PANTS ON FIRE

Fact Check: Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere
The Associated Press • Published September 08, 2008


WASHINGTON – A new ad from John McCain's presidential campaign contends his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere." In fact, Palin was for the infamous bridge before she was against it


THE SPIN: Called "Original Mavericks," the ad asserts the Republican senator has fought pork-barrel spending, the drug industry and fellow Republicans, reforming Washington in the process, and credits Palin with similarly changing Alaska by taking on the oil industry, challenging her own party and ditching the bridge project that became a national symbol of wasteful spending.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton came back with fighting words. "Despite being discredited over and over again by numerous news organizations, the McCain campaign continues to repeat the lie that Sarah Palin stopped the Bridge to Nowhere," he said.

Burton said McCain would merely carry on supporting President Bush's economic, health, education, energy and foreign policies, and that means "anything but change."

THE FACTS: Palin did abandon plans to build the nearly $400 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport. But she made her decision after the project had become an embarrassment to the state, after federal dollars for the project were pulled back and diverted to other uses in Alaska, and after she had appeared to support the bridge during her campaign for governor.

McCain and Palin together have told a broader story about the bridge that is misleading. She is portrayed as a crusader for the thrifty use of tax dollars who turned down an offer from Washington to build an expensive bridge of little value to the state.

"I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere," she said in her convention speech last week.

That's not what she told Alaskans when she announced a year ago that she was ordering state transportation officials to ditch the project. Her explanation then was that it would be fruitless to try to persuade Congress to come up with the money.

Sarah knows what Ramtha wants: A bridge to nowhere.

Can you imagine the money they are goona have to pay secret service if he gets elected. You know bullets are gonna be flying at some point and time. It's just a matter of time. I don't care what the hazzard pay includes. Obama may as well sign his will if he is elected.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the whack-jobs that try or have whacked a President are a few short of a six pack, rather than being motived buy racial hatred.

God, or the voices in their head usually tell them that the President is evil and must die at their hands.

Most true racists are so damn in-bred to begin with that they are not smart enough to kill a President.

Just your normal, average fleet of Presidential Security Detail Secret Service Officers will easily contain those fine excuses for human beings.

Don't think Obama should be any more worried or concerned than any past President (minus JFK and Reagan, or course.)

I agree with ya Parker, but it only takes a few whack jobs to turn things into caos. Don't forget the nuts who pulled off 9/11?

We often overlook what's right in front of us.

I don't think Al-KayDuh could pull off killing a president.

I don't have first hand knowledge of this, but I'm guess that is harder than it appears.

Now, if you believe that the nutjobs who pulled off 9/11 are the same nujobs who had Kennedy killed, and faked the Moon Landing, than I might have to agree with you there!

I'm making my tinfoil hat now!

I guess only time will tell what happens. We should take up this conversation in Late Nov.

Have you guys read "Legacy of Ashes" it is the entire history of the CIA. The book is all based on public record, and first person interviews about the agency. There is some pretty good evidence in there that JFK's murder was planned and orchestrated by more than a whack job.

Like I said it is on the record stuff, so you have to imply a lot, but it really isn't that hard to do.

I really don't think Obama would be in any greater danger than any other president, but I found that portion of the book fascinating.

So way back when a college roomate who was working for Lee Hamilton (IN) calls me says "Hey can get you an internship with the CIA". I wasn't very into it (fairly anti government) but came around and said "ok what's involved"?
"No problem" he said. "You've got the grades. Oh [censored]....wait a minute there is a background check....nevermind".

Palin: wrong woman, wrong message
Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
By Gloria Steinem
September 4, 2008
Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women -- and to many men too -- who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the "white-male-only" sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.

But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."

This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can't do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn't say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden's 37 years' experience.

Palin has been honest about what she doesn't know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, "I still can't answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?" When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."


She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and she's won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain's campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long that he doesn't know it's about inviting more people to meet standards, not lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate's views on "God, guns and gays" ahead of competence. The difference is that McCain is filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.

So let's be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.

Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

I don't doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., she doesn't just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn't just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn't just echo McCain's pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child.

So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, "women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership," so he may be voting for Palin's husband.

Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan gains from this contest.

Republicans may learn they can't appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.

And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.

This could be huge.

