Ladies and Gentlemen: Meet the real Sarah Palin
Submitted by James Mitchem on August 31, 2008 - 1:45pm.
On Friday John McCain selected 44 year old Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate. The first term Alaska Governor is a self styled maverick with strong conservative roots. But who is Sarah Palin really? And more importantly what exactly is she for? A new comer to even Alaska state politics let alone the national scence there is not a lot of a record to follow. However in her short time in Juneau, Palin has developed a record that has idealogical ties to big oil. Her husband was a feild operator for BP for 18 years. And despite fiscally conservative rhetoric, Palin has embraced congressional pork and then lied about it.
To begin, Gov. Sarah Palin's record on energy and the environment.
Sarah Palin has denied a link between man made green house gases and global warming: “A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute [global warming] to being man-made.”
Gov. Palin sued the EPA to have polar bears removed from the endangered species list because according to the first term governor the classification “was not based on the best scientific and commercial data available.” A move that was welcomed by big oil interests.
Palin has criticized alternative energy, "alternative energy solutions are far from imminent and would require more than 10 years to develop."
Palin strongly supports offshore drilling and opening the ANWR to drilling and repeatedly complained about congressional interference.
Palin also embraces a radically dangerous notion about oil production potential, to qoute her: “I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can't drill our way out of our problem or that more supply won't ultimately affect prices. Of course it will affect prices.” However the view that we can "drill our way out" is not shared by a much more seasoned veteran of the energy industry. Oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens: "I've been an oil man all my life, but this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of."
Gov. Palin hypocritically opposed an Obama-proposed windfall-profits tax, a position shared by New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Palin said the tax would discourage oil companies from investing in new projects. Yet, as governor, she persuaded the legislature to implement a similar tax that gave Alaska a larger percentage of oil company revenue, and she is using royalties from oil-and-natural gas production to give all state residents a one-time payment of $1,200 to defray their energy costs.
Gov. Palin also fails to note that major oil companies have spent far more of their wind fall profits on share buy back programs than on actual oil exploration in the past several years. The share buy back programs consolidate profits in the hands of a smaller group of share holders, and basically only serves to enrich the likes of former ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond.
On fiscal policy.
Sarah Palin champions fiscal conservative values on the trail, but her record in Juneau is much muddier. Despite her repeated claims on the campaign trail that she said "thanks but no thanks" to congressional pork for the bridge to no where, she actually supported the project.
Here's what she told the Anchorage Daily News on October 22, 2006, during the race for the governor's seat (via Nexis):
Q. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?
Palin: "Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."
After Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006, Palin slightly shifted positions. On September 19, 2007, she decided to redirect funds away from the project altogether with this sorry-sounding statement: "Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," said Governor Palin. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Governor Palin added. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."
Palin's special counsel, John Katz, wrote in March of this year for the Juneau Empire, assuring the Alaskan public that Palin was still very much in favor of earmarks, but sadly needed to scale back her requests somewhat (to "only" 31 earmarks this year—down from 54 last year) in response to "unwanted attention" from Congress and the press.
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/031808/opi_258953362.shtml
I hope Biden makes her talk about issues, Iran, Georgia, peak oil, climate change, our relations with countries in the middle east, renewable energy. I think she needs to be hit on the oil thing, contrast her to Pickens. I think that is our opening.
In any case don't be deceived, Sarah Palin is the same as Bush/Cheney on drilling and won't do anything serious to get the oil monkey off our back.
have been running back-to-back *no-facts* Palin promotionals for the McCain ticket.
I know there are alot of Palin diaries here, but somebody's got to get the facts out on Palin and it looks to be the responsibility of the blogosphere.
So if you don't want to read *this* diary LJM , why don't you write one of your own, on the topic of your choosing? Or you could always just walk right on by...
your own advice? Especially the last few words.
None of the Above; Wes Clark as Secretary of State!.
and I'm sure he will. In the meantime, piling on Palin at CCN resembles piling on Hillary. It's the sort of thing that could help a disaffected Hillary voter vote for McCain.
except let Palin speak for herself.
Just curious; if this diary was about a male VP for the Republicans would you still be having issues with it? Would we be allowed to "pile on" a male candidate?
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
It has nothing to do with gender.
Palin is a bad choice, period. It's a big reason NOT to vote for McCain and the Republican Party.
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
don't get me wrong I like Gov. Kaine, he's done a good job as Virginia's governor, but do I feel he is not ready to step in and become CINC. I don't have any idea where he stands on so many foreign policy issues. I don't know much about Pawlenty, but like Palin he is largely an unknown.
Honestly I wasn't too thrilled with Biden due to the Iraq partition plan he supported. I really thought Wes was hands down the best choice, I still do. He may yet have a role in a Obama cabinet.
But none the less, I saw Biden as a mature choice, Biden was a critic of Obama during the primaries and he has decades of FP experience. That in my mind showed me Obama wasn't arrogant, selecting Kaine who is a long time strong Obama supporter who is wet behind the ears on foreign policy would have been a very bad move.
if my diary offends you, that was certainly not the intent.
However I think given the fact that there were no qualms shown about going after Sen. Obama's record in the primaries it's somewhat unfair to take exception with bringing up facts about Gov. Palin's record.
That is after all the whole mission of CCN, to allow Clark supporters to network, share ideas and information and organize in support of candidates Gen. Clark has endorsed.
A big part of that support is opposition research, I kept it fact based. I didn't go out on a limb and take the liberty to attack her for having at one point been a beauty queen which some have taken the liberty of doing.
