days after overwhelmingly winning the state party caucus. Romney’s decision makes it nearly certain Arizona Sen. John McCain will be the party’s nominee for president. McCain finished dead last in the Alaska Republican preference poll, behind Romney, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. McCain opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and has repeatedly battled with Sen. Ted Stevens over federal spending on Alaska projects… Republican Gov. Sarah Palin said she won’t make an endorsement until she can speak to McCain. [Anchorage Daily News (Alaska), 2/3/08]

July 2007: Palin Was Waiting For A New Player In GOP Primary. ‘A lot of us are sitting back and waiting to see if there will be new players in there,’ Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said. ‘That’s probably why that box that says ‘none of the above’ is so popular right now.’ [The Associated Press State & Local Wire, 7/23/07]

Palin Couldn’t Support McCain Because Of His Opposition To ANWR. “Some Alaska Republicans are conflicted over McCain, including Gov. Sarah Palin. They like his maverick reputation and military background but not his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.‘She said she’d like to support McCain but felt she couldn’t at this particular time because of his stand on ANWR,’ said the governor’s spokeswoman, Sharon Leighow.” [Anchorage Daily News (Alaska), 2/3/08]

PALIN: “They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America …who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars.”

Palin Backed A Two-Year Extension Of The Export License To Export Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) To Japan And Other Asian Countries—Criticized Because Alaska’s Gas Reserves Are Declining. “Alaska producers can continue shipping gas to Asia after DOE last week approved an extension of the export license for the Kenai liquefied natural gas plant owned by ConocoPhillips and Marathon. The companies will be allowed to export up to 98.1 Bcf to Japan and other Pacific Rim countries over a two-year period through March 31, 2011. […] The application came under fire from local end-users, including gas distribution companies Enstar and the Chugach Electric Association, as well as fertilizer maker Agrium, all of which claimed the exports would exacerbate the problem of declining gas reserves in south-central Alaska. Agrium permanently closed its plant near Kenai due toan inability to find enough local supply for the facility that used 53Bcf/year. In January, ConocoPhillips and Marathon reached a deal inwhich they agreed to step up development in the Cook Inlet region in return for the state's support of the export license extension. The producers also agreed to divert gas from the LNG plant as needed to meet the peak winter supply needs of the local utilities. […] Alaska Governor Sarah Palin welcomed the DOE approval. "In these times of economic uncertainty, this is great news for the state and its residents. This extension will secure a future for the LNG operation and is another step toward ensuring energy supplies and energy security for Alaska," the Republican governor said. [Platts Inside FERC, 6/9/08]

• Agrium Closed Manufacturing Plant Because Of Gas Shortage.“Reserves of gas in producing fields in South-central Alaska are declining, posing concerns for supply to local utilities. A manufacturing plant on the Kenai Peninsula owned by Agrium Corp.recently announced it would close because the gas shortage.” [Alaska Journal Of Commerce, 11/25/07]

• Gov. Palin: Agrium Closure Is Unfortunate. “Agrium announced yesterday that the plant will close in December due to a shortage inthe supply of Cook Inlet natural gas, leaving about 100 of the 140employees without employment. ‘It's unfortunate to see the closure of a facility that has provided so many jobs that support families on the Peninsula,’ said Governor Palin. ‘I am heartened to hear that Agrium is willing to keep its options open if sufficient long-term supplies of gas can be found. We know there is more gas to be found and developed in Cook Inlet, so I remain hopeful that those jobs can be preserved.’” [Palin press release, 9/26/07]

PALIN: “As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever hegoes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man. I’m not amember of the permanent political establishment.”

1999: Campaigning In San Francisco, CA, McCain Said “I Would Not Support Repeal Of Roe v. Wade.” In August 1999, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that McCain said he “would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade”: “I'd love to see a point where (Roe vs. Wade) is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations.” [The San Francisco Chronicle, 8/20/99]

• McCain Said Roe v. Wade Should Be Overturned. McCain said,“I do not support Roe v. Wade. I think it should be overturned.” [New York Times, 2/24/07]

At A Private Meeting With Hispanic Community Leaders, McCain “Assured Leaders He Would Push Through Congress Legislation To Overhaul Federal Immigration Laws If Elected.” “Republican presidential John McCain assured Hispanic leaders he would push through Congress legislation to overhaul federal immigration laws if elected, several people who attended a private meeting with the candidate said Thursday.Democrats questioned why the Arizona senator held the meeting late Wednesday night in Chicago. But supporters who were in the room denied that McCain held the closed-door session out of fear of offending conservatives, many of whom want him to take a harder line on immigration. … ‘He's one John McCain in front of white Republicans.And he's a different John McCain in front of Hispanics,’ complained Rosanna Pulido, a Hispanic and conservative Republican who attended the meeting. Pulido, who heads the Illinois Minuteman Project, which advocates for restrictive immigration laws, said she thought McCain was ‘pandering to the crowd’ by emphasizing immigration reform in his15-minute speech. ‘He's having his private meetings to rally Hispanics and to tell them what they want to hear,’ she said. ‘I'm outraged that he would reach out to me as a Hispanic but not as a conservative.’” [AP, 6/20/08]

• During GOP Primary Debate At Reagan Library, McCain Said HeWould Oppose the Legislation He Authored With Kennedy. McCain co-authored the McCain-Kennedy comprehensive immigration bill which wasdescribed in 2006 by the Miami Herald as “the most generous of the bills now before Congress.” The legislation “would legalize as many as11 million undocumented immigrants” and “grant temporary work permits to illegal immigrants and then after waiting six years and paying a$2,000 fine, it would enable them to apply for green cards.” During aRepublican presidential primary debate held at the Regan Library,McCain was asked whether he would vote for the this immigration legislation that he previously sponsored. When pressed, he eventually replied, “No, I would not.” [Miami Herald, 2/24/06; CNN GOP Presidential Debate, 1/30/08]
 
PALIN: “But we are expected to govern with integrity, and goodwill,and clear convictions…”

REALITY: PALIN UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR ABUSE OF POWER.

Former State Official Accused Palin, Palin’s Former Chief of Staff andCurrent Ted Stevens Campaign Manager and Palin’s Husband Of PressuringHim to Fire Trooper. In July 2008, former state official Walt Monegan accused Palin, Palin’s former Chief of Staff and current Stevens’campaign manager Mike Tibbles and husband Todd Palin of pressuring him to fire Palin sister’s ex-husband Mike Wooten. [Anchorage DailyNews, 07/18/08]

July 2008: Special Counsel Appointed Last Month to Investigate PalinAbuse of Power Claim. In July 2008, the Alaska State Legislator voted12-0 to approve $100,000 for a special investigator to begin an investigation into claims Palin fired a former state official because he would not fire a state trooper who was involved in a bitter custody battle with Palin’s sister. The legislator’s intent was to investigate the events surrounding the termination of former Dept. of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan and potential abuses of power and improper action by Palin and her administration. [KTVA 11,07/28/08]

PALIN: “We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers.”

Palin Responded Favorably to Obama’s Energy Plan. According to a news release from her office, Gov. Sarah Palin, R-AK, said she was“pleased” by Obama’s energy plan. “I am pleased to see Senator Obama acknowledge the huge potential Alaska’s natural gas reserves represent in terms of clean energy and sound jobs,” she said. “The steps takenby the Alaska State Legislature this past week demonstrate that we areready, willing and able to supply the energy our nation needs.” The press release said that “in a speech given in Lansing, Michigan,Senator Obama called for the completion of the Alaska natural gaspipeline, stating, ‘Over the next five years, we should also leasemore of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska for oil and gas production. And we should also tap more of our substantial natural gas reserves and work with the Canadian government to finally build the Alaska natural gas pipeline, delivering clean natural gas and creating good jobs in the process.’” [Palin press release, 8/4/08]

PALIN: “ But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.”