Gloria Steinem is an author, feminist organizer and co-founder of the Women's Media Center. She supported Hillary Clinton and is now supporting Barack Obama.


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-steinem4-2008sep04,0,7915118.story

Latest Zogby poll might tell a different story.

9/6/08

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1548

So you're telling me you thought she was the right choice BEFORE McCain announced her as his running mate? You really think she is qualified to take over as president if McCain drops from a heart attack? Not saying the Obama is the right choice here, but it strikes me how all the republicans jumped on the Palin bandwagon as soon as her name was announced, defending her as the right choice, when her name came out of the blue.

Hope you enjoy it!!

Up in the Twin Cities area folks are speaking a new language. Or, should I say Palinguage. It sounds sorta familiar because it's Latin based. But different from the plain English we're used to speaking, in Palinguage recognizable words take on new meanings. Won't you take a moment to learn some Plainguage so you can talk like a hypocritical conservative?

REPEAT THE FOLLOWING:

If you're a minority and you're selected for a job over more qualified candidates you're a "token hire." If you're a conservative and you're selected for a job over more qualified candidates you're a "game changer."

If you live in an Urban area and you get a girl pregnant you're a "baby daddy." If you're the same in Alaska you're a "teen father." (Actually, according to your own MySpace page you're an F'n redneck that don't want any kids, but that's too long a phrase for the evil liberal media to take out of context and flog morning noon and night).

Black teen pregnancies? A "crisis" in black America. White teen pregnancies? A "blessed event."

If you grow up in Hawaii you're "exotic." Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, you're the quintessential "American story."

Similarly, if you name your kid Barack you're "unpatriotic." Name your kid Track, you're "colorful."

If you' re a Democrat and you make a VP pick without fully vetting the individual you're "reckless." A Republican who doesn't fully vet is a "maverick."

If you say that for the "first time in my adult lifetime I'm really proud of my country" it makes you "unfit" to be First Lady. If you are a registered member of a fringe political group that advocates secession that makes you "First Dude."

A DUI from twenty years ago is "old news." A speech given without proper citation from twenty years ago is "relevant information."

And, finally, if you're a man and you decide to run for office despite your wife's recurrence of cancer you're a "questionable spouse." If you're a woman and you decide to run for office despite having five kids including a newborn... Well, we don't know what that is 'cause THAT'S NOT A FAIR QUESTION TO ASK.

It will certainly be an interesting election.

Not only was Palin a faithful pursuer of the very "pork" she now pretends to eschew, but even after she flip-flopped on the Bridge to Nowhere, she didn't give any of the "pork" back that was earmarked for it...she took it and spent it on other pork projects for Alaska.

She's a liar, plain and simple...the speech she gave the other night at the RNC was moving and eloquent, and almost completely devoid of any factual material...and was rich in flat out untruths.

Do the RWWJ's care? No...they know she's a liar, and they don't care. The Reps can't even come close to winning an election on the issues, so they just make up chit instead, and the Kool-Aid drinking sheep, including many right here on this BB, eat it up like leftover meatloaf.

That's about as UNpatriotic and UNAmerican as it can get...know they're lying, and not only support them, but support their lying, too.

Fish on...

Todd

I don't hear Ron Paul telling fibs.

Well spoken Hankster!!!!

You, me, and Andy.

Ron Paul 2008

No, I no longer care. If Charlie Rangel can lie, so can we.

It would be interesting to be able to go back and take a look at what was once on the Alaska Democrat website. They reportedly put it on there to embarrass Ted Stevens or someone else, but when Palin came out against it, they took it down. That came from John Carlson. Ive known him to take the wrong side or shoot before he knows all the facts, but he doesnt have to lie. He didnt say where he got it, but i do remember, he suggested Palin several months ago, about the time the primaries were over.
he is a little on the wonkish side.

Humility says a lot about people. I bet a whole bunch of prolifer would bail on a downsyndrome baby. She sold the jet, shops at walmart or costco, drives herself to work, got rid of the cook. It would be interesting if she did all the 'wH press conferences. 500 # cat and 30 vultures in the same room.

KK I would have thought youd like Teddy Roosevelt. Parks, Took on the Trusts. pretty ballsy. BTW KK is her cook any good?

How about a game...... who was better in foreign policy

Bush, Cheney, Rice

Clinton, gore, madeline albright ?