It is is entirely irrelevant and wholly unimportant to her qualifications to be potentially CINC so I didn't go there and I only bring it up now as an example of an unfair attack. I didn't even get into her trooper gate issues because I do beleive in the principle of innocence until proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty. I merely pointed out facts, proveable undeniable facts about her record and her idealogical ties to the oil industry, that is it.
Care to explain why exactly that is not fair game in your opinion and what about that you find to be offensive? Because I am quite honestly puzzled by your reaction, I read much, much harsher critisms about Obama with much less evidence, some of them based entirely on speculation, conjecture and opinion.
I don't want to have to cite any examples because I don't want to beat a dead horse, but really I think going factually after Palin's record is not only fair, it is part of the mission of WesPAC and more specifically of CCN.
Since when was basically a factual diary considered trashing? Besides, it seems to me we that OUGHT to be trashing the Republican ticket. WesPAC's mission, after all, is to elect Democrats.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
personally...
isn't the big picture/big problem here
ok, big question---that she just isn't qualified
if there is a national security/foreign policy
emergency, in view of mccains's age?
respectfully I think that is the central issue
along with mccain's poor judgment
and shoot fron the hip decision-making in making
that pick
when Wes blogs again, would like to get his veiws on the Veep pick
thanks for listening
bill
Bill (from RI)
of my moderate Republican friends. They seem to be doing a pretty good job of figuring that out for themselves.
hannity says Obama wanys to reduce military by
10%
he is a _________________
where does he get this crap
Bill (from RI)
who have been less than enthusiastic about Obama and have made subtle noises that they might vote for McCain.
I may be wrong but I think that it is important to remind folks that McCain has selected a person to be Vice President who has adopted the Bush/Cheney policy on oil. Given McCain's age and health there is a real possibility that Gov. Palin may become president.
It is important I think to remind people that McCain is 4 more years of in so many ways, and perhaps worse on some issues. I am all for promoting Obama, and I fully intend to very soon.
However, I think it is important to remind people who might have mixed feelings after the Democratic primary that McCain is no maverick and his vice presidential selection is an unknown quanity on many issues, and has some very dangerously misguided ideas on many vital issues.
have this crew really worried. How else can you explain the obsession with a candidate for VP? IF truth be told the criticism you espouse for her can also be applied to the great 1. I've never seen such bitter, antagonistic, cruel, demeaning, and hate-filled posts in my life (well maybe at Kos) - and all over a candidate for a relatively meaningless job. Or is it all just because she's a (gasp) woman? Welcome to the new version of Daily Kos. Time for Wes to close up this shop.
None of the Above; Wes Clark as Secretary of State!.
John McCain is 72 years old, he has had two bouts with cancer. There is a very real possibility that she could become President, her positions are entirely relavent. And the fact that McCain selected her is an indication that he doesn't take the energy crisis seriously. It also made a mockery of his stance on Congressional pork.
Secondly, at what point was my post filled with hate? I qouted Gov. Palin accurately, those are her words. I provided the links to the evidence. I didn't make any of that up, that IS part of her record. And I resent the implication my critism has anything to do with sexism. Or that it has to do with hate, bitterness, antagonism, cruelty or demeaning Gov. Palin.
These are facts, or as Al Gore would put it, what I have written is "An Inconvenient Truth" about Gov. Palin's record. It has nothing to do with her being a woman, the people who are her friends, her cultural or religious beliefs. It is however about the stands she has taken on issues.
Furthermore, with all due respect to you, I would submit to you that mocking Obama by calling him "the great 1" is a good deal more "bitter, antagonistic and demeaning" than me stating the facts about Gov. Palin's record.
As for being worried, yes I am, because the selection of Gov. Palin shows that first and foremost that Sen. McCain will do anything to get elected even if it is bad for the country. Secondly, if God forbid McCain is elected and he dies in office we could potentially have a president for another 4 to 8 years who thinks we can't "drill our way out of the problem" and that global warming is not caused by man made greenhouse gas emissions.
Palin has me worried? With a record like that you are d*mn right I am worried, and I think her record is something people need to know about her because I think if people know the truth, the whole truth, I won't be the only one who is worried.
What exactly do you want me to do, pretend her record doesn't exist? Write only positive stuff about Obama, something that has led in the past to accusations of "Obama worship"? Do you want me to spend my time undermining our Party nominee, who Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Wes have all publically endorsed whole heartedly? Or would you perfer that I simply do not particpate in our national electoral process?
What is it going to be?
Nonsense. You can apply all the arguments you have made to the dem ticket, as well. Substitute "Obama" for "Palin," and you will have something more akin to the truth. I don't like her ideology, probably less than you do, but that doesn't mean that the character assasins I've read on this blog and other places have any right to do so. Whatever she, is, she deserves some modicum of respect; her constituents approve her by more than 80%; she's not afraid to combat the big boys in oil and her own government, and I assume she seems to be basically an honest person. Which is more than I can say for Obama. We're seeing the treatment of Sarah Palin following exactly how the dems treated one of their own and I didn't much care for that, either.
This United States of Misogyny has got to come to an end. Sooner rather than later. And what tickles my funny bone, is that the repubs are beating the dems at what was supposedly the fealty of the female vote they thought they owned.
The DNC, et al, have no one to blame but themselves when they go down in flames this fall. But of course, it will be "Hillary's fault."
None of the Above; Wes Clark as Secretary of State!.
Undeniable facts. You accused me by inference of sexism, my blog entry was not in any way sexist. I have slammed McCain too. It has nothing to do with sexism.
Is Sarah Palin a basically good and decent human being? Sure, I admire the fact that she carried a child with down syndrome to term. That is not an easy choice. Has she earned the respect of the people of Alaska? Sure.