REALITY: OBAMA PASSED THE MOST SWEEPING REFORMS SINCE WATERGATEIN BOTH THE ILLINOIS AND US SENATES, AMONG OTHER ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Obama Helped Pass The 2007 Ethics Reform Law, Which Curbed The Influence Of Lobbyists And Was Described As The “Most Sweeping Since Watergate.” In the first week of the 110th Congress, Obama joined with Senator Feingold to introduce a “Gold Standard” ethics package. Many of the Obama/Feingold bill’s most important provisions were included in the final ethics reform package passed by the Senate in late January: a full ban on gifts and meals from lobbyists including those paid by the firms that employ lobbyists; an end to subsidized travelon corporate jets; full disclosure of who's sponsoring earmarks and for what purpose; additional restrictions to close the revolving door between public service and lobbying to ensure that public service isn't all about lining up a high-paying lobbying job; and requiring lobbyists to disclose the contributions that they "bundle" - that is, collect or arrange - for members of Congress, candidates, and partycommittees. In January 2007, the Washington Post wrote in aneditorial that “…Mr. Reid, along with Sens. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.), deserves credit for assembling and passing this package.” In September 2007, the AP reported, “President Bushsigned a bill Friday that will require lawmakers to disclose more about their efforts to fund pet projects and raise money from lobbyists, a measure that backers call the biggest ethics reform in decades…Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. who had pushed for the bundlingprovisions and was one of four lawmakers who participated in a Democratic conference call to reporters said the measure marks "themost sweeping ethics reform since Watergate.” [S. 230, 110thCongress; S.1, Became Public Law 109-110-81, 9/14/07; AP, 9/15/07;TheWashington Post, Editorial, 1/21/07]

Obama Passed Illinois State Gift Ban Act “Heralded As the MostSweeping Good-Government Legislation in Decades.” In 1998, Obama passed the Illinois Gift Ban that prohibited legislators, state officers and employees, and judges from soliciting or receiving gifts from a person or entity with interests affected by government. The Chicago Tribune wrote, “Gov. Jim Edgar signed into law Wednesday anethics and campaign finance package heralded as the most sweeping good-government legislation in decades.” The law also required greater campaign finance disclosure and limited the uses for which raisedmoney could be spent. Obama said, “I have seen a general cynicism from taxpayers about government. They believe they have no influence on the process since they don't have the money of special interest groups. With the gift ban and the ban on Springfield fund-raisers that are contained in this legislation, I think at least some of thisconfidence will be restored.” [HB672, 3R P 52-4-1, 5/22/98; PA90-0737, 8/12/98; Chicago Tribune, 8/13/98; Chicago Independent Bulletin, 6/4/98]

Ø Illinois Ethics Bill Most Far Reaching Since Watergate,Product Of Bipartisan Work. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote ofObama’s bill, “The ethics restrictions would be the most far-reaching since the Watergate-era campaign financial disclosure law. They are the product of months of negotiations among two lawmakers of each party, other state officials and Mike Lawrence. He is an aide toformer Sen. Paul Simon, a Democrat, and used to be an aide to Edgar, a Republican.” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 5/24/98]

Obama And Lugar Passed Law Boosting U.S. Efforts To Keep WMDs AndOther Dangerous Weapons Out Of The Hands Of Terrorists. In 2006,Obama and Lugar introduced The Cooperative Proliferation DetectionAct, which was passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committeeunanimously on May 26, 2006 and was eventually incorporated into the Department of State Authorities Act of 2006 and signed into law onJanuary 11, 2007. According to a Senate Foreign Relations Committeereport on its legislative activity in the 109th Congress, “The committee passed S. 2566, The Cooperative Proliferation Detection,Interdiction Assistance, and Conventional Threat Reduction Act of 2006by unanimous consent on May 26, 2006. The legislation authored by Chairman Lugar and Senator Obama enhances: (1) U.S. cooperation with foreign governments to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles aroundthe world; and (2) the United States' ability to provide assistance to foreign governments aimed at helping them detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction. The legislation, which garnered 26 co-sponsors (including 8 committee members), sought to energize U.S.programs to secure lightweight anti-aircraft missiles…The initiative was modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program that focuses on weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. The legislation was signed into law on January 11, 2007, as a part of H.R. 6060, theDepartment of State Authorities Act of 2006.” [P.L. 109-472, 1/11/07;House Report 109-706, 9/3/06; S. 2566, 109th Congress; S.1949, 109th Congress; Senate Report 110-40, 3/29/07]

Ø Lugar Said It Was Accurate That Said Obama Reached Out To HimAnd They Passed Legislation To Lock Down Loose Nuclear Weapons.“Republican Sen. **** Lugar (IN) today said an Obama campaign ad which features him is ‘accurate.’ The ad makes the point the Obama previously ‘reached out’ to Lugar to ‘help lock down loose nuclear weapons.’ Lugar is widely considered one of the most knowledgeable in the area of nuclear weapons proliferation and the coauthored of the1991 Nunn-Lugar Act on cooperative threat reduction. ‘He did’ reachout, Lugar said. He explained that in 2005, Obama asked if he couldjoin Lugar on a trip to Russia and other countries to visit sitesunder the Nunn-Lugar program. ‘After that, we had legislation that we cosponsored together which passed’ dealing with dangerous missiles.‘So I am pleased we had that opportunity to work together,’ Lugarsaid. ‘I'm pleased we had the association Sen. Obama describes.’ But Lugar made clear up front that while the ad was accurate, and he's comfortable with the association, ‘There is no chance I will consider running with Barack Obama.’” [MSNBC, 7/15/08]

Obama and Coburn Passed A Bill Creating A “Google-like” Database ForThe Public To Search Details About Federal Funding Awards. In 2006,Obama and Coburn co-authored a bill to create a “Google-like” database of information on federal spending. The bill requires the OMB byJanuary 1, 2008, to make available to the public a searchable, freewebsite that includes the (1) amount; (2) transaction type; (3)funding agency; (4) North American Industry Classification Systemcode or Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number; (5) programsource; (6) an award title descriptive of the purpose of each fundingaction; (7) the name and location of the recipient and the primary location of performance; and (8) a unique identifier of the recipient and any parent entity. The site must allow users to conduct separate searches that distinguish between awards that are grants, sub-grants,loans, cooperative agreements, and other forms of financial assistance and awards that are contracts, subcontracts, purchase orders, task orders, and delivery orders. [S. 2590, Passed by Unanimous Consent,9/7/06; Became PL 109-282, 9/26/06]

Obama Passed Law Ensuring That Wounded Veterans Recovering In Military Hospitals Do Not Have To Pay For Their Meals Or Phone Calls To FamilyMembers. In 2005, Obama sponsored and passed an amendment that to the2005 emergency supplemental appropriations act ensuring that wounded veterans recovering in military hospitals do not have to pay for theirown meals or phone calls to family members. The amendment was then passed in each of the following Congresses. Prior to passage of the amendment, service members receiving physical therapy or rehabilitation services in a medical hospital for more than 90 days were required to pay for their meals. Obama’s amendment required the military to provide free meals for service members in militaryhospitals undergoing recuperation or therapy as a result of wounds sustained in Iraq or Afghanistan. The amendment was retroactive toJanuary 1, 2005 in an effort to provide those injured service memberswho received bills for their meals with some relief from those costs.The amendment became law. [S. Amdt. 390, Passed by unanimous consent,4/14/05 to H.R.1268, Signed by the President, 5/11/05, Became PublicLaw No: 109-013; Obama Press Release, 5/11/05]

Obama Worked With Republicans To Pass Legislation, Which Became Law, Improving And Increasing Services For Homeless Veterans. In 2006,Congress passed a Veterans Affairs Committee bill which includedseveral provisions originating in Obama’s SAVE Act (S. 1180) and Homesfor Heroes Act (S. 3475). “The legislation…includes a number of proposals from legislation Senator Obama had previously introduced (S.1180, the SAVE Act and S.3475 the Homes for Heroes Act) to expand and improve services for homeless veterans. The bill permanently authorizes and increases funding to $130 million per year for a competitive grant program to provide homeless services to veterans. It greatly increases a successful program to provide rental vouchers tohomeless veterans. The legislation extends programs to providing treatment for veterans with mental illnesses and other special needs.And it permanently extends VA's ability to transfer property it owns to homeless shelters.” Obama worked with VA Committee RepublicansCraig and Burr on the committee legislation that eventually became law. [S. 3421/P.L. 109-461; S. 1180, 109th Congress; S. 3475, 109thCongress; Obama Press Release, 6/26/06]

Obama Passed Bipartisan Legislation That Expanded Health Care CoverageTo 154,000 Residents, Including 70,000 Children. As a state senator,Barack Obama sponsored and helped pass legislation that expanded andmade permanent Illinois’ KidCare program by raising eligibility from 185% to 200% of the federal poverty level. The legislation provided coverage for an additional 20,000 children and 65,000 more Illinois adults in the first year, and by 2007 had expanded health care to70,000 kids and 84,000 adults. In its endorsement for his Senate race,the State Journal-Register wrote, “Obama brings similar common-senseviews to improving health care in America - for example, as a state senator he championed the successful KidCare program that assiststhousands of children of the working poor.” The bill was sponsored inthe state House by Sandra Pihos, a Republican and passed 42-13. [93rdGA, SB 130, 3R P 42-13-2; Signed into law 6/30/03, PA 93-0063; ChicagoDaily Herald, 7/2/03; Blagojevich release, 1/9/07; Blagojevich release, 4/13/07; Kaiser family report, 5/07; State Journal-Register,10/29/04]


There's a bunch more (of Obama's Accomps) , but you get the idea...
 