Bush, quail, ???_______ I remember the face

Reagan, bush, _______ ?

Carter, Mondale, _________

Ford, Rocky, ________

Nixon, Ford, KIssenger?

Johnson, Humprey,_______,

Kennedy, Johnson, ________

IKE, NIxon, _________

To lazy to look up the secretary of state._______

The only thing entertaining about these political threads is the schizophrenic, twisting, turning course they take.

Like a tour of a Mental Hospital; Sad one moment, hilarious, then terrifying the very next.

Other than that it's watching a group of people with so very much in common set upon themselves like rabid pit bulls....
...And knowing that a group of well dressed men are spectating, passing handfuls of cash back & forth and laughing merrily as the fur flies.

Did any one watch "The Daily Show, with John Stewart". He had on a segment about McCAin that was on of the funniest pieces I've seen lately.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEvv9G846mo

Here is another good one. Pundit reversals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMiUAcEJY98

That second link is PRICELESS, stever

There's a reason why Rove's head is shaped like a suppository...

Fish on...

Todd

I saw that episode.

Shows you how much we ARE NOT getting from corporate news sources.

Really? Lying doesn't matter? And Charlie Rangel is running for POTUS? Wow.

She didn't have a choice about keeping her last child; she doesn't believe in choice, not even for rape and incest, which Alaska has more than their share of. And if you really believe she's going to be VP, then she is bailing on her baby. Unless you think she's going to take him to every cabinet meeting, on every trip she goes on, keep him around the office 18+ hours a day, etc. Does the VPOTUS really have enough time in the day to spend much time with a newborn, let alone one with special needs? Of course that extra 3K/kid she gets every year for being Alaskan can't hurt.

So she sold the jet, big deal. She gonna sell Air Force One and take a loss on it, too?

She drives herself from Wasilla to Juneau and charged the Alaskans nearly 20K in per diem. She also charged the state over 70K to move her family back and forth between Wasilla and Juneau.

She didn't get rid of the cook, she only changed her title, but the old cook still cooks for the family.

But you're okay with all the lies she tells because Charlie Rangel lies.

Sam Reed called and wants you to burn your voter registration card because you're too ill-informed to vote. Not really, I'm lying, but it's okay.

Caribou Barbie did NOT sell the jet on Ebay...she listed it there, and it did not sell.

What she did was sell it to a corporate friend at a $600,000.00 loss to the taxpayers of the State of Alaska.

Remember when McSame said she sold it on Ebay? He didn't "vet" his answer, just like he didn't vet Palin.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10385036?source=most_emailed

So much for her faux "anti-pork" position...not only did she take the money for the Bridge to Nowhere and spend it like it wasn't the US taxpayers' money, she also gave away the jet to a cronie and cost her own State over half a million dollars in the process.

Fish on...

Todd

The title should have read.... liar liar panties on fire.

If she's anything like her daughter, she probably doesn't wear any.

I mean after all, like mother like daughter....

You do have a lot of opinions, but they tend to run in the same direction as every other right wing opinion lately...namely, when it is pointed out that Palin and/or McSame is blatantly lying to you, in direct violation of those conservative "ideals" you and the rest are assumed to carry, you all do the same thing...

Change the subject and talk about Obama instead.

At least it's refreshing to not have every single right wing scandal end in "it's all Clinton's fault" for a change...

Hank, google it up...it was a former politician colleague of hers who ended up with the plane, at a $600,000.00 loss to the taxpayers of Alaska...and no matter who bought it, it doesn't change the fact that McSame is telling everyone how great she is for selling it on Ebay, which she most assuredly did not.

Fish on...

Todd

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122100927525717663.html


OPINION


DOW JONES REPRINTS


This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit:
www.djreprints.com.

• See a sample reprint in PDF format.
• Order a reprint of this article now.

Yes, Palin Did Stop That Bridge
By JIM DEMINT
September 10, 2008; Page A15

"But, you know, when you've been taking all these earmarks when it's convenient, and then suddenly you're the champion anti-earmark person, that's not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can't just make stuff up." -- Barack Obama, Sept. 6, 2008

In politics, words are cheap. What really counts are actions. Democrats and Republicans have talked about fiscal responsibility for years. In reality, both parties have a shameful record of wasting hundreds of billions of tax dollars on pork-barrel projects.