But that is not the question Americans are going to be voting on this November. The question is who has the right vision for our country and who will take us in the right direction. That is the issue at hand. I did not attack her as a person, I attacked her record.
Furthermore, to be honest being Governor of Alaska which benefits from high oil prices every bit as much as the Saudi's do is much different from being potentially President of the United States. Alaska's interests on issues like energy independence are very different from what is in the best interest of the country as a whole.
One mind boggling thing about it is that she slammed Obama for the windfall profits tax when she has a very similar tax in Alaska and is using some of that money to write a check to Alaskans of $1,200 each to defray their energy costs. The windfall profits tax is apparently good enough for Alaska but not good enough for America. I think it is unbeleivably hypocritical and you better beleive I am going to call Gov. Palin on it.
People deserve to know the truth. And that is what is in this diary, the truth, inconvinent though it may be.
As for "substituting Obama for Palin" I have this to say.
Barack Obama does not beleive and has not said "we can drill our way out" of our energy crisis, Gov. Palin has.
Barack Obama has not sued the EPA to declassify polar bears as an endangered species, denying overwhelming evidence that shrinking polar ice caps have led to a loss of habitat that is causing hunger and even starvation among polar bears, Gov. Palin has.
Barack Obama has not denied that our current global warming trend is the result of man made greenhouse gases. Gov. Palin has.
Barack Obama did not claim to say "thanks but no thanks" to Congress on Congressional pork for the bridge to nowhere, when in fact he supported the measure with a strong sense of urgency because of an impending change of party in Washington DC. Gov. Palin was the one who lied about that.
May have some of the other diary's and comments gone too far, sure. But there's no call for you to accuse me of hate, bitterness etc and imply that my criticism of Gov. Palin had anything at all to do with sexism.
On a final note, I can't speak for the DNC, but speaking for myself I won't blame Hillary or Bill for that matter if Obama loses. The Clintons both gave Barack a ringing endorsement and are working their hearts out to get a Democrat back in the White House. As Barack has said, and I am paraphrasing here, the Clintons have done all that could be asked and more. So no I won't blame them.
Who I will blame however is the people who are more bent on vengence rather than on fixing the country and are willing to let the Republicans destroy the country for another 4 to 8 years with their regressive policies just to prove a point. All of this despite what Bill, Hillary and Wes have said about the implication of continued Republican rule. We owe our country, ourselves and most importantly our children better than the future John McCain and Sarah Palin have to offer.
If you tear down our nominee, a nominee who all of the Clintons and Wes have endorsed, well then with all due respect you may be a perfectly decent person but you and those that join you in doing so do deserve to be blamed if we do lose. Were the primaries screwed up, you bet they are. Does the process need to be changed, caucuses removed, power of the superdelegates lessened, popular vote considered as the deciding metric. I whole heartedly agree with all of that.
However, can we really afford to wait four more years to get out of Iraq, rebuild our military, engage Iran in serious diplomacy, address climate change, a global oil capacity shortfall, face up to the rise of China in the global economy and a resurgent aggressive Russia, not to mention an unfinished fight with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qeada and the dangers assosciated with an unstable nuclear armed Pakistan?
I say no, we simply cannot afford to wait and President Clinton, Sen. Clinton and Gen. Clark have all made clear that John McCain will take us in fundamentally the wrong direction on all of these issues and more and that Barack Obama will make progress on the issues critical to America's security and prosperity.
John McCain and Sarah Palin will be more of the same at a critical turning point in history where cannot afford to wait or delay the changes that have been 8 years overdue.
We cannot turn back. Not now, we don't have the luxury of delay.
I don't disrespect Palin. I disrespect McCain for choosing this neophyte.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
"all over a candidate for a relatively meaningless job."
Well please do kindly remind Dick Cheney that his job is "relatively meaningless" and that he really shouldn't be outing CIA operatives and holding secretive energy task force meetings etc.
I say this with all due respect, don't underestimate the power of the Vice Presidency, Cheney has not only set a dangerous precedent, he has expanded the power and influence of the office of the Vice President in ways the founders never dreamed of, in ways that even we never dreamed of for that matter eight years ago.
If McCain is elected, Gov. Palin will inheirit the apparatus and government machinery that Dick Cheney leaves behind. She will inheirit David Addington and folks like him, and all of the connections deep within various agencies that reported to Dick Cheney and his staff, the people who did Cheney's dirty work for him.
I have little doubt she will not just give up all of that power and give it back to Congress and the people to become a merely ceremonial VP without a fight. A fight that I think McCain doesn't even care about having as reducing the power of the VP will weaken the power of the presidency as well.
rancor?
reasonable minds can disagree, isn't that
what we are all about?
and aren't we more interested in policy,
than personality?
as Wes has said, this is all much bigger
than one person----good enuff for me
Bill (from RI)
You put up a Palin diary and so far no one has told you you were preaching to the choir or that you were wasting your time
and nobody SO FAR, at least, has made a really nasty comment like the following one to you, and if they had, and if we had noticed, one of us would have probably objected.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16431#comment-325447
James's diary is fact based and certainly not as described in the ugly post. No personal or sexist attacks in this diary as was charged.
So I'm not at all sure why you're addressing your concern to Ohio rather than to the nasty-post-poster...or the poster of nastiness...or whatever.
no rancor intended with my post.
If you were to track some of Donjo's posts regarding Obama posted here you would find that his, "I've never seen such bitter, antagonistic, cruel, demeaning, and hate-filled posts in my life... statement is truly one of the most hillarious I've seen here in a long time.