PALIN: “America needs more energy … our opponent is against producing it.”

REALITY: Obama has expressed support for a bipartisan compromisethat would cut tax breaks for oil companies, invest in alternative energies, and allow for limited new offshore drilling

Obama Said He Would Be Open To Offshore Drilling If We Come Up With “AGenuine Bipartisan Compromise” To Get To Energy Independence.“Senator Barack Obama said Saturday that he would reluctantly consider accepting some new offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in exchange for stripping oil companies of tax breaks and extending several tax credits to spur the search for alternative fuels. At the same time, Senate Republicans appear to have dropped their insistence on opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Mr. Obamahas until now opposed any offshore drilling. But in a news conferencehere, he noted that there had been ‘very constructive’ talks between Senate Republicans and Democrats on this issue in recent days,applauding a plan unveiled by a group of Republican and Democratic senators to permit drilling while supporting an effort to convert most vehicles to using alternative fuels in 20 years. ‘If we come up with a genuine bipartisan compromise, where I have to accept some things thatI don’t like in order to get energy independence,’ Mr. Obama said,‘that’s something I will have to consider.’ Still, he cautioned thathe was not yet ‘ready to sign off on any approach.’” [New York Times,8/3/08]

Ø Tapper: “This Strikes Me As Not A Complete And Utter Reversal“But Rather “A Recognition That Energy Legislation RequiresCompromise.” “Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, now says he'd be willing to consider legislation including expanded off-shore drilling if part of a larger package, despite his long-time opposition to the idea. I'mwith my friend Marc Ambinder -- this strikes me as not quite a complete and utter reversal, but certainly a shift in tone andlanguage, indicating a softening of his opposition and a recognition that energy legislation requires compromise. Not unlike Sen. JohnMcCain's statement that when it comes to Social Security reform, everything must be on the table, even though he personally opposes tax increases. (Though the back-peddling on that was confounding.).” [ABCNews, 8/2/08]

Ø Ambinder: “This Strikes Me As Less Of A Shift And More As AGesture Of Sorts To The Reality That The Major Cap And TradeLegislation Next Year…Requires The Participation Of And CompromiseFrom The Industry.” Marc Ambinder wrote, “In an interview yesterday, Obama said that he'd be willing to accept additional domestic oil exploration as part of a bipartisan compromise on energy reform. Thisstrikes me as less of a shift and more as a gesture of sorts to the reality that the major cap and trade legislation next year thatCongress will mark up -- legislation that will be introduced regardless of who's president -- requires the participation of and compromise from the industry. The oil industry has two cards, basically, in the negotiations. One: that windfall profits taxes would disincentivize further exploration somehow... two: that, as the staple source of energy, oil companies ought to have more land/water to figure out where oil is and then tap those pools. Democrats are more likely to compromise on the second, rather than the first. Notethat Obama is still opposed to expanded drilling off the coasts of Florida.” [The Atlantic, 8/2/08]

Ø Stoller: Obama Supported A “Real Compromise” On Energy. Obama’s position on drilling is “actually a real compromise…the compromise put forward by Obama would in fact move us forward onsustainable energy while raising taxes on the oil companies. Sinceopening up new areas to oil companies is more about financial manipulation of oil leases than actually drilling, this is calling the oil company's bluff.” [Open Left, 8/5/08]

Ø Pelosi: Obama Position On Gang Of Ten Compromise WasPresidential. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, “What SenatorObama said is what we want a president to say…Let's look at all of the options. Let's compare them. And let's see what really does increase our supply, protect our environment, save our economy, protect the consumer, instead of a single-shot thing that does none of the above.” [Washington Times, 8/4/08]

PALIN: “Victory in Iraq is finally in sight … he wants to forfeit.”

REALITY: BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND INDEPENDENT MILITARY EXPERTSAGREE THAT DRAWING DOWN ONE TO TWO BRIGADES A MONTH IS NOT ONLYPOSSIBLE BUT SAFE

McCain Said He Thought 16 Months Is A Pretty Good Timetable ForWithdrawal >From Iraq. McCain was asked, “So why do you think he said that 16 months is basically a pretty good timetable?” McCainr esponded, “He said it's a pretty good timetable based on conditions on the ground. I think it's a pretty good timetable, as we should --or horizons for withdrawal. But they have to be based on conditions onthe ground.” [CNN, 7/25/08]

Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki: “Obama Is Right When He Talks About 16Months.” “Asked in an interview with German news magazine Der Spiegel of when he would like to see American forces leave Iraq, Maliki said:‘As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned.’ He then added that‘Obama is right when he talks about 16 months. Assuming that positive developments continue, this is about the same time period that corresponds to our wishes.’” [The Hill, 7/19/08]

Maj. Gen. Anderson Said Current Capacity to Remove 2 ½ Brigade CombatTeams a Month. “The military has been redeploying troops for years,and Maj. Gen. Charles Anderson, who would help with the withdrawal, told us as we toured Camp Arifjan in Kuwait, ‘We have the capacity to do a minimum of two-and-a-half brigade combat teams a month -- can we expand that capacity? Sure. Can we accelerate? It depends. It depends on the amount of equipment that we bring back. And it's going to depend on how fast we bring them out.’" [ABC News, 7/11/08]

4/8/08: Petraeus, Asked By a McCain Ally Whether A Brigade a MonthCould Be With Drawn From Iraq, Said It Could Be “Doable.” In a Senate Hearing before the Committee on Armed Services, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), asked General Petraeus what would happen if one brigade per month was withdrawn beginning in January 2009. Petraeus responded, “It clearly would depend on the conditions of that time. If conditions were good, quite good, that might be doable.” [Senate Hearing before Senate Committee on Armed Services, 4/8/08]

9/07: Larry Korb Wrote “A Phased Military Redeployment From Iraq OverThe Next 10 To 12 Months Would Begin Extracting U.S. Troops FromIraq’s Internal Conflicts Immediately And Would Be Completed By TheEnd Of 2008.” Lawrence J. Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration, along with Max A. Bergmann, Sean E.Duggen, Peter M. Juul, wrote for a Center for American Progress Report, “A phased military redeployment from Iraq over the next 10 to12 months would begin extracting U.S. troops from Iraq’s internal conflicts immediately and would be completed by the end of 2008.During this timeframe, the military will not replace outgoing troops as they rotate home at the end of their tours and will draw down force and equipment levels gradually, at a pace similar to previous rotations conducted by our military over the past four years. According to a U.S. military official in Baghdad involved in planning,a withdrawal could take place safely in this time period.” [“How to Redeploy: Implementing a Responsible Drawdown of U.S. Forces fromIraq” September 2007, Center for American Progress]

7/13/07: Pace Said US Forces Were “Designed Right Now To Be Able ToIncrease Or Decrease About One Brigade Per Month.” General Peter Pace, former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff said, “On the logistics side,the system itself is designed right now to be able to increase or decrease about one brigade per month. Can you surge U.S. military andcommercial capacity beyond those numbers? Sure. But for a normal planning factor, we’re looking at either adding or subtracting about one brigade a month.” [DoD Media Roundtable with Secretary Gates andGen. Pace, 7/13/07]

12/6/06: Iraq Study Group Report Said “All Combat Brigades NotNecessary For Force Protection Could Be Out Of Iraq” By the FirstQuarter of 2008—15 Months. The Iraq Study Group’s independent assessment, released Dec. 6, 2006, found that, “By the first quarterof 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq.” [Iraq Study Group Report]

PALIN: “Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay… he wants to meet them without preconditions.”