My Senate colleague Barack Obama is now attacking Gov. Sarah Palin over earmarks. Having worked with both John McCain and Mr. Obama on earmarks, and as a recovering earmarker myself, I can tell you that Mrs. Palin's leadership and record of reform stands well above that of Mr. Obama.

Let's compare.

Mrs. Palin used her veto pen to slash more local projects than any other governor in the state's history. She cut nearly 10% of Alaska's budget this year, saving state residents $268 million. This included vetoing a $30,000 van for Campfire USA and $200,000 for a tennis court irrigation system. She succinctly justified these cuts by saying they were "not a state responsibility."

Meanwhile in Washington, Mr. Obama voted for numerous wasteful earmarks last year, including: $12 million for bicycle paths, $450,000 for the International Peace Museum, $500,000 for a baseball stadium and $392,000 for a visitor's center in Louisiana.

Mrs. Palin cut Alaska's federal earmark requests in half last year, one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor. It took real leadership to buck Alaska's decades-long earmark addiction.

Mr. Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year and has requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005. His running mate, Joe Biden, is still indulging in earmarks, securing over $90 million worth this year.

Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.

When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.

Mrs. Palin has proven courageous by taking on big spenders in her own party. In March of this year, the Anchorage Daily News reported that, "Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is aggravated about what he sees as Gov. Sarah Palin's antagonism toward the earmarks he uses to steer federal money to the state."

Mr. Obama had a chance to take on his party when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered a sham ethics bill, which was widely criticized by watchdog groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste for shielding earmarks from public scrutiny. But instead of standing with taxpayers, Mr. Obama voted for the bill. Today, he claims he helped write the bill that failed to clean up Washington.

Mr. Obama has shown little restraint on earmarks until this year, when he decided to co-sponsor an earmark moratorium authored by Mr. McCain and myself. Mr. Obama is vulnerable on this issue, and he knows it. That is why he is lashing out at Mrs. Palin and trying to hide his own record.

Mrs. Palin is one of the strongest antiearmark governors in America. If more governors around the country would do what she has done, we would be much closer to fixing our nation's fiscal problems than we are.

Mrs. Palin's record here is solid and inspiring. She will help Mr. McCain shut down the congressional favor factory, and she has a record to prove it. Actions mean something. You can't just make stuff up.

Mr. DeMint, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from South Carolina.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm889.cfm

October 20, 2005
The Bridge to Nowhere: A National Embarrassment
by Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.
WebMemo #889
Today, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) will offer an amendment to the Senate’s appropriation bill to transfer the $223 million that Congress had previously approved for a bridge in Ketchikan, Alaska, to fund reconstruction of a hurricane-damaged bridge in Louisiana. Dubbed the “Bridge to Nowhere,” the bridge in Alaska would connect the town of Ketchikan (population 8,900) with its airport on the Island of Gravina (population 50) at a cost to federal taxpayers of $320 million, by way of three separate earmarks in the recent highway bill. At present, a ferry service runs to the island, but some in the town complain about its wait (15 to 30 minutes) and fee ($6 per car). The Gravina Island bridge project is an embarrassment to the people of Alaska and the U.S. Congress. Fiscally responsible Members of Congress should be eager to zero out its funding.



The bridge has become an object of national ridicule and a symbol of the fiscal irresponsibility of many in Congress toward the money entrusted to them by the taxpayers. It has also become an embarrassment to the people of Alaska and to responsible members of Congress who now find themselves tarred by the same brush dipped in the muck of the highway bill.



In response to this national humiliation, many in Alaska have vented their anger in the state’s newspapers, and the papers’ editors have also objected to the bridge on their editorial pages.



In the Anchorage Daily News, Diane Mucha of Eagle River wrote, “Of course, Alaska should and, hopefully, will volunteer to reject the money for the bridges to nowhere and Congress will apply the money for the hurricane relief efforts.”



David Raskin of Homer, Alaska, wrote, “Alaskans owe an apology to the people of New Orleans, to Alaska Native people and to the Nation for their selfish shortsightedness in sending these scoundrels to Washington and voting to keep them there.”



In the Ketchikan News, Dave Person wrote, “Thinking about the immense disaster in the Gulf States, it occurred to me that the most effective thing that the residents of Ketchikan could do to help would be to return the money earmarked for our Gravina Bridge.”