Regardless of whether those in the lower 48 support or oppose drilling/development of ANWR, one thing to note is this:
A large majority of Alaskans support drilling in ANWR, including every governor, senator, representative, and legislature for the past 25 years. The last poll I saw was that the support level there is something like 80%.
I heard the current Dem running for the Senate on Ed Schultz and he supports drilling in the ANWR. Ed sounded surprised, or maybe he just felt he needed to, to please his audience.
I also remember when WKC campaigned with the Dem running for the Senate in 2004 (Tony somebody, I think) and he was for drilling in the ANWR too.
I'm guessing you can't get elected to dogcatcher in Alaska unless you're for drilling in the ANWR. Which is not to say that Palin doesn't sincerely feel that way. She doesn't care to take much interest in environmental concerns. I wonder if she's on of the second-coming types, who figure we don't have to worry about it because the rapture is around the corner?
But what's good for Alaska may not be good for the country as a whole.
Alaska's economy is heavily dependent on oil so I can see how it is popular up there. Really it is an unavoidable fact of Alaskan politics, but I think the most troubling fact about Gov. Palin isn't ANWR, it's the idealogy that comes with it, this patently absurd notion that "we can drill our way out" of our energy crisis.
It is quite frankly deeply frightening, the IEA is forcasting a 12.5 million barrel production shortfall by 2015, there simply is not that much oil out there, ANWR and coastal drilling or not.
We may have to drill to avoid economic collapse, 8 years of Bush's do nothing policy on renewables have made it all but unavoidable. But this crazy idea that there is enough oil out there that drilling is as Barack said "anything more than a stop gap measure not a long-term solution" is very, very dangerous.
If we allow ourselves to not take conservation and developments on renewable energy seriously, on the scale of the Manhattan Project or the Appolo Program our nation is setting itself up to fall, quite literally. Massive inflation, gas lines of 70s proportions, actual shortages of gas and heating fuel.
If McCain and Palin get their way we will not be a superpower by 2025 as a consequence of economic break down, or we will be forced to seize middle eastern oil reserves by force to sustain our insaitable thirst for oil.
This election is our last best chance to save our country from a very dark future. It won't be easy, but God help us if we blow it and McCain/Palin carry their policies to fruition.
GOVERNOR: Palin is only candidate to suggest it should be discussed in schools.
By TOM KIZZIA
Anchorage Daily News
Published: October 27, 2006
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html
is a current discussion of the announcement that Palin's 17 year old daughter is 5 months pregnant with plans to marry the father........
It will be interesting to see how they handle this. I think they're doing a good job so far because the baby isn't due until after the election and by the time the kids decide not to get married (or do marry and divorce) no one will care.
Haven't read all the details on this Palin situation yet, but I know a number of people in Texas (in particular some GOP lawmakers) who were all for Child Protective Services kidnapping over 400 kids from their parents because a few of the kids were pregnant before they were adults and blamed the 'culture' of the FLDS for this.
Now we have Palin's daughter age 17 being 5 months pregnant...with conception possibly occuring at age 16(???). So if this is the case, this would be prior to the age of consent in Texas (thanks to GOP lawmakers who changed the law in Texas in 2005 to specifically target the FLDS community here).
I'll be asking some of these anti-FLDS people here if they also support CPS and Texas troopers detaining Sarah Palin on any visit here in order to investigate whether she is a child abuser for being part of a culture that leads to underage pregnancy/marriage and whether her other childen should be placed in foster care until an investigation is completed.
I don't understand what this post has to do with Palin's family situation, nor do I understand why her daughter's pregnancy has anything to do with her selection as McCain's running mate. Furthermore, why do Texas's laws matter for an Alaska resident, and how does the FLDS relate to Palin?
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
In the world of Family Value Republicans, this could have gotten really touchy if the daughter took another path. It could have demoralized the evangelical base rather than energize them.
I remember Alan Keyes going off on his gay rights activist daughter, saying she was a Hedonist and she was going to hell for her lifestyle. (I actually think his harsh word drove her from just being gay to taking a higher profile as an activist.) Those kinds of family squabbles about "moral" issues don't play well in national politics, particularly when you're riding the Family Values High Horse.
In this case, Palin's daughter is falling in line as required.
"falling in line."
Truth be told we have nothing but a rumor on the nets.
Did you hear the one before this one? Supposedly her 17 year old daughter is the mother of the last child in the family.
There's no reason to speculate about any of this crap. It's irrelevant to the matter at hand...which is...she's a rightwinger of the highest order and she's been put on the republican ballot as potential VP. Not her daughter, not her husband, not her dog...her.
The highly repected Editor and Publisher has information released by the McCain campaign verifying the story.
Yes, I heard the other rumors and thought they were baseless immediately. Her fetus was, uh, diagnosed with Down syndrome before delivery. Hello! It's hard to fake that sort of thing.
I agree it's irrelevant to most people. To most normal people it's an irrelevant distraction.
But I submit to you that right wing evangelicals care about this stuff. A lot. And the main reason McCain picked Palin was to appeal to this group.
on a political level. Here's why, McCain has a statement up at his website accusing Obama's camp of circulating the ugly rumor about Trig being Palin's grandson, to which Obama was forced to respond.
Obama on Palin
Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown reports: At a press avail in Monroe, Mich., Barack Obama on Palin: "Back off these kinds of stories."
"I have said before and I will repeat again: People's families are off limits," Obama said. "And people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. So I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18 and how a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn’t be a topic of our politics."
