Search This Blog

Friday, September 05, 2008

Democratic candidates Palin comparison

Well, I found it. My doctors warned me to go easy and avoid stress. I am supposed to be in danger for the next year of being thrown back in the hospital. So I have slowly segued back into working and put off some of the things I used to do in my "spare" time. That included this blog.

But the addition of Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket has brought hope to me. That means I will revisit the last post (before my illness struck) this weekend. But first, I am going to start it all out with an observation:

After watching Sarah Palin speak at the RNC my mood was lifted. I knew of her from my contacts in Alaska and her decision to challenge the Department of the Interior when they decided to declare the Polar Bear an endangered species (this would be a surprise to a steadily growing Polar Bear population, if they could grasp the concept). I read up on her once she was named as the VP nominee. But the way she handled her speech in that venue sealed the deal for me.

Sarah Barracuda was the point guard and leader of her basketball team that won the state championship game while she played on a broken ankle. She came up from Mom to PTA operative to City Council member to Mayor to Governor of the largest state in the Union with determination and the desire to make things better. She got rid of corrupt politicians (starting with Republicans!), personal servants, the big private gubernatorial jet, and when she found out her former friend Ted Stevens was a bad guy, gave him the boot as well. Her administration in Alaska has done what you want to see done in Washington - cut waste, cut taxes, give money back to the normal folks, boost industry, produce more energy, toss the bad guys out, often into jail. I doubt that she gave much thought to national office in her quest to make her school, then her town, then her state a better place. She just wanted to make things better and found that she had the will and the talent and the brains to do it.

I don't think Cincy McCain was thinking about putting together a resume for first lady when she was doing medical missions to Rwanda or Bangladesh, something that she began doing back in the 1980's. I don't think John McCain decided to endure another four years of torturous pain and deprivation in the Hanoi Hilton so he could have a good story at a convention.

The Republican ticket is composed of people who have worked to serve for the benefit of the people and the benefit of the country.

In contrast, Barack Obama has been groomed by the Illinois/Chicago Machine for public office. That meant he had to hobnob with anti-American terrorist William Ayers. It meant getting a nice $330,000.00 discount on a luxury estate courtesy of a crook by the name of Rezko. It appears that befriending Tony Rezko and other such "pals" may put Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich in jail.

The Washington Post is a liberal-leaning newspaper and they have a take on the Obama-Ayers connection. But Ayers is no "respected educator" in the eyes of any patriotic American, when he still says that plotting to blow up people and buildings was "no big deal" and that he is unrepentant to this day.

In fact, Barack Obama has associated with the anti-Christian Trinity UCC and nasty words and antics of its former and current pastor. He was buddies with Father "Flaky" Pfleger. He was promoted by the Chicago Political machine and has spent much of any time in both state and federal service running around becoming famous while failing to author any bill of substance, failing to even vote on important issues, multiple times voting "present" rather than taking a stand on issues. When has has taken stands, they are often on the far left. He believes a minor should be able to have an abortion for any reason without parental notification even if the minor crosses state lines! What other major and dangerous surgeries does he think minors should make the decision on? Does he realize how much this benefits child molesters who impregnate underage children and force them into killing the baby? Since he favors partial-birth abortion and has remarked that he wouldn't want one of his daughters "punished with a baby" I suspect he really doesn't care. He wants the votes of NARAL and Code Pink and NOW and the whole Moveon.org/Dailykos/Huffpo/Democratic Underground/George Soros/ACLU segment of the country.

Perhaps no candidate of a major political party in the last 100 years has been less qualified to run for President than Barack Obama. He is a novice who has been propped up by smooth political operators to take the Democratic Nomination before the rest of the Democrats really knew what hit them. I have no doubt that Hilary Clinton would have been the nominee had her team taken Obama seriously and thoroughly investigated his background and experience. But Obama swept through early caucuses and his momentum, buoyed by a charismatic personality and winning-but-empty catchphrase, carried him past the first few of the many skeletons found in his closet. The Democrats put on a happy face and yet I bet you the majority of Democrats would like to start this whole thing over again.

Joe Biden, on the other hand, has a long record of service. He is most definitely a Washington insider and veteran politician. But his existence on the ticket clashes with Obama's call for "change." Joe Biden, slam-dunk liberal and dug in like a fat tick to the underside of old-boy-network Washington is going to bring about change in Washington? Hardly. Obama and Biden are like oil and water in some ways. But they are both tax-and-spend, big government liberals so in that way they match nicely.

Hilary would have been a much better VP candidate. I don't care for her, but she is certainly not as arrogant as Biden and has at least peripheral executive experience, something that neither Biden nor Obama possess. She would have made the ticket stronger, while Biden makes the ticket an oxymoron.

I challenge one and all of you to investigate the actual records of all four candidates and watch every debate. Don't let MSNBC or Fox News or The New York Times or the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal do your thinking for you.

I look forward to the debates with glee. John McCain is a true American hero, with decades of selfless service. He has a record of parting with the mainstream of his party in order to do what he believes is right. He has a record of working with Democrats to craft legislation because he is an American first and being a Republican is way down the priority list behind servant and husband and father and patriot. He is in some ways a modern Teddy Roosevelt, a no-nonsense hero with the desire to serve his country rather than rise to power.

Sarah Palin has a record of executive success that proves she understands budgets and business and ethics. She has been a success in every arena she has entered. She is the most popular governor in the United States (80% approval rating) and arguably the most successful governor in Alaska history. She has the background that prepared her for expertise in the areas of environmental management and energy. Her qualifications for President are far superior to Obama's and she is just the second in line behind McCain.

Neither McCain nor Palin were the candidates the Republican mainliners wanted. Many Washingtonian Republicans have become too familiar with the joys of lobbyist loot and the benefits of earmarks. When the new Democrats swept into office, they said, "Hey, those guys got earmarks, now we are getting ours!" Sadly, that is what the Republicans said when they pushed aside the Dems previously. Perhaps a standard Republican candidate would have said all the right things and then just jumped into the old saddle and ridden the same horse. I regret that George Bush chose not to fight this fight. I regret that most of our legislators on both sides of the aisle have gone along with the same old, same old.