REALITY: REPUBLICANS AGREE WITH DIRECT TALKS WITH IRAN
Defense Secretary Gates: We Need To “Sit Down And Talk” With Iran.“The United States should construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran, and may have missed earlier opportunities to begin a useful dialogue with Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gatessaid yesterday. ‘We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. Wecan't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us.’” [Washington Post, 5/15/08]

Henry Kissinger Said That The U.S. Should Negotiate Directly WithIran. “Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said the U.S. should negotiate directly with Iran over its nuclear program and other bilateral issues. ‘One should be prepared to negotiate, and I think we should be prepared to negotiate about Iran,’ Kissinger, who brokered the end of the 1973 Yom Kippur war and peace talks with the North Vietnamese, said yesterday in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Asked whether he meant the U.S. should hold direct talks, Kissinger,84, responded: ‘Yes, I think we should.’” [Bloomberg, 3/14/08]

Hagel: The United States Should Actively Pursue Direct, Unconditional,And Comprehensive Talks With Iran. Hagel said, “Now is the time for the United States to actively pursue an offer of direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran. We cannot afford to refuse to consider this strategic choice any longer. We should make clear that everything is on the table, our issues and Iran'sissues.” [CNN, 11/8/07]

Lugar: Direct Talks With Iran “Would Be Useful.” “The United Statesneeds to pursue direct talks and other diplomatic avenues with Iran about its disputed nuclear program before considering a military option, lawmakers from both parties said yesterday. ‘I think that would be useful,’ said Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, when asked on ABC's ‘This Week’ about having direct talks. ‘The Iranians are a part of the energy picture,’ saidLugar, a Republican from Indiana. ‘We need to talk about that.’” [AP,4/17/06]

Former H.W. Bush Secretary of State James Baker: “It's Not Appeasementto Talk to Your Enemies.” James Baker said, “I can't make that judgment here this morning because I don't know what other elements are involved in it. I will say just generally as I've been saying since I've been on this book tour that I believe in talking to your enemies. I don't think you restrict your conversations to yourfriends. At the same time, it's got to be hard-nosed. It's got to be determined. You don't give away anything, but in my view, it's not appeasement to talk to your enemies. There ought to be some way. I mean, I point out the fact that I made 15 trips to Damascus back in 1991 when they were on our list of countries of state-sponsored terrorism and they changed 25 years…”[“This Week,” ABC NewsTranscripts, 10/8/06]

Arlen Specter: It Seems Unrealistic That We Say To The Opposite PartyThat As A Precondition To Discussions We Want The Principal Concession We’re After. Republican Senator Arlen Specter said in a hearing of the Defense Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, “Now, the position taken by the Secretary of State has been we won't talk to Iran unless, as a precondition, they stop enriching uranium. It seems to me that it is unrealistic to try to have discussions but to say to the opposite party, as a precondition to discussions, we want the principal concession that we're after. Do you think it makes sense to insist on a concession like stopping enriching uranium, which is what our ultimate objective is, before we even sit down and talk to them on a broader range of issues?” [Hearing of the Defense Subcommittee ofthe Senate Appropriations Committee, 5/20/08]

Rice: I Am Prepared To Meet My Counterpart At Any Time If Iran Suspends Its Enrichment and Processing Activities. Condoleezza Rice said, “I am prepared to meet my counterpart or an Iranian representative at any time if Iran will suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities. That should be a clear signal.” [AP, 2/25/07]
 
PALIN: “Government is too big … he wants to grow it. Congress spends too much … he promises more.”

REALITY: IT IS MCCAIN’S BUDGET PLAN THAT WILL BREAK THE BANK

Analysts Say McCain’s Plan Would Increase The Deficit More ThanObama’s. “Experts say that both the McCain plan and the Obama plan would increase the deficit, and that neither man has adequately explained how his proposals would be paid for. But several analysts have said they believe that Mr. McCain’s plan would increase the deficit more, because of the size of the tax cuts he is seeking.” [NewYork Times, 6/11/08]

McCain’s Tax Cuts Will Either Explode The Federal Deficit Or Require “Unprecedented Cuts” In Federal Spending On Domestic Programs. “Sen.John McCain is proposing tax cuts that would either cause the federal deficit to explode or would require unprecedented spending cuts equal to one-third of federal spending on domestic programs. Once thought ofas a deficit hawk, the near-certain Republican presidential nominee is now putting more stress on the traditional Republican orthodoxy of taxcuts.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/22/08]

New York Times: McCain’s Budget Will Add $200 Or $300 Billion To TheDeficit Per Year. “The Obama campaign claims it can pay for all this,and even reduce the deficit, through tax increases and spending cuts. I think a more skeptical look at its budget leaves you worried it may add something like $50 billion a year to the deficit. But applying the same arched brow to Mr. McCain’s stated plans leaves you worried that he will add $200 billion or $300 billion or, depending on his voluntary tax system, even more.” [New York Times, 6/18/08]

Tax Policy Center Report Said That McCain’s Budget Plan Would Add $5Trillion To The Debt Over The Next Decade. “Obama's plan -- cuts targeted to middle- and low-income Americans and increases for the wealthy -- would increase the national debt by an estimated $3.4 trillion in the next decade, the center said. Under a similar analysis, McCain's plan -- largely a continuation of Bush's tax reductions -- would add $5 trillion.” [Los Angeles Times, 7/24/08]

• Ten Percent Corporate Tax Rate Cut Would Cost $100 Billion AYear. “The proposal to lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%would cost about $100 billion a year.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/16/08]

• Full Repeal Of The AMT Would Cost Over $150 Billion A Year.According to the Wall Street Journal, altering the Alternative Minimum Tax for middle class families at $91 billion annually. Eliminating the AMT for up-incomer earners would be an additional $60 billion per year. [Wall Street Journal, 4/16/08]

• Gas Tax Holiday Would Cost $10 Billion. An Arizona Republic editorial questions McCain’s summer gas tax holiday proposal, asking “do we really want to extract $10 billion from the nation’s woefully underfunded transportation infrastructure?” [Arizona Republic, Editorial, 4/16/08]

Doubling The Dependent Tax Exemption Would Cost $65 Billion A Year.“Doubling the dependent exemption would cost $65 billion a year.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/16/08]

April 2008: McCain “Changed His Position” On Balancing The Budget,Said Economic Conditions Made It Unrealistic. John McCain had previously said he would balance the budget in four years, but changed his position in April saying that “economic conditions are reversed” and it would instead take eight years. [New York Times, 4/16/08]

PALIN: “Taxes are too high … he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific. The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes … raise payroll taxes … raise investment income taxes … raise the death tax … raise business taxes … and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.”

REALITY: OBAMA TAX PROPOSAL WILL NOT RAISE TAXES AND WILLPROVIDE A BIGGER BREAK FOR MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES THAN MCCAIN’S PLAN

Annenberg Political Fact Check: McCain’s Ad Attacking Obama’s PlansThat Would Increase Taxes And Bring On “Years Of Deficits” And “Billions In New Government Spending” “Puts Another Stitch In WhatWe’ve Call His Pattern Of Deceit On Obama’s Tax Plan.” “McCain's new ad puts another stitch in what we've called his pattern of deceit on Obama's tax plan. This one claims Obama and congressional Democrats plan to push forward ‘painful tax increases on working American families’ and that they will bring about ‘years of deficits,’ ‘no balanced budgets’ and ‘billions in new government spending.’ The ad is plain wrong about higher taxes on working families. In fact, Obama'seconomic plan would produce a tax cut for the majority of American households, with middle-income earners benefiting most. As for ‘years of deficits,’ exactly the same claim could be made about McCain's program. It's unlikely either Obama or McCain would balance the budget, and both are projected to increase the debt bytrillions.” [FactCheck.org, 9/2/08]

Washington Post Editorial: “McCain Campaign Insists on Completely Misrepresenting Mr. Obama’s Plan” on Taxes – Under McCain’s Plan,“Wealthiest Taxpayers Make Out Terrifically.” “Instead, the McCain campaign insists on completely misrepresenting Mr. Obama's plan. Thead opens with the Obama-as-celebrity theme – ‘Celebrities don't have to worry about family budgets, but we sure do,’ says the female announcer. ‘We're paying more for food and gas, making it harder to save for college, retirement.’
 
hehe...