On charges that his campaign has stoked the story via liberal blogs:
"I am offended by that statement. There is no evidence at all that any of this involved us," he said. "Our people were not involved in any way in this, and they will not be. And if I thought there was somebody in my campaign who was involved in something like that, they would be fired."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_on_Palin.html?showall
In so far as correcting the record, this can't be allowed a pass. The Republicans love to club Obama over the head with stuff like this. Though I certainly agree we shouldn't be fanning the fires as it were.
The social conservatives will be far more impressed that her daughter chose not to have an abortion that the fact that she got pregnant in the first place. I suspect many of them are either in the same situation as Sarah (children with children) or have friends and family who are.
Maybe once upon a time, right wingers pretended that "nice" girls didn't get knocked up. I think more of them know better now, given that it happens so often. Taking responsibility and "doing the right thing" (the way they see it) will count more.
And I tend to agree. We have no way of knowing and no evidence to assume that she is "falling in line". It is wholly unimportant, and it wouldn't surprise me if Republican operatives are starting some of the rumors or playing them up in an attempt to get Democrats to bite on an issue that will be a loser in the election.
It doesn't help the "new kind of politics" Barack is about to make an issue out of this, even on a left wing blog that isn't that widely read. So I'd very kindly ask you to follow Barack's suggestion and just let it go. Other than of course correcting the record on Obama supporting these kinds of attacks, because we can't let them distort his record.
Issues, for God's sake please, please keep it on the issues. It is the only shot we've got at winning this election and saving our beloved country from a very ugly demise.
There are far more important things that people need to know about Sarah Palin. Whether or not her daughter is pregnant or not is wholly unimportant at least to me. Barack has said it's something that really we shouldn't go there and I tend to agree, leave the kids out of it.
To be honest I think even the trooper gate thing is getting too much play, at least compared to other really important issues.
Honestly I think media hype over it will play into McCain's hand. What we need is to have some good reporting on her record on the issues. It has got to be about the issues, it has to.
I am very worried that she will get a pass on her record in Alaska and that all media criticism will be limited to stuff like this. Honestly it isn't important at all compared to her stance on drilling and renewables which is in my opinion very, very scary.
I know that oil idealogy isn't as glitzy as a good old fashioned poliitical sex scandal, but in the end it is what matters, and it is our only path to victory in November. And God help us all if we lose.
From General Clark.
=================================
The Real State of the Union
January 30, 2006
-- I come before you with concern.... not in a spirit of partisanship, but because our nation is in trouble, veering from its heritage, and sliding into a dangerous future.
It doesn't have to happen this way, but we can change course only if we speak honestly and directly about what's gone wrong, and why, and how we must change, and then reach across Party lines to bring the American people together.
Today, billions of people abroad believe that America's beacon is fading, our star is dimming, and that America's time is passing.
[...]
What's gone wrong? In the last five years we have seen leadership without vision or foresight, a backwards look to tough talk and excessive unfair tax cuts...
And at the same time we've seen such partisanship that many believe that this Administration lacks the basic decency to respect its political opponents, and the fundamental integrity to adhere to common standards of transparency, honesty, and ethics in government.
Enough is enough!
...
Here's what we must do.
First, we've got to set things right at home. Protecting our Constitution comes first. Country before Party. Congress must fulfill its duties to the American people, not roll over for favors from the Executive branch.
[...]
At home, will we persist in shortsighted partisanship, or will we follow a stronger vision to the deep reforms needed to secure our future? Will it be selfishness or teamwork that is our rallying cry?
These are the choices before us.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this great American adventure as we seek our destiny.
America's Beacon of Hope must shine brightly once more, lighting our beloved country and illuminating the whole world.
And if we choose wisely, it will.
I saw the General in San Francisco a week or so after that speech, which had blown me away. I complimented him on the speech and asked if anyone had helped him write it. No, he said, he wrote it himself on his Blackberry.
A 45-minute speech written with his thumbs? Unbelievable.
He added that he finished the night before and didn't have a chance to rehearse it, especially with a teleprompter.
An amazing performance under the circumstances.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
I was told that was largely written on his blackberry as well!
The man has no problem putting his ideas into words and then disseminating them. :)
I don't know when this interview took place but it must have been sometime in June or earlier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ys4HGbiONY&feature=related
She notes that the area where drilling would occur takes place on 2,000 acres - an area roughly the size of the LA airport, and that the people of Alaska support drilling.
She also says at the end of the video that in her opinion it is long overdue for the Republican Party to put a woman on the ticket.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Is false. That only counts the drilling pads. Not the roads, the infrastructure, or the damage caused by all of the trucks, etc.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden 08
By Matthew Mosk
ST. PAUL -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin began building clout in her state's political circles in part by serving as a director of an independent political group organized by the now embattled Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens.
Palin's name is listed on 2003 incorporation papers of the "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.," a 527 group that could raise unlimited funds from corporate donors. The group was designed to serve as a political boot camp for Republican women in the state. She served as one of three directors until June 2005, when her name was replaced on state filings.
Palin's relationship with Alaska's senior senator may be one of the more complicated aspects of her new position as Sen. John McCain's running mate; Stevens was indicted in July 2008 on seven counts of corruption. [...]
more: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/01/palin_was_a_director_of_embatt.html
Rezko was just CONVICTED of fraud, etc. etc. on how many counts? That old saying fits pretty well here; don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.
None of the Above; Wes Clark for Secretary of State!.
That during the Rezko trial things would come out about Obama that would prove him to be involved in criminal wrong doing.