John McCain is going to be himself and I believe him when he says that the earmarks will stop at his desk with a veto. olitics as usual will not work with him.

28 comments:

cranky old fart said...

Radar, I thought you were dead dude. Good to have ya back.

radar said...

Thanks, and I am going to go right back to that "basis" post this weekend and revive that discussion. I feel renewed and ready to roll.

You know, while we disagree a lot it makes me feel better that you wrote. I greatly appreciate the cranky old fart!

cranky old fart said...

Oh, and I know what go you well. Hottie Palin, right?

She's just the kind of book burning, forced birth, christocracy lovin' girl that gets a YEC kook like yourself yearning for more.

Mark K. Sprengel said...

Glad to see your still refusing to croak! Heather was concerned about you as well.

Anonymous said...

Good to have you back radar.

That Ayers connection you harp on is pretty ridiculous. Reading the links you provided doesn't cast Obama in any bad light- they served on the board of a public interest organization together?

Radar, let me ask you one thing: does the fact that McCain and his stance toward evangelicals has shifted over the last 8 years bother you as an evangelical?

lava

Anonymous said...

Glad to see you're better, and I, too, figured that Palin would get you out of bed and back to the keyboard. A creationist running for VP!

For some fact-checking of her speech, see here: http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/09/palin_v_reality.php

As for the whole "executive experience" canard, do you (and others) really want to make the claim that Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than John McCain, let alone Obama or Biden? She's the most qualified out of the four of them?

Does "executive experience" of any kind and quality automatically trump experience in Congress or elsewhere? Some accomplished presidents came to the presidency from Congress. Why the sudden antipathy?

And do we all care to recall the last president who touted "executive experience" as a selling point? Hint: you don't have to go back all that far...

"Sarah Palin has a record of executive success that proves she understands budgets and business and ethics."

"Executive success"?

Umm, you are aware that as mayor of Wasilla she racked up close to 19 million buck in debt, right? In a town of around 7,000 people? And that her malfeasance is still resulting in ongoing legal bills that the citizens of Wasilla are stuck with? When Palin became mayor of Wasilla, Wasilla had no debt. When she left - and as a direct result of her performance - Wasilla was close to 19 million bucks in debt.

And in what way do you think she "understands ethics" when she is currently part of an ethics probe, and only recently said that she would cooperate fully, since she "has nothing to hide" - and now all that cooperation is being thrown by the wayside, they're trying to replace the person in charge, and various witnesses now refuse to testify? What was that about "nothing to hide"? How does all this amount to "understanding ethics"? Does she understand ethics, but chooses to do the wrong thing anyway? Seriously.

And if she understands all these things so well, why is she being shielded from the press?

"John McCain is going to be himself and I believe him when he says that the earmarks will stop at his desk with a veto."

What happens if Sarah Palin occupies that desk? Despite her repeated lies re. the Bridge to Nowhere, she's quite fond of earmarks, at least being on the receiving end of them.

But let us not be distracted by this ad infinitum - I look forward to you answering a bunch of the old questions re. YEC etc., now that you're feeling better. I've only listed a few in recent posts, but will get around to more of them.

Best to you, glad to see you're better and hope you stay that way,

-- creeper

Mark K. Sprengel said...

creeper,

The fact of the matter is that Palin has more administrative experience than anyone in the race, which has traditionally been accepted as more important than being in the Senate. There are several comparisons to Obama, one that he's offered himself (ie campaigning) that place Sarah Palin, at the very least, at an equal level to Obama regarding qualifications. It's not our fault that your number one only surpasses Sarah Palin with the number of autobiographies he's written.

As for the Wasilla debt issue, Radar has it addressed in the post above this, and I have links at the top of my blog to several lists that deal with it and other typical rumors/criticisms.

Your reference to an ethics investigation ignores the relevant details. For one, the Democrat running it has obviously politicized the matter. The lack of cooperation you cite, is directed at the kangaroo court he's trying to create. More here

She didn't lie about the bridge. During her campaign she didn't fight against it, but once in power she finally rejected the project. At best, you have hyperbole and converting complex, drawn out matters to sound bites/slogans, but not a lie as you claim.

She isn't fond of earmarks. She's been steadily reducing the earmarks that Alaska has been used to and created friction with her congressional delegation because of that.

Shielded from the press? How long did Obama avoid FoxNews? He also participated in a boycott of FoxNews as well. There's nothing odd with her needing time to prepare for the obvious onslaught of gotcha traps that the biased press will attempt. She also has an interview later this week.

Anonymous said...

Mark,

"The fact of the matter is that Palin has more administrative experience than anyone in the race, which has traditionally been accepted as more important than being in the Senate."

Traditionally accepted? Then why did McCain even bother running for President? He's clearly not qualified, right? I mean, the man has zero executive experience, right?

Are you saying that the manager of the local Starbucks is more qualified than McCain because of that magical "executive experience" ingredient?

Look, if you have two candidates who are equally qualified in most regards, but one happens to have executive experience and the other doesn't, then I could see how that could tip the scales in that person's favor. But I don't see how one can simply dismiss the experience that Sens. McCain, Obama and Biden have gained while in the Senate and elsewhere. They have had to deal with all kinds of issues and, as legislators, have had to examine them in depth.

But with Sarah Palin, McCain selected someone who has shown herself to be extremely ignorant of many of the issues that she would have to be dealing with were she to become President - which, if McCain is elected, is not entirely unlikely, given not just his age, but also his health. She has already said that she has only thought about Iraq in the most marginal terms, and when she commented on economic matters (was it yesterday?), she revealed massive ignorance in that area as well. So she knows very little about the US economy and about Iraq - arguably the two most important issues facing the nation in this election.