Some people are scared :D
 
do you think it is fear, or just making sure the message is out? In all actuality, I dont think last night meant anything. She was good, no doubt, but if all she does is excite the base, then the dems have nothing to be concerned with. Hell, the base would vote for McCain anyway
 
Reaper329 said:
do you think it is fear, or just making sure the message is out? In all actuality, I dont think last night meant anything. She was good, no doubt, but if all she does is excite the base, then the dems have nothing to be concerned with. Hell, the base would vote for McCain anyway
Click to expand...

Absolute fear.

Whether its right or not, they don't have the rockstar anymore.
 
Well wow! Luckily all facts cited by Obama and other speakers at the DNC were 100% accurate.

Thanks!!


Excite the base? Yea, she did. Excite hundreds of thousands of independent woman nationwide? That too. You could see it in the womens' faces, I could feel the estrogen coming through the screen at me, shoot I had this urge to shop.
 
Usf97j4x4 said:
Excite the base? Yea, she did. Excite hundreds of thousands of independent woman nationwide? That too.
Click to expand...




Listening to Democrats, it sounds like someone shot their dog. :D
 
Invalid Link Removed

"Among those who couldn't make it to the Tailgaters bar was Lynette Clark, chair of the Alaskan Independence Party, who last night issued an apology for incorrectly claiming that Palin was once a member of the pro-separatist group. In fact, only Todd Palin was ever a member."

Speaking to The Times before the speech, Ms Clark said she believed that Alaska would one day be independent, and she criticised Mr McCain for having previously campaigned against new oil exploration in the north of the state. But she expressed support for Palin. "I'm very glad she's governor of the state of Alaska, you couldn't find a more apt individual," she said. "In this country, Alaska, they don't care if you're a man or a woman, they care about your word, your reputation. She'd make a fine vice president."
 
Mo250 said:
look at the stuff in bold. there was a lot of talk about Palin being part of the Alaskan Independence Party and it turned out to be nothing more than trash talking.
Click to expand...


Ah ok you edited the post.
 
I like her, shes not a socialist, not friends with any well known terrorists, doesnt attend church with a hate-spewing racist preacher, and didnt vote against the Born Alive Protection Act. What else is there lol
 
Reaper329 said:
do you think it is fear, or just making sure the message is out? In all actuality, I dont think last night meant anything. She was good, no doubt, but if all she does is excite the base, then the dems have nothing to be concerned with. Hell, the base would vote for McCain anyway
Click to expand...

You know we're in America right? All it takes to get votes is positive buzz....Obamites should know that better than anyone.....

OP- I really hope you don't get your political news and insight from jack and jill
 
Rugger said:
You know we're in America right? All it takes to get votes is positive buzz....Obamites should know that better than anyone.....

OP- I really hope you don't get your political news and insight from jack and jill
Click to expand...

Jack and Jill went up the hill to drink a pail of Koolaid? :thumbsup:
 
Reaper329 said:
do you think it is fear, or just making sure the message is out? In all actuality, I dont think last night meant anything. She was good, no doubt, but if all she does is excite the base, then the dems have nothing to be concerned with. Hell, the base would vote for McCain anyway
Click to expand...


finally some people who have my back!
 
I find it funny that Mcnasty picked palin! he did it so that he might be able to get those "lost" clinton supporters. In all actuality the too ladies dont ever compare. Mcnasty screwed him self on this one. not only is he not going to get the clinton vote, but he also has just scared away a bit of the republicans from the bible belt and the south, because they wont vote for a woman! i love it! oh Mcnasty.... you "maverick"!
 
grila jujitsu said:
I find it funny that Mcnasty picked palin! he did it so that he might be able to get those "lost" clinton supporters. In all actuality the too ladies dont ever compare. Mcnasty screwed him self on this one. not only is he not going to get the clinton vote, but he also has just scared away a bit of the republicans from the bible belt and the south, because they wont vote for a woman! i love it! oh Mcnasty.... you "maverick"!
Click to expand...

It's very difficult for anyone to take political opinions from a person who can't differentiate between "too" and "two". Just a heads up.

PS- Man, you must know a whole heap of people in the south to be able to make such a blanket statement about them!
 
"Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody may be looking.

- H. L. Mencken

In this election, it is the character of the candidate that will matter the most.

That, and pretty much that alone, has been the core campaign message Republican candidate John McCain has been peddling to all and sundry for nearly two years. His devotion to this particular talking point has come to resemble the kind of passionate zeal rarely seen beyond the compound walls of survivalist militia groups; and the slavish dedication he has displayed in tolerating the mindless monotony of such endless repetition is matched only by the muddy mooing of sacred cows along the shores of the Ganges River in India.

Clearly, Mr. McCain has become deeply invested in trying to keep the entire presidential campaign conversation focused only on this mantra regarding "Character." To be sure, he has definitely put in the work. He began his second, and presumably final presidential campaign on the second Friday in November of 2006; in the six hundred and sixty one days that have passed since he became a candidate again, his maximum efforts have been focused on flogging the "Character" theme every step of the way.

Presidential races being what they are, it was simply impossible for McCain to remain totally focused on this one-liner sloganeering project. Every rare now and infrequent then, something would come along with enough juice to merit the creation and release of a new statement. The campaign message machine would suddenly swerve out of the "Character counts" slow lane and merge itself into the heavier traffic, passenger-side turn signal blinking away for no good reason as usual, but only for a few miles.

Sooner or later, the bus always veered back into that slow lane, those newer messages eventually died of neglect, and would go floating up to whatever Heaven there may be for topics that were either too hot for a compromised candidate to handle, or were too detailed for a stupid candidate to comprehend. Mr. McCain has evinced both facets of this particular phenomenon on more than a few occasions, most notably during the recent Russia-Georgia crisis. Beyond that, almost every single time some reporter posited queries about Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the entire African continent, or basically anything else pertaining to issues of national security, McCain wound up dropping the informational ball.

There are several very good reasons why McCain would like to keep all debate and discussion in this presidential race right there with him in that slow lane. First and foremost is the simple truth that the man basically has nowhere else to go. His dilemma brings to mind that old maxim trial lawyers have lived and died by since time out of mind: when the law is with you, pound on the law; when the facts are with you, pound on the facts; if neither the facts nor the law are with you, pound on the table. That is John McCain's entire political reality in a nutshell.

The facts reveal that Mr. McCain has thrown his support behind just about every asinine and idiotic decision made by the single most unpopular and unsuccessful American president there ever was and, God willing, ever will be. The facts reveal that he has boomeranged away from so many policy positions he once espoused, going so far as to denounce a whole sheaf of legislation he had personally authored, because the Republican base despised those issues; but since he needed their support if he ever wanted to have a chance of winning, it was whiplash be damned and the Devil take the hindmost.

The facts, along with plenty of photographic evidence, reveal that while the city of New Orleans drowned beneath the floodwaters of Hurricane Katrina, McCain was snuggling with George W. Bush beneath the very same blanket of willful ignorance and sadistic indifference that has defined this administration. By a horrifying coincidence, the city of New Orleans now finds itself in the crosshairs of yet another deadly hurricane, not only on the anniversary of Katrina's destruction, but also on the eve of the Republican National Convention that will officially nominate Mr. McCain as the GOP's candidate.

Before the end of the week, no matter what happens with Hurricane Gustav, smart money says those pictures of McCain yukking it up with Bush while New Orleans was washed into the sea are going to make another appearance in the mainstream news media. In the interim, do please offer all manner of prayers and positive thoughts, in the name and for the sake of every living soul facing the hammer of one more terrible storm.

