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... :>)