Rezko was found guilty, and nothing of the kind ever came out about Obama. So Donjo do you really beleive in guilt by association? Or are you implying the trial was a sham, Rezko was the fall guy and took all the heat for Obama and that they *including Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald* just let Obama off the hook for criminal wrong doing?
ain't over yet. If o isn't elected and can't give Rezko a pardon, do ya think Rezko will start screaming from his prison cell? Read Evelyn Pringle's huge expose of this whole mess and how O is connected to the Chicago gang. Long and detailed and boring, but explains how the whole scheme was set up.
And, oh, the above post make a guilt by association link; as you probably know, but ignored, I was trying to do the same.
None of the Above; Wes Clark for Secretary of State!
Don't you think that Rezko would have sqealed to Fitzgerald for a reduced sentance? Sorry but I hardly see Rezko as the type to take a 50/50 chance on the election even if what you say is true, which is doubtable at best. I think you were one the few who kept saying something would come out about Obama before the convention that would make it impossible for the party to nominate Barack.
But you are more than welcome to keep hoping and praying for scandal if that is your cup of tea. But I wouldn't bet your kids future on it. I think this notion has long since been discredited, what there is to know about Barack and Rezko is out there, if there was anything more out there it would have come out by now. At this point it is just folks who have a grudge to settle with Obama. Kind of like you.
BTW, I didn't go there, innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is an important although much ignored function of our justice system. I'll wait for prosecutors to actually file charge before I bring it up, as is I don't put too much stock in trooper gate despite the fact that she herself is charged in that investigation.
Playing politics with legal scandals is risky business with a low reward. Most people won't buy it, and often times ends up being wrong and there is no guarantee of a conviction in which case the person who played with fire ends up as the one getting burned. So I try not to go there.
But never jam today. Towards the end of the primaries it was ""the truth about Rezko is going to come out any day now" and "there's a videotape of Michelle Obama talking about 'whitey' coming out Any Day Now"
The lead up to the convention saw people claiming fake birth certificates and wrong citizenship, and the truth was "going to come out anyday now".
We're still not seeing anything that has been claimed will come out "any day now" No Rezko, no "whitey" tape, no proof of non-US citizenship, no proof of faked birth certificates, no nothing.
But to those who want to believe such things exist, like the loch ness monster, no amount of proof will ever convince them otherwise.
I really didn't want to beat on a dead horse and stir up old arguments
However, since Donjo couldn't help himself from resurrecting the ghost of Tony Rezko from the grave, I guess it's fair to go there. I had kind of forgotton about the "whitey" tape accusations, non citizenship, fake birth certificate etc. Some things you just don't want to remember, I was hoping that people would get past it. Some did, some didn't, Donjo appears to be one of the few who didn't.
Though I do like the reference to the Loch Ness monster believers, it is truly fitting in this case.
One would think after being repeatedly and consistantly wrong these people would put their logic caps back on. But I suppose for some people "the truth is out there" as the old X Files qoute goes...
where there's smoke there's fire. The problem lies with the media that refused to do their job and at least make some semblance of "vetting" this guy. You can believe he's as pure as the driven snow. Most of us know better. His lying about most everything, should alert you to his lack of honesty. His connection with Ayers, for example. "Oh, he's just a guy I know in the neighborhood." Ayers lives in the north Chicago area; O in the south. They served on several boards together; Ayers helped get his fund raising started; he announed his first candidacy at Ayers' house. Doesn't the pattern of lying and deception bother you even a little bit? It's way too much, even for a politician. I've had enough of it coming from the sorry-ass crew in the WH. Why should the public believe ANYTHING he says?
None of the Above; Wes Clark, Secretary of State!.
"Where there's smoke there's fire" Give me a break. There was plenty of "smoke" about Sen. Clinton and Pres. Clinton, and how much of that turned out to be true? I suppose by the same token since there are accusations that Obama is a closet radical muslim that must be true too? Or the accusations that Obama isn't African American but is in fact Arab American, that must be true to eh? After all "where there is smoke, there's fire". I call BS on that statement.
As for Obama being pure is driven snow? No he isn't, but neither am I, and he isn't running for sainthood, he's running for President of the United States. The question is not "is he perfect", the question will he take the country in the right direction. Or will he continue the regressive policies that have destroyed our country for the past 8 years?
If you beleive in a policy of drilling like mad as a long term solution but doing all but nothing for renewable energy, McCain/Palin is your ticket. If however you beleive our country is on a collision course with disaster, that "drilling is only a stop gap measure, not a long term solution," and that we must invest in development of renewables on a scale comparable to the Manhattan Project or the Appollo Program then Obama/Biden is your ticket out of this mess.
As for the media not vetting Obama, he's come under a lot more criticism post Rev. Wright. There are ads currently running in VA on the Ayers question, people know who Tony Rezko is. It's all out there, and despite your apparent desire for some debilitating scandal to come along and knock Obama out of the running, no such thing has happened, despite McCain's best efforts.
And as for lying and deception, there are those who felt the same way about Sen. Clinton. But it is entirely beside the point, had she been the nominee I would have supported her, because the stakes in this election are too damn high. I won't sacrafice my childrens future out of some sense of moral purity and self rightousness.
As to why the public should take him at his word on anything, he did choose a critic in selecting Joe Biden, not a yes man. Second Bill, Hillary and Wes along with all the other great leaders in our party endorsed him. That has to count for something.
And I absolutely reject this notion that they were "doing what they had to", no one put a gun to their heads. Wes Clark took bullets for this country. He has always put country before party, and if he thought Obama would be a terrible CINC he would tell us that up front. So don't give me that "party loyalty" crap. Maybe, just maybe he thinks McCain/Palin would be a disaster for our country at a time when we cannot afford to delay the change that has been delayed for 8 long years.