With a big problem like that on the table, can you see how her "executive experience" isn't exactly a magical trump card?

Look, I get that you like her for ideological reasons - she agrees with your social conservative and religious views. But that in itself doesn't mean that she's suitable for the job.

"There are several comparisons to Obama, one that he's offered himself (ie campaigning) that place Sarah Palin, at the very least, at an equal level to Obama regarding qualifications."

I don't think there's any previous experience that can fully prepare a person for being President (being Vice President comes closest, I guess). Seeing how a person manages a smaller operation can give us a clue to their management style.

Obama is in charge of a campaign that spans 50 states. The way he handled that operation shows, so far, that there is nothing objectionable about his management skills. Perhaps you don't agree, but I thought it was a pretty impressive effort.

Palin ran for mayor of Wasilla, a position with 53 employees and that, in Palin's own words, "wasn't rocket science", and then for governor in the third-least populated state. From what I've seen of her management skills there, you could say she did fine. I don't know enough about her performance there, but I won't quibble over this.

I'm a little bothered by some issues, and would certainly like to know more about her firings. Why did she really fire Monegan, if not because of him not firing Wooten? If her "management style" involves abuse of political power for personal reasons, that would certainly be a notch against her. That is not the kind of person we need in the White House, regardless of their ideology, wouldn't you agree?

"It's not our fault that your number one only surpasses Sarah Palin with the number of autobiographies he's written."

Don't believe everything you hear in a speech. Obama's written exactly one autobiography. I'm guessing someday Palin will catch up.

But that's hardly the only thing he surpasses her on. His knowledge of domestic and foreign policy is light-years ahead of Palin's.

"As for the Wasilla debt issue, Radar has it addressed in the post above this, and I have links at the top of my blog to several lists that deal with it and other typical rumors/criticisms."

I've seen that link before, the list of supposed rebuttals to who knows what (was there really a "smear" or rumor that Palin was not a governor? etc.) and is somewhat sloppy. For example, this:

"And yes, the New York Times says the job of Governor of Alaska is one of the harder, and more powerful, jobs in state government."

Yes, the State Constitution imbues the governorship with more power than most other states, but that doesn't make the job harder - on the contrary. Here are some quotes from the article (but by all means read the whole thing yourself):

"Alaska’s economic well-being — sustained, as most things are here, by oil and federal spending — has allowed Ms. Palin to avoid some of the tough budgetary choices vexing governors in dozens of other states. That in turn raises questions for some people about how much her experience is relevant to the rest of the nation"

"In places where politics is closer to the ground, an insurgent like Ms. Palin, who challenged a governor from her own party in 2006 and won, has an easier road"

"What might happen if commodity prices plunge is untested territory, he said.

“Nobody knows how the Palin administration is going to react to that, because they haven’t faced that problem yet,” Mr. Berman said. "


Here's another point from the list:

"the kid wasn’t born with Downs because (a) Palin flew on an airplane (b) went home to have the baby after an amniotic leak"

It's a pity the list doesn't actually provide links to the supposed smears/rumors. Such a format certainly makes it easy to invent strawman arguments only to bat them down (something that Radar may be familiar with...). Did someone actually suggest that Palin's airplane trip turned a healthy baby into a Down's Syndrome baby?

Still, the decision to fly back to Alaska when she was leaking amniotic fluid still puzzles me. Usually AFAIK you're not supposed to fly in the final trimester at all, and here she is, leaking amniotic fluid and, instead of being rushed to the nearest hospital, she gets on a plane.

Anybody have any insights on what she was thinking?

And another one:

"No, I don’t think she’s being “indoctrinated by Lieberman and AIPAC as we speak”; I don’t get the feeling that being indoctrinated is something that Palin does well."

Maybe not indoctrinated - I don't doubt she has opinions. But she needs to be informed - see her own quotes re. her lack of knowledge about Iraq and the role of the vice president as well as her gaffe about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"Your reference to an ethics investigation ignores the relevant details. For one, the Democrat running it has obviously politicized the matter. The lack of cooperation you cite, is directed at the kangaroo court he's trying to create. More here"

The originally scheduled release of the report was unfortunate timing, that's for sure. AFAIK that timing was in place before McCain picked her, so that one I guess should be filed under "too bad". But she has nothing to hide, so I'm sure there won't be a problem. She should look forward to being exonerated so closely before the election.

Right?

Think of it the other way around though. What if you take the Democrat off the commission and replace him with people who want to see her win (say, people that she herself appointed)? Can you see how that would fall a little short of justice being served?

Again, not a problem if she has nothing to hide...

But if she does have something to hide, then it's important that it comes out before the election, not after.

"She didn't lie about the bridge. During her campaign she didn't fight against it, but once in power she finally rejected the project. At best, you have hyperbole and converting complex, drawn out matters to sound bites/slogans, but not a lie as you claim."

Her claim that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to earmarks the Bridge to Nowhere is quite simply a lie, there's no other way to put it. And in the end she said "thank you very much" instead of "no thanks" to the earmarks originally intended for the bridge and took the money anyway.

What was that about her being against earmarks?

"She isn't fond of earmarks. She's been steadily reducing the earmarks that Alaska has been used to and created friction with her congressional delegation because of that."

See here.

"Shielded from the press? How long did Obama avoid FoxNews?"

Umm, FoxNews does not equal "the press". Obama has held countless interviews, townhall meetings etc.

"He also participated in a boycott of FoxNews as well."

Again, that's one network, not "the press".

"There's nothing odd with her needing time to prepare for the obvious onslaught of gotcha traps that the biased press will attempt."

So on the one hand it's wrong for Obama to avoid the heavily biased FoxNews (but not any other press outlets), but on the other it's perfectly fine for Palin to avoid the supposedly heavily biased press altogether?

(And actually it is a little odd - no other VP candidate has ever taken this long to meet the press.)