The facts reveal that Mr. McCain risked the lives of more than one hundred American soldiers by dragging them through a dangerous Baghdad marketplace for a campaign photo-op, all because he was taking heat in the American press for claiming that Baghdad was a perfectly safe town to take a stroll through, and hoped some pictures of him doing exactly that might bat down the criticism. The day after he pulled this little stunt, an Iraqi militia came through that same marketplace and massacred more than twenty innocent civilians to show McCain the difference between a safe neighborhood and where they live.

The law is hardly worth mentioning at this point when it comes to Mr. McCain. Nothing much can be said about a man who once opposed the use of torture by the American military, but began waffling on the issue almost immediately after deciding to run for president. While it cannot be said that McCain is now an active supporter of torture in all its forms, he won't be getting any thank-you notes from anyone unfortunate enough to experience the waterboarding technique he recently chose to endorse. One might define this as hair-splitting, unless one happens to be getting wet in that very unhappy fashion, and it should not be forgotten that Mr. McCain probably knows more about the realities of torture than just about any living American today. The contradiction here is, quite frankly, unspeakably chilling, and does him no favors regarding his "Character" fixation.

Nothing much can be said about a man who now supports the repeal of Roe v. Wade, a repeal he once opposed." Nothing much can be said about a man who opposed the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and then decided he actually supported the policy, and then went on to publicly denounce a Supreme Court ruling on the matter that was exactly in line with his prior opinion. He used to support diplomatic engagement with Hamas, but not any more. He used to support diplomatic engagement with Syria, but not anymore. He used to believe the NRA should not be allowed to play a role in the setting of GOP party policy, but not anymore.

Nothing much can be said about a man who has given his support to the NSA's warrantless wiretapping surveillance program which was initiated by the Bush administration, which has violated the Constitutional rights of millions of American citizens, and which McCain once believed was entirely illegal. This man helped to establish the legal legitimization of torture, and looked on mutely while Mr. Bush and his people not only ravaged the entire Department of Justice in the name of politics and personal protection, but went further into the realm of abject criminal corruption by refusing to honor every legally issued subpoena they were served with.

All that holds this idea that is America together, at bottom, is the good will of people in power and their deliberate subservience to the rule of law. When subpoenas are ignored by the arrogance of the powerful, the rule of law is over and the country is all but gone. McCain not only chose to be lumped in with these wretched practitioners of serial treason, but bestowed his blanket approval upon their patently illegal policy of spying on every American with a phone and the power of speech, perhaps because he actually convinced himself they had earned such additional legal largesse. Or maybe he just didn't give a damn about anything other than keeping himself on the good side of people like Bush, because he knew he was going to need their help to raise money for his presidential run, and nothing else mattered more than this.

The facts are not with Mr. McCain, nor is the law, so all he has been able to do is pound the table with the mythology of his so-called "Character." The whole POW thing is about all he has left. His "maverick" reputation was already a threadbare and pitiful thing before Hillary Clinton became a Senator, so there isn't much there for him, either. It all sounds like what Politician Hell might be like: damnation down there means running for office on a platform made out of thirty-year-old horror stories everyone has heard a thousand times already, and a bunch of baloney about being an "outsider" that nobody really believes anymore. Have fun with that.

There is no joy in Mudville following the Sarah Palin VP selection, for that matter. This big to-do was supposed to highlight whatever remains of his "maverick" image. The last, best club he had in his campaign bag was the line of attack against Barack Obama's lack of executive and foreign policy experience. By choosing Palin to be his running mate, McCain stapled his entire campaign to a woman whose shiny right-wing Christian credentials cannot obscure the fact that she has slightly less foreign policy or executive experience than a ham sandwich in the pantry of Air Force One. In other words, that one good club might as well have been thrown into a furnace six hundred and sixty one days ago for all the good it will do him now. Bluntly, this Palin choice not only failed to prop up his outsider credentials, but has also raised serious concerns about whether his basic judgment and understanding of simple reality can be relied on under any circumstances.

This ugly reality is McCain's well-earned, supremely deserved reward for deciding to abandon any pretense of character or integrity, with deliberation and intent, while crowing to all within hearing about the importance of character and integrity. Everything he abandoned had nothing at all to do with what he believes or doesn't believe as an American or as an elected representative. He abandoned these things because he wants to live in the White House, period. He wants this with every dirty, immoral, shiftless, unprincipled fiber of his being; and through this has become a living, pathetic, abhorrent example of the damage to heart and soul such lust for personal gain can cause.

For men who have neither character, nor integrity, nor honor, nor shame, for men like John McCain, that kind of wanting is all that remains in their heart, and is all that really matters to them anymore. Men like this, men like John McCain, are entirely hollow inside, empty, and truly dead in every way that once counted them human. They are skin, bones, emptiness, and nothing else besides."

got this from truthout.com its called the hollow man
 
Usf97j4x4 said:
I like her, shes not a socialist, not friends with any well known terrorists, doesnt attend church with a hate-spewing racist preacher, and didnt vote against the Born Alive Protection Act. What else is there lol
Click to expand...

Yes, Sarah Palin sat in a church where this message was given. Two weeks ago. The karma in all this is just amazing:

Brickner (Palin's Preacher) also described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's "judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity.

"Judgment is very real and we see it played out on the pages of the newspapers and on the television. It's very real. When [Brickner's son] was in Jerusalem he was there to witness some of that judgment, some of that conflict, when a Palestinian from East Jerusalem took a bulldozer and went plowing through a score of cars, killing numbers of people. Judgment — you can't miss it."

Palin was in church that day, Kroon said, though he cautioned against attributing Brickner’s views to her.


And...

‘Obama’ and ‘infanticide’ are being matched in the latest venom eruption on hate-monger sites. For the record, Senator Obama did NOT vote for infanticide while in the Illinois State legislature.

At issue is his vote on a bill entitled, ‘Born Alive Infants Protection Act’ – BAIPA, for short — which was first introduced into the Illinois legislature in 2001. I have read the exact wording of the bill and the term ‘infanticide’ does not appear anywhere. Fear-mongering with this word is, at the least, a stretch; and, at the worst, a lie. It is a concern for Catholic America because some of the verbal terrorism comes with a Catholic label.

The legislation would have required the state to provide health care to children born alive after an abortion. Now, existing Illinois law already covered all children. But the BAIPA was intended to create a special status for the survivors of abortion – mostly late-term abortion. The BAIPA clarified that these survivors were ‘children.’ If that was all the law intended, I think it should have been passed and Obama’s self-identified faith should have led him to vote for it.

But things are not always as they seem. Although phrased in legalese, there were three additional and problematic provisions. First, the BAIPA would have immediately usurped the rights of the parents without any hearing or legal process. Second, the act would have mandated taxpayer funds be used for the health care as long as the needy child was alive, administered by still another government bureaucracy. Third, it gave a green light to trial lawyers to sue just about everybody on two legs. Catholic teaching always protects the rights of parents against big government. Moreover, I have enough of my Barry Goldwater vote left in me to be wary of lining the pockets of trial lawyers.

Some might conclude that the BAIPA is part of the old politics of poison-pill legislation. The intention is to antagonize voters in the cultural wars.

It should show you how much on the fringe the anti-choice element is that they have to dig up and distort this issue. Of course, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the noise machine have received their talking points and are trying desperately to tie Sen. Obama into this issue.

Of course it would just be crazy to look at what Sen. Obama’s actual position is, right?

Supports a Woman’s Right to Choose:
Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.

Preventing Unwanted Pregnancy:
Barack Obama is an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims
 
Woo hoo!
 
Rugger said:
It's very difficult for anyone to take political opinions from a person who can't differentiate between "too" and "two". Just a heads up.

PS- Man, you must know a whole heap of people in the south to be able to make such a blanket statement about them!
Click to expand...


Sorry, I didn't know this was a paper! Also, if that s the case, how can you listen to anyone. I believe we are all prone to make mistakes. Keep the mud slinging out of this convo, please. If you have something of importance to add to this thread then do so. Again, leave the mud slinging at home.