But if you want to roll the dice and take a 10% chance on change, go ahead, it is your right. But I wouldn't bet my kids future on it if I were you, I know I'm not.
support whomever you wish, but you're arguments are weak and of the "well they did it, so it's all right for us to do it" type. Sorry, doesn't wash. You're either honest or not. Sort of like being pregnant. Obama isn't either honest or pregnant. And now there's videos out of a drunken Biden; rationalize that one for a while.
None of the Above; Wes Clark Secretary of State!.
you continually dodge my questions about the issues. Instead you perfer to sit on the fringes and harp about crap like videos of a drunken Biden. Which is just about as important and relavant as Sarah Palin's daughter getting pregnant under age, or Bill Clinton smoking weed in the distant past.
Personally I think you dodge debate on the issues because if it came down to that you know you would lose that debate, badly. Because on almost every single major issue of our time Barack Obama is right and John McCain is fundamentally wrong.
But I really don't think with you it is even about the election anymore, your unwillingness to debate the issues is very telling in that department. I think you've just got an axe to grind with Obama.
It is a shame that we have to have a big election about little things, such pety insignificant little things.
I'm too lazy to spend hours typing responses to your asinine comments. You're just as bad as I am, except that you support a fraud and a charlatan. That's your choice; it's not mine. BTW, he's not that far off MANY of McCain's policies. Republican-lite. Check it out.
None of the Above; therefore we need, Wes Clark as Secretary of State!.
what for pointing out facts about Gov Palin, or calling you out for clinging to the absurd notion that "something" is going to come out about Obama, despite all the evidence?
As for being as bad as you, I at least made the effort to reply with facts. You are in your own words too lazy to even bother. You perfer to repeat the same old tired rhetoric of the primaries long after most everyone else has moved on. Repeating unspecific lies lies like "He's not that far off many of McCain's policies" doesn't make it true. You can't name examples of Barack being repub lite, which a I recall is what LIEberman said about Wes, oh the irony...
But really I've had it with you anyway, if you can't have an honest debate and all you can do is attack and slander, then it's not worth my time. Your actions and words have done plenty to discredit you as little more than an angry anti Obama partisan with an axe to grind.
Therefore I have nothing left to say to you unless you can bother to make the effort to have a debate based on merit, issues and specifics instead of the usual course you have to offer, unspecified slander.
And it wouldn't hurt not to falsely insinuate that I had sexist motivations for going after Gov. Palin's record. Still waiting for an apology on that one...
Asinine... try looking in the mirror buddy
What I've noticed lately is that when anyone posts a serious or semi-serious comment regarding O's faults the first posts are generally negative - or try to make sh*t of the poster or the original author. Your own posts are bascially taken straight from the O play book and most of them have been debunked time and time again. If you're gonna debate, then accept that most of what you do is your OPINION and that doesn't make it a fact. What you consider fact, others may consider b.s. At some point, you will realize that what you're doing in pointless.
I've seen charts that compare both McCain and O's policies and they're really quite similar. Of course there are big differences, slight differences, and no differences. You might want to look them up as I'm too lazy and don't remember where I saw them anyway. But what do I know.
None of the Above; Wes Clark, Secretary of State!
Tony Rezko, fundraiser for Obama, may be being pressured by federal investigators to tell on Illinois politicians.
Rezko has been jailed since June while awaiting sentencing in October, on 16 counts mail and wire fraud, aiding and abetting bribery and money laundering convictions. He faces two more trials.
(The Vegas trial should be of interest, given the role and the suicide of Orlando Jones - John Stroger's godson, just prior to his testimony in the Rezko trial and 2 days after his FBI interviews for said trial. Not to mention the "Jaws" Giorango and Alex Giannoulias connections. Quite the crime caper.)
=================== CHI SUN TIMES =======================
Is Rezko working with the feds?
He's been back at courthouse numerous timesAugust 28, 2008
As his sentencing nears, pressure is mounting on Tony Rezko to cooperate with federal investigations into some of the highest-profile politicians in the state.
Now, sources tell the Chicago Sun-Times that Rezko has been seen at the federal courthouse as many as a dozen times since his June conviction. He's been held since then at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in downtown Chicago.
Rezko hasn't had to be back in court since a jury convicted him of corruption charges involving state deals. And his scheduled Sept. 3 sentencing was recently pushed back to Oct. 28. (predicting now that this date will be pushed forward about... a week or so.)
One source says Rezko was spotted twice inside the U.S. attorney's office since his conviction. (...that would be Fitz!)
Fitz has had his sights set on the governor and the Daly clan. I suspect Rezko has known Axelrod for years, too. Rezko probably knows they have cement shoes in his size waiting for him if he talks. Do they have a witness protection prison program somewhere?
YOU BELIEVED that our Dem presidential candidate had not been fully vetted, so you took it upon yourself to "vet" him during the primary, and even now in the GE, using the scummiest sources available.
And yet YOU OBJECT to Wes's supporters using reliable sources for the purpose of vetting a Republican candidate who clearly has NOT been vetted at all by the McCain campaign...or our by illustrious msm?
I get it. I think we all get it.
http://www.juneauempire.com/anwr/oilandgas.shtml
Oil and gas: Alaska's industry
Alaskans are watching the ANWR debate closely because it's tied to their bank accounts
By BILL McALLISTER
The Juneau Empire
In the field: Oil production pipes cross the tundra at the Alpine facility operated by Phillips Alaska on the western side of Alaska's Prudhoe Bay. PHOTO By MICHAEL PENN To understand why so many of Alaska's 626,932 residents support opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy exploration, Americans in the Lower 48 should look to the industry's economic impact in the 49th state.