Don't kid yourself, she's not being prepped on gotcha questions - she's actually probably pretty good at handling those. What she's being prepped on is basic info that a VP candidate should already possess.

"She also has an interview later this week."

Good, looking forward to it.

-- creeper

radar said...

Fox News is the most popular cable news network by far because it is not obviously slanted left like MSNBC or CNN or the MSM channels.

Palin is first giving Gibson of ABC two days of full access with no questions off limits, then going for it with other people.

Unlike the other three candidates, she has not been previously on the national stage so giving her an update on the gotchas is hardly unusual or unfair.

I posted a list from a website that had at least one link for every rumor. But a DOS attack had taken it down when I tried to do a link copy. Funny thing, the other rumor website and the Democratic flags-in-trashbags had been taken down by DOS attack as well! Somebody just doesn't like Obama opponents I guess.

Creeper, some of your points were echoes of the rumor points I listed that were refuted. For instance, Wasilla doubled from just over 5,000 people from the time she took office until now. Palin helped the city become probably the fourth largest in Alaska. They undertook some building projects and financed them, thus, the so-called deficit which I believe may now have been all or mostly paid off anyway. Wasilla remains Alaska's fastest growing city. Most people call something like this "success."

It is like buying a home. We built a new home, paid about 140 grand to build it, paid about 60 grand of that down and it is worth maybe 200 thousand now or a bit more. We have paid off part of the loan, so if I sold it right now I would make a nice profit. Yet by your reasoning I have put my family into massive debt!

Sure, Biden and McCain have been around a long time. They are comparable in experience to a great extent.

Obama has never run anything. Palin has run a city and a state. The difference in their responsibility levels is enormous! Obama never did much as a state legislator, often missing votes or voting "present" and he has neglected his Senatorial duties to campaign. He is well qualified to run for office because that is the only thing he has done particularly well or often. He runs for office and wins. But show me what the heck he has actually done???

radar said...

http://meanderingpath.blogspot.com/

Mark has a number of good points and links concerning the Trash-Palin issue.

A lot of Obama-ites look like mean-spirited and mysogynistic *%6&(!@&^$!

Once she gets into the debate with Biden, that garbage will stop at least for awhile. He'll look foolish if he thinks she is just a hick from the sticks.

Anonymous said...

"Unlike the other three candidates, she has not been previously on the national stage so giving her an update on the gotchas is hardly unusual or unfair."

Regardless, she also needs to catch up on actual info. Given what is known about her to date, it is clear and undeniable that at the time McCain selected her, she knew very, very little about both Iraq and the US economy, two vital issues at this point in time.

"I posted a list from a website that had at least one link for every rumor. But a DOS attack had taken it down when I tried to do a link copy. Funny thing, the other rumor website and the Democratic flags-in-trashbags had been taken down by DOS attack as well! Somebody just doesn't like Obama opponents I guess."

One of them (the one you copied in another post) has always worked for me.

I take your point that the debt in Wasilla is akin to a mortgage. To what extent the legal costs could have been avoided, I don't know, but we don't need to quibble over that.

"Sure, Biden and McCain have been around a long time. They are comparable in experience to a great extent."

But that experience apparently doesn't mean anything, because it's not "executive experience", right?

"Obama has never run anything. Palin has run a city and a state. The difference in their responsibility levels is enormous!"

If you insist on focusing solely on executive experience - at the expense of their actual thoughts on and knowledge of policy and despite the fact that in the White House this role is often taken up by the Chief of Staff - then: Obama has run two Senate offices (one in Illinois, one in Washington) and a presidential campaign with about 500 employees and countless volunteers.

McCain has similarly run a Senate office, albeit for longer, and has also run a presidential campaign.

Biden has also run a Senate office, as well as two (unsuccessful) presidential campaigns.

Palin has run a town (sorry, but a population of less than 10,000 doesn't really rank as a "city", and for some reason even Palin didn't think that the job was "rocket science") with 53 employees. I don't know how many employees there are in a US Senate office, but I'm guessing it's comparable (seeing as there are 7,000 staff to 100 Senators). Palin was also governor of Alaska for 18 months. I don't know how many state employees they have.

Make of it what you will, but I just don't see a magical "executive" trump card here, especially given the glaring chasm of a difference in knowledge that exists between Palin and the other three. If you disagree, then could you please explain why Palin should be a vice president to Sen. John "Zero Executive Experience" McCain?

"Obama never did much as a state legislator, often missing votes or voting "present""

He voted "present" around 130 times out of 4,000 votes. Not sure if I'd use "often" to describe that.

Voting "present" in the legislative process was often used as a signal to indicate that one could be persuaded to vote for the bill but disagreed with the specifics of the particular bill in question. It's part of the process, and I'm not sure why this is intended to be demeaning in some way, as it seems you intend here by lumping it in with "not doing much".

I'm not sure how often he missed a vote in the Illinois state senate. Got any figures?

"and he has neglected his Senatorial duties to campaign."

I hardly think that's a fair criticism seeing as if you want someone as president who already holds an important position, then that position will out of necessity temporarily drop in priority to some extent while the candidate campaigns. But if you want to make the charge anyway, chew on this first.

And make sure to keep track of how much time Palin is putting in doing her job in Alaska over the next two months, while you're at it.

As for what Obama has done, if you have a moment you could have a look at this and this. Especially ethics reform is an admirable subject - for anyone who is taken by McCain's talk about getting rid of lobbyists in Washington (and may be puzzled by the fact that he somehow can't shake them).

-- creeper

radar said...

Creeper, thank you for your last post. Some commenters can be truly annoying with fact-free diatribes and illogical conclusions. Your last comment raises valid questions and concerns actual issues to be discussed and deserve a posting on those particular issues. It is refreshing to spend time considering such things.

I May not have time tonight (It is my teen teaching night) but then tomorrow probably I will respond to your thoughts and the information on the links you provided.