P.S. My so called "blanket statement" was an opinion. Also, also you will be hearing more of that opinion in the future (In the media).
 
Usf97j4x4 said:
Excite the base? Yea, she did. Excite hundreds of thousands of independent woman nationwide? That too. You could see it in the womens' faces, I could feel the estrogen coming through the screen at me, shoot I had this urge to shop.
Click to expand...

Maybe not:

Michigan Independents Cold to Alaska Governor
September 04, 2008 9:42 AM

The Detroit Free Press invited a panel of Michigan voters to weigh in on Gov. Sarah Palin's speech last night. Their reactions run the gamut, but the independents didn't seem to care for her very much.

Ilene Beninson, 52, Berkley independent: "Her speech contained few statements about policy or the party platform. … I am not convinced that Palin's experience as a mayor or governor in Alaska meet the qualifications to be vice president much less one stroke or heart attack away from being commander in chief.”

Mike Kosh, 38, West Bloomfield independent: “The way it looks to me, she's the Republican vice presidential nominee for one reason: Because Hillary wasn't selected.”

George Lentz, 66, Southfield independent: “I was completely underwhelmed. She was a Republican novelty act with a sophomoric script. It was not even a speech I would expect for someone running for the local PTA, much less for vice president.”

Diane Murphy, 42, Sterling Heights independent: “It appears that once she makes up her mind, that is the end of it. We live in a gray world, not every answer is black and white.”

Jan Wheelock, 58, Royal Oak independent: “Nothing worked for me. I found her barrage of snide remarks and distortions to be a major turnoff. She is not a class act. The most important point she made is that she will be an effective attack dog.”

And, in Nevada:

First, women in both groups were impressed with Palin's speaking ability and poise. But they were hardly convinced that she was qualified to be vice president, or that she truly represented the "change" they were looking for, especially in light of what was deemed an overly harsh "sarcasm" pervading her address.

The (mostly) anonymous proceedings were webcast live to reporters, who were told in a press release that the Nevada focus groups would include "some former Hillary Clinton supporters who are now undecided or are weak supporters of Barack Obama or John McCain." No party identification was made available, though the approximately two dozen women were reportedly between 30 and 60 years old.

In the "married" group, when one attendee kicked off the discussion by saying "she's a good speaker, and a crowd pleaser," the rest of the room articulated their agreement. "I didn't expect to be as impressed as I was," said another respondent. But then another woman added: "Once she started mudslinging, I thought, it's the same old crap as other politicians. McCain used her to get the women's vote. And she's using McCain."

"Thank you," another woman responded. "That really upset me; there was no need for that. It was snippy."

The unmarried group also voiced similar objections to the harsh, partisan edge of Palin's remarks. "I'm not impressed with her at all as a person," one said, citing her "finger pointing" and general sarcasm after the group had generally agreed that she was a talented public speaker.
 
negged for not knowing it was a paper.


Shame!
 
EESCHMan said:
Maybe not:

Michigan Independents Cold to Alaska Governor
September 04, 2008 9:42 AM

The Detroit Free Press invited a panel of Michigan voters to weigh in on Gov. Sarah Palin's speech last night. Their reactions run the gamut, but the independents didn't seem to care for her very much.

Ilene Beninson, 52, Berkley independent: "Her speech contained few statements about policy or the party platform. … I am not convinced that Palin's experience as a mayor or governor in Alaska meet the qualifications to be vice president much less one stroke or heart attack away from being commander in chief.”

Mike Kosh, 38, West Bloomfield independent: “The way it looks to me, she's the Republican vice presidential nominee for one reason: Because Hillary wasn't selected.”

George Lentz, 66, Southfield independent: “I was completely underwhelmed. She was a Republican novelty act with a sophomoric script. It was not even a speech I would expect for someone running for the local PTA, much less for vice president.”

Diane Murphy, 42, Sterling Heights independent: “It appears that once she makes up her mind, that is the end of it. We live in a gray world, not every answer is black and white.”

Jan Wheelock, 58, Royal Oak independent: “Nothing worked for me. I found her barrage of snide remarks and distortions to be a major turnoff. She is not a class act. The most important point she made is that she will be an effective attack dog.”

And, in Nevada:

First, women in both groups were impressed with Palin's speaking ability and poise. But they were hardly convinced that she was qualified to be vice president, or that she truly represented the "change" they were looking for, especially in light of what was deemed an overly harsh "sarcasm" pervading her address.

The (mostly) anonymous proceedings were webcast live to reporters, who were told in a press release that the Nevada focus groups would include "some former Hillary Clinton supporters who are now undecided or are weak supporters of Barack Obama or John McCain." No party identification was made available, though the approximately two dozen women were reportedly between 30 and 60 years old.

In the "married" group, when one attendee kicked off the discussion by saying "she's a good speaker, and a crowd pleaser," the rest of the room articulated their agreement. "I didn't expect to be as impressed as I was," said another respondent. But then another woman added: "Once she started mudslinging, I thought, it's the same old crap as other politicians. McCain used her to get the women's vote. And she's using McCain."

"Thank you," another woman responded. "That really upset me; there was no need for that. It was snippy."

The unmarried group also voiced similar objections to the harsh, partisan edge of Palin's remarks. "I'm not impressed with her at all as a person," one said, citing her "finger pointing" and general sarcasm after the group had generally agreed that she was a talented public speaker.
Click to expand...


Zogby:

Does the selection of Sarah Palin help or hurt John McCain's chances of winning the presidential election in November?

52% said it helps
26% said it would hurt.
10% no difference
10% not sure

Among women,

48% said it would help
29% said it would hurt



Zogby Poll One Week Ago: Does Biden Help or Hurt Obama?

43% said it would help
22% said it would hurt
10% no difference
9% Not sure
 
grila jujitsu said:
Sorry, I didn't know this was a paper! Also, if that s the case, how can you listen to anyone. I believe we are all prone to make mistakes. Keep the mud slinging out of this convo, please. If you have something of importance to add to this thread then do so. Again, leave the mud slinging at home.

P.S. My so called "blanket statement" was an opinion. Also, also you will be hearing more of that opinion in the future (In the media).
Click to expand...

Says the democrat who loves to post insanely inaccurate and slanderous articles from about as far left as you can get.
 
Rugger said:
Says the democrat who loves to post insanely inaccurate and slanderous articles from about as far left as you can get.
Click to expand...

Thats quite a statement... lol


The question is...am i making fun of you or are my articles doing some mud slinging at candidates? If i am please show me...from what i can see i have not done anything like that.

Also, If am posting these "insanely inaccurate and slanderous articles" show me where they are "insanely inaccurate and slanderous articles"?!
 
J. Peterman said:
Zogby:

Does the selection of Sarah Palin help or hurt John McCain's chances of winning the presidential election in November?

52% said it helps
26% said it would hurt.
10% no difference
10% not sure

Among women,

48% said it would help
29% said it would hurt



Zogby Poll One Week Ago: Does Biden Help or Hurt Obama?

43% said it would help
22% said it would hurt
10% no difference
9% Not sure
Click to expand...


lol! I can find a million different polls that say something far different. :thumbsup:
 
grila jujitsu said:
lol! I can find a million different polls that say something far different. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Then post them that asks the same question because we know how biased Zobgy is! :rolleyes:


You seriously want to go down this road?
 
grila jujitsu said:
Thats quite a statement... lol


The question is...am i making fun of you or are my articles doing some mud slinging at candidates? If i am please show me...from what i can see i have not done anything like that.

Also, If am posting these "insanely inaccurate and slanderous articles" show me where they are "insanely inaccurate and slanderous articles"?!
Click to expand...

fact that she has slightly less [...] executive experience than a ham sandwich in the pantry of Air Force One.
Click to expand...

Pretty much summates the credibility and accuracy of the article you posted.
 
It is still ridiculously funny to me to read the accusations made against Palin by the democratic party. Especially her "lack of experience." Once again, "hello kettle, this is the pot..."

The republicans didn't raise anywhere near as much noise over the selection of Biden? Why? Because they knew his choice would have little or no impact other than his role of a mudslinger. All of the crying about Palin would seem to reinforce the fact that they are scared of this ticket.
 
atjnutrition2 said:
It is still ridiculously funny to me to read the accusations made against Palin by the democratic party. Especially her "lack of experience." Once again, "hello kettle, this is the pot..."