Back in Anchorage, Art Weiner wrote, “In a collective act of passion, the people of Alaska should request that the funds appropriated for our bridges be used for infrastructure reconstruction in the hurricane-affected area.”



Despite the willingness of many in Alaska to give back the bridge to pay for disaster relief, Alaska’s congressional delegation has dug in its heels, and many of the delegation’s colleagues, including all of congressional leadership, support its resistance. If Alaska loses some of its pork, they fear, so might they.



In opposing Senator Coburn’s amendment to defund the bridge, one prominent Senator told a closed-door meeting of conservatives that the plan was simply impractical. Many of the earmarks, he claimed, are counted towards a state’s equity bonus and thus are part of the state-by-state allocation formula. Defunding the bridge, he said, would direct at most $75 million to Louisiana, with the remaining $148 million returning to Alaska as money the state could use at its discretion for road projects.



Never mind that the Senator seems to view $75 million in taxpayers’ dollars as a sum of little consequence; what the Senator sees as a problem in fact would be a considerable benefit to Alaska. Assuming the Senator’s numbers are right, Alaska’s Department of Transportation would gain $148 million in money it could spend on the state’s transportation priorities instead of a useless bridge that would serve a tiny fraction of the state’s citizens.



Perhaps recognizing that the citizens of Alaska, including many in Ketchikan, do not value the Gravina Island bridge project, its defenders have been forced to resort to threats. One House “Leadership staffer suggested that retribution could be levied for the removal of the project in a technical corrections bill or other measure,” BNA reported. This is the sort of challenge that fiscally responsible senators should relish and, through their votes, show the House leadership exactly what they think of this childish threat. Most importantly, pushing back would show the nation that their august institution of democracy still maintains the moral authority to be trusted with hard-earned tax dollars.



Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., is Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Maybe they were crotchless ?

One thing's for sure...they didn't have a chastity belt.

What's more telling than the fact that she was for the bridge before she was against it, was that the big pile of money that was "earmarked" didn't go back to the US taxpayers, where it should have stayed in the first place...especially for such an "anti-pork" governor as Palin.

She kept the money in Alaska, and bought other less nationally embarrasing things with it.

It's still an earmark, it's still taxpayer dollars, and it never went back to the taxpayers.

As for being "anti-pork", Palin has maintained a full staff of paid lobbyists who are in D.C. lobbying for pork for Alaska...look up how many trips she herself made to D.C. to beg for earmarks for Alaska.

She's lying through her teeth when she says she's anti-pork...she didn't become anti-pork until her speech at the Convention...one of the litany of lies she told in that speech.

Fish on...

Todd

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94203271

Gov. Sarah Palin and presidential nominee-in-waiting Sen. John McCain say they're completely in sync on getting rid of congressional earmarks — those spending items that lawmakers stick into bills to benefit their constituents and allies.

As governor of Alaska for the past 19 months, Palin knows that is a gutsy stand. The state's congressional delegation is considered Capitol Hill's gold medal team in the earmark competition.

But when McCain introduced Palin last Friday, she told the crowd that she had signed major ethics reforms and had appointed politicians from both parties to serve in her administration. "I've championed reforms to end the abuse of earmark spending by Congress," she said.

A weekend of research, however, reveals a different picture. As more details emerge about Palin, some seem at odds with the reformer image she now presents; some details even seem to be politically at odds with each other.

Under Gov. Palin, the state's quest for federal earmarks has not slackened.

Also, during her tenure as mayor of Wasilla, the city hired its first Washington lobbyist to get earmarks.

Steve Ellis is vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group that tracks the booming business of congressional earmarks.

"She [Palin] was an avid recipient of earmark dollars as mayor, and now that she's on the ticket with McCain, who is an unabashed opponent of earmarks, she's toeing that line," he says.

Taxpayers for Common Sense combed through the lobbying reports that Wasilla filed when Palin was mayor. It came up with 14 items, totaling slightly less than $27 million.

Wasilla was doing about as well at getting earmarks as Boise, Idaho, but its population is about 10,000 people whereas Boise's is about 200,000.

The cost of hiring a lobbyist for Wasilla was roughly $140,000 over four years. As Ellis points out, that's a stunning return on investment.