Anonymous said...

Looking forward to your thoughts Radar. And can I take it that you've conceded the pre-Palin discussions, or do you intend to come back to them now that you're all energized?

-- creeper

loboinok said...

do you (and others) really want to make the claim that Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than John McCain, let alone Obama or Biden?

Obama himself, is inadvertently making that claim. Maybe you haven't noticed but Obama is running ads against Bush (who is not running). Perhaps you've also failed to notice that the Democratic presidential nominee is spending much time and money running against the Republican (supposedly less experienced)VP pick while the Democratic VP pick, is spending most of his time in trying, and completely failing, to keep his foot out of his mouth.

As far as the rest of your screed...have you abandoned your claim to "intellectual honesty" and credibility?


Regards,
others

P.S. Welcome back Radar. Good to hear you are on the mend.

Anonymous said...

loboinok, or "others" or whatever you want your name to be,

1. How do you think Obama is making the claim that Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than John McCain?

2. "Maybe you haven't noticed but Obama is running ads against Bush (who is not running)."

Bush has been president of the country for the last 8 years, is a Republican like McCain, and is the least popular president since polling started. Certainly the continuation of his policies is up for discussion, unless McCain wants to completely dissociate with them which, needless to say, he has not been doing as Senator.

2. How much time and money do you think Obama is spending running against Palin? There was an initial press release, then an ad that included visuals of her, but immediately shifted attention from that to McCain representing a continuation of Bush policies. He occasionally refers to her in townhall meetings, but not disproportionately AFAICT.

Don't confuse all the media and blogosphere (both of whom rightly are spending a lot of time on Palin) with Obama and his campaign.

3. "As far as the rest of your screed...have you abandoned your claim to "intellectual honesty" and credibility?"

If you think I was intellectually dishonest, feel free to point out where you think that was the case. A blanket accusation like this is just weak, though.

-- creeper

loboinok said...

Certainly the continuation of his policies is up for discussion,

That would be a good point...if Obama had not supported a majority of Bush's policies.

If you think I was intellectually dishonest, feel free to point out where you think that was the case.

"Her claim that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to earmarks the Bridge to Nowhere is quite simply a lie, there's no other way to put it. And in the end she said "thank you very much" instead of "no thanks" to the earmarks originally intended for the bridge and took the money anyway."

Yes, Palin Did Stop That Bridge

"when she is currently part of an ethics probe, and only recently said that she would cooperate fully, since she "has nothing to hide" - and now all that cooperation is being thrown by the wayside, they're trying to replace the person in charge, and various witnesses now refuse to testify? What was that about "nothing to hide"? How does all this amount to "understanding ethics"? Does she understand ethics, but chooses to do the wrong thing anyway? Seriously."

You can't see the impropriety in this?

Surprise! Palin Investigators Are Obamatrons


So on the one hand it's wrong for Obama to avoid the heavily biased FoxNews (but not any other press outlets), but on the other it's perfectly fine for Palin to avoid the supposedly heavily biased press altogether?

hummm...do I want to jump into a pool of one pirahna or a pool of hundreds of pirahna

heavily biased FoxNews >>> supposedly heavily biased press..?? Incredible.

But that experience apparently doesn't mean anything, because it's not "executive experience", right?...Make of it what you will, but I just don't see a magical "executive" trump card here,

The problem with Obama's claim to experience, is his own 2004 public declaration that he is unqualified for the Presidency and his, or anyone else's attempt now, to use anything prior to 2004 as a "qualifier".

Anonymous said...

Hey lobo,

Don't know what I'm missing here, but aside from simply asserting that Palin killed the Bridge to Nowhere, that article's not all that useful.

Here's the timeline:

1. Palin supports the Bridge to Nowhere.

2. Congress pulls funding on the Bridge to Nowhere.

3. Palin takes the funding, but applies it to projects other than the Bridge to Nowhere.

Feel free to correct me or fill in the details, but where does "thanks but no thanks" come into this, especially when it comes to saying no to federal funding?

1. She took the money, so no big stand against federal money there.

2. She didn't take a stand against federal funding for the BTN until after the funding was a goner anyway, i.e. there was no "no thanks" moment.


There was, however, a "thanks" moment. They did build the Road To Nowhere, i.e. the road that led to the non-existent Bridge to Nowhere.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"The problem with Obama's claim to experience, is his own 2004 public declaration that he is unqualified for the Presidency and his, or anyone else's attempt now, to use anything prior to 2004 as a "qualifier"."

What kind of nonsense is this? Now you can only count the experience from the moment when you can acually publically proclaim that you're qualified to be president? Anything before then doesn't count?

Do you even think about this stuff before you post it?

Where would that leave any other president in history? For example, if Reagan didn't feel qualified in, say, 1974, and said so out loud, does that mean we could only count his experience from 1974 onwards?

If Washington in, say, 1786, said he wouldn't feel qualified to be president, does that mean his biography pre-1786 is out the window?

Unbelievable.

-- creeper

loboinok said...

Here's the timeline:

1. Palin supports the Bridge to Nowhere.

2. Congress pulls funding on the Bridge to Nowhere.

3. Palin takes the funding, but applies it to projects other than the Bridge to Nowhere.



Palin takes funds for a project that Congress voted down and pulled funding for?


1.In 2005, Ted Stevens lobbys Congress for $327 million for the BTN and other projects.