The republicans didn't raise anywhere near as much noise over the selection of Biden? Why? Because they knew his choice would have little or no impact other than his role of a mudslinger. All of the crying about Palin would seem to reinforce the fact that they are scared of this ticket.
Click to expand...



Of course they are scared. By all accounts, they should win this election simply based on the environment in the country. Its a second term President, Congress was controlled by the Repubs from 1994-2006 and they have a candidate that has really energized their party.

If they lose (which I think suddenly is now an option to them) it will go down in history as one of the biggest colossal failures in American politics.
 
J. Peterman said:
Absolute fear.

Whether its right or not, they don't have the rockstar anymore.
Click to expand...
I do have to say I thought she did what she was supposed to do, we will see if she can keep it up.

On a side note, I do find it funny how you are loving all her bs as shown in the first several posts, where if that was Obama or Biden you would be livid. I .ove the hypocrisy of partisan politics
 
Reaper329 said:
I do have to say I thought she did what she was supposed to do, we will see if she can keep it up.

On a side note, I do find it funny how you are loving all her bs as shown in the first several posts, where if that was Obama or Biden you would be livid. I .ove the hypocrisy of partisan politics
Click to expand...

Yes, partisan politics. Just like you basically defend Obama/Biden in every single post yet never defend anything Republican. You describe yourself very well.

You are the epitome of a hypocrit.
 
Reaper329 said:
I do have to say I thought she did what she was supposed to do, we will see if she can keep it up.

On a side note, I do find it funny how you are loving all her bs as shown in the first several posts, where if that was Obama or Biden you would be livid. I .ove the hypocrisy of partisan politics
Click to expand...

And what point do you want me to counter because I already did the Bridge to Nowhere in another post?

For someone who "claims" to be independent, its amazing how you accept all the counterpoints that don't state all the facts at face value and call it "her BS".

Yeah, you're REAL objective.
 
It is funny JP, you seem so focused on my posts, I am blushing.

Now, in all honesty, as I have stated countless times, I am not a fan of either ticket. However, I will vote the Obama/Biden ticket based on Biden alone. However, had things turned out differently and we would have seen tickets like Obama/Bayh v. McCain/Romney, my vote would have gone towards McCain/Romney. I personally feel the Palin pick was a terrible one, and one that shows a sense of desperation. I would have thought to try and get moderate votes someonbe like O.Snow or the senator from Texas (sorry I forget her name) would have been better picks with better records

You seem to like to generalize me,which of course is your perogative to do, however you do not know my voting record and the fact that I have never voted based on party affiliation. I, unlike you, try to examine which candidate in a given election fits what I prefer, not which one my "party" throws at me.
 
Reaper329 said:
It is funny JP, you seem so focused on my posts, I am blushing.
Click to expand...

I think it might be the opposite although I'm sure BP is blushing as you seem to acknowledge him every chance you get.

Now, in all honesty, as I have stated countless times, I am not a fan of either ticket.
Click to expand...

That does't make you unbiased. You consistently criticize one way, which is fine, yet call out others that do the same.


You seem to like to generalize me,which of course is your perogative to do, however you do not know my voting record and the fact that I have never voted based on party affiliation.
Click to expand...

Nor do you know mine yet that doen'st stop your generalizations about me.

I simply don't care what your affiliation is.

I, unlike you, try to examine which candidate in a given election fits what I prefer, not which one my "party" throws at me.
Click to expand...


So do I. McCain is not the strongest nor am I blown away by him at all (except his biography). I was extremely impressed with Obama maybe 12 months ago because he actually stated what most white men want to hear. Stop using your hardships as an excuse. Have personal responsibility. Raise your children the right way. He was the complete opposite of almost every black leader there was. I still like it but over the months I've heard almost the exact same speech. Nothing new. No substance. I question his character. I question his honesty. I am tired of him pitching the class warfare BS.

DO I believe he is a lying racist that has the same ideology as Rev. Wright? Of course not..but I do question why he was there and believe it had more to do with politics and getting elected in Chicago than his faith.

I believe he has a good heart. I believe he did help people and I believe his intentions are noble.

Biden? I don't like. Growing up in that area and having parents that lived in that state for 30 years I am familiar with him. He's a career politician that consistently gets funding for MBNA, Dupont and the U of D along with many other corporations that hide in Wilmington, DE for tax purposes. He is the epitome of politics.


So if you think I vote down a party line, you're dead wrong. I am not pro-life. I am not a religious zealot although I am Catholic. I don't believe we should amend the Constitution for abortion. I believe in less government, less spending and more personal responsibility. I could go on and on but maybe next before saying I am bias (as you have stated numerous times) and that all I do is play partisan politics, maybe you could understand that I believe what I post and I'm not out to play gotcha politics.


The people I see making the biggest generalizations are not partisans, its independents making statements about both parties.


On that note, I think I will go watch Obama on O'Reilly because from the clips, its actually sounds decent.
 
shitz wizzeak !

J. Peterman said:
Then post them that asks the same question because we know how biased Zobgy is! :rolleyes:


You seriously want to go down this road?
Click to expand...


go down this road... yes, yes i do! why would you try and bring up a poll if you didn't want to go down this road? either way polls are a weak argument, i am just trying to prove that you can show anything you want with a poll.

Now for the polls i found:

Invalid Link Removed

CNN yesterday at 4pm had a poll showing my side.

there are a few others, i just dont care to take the time to post them!

With the most important decision of his presidential candidacy, Senator John McCain has made a dangerous miscalculation. A new EMILY's List poll shows that women voters are not responding positively to McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. With Palin's right-wing stances on the issues that are top priorities to women voters -- from education to the environment -- her name on the ticket only confirms what we've long known: John McCain will not offer the progressive change this country needs.

Our poll shows that the more women learn about Sarah Palin's positions on the issues, the less they identify with her. In fact, when told that she describes herself as being "as pro-life as any candidate can be," opposing abortion even for victims of rape and incest, almost twice as many women voters (56%) view her less favorably.
 
Rugger said:
Pretty much summates the credibility and accuracy of the article you posted.
Click to expand...

really... lol thats all you got!?

first off, its a very factual article. second, that was an opinion thrown in and your right it should not have been thrown in!

the article speaks for its self!

:lol:
 
grila jujitsu said:
go down this road... yes, yes i do! why would you try and bring up a poll if you didn't want to go down this road? either way polls are a weak argument, i am just trying to prove that you can show anything you want with a poll.

Now for the polls i found:

Invalid Link Removed

CNN yesterday at 4pm had a poll showing my side.

there are a few others, i just dont care to take the time to post them!

With the most important decision of his presidential candidacy, Senator John McCain has made a dangerous miscalculation. A new EMILY's List poll shows that women voters are not responding positively to McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. With Palin's right-wing stances on the issues that are top priorities to women voters -- from education to the environment -- her name on the ticket only confirms what we've long known: John McCain will not offer the progressive change this country needs.

Our poll shows that the more women learn about Sarah Palin's positions on the issues, the less they identify with her. In fact, when told that she describes herself as being "as pro-life as any candidate can be," opposing abortion even for victims of rape and incest, almost twice as many women voters (56%) view her less favorably.
Click to expand...

The PDF you posted was conducted Aug 1-7th. Might want to check that one.

And in you exuberance to go down this road and try back up your point, you forgot to read something pretty important in Emilyslist.org.

"As the leading expert in mobilizing women voters, Emily's List WOMEN VOTE! programs help elect Democrats up and down the ballot."


Now, its up to you, but you might want to find a polling organization such as Gallup, Rasmussen, Zogby, etc...who's sole mission is "polling" and doesn't have a partisan agenda. Just a suggestion that will help make your point somewhat valid.


Rasmussen:

"As McCain has begun to chip away as Obama’s convention bounce, most of his gains have come among women voters. Obama still leads 51% to 44% among women, but that seven-point edge is just half the fourteen point lead he enjoyed last Tuesday. McCain leads by three among men, little changed in recent days."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top