It didn't hurt that Wasilla's lobbyist was a former chief of staff to Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens. For much of the time that Palin was mayor, Stevens also chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee — the panel that writes the checks.

Stevens was indicted on corruption charges in July, and Palin has distanced herself from him.

Palin's Possible Ties to Fringe Group

Palin's quest for earmarks from Washington also seems at odds with her ties to the Alaskan Independence Party.

The AIP now claims some 13,700 registered voters, a meaningful number in sparsely populated Alaska. Over the weekend, liberal bloggers dug into the question of whether Palin ever joined the party, which contends that Alaskans ought to get another chance to decide if statehood is such a good deal for them.

The party held its 2008 convention last March. Vice Chairman Dexter Clark reminded members that they had supported Palin for governor.

Today, McCain's staff said Palin has never been a member of AIP, and they call it a "smear."

NPR asked the McCain campaign for comment, but as of Tuesday afternoon, the campaign had not responded. The campaign released state documents, in which Palin declared herself a Republican eight different times since 1990.

But AIP Chair Lynette Clark said that Palin and her husband, Todd, went to the party convention in 1996.

"Our combing of records so far goes back to 1996, and we show Todd Palin as registered with the AIP," Clark says. "But it's my understanding that she was registered and that she changed her registration in 1996."

Clark says they're still looking for documentation.

*******************

Let me guess...none of you RWWJ's mind that she's lying, do you?

Oh, yeah...Obama's a muslim, and it's all Clinton's fault!!

What were we talking about again?

McLame in '08!

Fish on...

Todd

" Steve Ellis is vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group that tracks the booming business of congressional earmarks.

"She [Palin] was an avid recipient of earmark dollars as mayor, and now that she's on the ticket with McCain, who is an unabashed opponent of earmarks, she's toeing that line," he says.

Taxpayers for Common Sense combed through the lobbying reports that Wasilla filed when Palin was mayor. It came up with 14 items, totaling slightly less than $27 million. "

That's just for a town of less than 10,000 people.

Earmark reformer my ass...she's as giddy for pork as they come.

Don't you guys care that your girl is lying to you and the rest of America?

Fish on...

Todd

Anti pork? She has five kids... :>)

Dammit, Sol Duc...I was saving that one for later, though I was going to couch it in terms of her "position" on pork...ah, well, missed opportunities.

One thing's for sure...and this is a fact, and undeniable one at that...























...her parenting skills and her daughter sure as hell aren't anti-pork, either.

Noone here will deny the seriousness of the issues. Noone took Newt serious either about the contract but, they got most of that done in the house. Too bad the senators didnt sign on. Anyone can be wrong, but Im willing to give the GOP ticket a chance to actually do some changes. It wont be easy. But if they dont walk the talk, women will abandon them and you might end up with Ron Paul or worse. If I was a mayor of a small town, contributing taxes to the federal govt against my will, I would lobby for a share of the take. Palin is no different. Im told she campaigned on having a sales tax, where none existed. Oil obviously cant pay for everything. You call her a hypocrit and I call her realistic. Getting rid of the jet is more important than the language, and she didnt lie. She didnt lose 600,000 dollars. The entire cost of the plane was pissed away for a gov who wanted a perk, cause he was too elitist to fly first class. Id be surprised if they have more than two large airports.... I dont care who she sold it to. Its a free market and it was on ebay. It went thru a broker. Its only worth what someone will pay. I dont think CG needs a plane either. They can rent a jet from Donald trump for all I care if she wants to burn that much fuel. She doesnt have to run a military from a jet. She doesnt have to fly to the middle east several times a year. ( I dont know for sure, if she has one ) principle only.
Bottom line, Im betting on something other than business as usual. Other than that, we just dont agree on the basic structures in the platforms. We have lots of people in congress that could be going home this year on both sides. Its about time.

Isn't taxing the oil companies and giving the money back to the populace simply a variant of redistributing the wealth, aka Socialism?

I thought the R's didn't like that sort of thing.

Ron Paul 2008

Sarah 'Barracuda'?

She's strong, she's a barracuda, she's a hockey-mom/pit bull.

She's a poor woman, she shouldn't be talked to like that, she's not going to talk to you until you can be nice.

It's so confusing.