2. Congress denies the bridge, removes the bridge earmark, then allows the funds to go through. Stevens takes the money and allocates $113 Million for the bridge.
[money was lobbied for, earmarks removed and funds sent to Stevens, all, by the fall of 2005]

3. While campaigning for governor in 2006, Palin supports the BTN using state and congressional funds.

4. By 2007, bridge costs have increased to $400 Million. Requiring Alaska to pay the $287 million difference +.

5. Palin decides that is too much and pulls her support ("thanks but no thanks").

Dr. Tom Coburn, my State Senator, was deeply involved with the whole fiasco and said this about it:

“The fact is that Sarah Palin is one of the few governors that actually got religion on this and said, ‘Hey, this is stupid. This is killing us,'" said Coburn. “Here’s the point to take away: The ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ in Alaska got killed because of Sarah Palin.”

and

McCain was a cosponsor of an amendment that Coburn tried to push through that would have moved the money from Alaska to Louisiana to repair the I-10 freeway damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Joseph Biden (D-Del.) opposed that amendment. Biden and Obama, said Coburn, “voted for [the bridge earmark] every time it came up because they played the game on earmarks. Remember what the appropriators said: ‘If you don’t vote for this, your earmarks are next. We’ll come after your earmarks.’ That was the veiled threat.”

Tom Coburn Says "Bridge to Nowhere" Died Thanks to Palin, and Obama/Biden Opposed Reallocating Funds to Katrina Repairs

"Count Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) as a defender of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's position on the controversial "Bridge to Nowhere" project.

Stevens, who once threatened to resign his Senate seat in 2005 if $223 million for the bridge project was defeated, told reporters today that Palin was never a supporter of the project, which has quickly become a bone of contention in defining the GOP vice-presidential nominee's self proclaimed image as a maverick reformer who took on "the good ol' boys network" of Alaska Republicans.

"I don't remember her ever campaigning for it. As a matter of fact, she was very critical of it at the time. And she took the money and did not use it for the bridge, so you're wrong, as far as I'm concerned," Stevens said today."

Stevens: No 'Bridge to Nowhere' Advocacy by Palin


What kind of nonsense is this? Now you can only count the experience from the moment when you can ac[t]ually publically proclaim that you're qualified to be president? Anything before then doesn't count?

I'm not counting anything...Obama is.

Any experience Obama had prior to 2004, Obama was intimately knowledgable of. Obviously, Obama didn't think himself qualified in spite of that experience, and publically declared such in 2004.

I don't know why you are struggling with that.

If I tell you that I'm not qualified for the job you so graciously offered; you have little choice but to accept that.

Anonymous said...

loboinok,

thank you for the added detail. Seeing as you still have Congress pulling back funding for the Bridge To Nowhere before Palin changes her mind, at which point does she actually say "thanks but no thanks"? As I've asked before, how do you say "no thanks" to something that is already off the table? I don't see how this added detail changes that basic set of circumstances.

I don't understand why you post links to Sen. Stevens not remembering Palin ever supporting the Bridge To Nowhere when video footage etc. of her doing just that is available on the Internet. All that would illustrate is Stevens' faulty memory or willingness to blatantly lie in public.

On a sidenote: I don't understand the McCain campaign's fixation on this particular issue, seeing as there are much bigger fish to fry as regards the US economy. But if they think it's such a big deal, that's their call. It's meant to bolster their "maverick" brand, but it's just a marketing ploy that completely sidesteps far more serious issues that have been evident for some time now, not just over the last week or so.

Actually, scratch that: I understand why McCain wants to focus on a relatively trivial issue like earmarks as being what is supposedly wrong with the economy. The problem for McCain is that the current economic problem involve issues of regulation, which is a subject McCain would much prefer to avoid. So it's in his interest to pull the wool over your eyes by blowing earmarks all out of proportion until the election.

Unfortunately, in the real world these issues are rapidly coming to a head, exposing his own campaign's marketing approach to the economy as somewhat beside the point.

creeper: "What kind of nonsense is this? Now you can only count the experience from the moment when you can ac[t]ually publically proclaim that you're qualified to be president? Anything before then doesn't count?"

loboinok: "I'm not counting anything...Obama is.

Any experience Obama had prior to 2004, Obama was intimately knowledgable of. Obviously, Obama didn't think himself qualified in spite of that experience, and publically declared such in 2004.

I don't know why you are struggling with that.

If I tell you that I'm not qualified for the job you so graciously offered; you have little choice but to accept that."


It makes no sense, loboinok, to restrict the years that count to only those after a person already claims to be qualified. The moment a person does feel qualified or sufficiently experienced, he or she does so based on the experience to that point. Obviously the experience that precedes it also forms part of the body of experience that then comprises the person's readiness.

So why would that experience that precedes that point in time not count?

Let's go with an example that takes this outside of a partisan context: Tommy wants to run the local department store. He works in this department, that department. He spends 10 years doing this. Someone asks him if he's qualified to run the store. He thinks about it and figures he's almost ready, but could use more preparation, more experience in certain areas. Not too much more, but some. So he says no, he's not qualified at this point in time.

Two years later, he feels he's ready and starts making moves to get the promotion.

My take on this is that at that point Tommy has 12 years of experience, and even though he said 2 years before that he wasn't ready, he can well have gained that experience during that time. And now he can legitimately make moves to go for that position.

Unless I'm completely misreading your argument (and if that is the case, please tell me), then it seems to me that you are saying that because when Tommy was asked after ten years if he was qualified, and he said no, that the previous ten years of experience don't count towards his collective experience that qualifies him for the boss position.

Actually, to continue with this logic, should one only count the experience that Tommy had gained after he said he was qualified? So with 12 years of experience under his belt, someone asks him if he's now qualified, and he says yes, and then we start counting?

If I'm understanding this correctly (and again, please correct me if I misinterpreted something here), then this is a completely nonsensical and desperate argument.

-- creeper

(moafdags)

Anonymous said...

"If I tell you that I'm not qualified for the job you so graciously offered; you have little choice but to accept that."

Or is your argument perhaps that if one says one is not (yet) qualified for a position, then one is not qualified for that position for all eternity?

Doesn't make a whole lot more sense, but it is another way to interpret your argument I suppose.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Creeper- I'm as confused as you

lava

Anonymous said...

The silence is deafening.

Radar and loboinok simply can't explain away Palin's "thanks but no thanks" lie (perhaps they simply agree that it was a lie), and Mark Sprengel over on his blog has completely caved on the "lipstick on a pig" nonsense and actually couldn't even get to square one in explaining how on Earth he thinks Obama called Palin a pig (http://meanderingpath.blogspot.com/2008/09/someone-might-want-to-stick-with.html , comments here: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/aikidoka/3843944314093351653/).

Okay then. Shall we move on to dendrochronology, ice cores and the like? And there were some other unresolved issues, which we'll get to in due time.

Hope all is well with you, Radar.

-- creeper

radar said...

It's amusing that I get accused of cut and paste when I share out information and of having no source when I don't!

Creeper, Lobo explained the Bridge to Nowhere timeline explicitly and it was easy to do, because Sarah Palin has done the same. It is the Democrats that are harping on things like this so they can avoid real issues.

It is simple.

1) Congress was to give Alaska money to build a bridge to connect Ketchikan to its airport. Logical. Palin said, "thanks." The lack of a bridge between a town and an airport built on an island should be easy to imagine.

2) The amount of money the State of Alaska would contribute turned out to be around 280 million dollars. Palin said, "but no thanks."


3) Palin then directed the upgrade of the ferry service between the town and the airport, alleviating some of the problems. She found a way around building the bridge without burdening her taxpayers. There are no lies, nothing new, this has been a transparent process from beginning to end. You have a non-issue.

I did note how you did delete that comment where you tried to explain away Obama's obvious "Selma" lie. It was pretty lame, good move on your part.

Obama recently called John McCain "dishonorable." His campaign must be out of their minds!

Anonymous said...

"It's amusing that I get accused of cut and paste when I share out information and of having no source when I don't!"

When you don't what? You did cut and paste ill- and non-sourced blogging/journalism, exactly as I indicated. I'm not accusing you of having no source, but of the posts that you pasted themselves being shoddy journalism.

"Creeper, Lobo explained the Bridge to Nowhere timeline explicitly and it was easy to do, because Sarah Palin has done the same. It is the Democrats that are harping on things like this so they can avoid real issues."

Palin is using the "thanks but no thanks" line as a pretty central point in her speeches to illustrate her claim as a reformer, when the facts on the ground (including as you lay them out here) make it clear that she didn't say "no thanks" in any way, but instead merely reacted to the political reality at the time.

"It is simple.

1) Congress was to give Alaska money to build a bridge to connect Ketchikan to its airport. Logical. Palin said, "thanks." The lack of a bridge between a town and an airport built on an island should be easy to imagine."


You left out the bit where Congress already cut this particular funding, so there was nothing for Palin to say "no thanks" to.

"2) The amount of money the State of Alaska would contribute turned out to be around 280 million dollars. Palin said, "but no thanks."

3) Palin then directed the upgrade of the ferry service between the town and the airport, alleviating some of the problems. She found a way around building the bridge without burdening her taxpayers. There are no lies, nothing new, this has been a transparent process from beginning to end. You have a non-issue.


How did she say "no thanks" to something that was already off the table? She is clearly trying to bolster her reformer credentials by pretending she said no to a big earmark that was on offer to her. But the earmark was no longer on offer, so there was nothing to say "no thanks" to, despite your somewhat misleading summary here (since it completely skips the fact that the funding was no longer available to her by the time she became Governor).

"I did note how you did delete that comment where you tried to explain away Obama's obvious "Selma" lie. It was pretty lame, good move on your part."

Sorry Radar, but if this is meant to be in reference to me, no, that wasn't me. I didn't delete any comment here in the last while - actually, IIRC I haven't ever deleted a comment on your blog.

Seeing as I've been posting under "Anonymous" lately, I don't think it's even possible to delete a comment in that case.

"Obama recently called John McCain "dishonorable." His campaign must be out of their minds!"

IIRC, they called his campaign dishonorable, and they're hardly the only ones to think so. The "lipstick on a pig" nonsense combined with the "teach comprehensive sex ed to kindergartners" lie sparked off a reaction to McCain's campaign, including even Karl Rove stating that he thought McCain had gone too far.

-- creeper

radar said...

creeper-

"It's amusing that I get accused of cut and paste when I share out information and of having no source when I don't!"

When you don't what? You did cut and paste ill- and non-sourced blogging/journalism, exactly as I indicated. I'm not accusing you of having no source, but of the posts that you pasted themselves being shoddy journalism.

Not so. "Democratic Candidates Palin comparison" is a post written almost entirely by me, although I include some informational links. No cut, no paste.

The 69+ Palin rumors are all sourced. I didn't include all the links in the article in my blog, but if you go to the sources the links are there.

I give the source of the Obama "not exactly" posting.

All of my excerpts from other blogs, newspapers and magazines are linked or attributed. In fact I do put a large number of links into these articles to allow folks to check on them and follow the links in THOSE articles if they want to dig deeper. Therefore this charge is completely baseless.


"Creeper, Lobo explained the Bridge to Nowhere timeline explicitly and it was easy to do, because Sarah Palin has done the same. It is the Democrats that are harping on things like this so they can avoid real issues."

Palin is using the "thanks but no thanks" line as a pretty central point in her speeches to illustrate her claim as a reformer, when the facts on the ground (including as you lay them out here) make it clear that she didn't say "no thanks" in any way, but instead merely reacted to the political reality at the time.

"It is simple.

1) Congress was to give Alaska money to build a bridge to connect Ketchikan to its airport. Logical. Palin said, "thanks." The lack of a bridge between a town and an airport built on an island should be easy to imagine."


You left out the bit where Congress already cut this particular funding, so there was nothing for Palin to say "no thanks" to.


No, she said thanks to the project while full or nearly full financing was going to be provided.

"2) The amount of money the State of Alaska would contribute turned out to be around 280 million dollars. Palin said, "but no thanks."