The Obama camp has no idea what to do with Palin....they are dazed and confused. I think the only chance Obama has to win this election is to dump Biden and snatch Hilary.....but we all know she does not want Obama to win this election and would not accept it.

Polls are showing a 20 point swing to Mccain with Woman white voters, this kind of swing in this short of time is unbelievable.

Well, I thought it was chickensh!t when Hillary started shedding tears in her run against Obama......her numbers instantly shot up in the upcoming states. If women want to be treated as equals, they should BE treated as equals.

A man who cried about his treatment, or slipping in the race, would be out of the race in a second. Yet a woman gets treated tough, shed's a tear, and jumps in the polls? WTF?

Vladimir Putin won't give a sh!t that she's a woman.

If she can take the heat, then more power to her. But the McCain camp should let her into the kitchen.

I agree, the Lip stick statement is bogus....Blown way out of proportion. McCain & Palin need to get over it.

What's more important is whether Big O eats pork? I'm betting he nor his family does....

Mf

Let them vote and reap what they sow, then.

No skin off my ass..................I'm a man.

Palin: President or Pawn

1. A poor record: Her only political experience has been a few years as mayor of a small town in Alaska and less than two years as governor of that state. Her record wasn’t so great: the small town she left behind is now in financial ruin.
2. She has no experience with national level politics. At the time of this posting, many of her views on national policy issues were unknown simply because she is so inexperienced that she hasn’t even made public statements about them. Presidential history scholars believe she may be “the most inexperienced person on a major party ticket in modern history.”
3. She has no foreign policy experience. None.
4. Iraq War? Our country is in the midst of a war, and Palin’s son is going to fight in that war. However, Salon.com reports that she hasn’t even given much thought to the Iraq War, and has no clear opinions about it. Great.
5. She is a creationist, and she wants “creation science” to be taught in public schools.
6. She doesn’t believe in man-made global warming. Maybe that’s why she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
7. Not only does she think the government should be telling people who they can and cannot marry, she also thinks that same sex couples should be denied benefits given to straight couples.
8. Palin has been accused of abusing her power as Alaska governor to try to get her ex-brother-in-law fired as a state trooper. An investigation is underway.
9. She has messed up views on wildlife protection. Environmentalists are appalled by her support of a $150-per-wolf bounty program. She’s also supported the use of government money to educate people about how great it is to shoot bears and wolves, and she doesn’t want the polar bear to make it onto the endangered species list.
10. One nation, under stupidity: When defending the phrase “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, Palin said, “If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.” Reality check: The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, long after the founding fathers died. The phrase “one nation under God” was added in 1954….
11. Anti-birth control nutcase- Not only does Palin oppose abortion in all cases, she also opposes the use of birth control in all cases. That includes married couples that want to use condoms or the pill!
12. Politicizing non-political jobs: When she was mayor of small town in Alaska, Palin abused her authority by firing city employees that did not fully support her reelection campaign.
13. She can’t even manage her own family - rumors have given way to an admission from Palin that her teenage daughter is pregnant, and will be having a shotgun marriage to the guy that knocked her up. That’s what abstinence-only education gets you.
14. Ninja editing: Her Wikipedia entry needed to be cleaned up before the public announcement that she was McCain’s VP pick.
15. She has no clue about the role of the Vice President.
16. It is quite clear she was chosen just because of her gender (most Republicans have never even heard of her), and she’s being used as a trick by the McCain campaign to gain some of Hillary Clinton’s supporters.

That is one big ass chess board.

bwp, ask any of the women on this board if they were offended....you won't find one period

Mf

Like I said, I'm voting Ron Paul.

All this sh!t is just a circus sideshow to me.

Lots of clowns.

Ronny can't carry McCain's jock strap, or Palin's purse...So why not make your vote count.......

Mf

Hate to let you in on a secret, MF, but Obama has this state sewn up.

My vote will be no more wasted than yours AND I won't have to embarass myself by having to admit I voted for one of these two goats.

Still have the Bush/Cheney sticker on your rig?

Latest poll has Obama up by 4 points in Wash, that's pretty close for this blue state.

That poll must have been taken East of the mountains because on the West side he is something like 20 points ahead.



























No, I really just made that up

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=7264ba9c-caa0-40cc-a462-b2806a8a809e

Lets take a poll and see who is sick of polls.