3) Palin then directed the upgrade of the ferry service between the town and the airport, alleviating some of the problems. She found a way around building the bridge without burdening her taxpayers. There are no lies, nothing new, this has been a transparent process from beginning to end. You have a non-issue.


How did she say "no thanks" to something that was already off the table? She is clearly trying to bolster her reformer credentials by pretending she said no to a big earmark that was on offer to her. But the earmark was no longer on offer, so there was nothing to say "no thanks" to, despite your somewhat misleading summary here (since it completely skips the fact that the funding was no longer available to her by the time she became Governor).


You apparently missed the fact that the bill was passed with some funding intact.


"I did note how you did delete that comment where you tried to explain away Obama's obvious "Selma" lie. It was pretty lame, good move on your part."

Sorry Radar, but if this is meant to be in reference to me, no, that wasn't me. I didn't delete any comment here in the last while - actually, IIRC I haven't ever deleted a comment on your blog.


Then I apologize. Once it is erased I can only see that "anonymous" did it and I thought it had been you. I take your word on it.


Seeing as I've been posting under "Anonymous" lately, I don't think it's even possible to delete a comment in that case.


It apparently is quite possible.

"Obama recently called John McCain "dishonorable." His campaign must be out of their minds!"

IIRC, they called his campaign dishonorable, and they're hardly the only ones to think so. The "lipstick on a pig" nonsense combined with the "teach comprehensive sex ed to kindergartners" lie sparked off a reaction to McCain's campaign, including even Karl Rove stating that he thought McCain had gone too far.

I heard what Karl Rove said, he was simply saying that McCain would be better off trying to get his opponent to focus on the issues instead of playing tit-for-tat. And yes, that bill states specifically that sex education would be taught from K-12 so the charge itself is true.

Anonymous said...

Testing comment - to see if I can delete this comment. If I'm unable to delete it, you will still see it here.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"Not so. "Democratic Candidates Palin comparison" is a post written almost entirely by me, although I include some informational links. No cut, no paste."

That post wasn't one of the three I was referring to. I mentioned three posts:

"1. a list of ill-sourced rebuttals to alleged claims made against Sarah Palin (some of these are simple snark)

2. a book blurb listing unsourced allegations against Barack Obama

3. an almost entirely unsourced list of supposed debunkings of Obamas statements, with almost no sources pro or con, except for 3-4 that refer to dubious sources like WND and Free Republic"


These were, in order:

1. The Palin Rumors One, which sources some but not all of its rebuttals, and none of the rumors, so we're supposed to believe that someone alleged she was not a governor and so on.

2. The Obama Rumors One, the link for which is just an ad for a book and doesn't source any of the allegations (of course not, they're trying to get you to buy the book).

3. Don't Know Much About Obama, which does not source any of the alleged claims and only a small fraction of the rebuttals, and in those cases only links to pretty dubious sources.

Those are the ones I was specifically referring to, which I made pretty clear, and they are exactly as unsourced as I indicated.

"All of my excerpts from other blogs, newspapers and magazines are linked or attributed. In fact I do put a large number of links into these articles to allow folks to check on them and follow the links in THOSE articles if they want to dig deeper. Therefore this charge is completely baseless."

No, it is entirely founded for the reasons I have detailed above. I did not claim that you never post links to your abundant pasted articles - on the contrary, I am well aware that you do and would never make such a charge. In the examples mentioned above, however, the opposite is true, which is why I remarked on it.

"1) Congress was to give Alaska money to build a bridge to connect Ketchikan to its airport. Logical. Palin said, "thanks." The lack of a bridge between a town and an airport built on an island should be easy to imagine."

You left out the bit where Congress already cut this particular funding, so there was nothing for Palin to say "no thanks" to.

No, she said thanks to the project while full or nearly full financing was going to be provided.


That's right, at that time she said "thanks". She did not say "no thanks" at that time, which is the crucial point - nor could she have, since she was not yet governor.

"2) The amount of money the State of Alaska would contribute turned out to be around 280 million dollars. Palin said, "but no thanks."

She said "no" to building the bridge at that time, but she did not say "no thanks" to earmark spending for the bridge from Washington, for the very simple reason that that specific funding for the Bridge to Nowhere was no longer on the table.

"3) Palin then directed the upgrade of the ferry service between the town and the airport, alleviating some of the problems. She found a way around building the bridge without burdening her taxpayers. There are no lies, nothing new, this has been a transparent process from beginning to end. You have a non-issue."

In terms of Palin casting herself as a reformer of earmarks, indeed, it is she who has a non-issue here. She did not say "no thanks" to Washington earmarks for the Bridge to Nowhere. Worse yet, she then wasted 26 million of federal fundings on building the road to the non-existent Bridge to Nowhere.

So if there is an issue in Palin trying to paint herself as an earmarks reformer, this is indeed an issue.

"You apparently missed the fact that the bill was passed with some funding intact."

And that funding was accepted by Palin and spent - so what did she say "no thanks" to? It wasn't federal funds.

"Seeing as I've been posting under "Anonymous" lately, I don't think it's even possible to delete a comment in that case."

"It apparently is quite possible."


Well, I just tried it, and maybe brighter minds than your humble narrator can delete an anonymous comment, but I sure can't. But whatever.

"I heard what Karl Rove said, he was simply saying that McCain would be better off trying to get his opponent to focus on the issues instead of playing tit-for-tat."

Rove: "McCain has gone in some of his ads -- similarly gone one step too far, and sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the '100 percent truth' test."

"And yes, that bill states specifically that sex education would be taught from K-12 so the charge itself is true."

The charge is false for a number of reasons. The reasoning for extending the age range downwards was because younger children are sometimes subjected to inappropriate touching, and need to be educated about what is appropriate and what is not. The bill was not intended to teach what we think of as full sex ed to children who are too young - hence also the inclusion of the wording of "age-appropriate" education as well as the possibility for parents to have their children opt out.

-- creeper