"I'm not aware of any state, that its revenue is dominated so much by one industry," said Larry Persily, deputy commissioner of revenue.
The oil and gas industry "is critically important to Alaska," said Dave Dittman, an Anchorage pollster. "It's Alaska's industry."
In 2000, oil and gas activity supported 33,573 jobs, or 12 percent of private sector employment in Alaska, and $1.4 billion of payroll, or 20 percent of non-government wages, according to an industry-sponsored study conducted by two research firms.
Even that understates the impact of petroleum in the 49th state.
In the state fiscal year that ended June 30, the oil industry's contribution to the state general fund in corporate income taxes, severance taxes, property taxes and royalties was $1.95 billion, according to Persily. The state general fund for the year was $2.37 billion, making oil's contribution 82.3 percent. To date, the industry has pumped $48.37 billion into the general fund, not including lawsuit settlements of about $5.5 billion going into a separate reserve fund that has been used to balance the budget.
In the same fiscal year, an additional $310 million from oil production went into the Alaska Permanent Fund, which pays annual dividends to residents who have lived in the state for more than one calendar year, regardless of age.
Last year's payout was a record $1,963.86 per person. In 24 years, oil has contributed about $9.7 billion to the permanent fund. Although the fund was established in the 1970s to ensure stability in state government operations once oil production declined, the dividend is now considered an entitlement by most Alaskans.
Oil field facilities: The airport, hotels and maintenance buildings for oil production facilities at Deadhorse sit next to Lake Colleen on the flat tundra of Prudhoe Bay. PHOTO By MICHAEL PENN Residents see a direct relationship between oil and their personal bank accounts. A vague plan offered by the Legislature in 1999 to use a portion of the fund's investment earnings to plug a budget gap was rejected by more than 83 percent of voters in an advisory referendum despite vigorous support by the state's political and business leadership.
With Alaskans invested in oil, residents are better informed than Americans generally about the industry's environmental record, said pollster Dittman. That's why they overwhelmingly support exploration in ANWR while a majority of Americans, "scared" by environmental groups in fund-raising appeals that contain "outright lies," have expressed reservations, he said.
Environmental groups have put out poll results that show Alaskans divided. The Alaska Conservation Alliance commissioned annual polls from 1998 to 2000 showing a nearly even split when residents were asked if ANWR should be "protected from oil drilling."
But the pollster, Ivan Moore of Anchorage, said respondents apparently considered the word "protect" ambiguous, noting that other polls consistently show 70 percent support for drilling. Many Alaskans think the refuge could be protected from oil drilling even while it was going on, he said.
In February, the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund did a more specific poll. Alaskans were asked to choose between not drilling because ANWR is "a national treasure" and because the oil that could be recovered is only a small portion of U.S. consumption, or drilling because oil deposits could reduce gas prices, while drilling will affect only 2,000 acres of 19 million in the refuge. Fifty percent said drilling should be allowed while 38 percent said it should not.
Dittman said the real test is the Legislature. Of 60 legislators, only three voted against a resolution this year urging Congress to open the ANWR coastal plain to oil exploration. In recent years, the Legislature has provided funding totaling $3.75 million to Arctic Power, a private industry group that lobbies Congress to open ANWR to drilling.
On the front lines: Don Mickey of Phillips Alaska at the Alpine facility explains the drilling process in front of a well head during a tour in June. PHOTO By MICHAEL PENN Gov. Tony Knowles has been so pro-industry that he wrote a scathing letter to former President Jimmy Carter, a fellow Democrat, after Carter urged President Clinton, unsuccessfully, to declare the coastal plain a national monument.
"It's the largest oil field in America that will be discovered and developed there," Knowles said. "And this is something that has been anticipated ever since the wildlife refuge was created."
Alaska has more wildlife refuges and park acreage than all other states combined, the governor added.
Alaska's three-member, all-Republican congressional delegation argues that the ANWR coastal plain must be developed to ensure the nation's independence from unfriendly oil-producing nations. A voice-mail greeting in the Washington, D.C., office of Chuck Kleeschulte, an aide to Sen. Frank Murkowski, tells callers that 57 percent of America's oil comes from other nations.
The North Slope has played a major role in the national energy picture. At the peak, in the late 1980s, the various oil fields there and in Cook Inlet in Southcentral Alaska produced 2 million barrels of oil a day, about a quarter of U.S. production. Now Alaska production has dropped by half, and the North Slope gives the nation about one in six barrels of its domestic oil, even as oil imports have increased to more than half of the overall U.S. supply.
But the Alaskans battle a perception that the industry, based on its record to date, would despoil the last sizable chunk of pristine wilderness in the world.
"Misleading propaganda" is holding up the issue in the House, said Alaska Rep. Don Young. Industry supporters say environmentalists' complaints about numerous oil spills on the North Slope are misleading to non-Alaskans because the reporting law requires any and all spills to be documented, no matter how small.
"There's probably more oil spilled in a Wal-Mart parking lot on a daily basis than on the North Slope, from oil seeping out of cars," Dittman said.
"Very few spills escape the gravel pads on which we operate," said Ronnie Chappell, spokesman for British Petroleum, which operates the Prudhoe Bay unit.
Even critics concede that the industry has made significant technological progress since the huge Prudhoe Bay strike in 1968. The 429-million-barrel Alpine oil field, west of Prudhoe Bay, which went into production last November, is touted as the new way for the industry. It was constructed without permanent overland access, with ice roads used during the winter to transport equipment to the site.
The 97-acre site itself is much smaller for the size of the oil field Р40,000 acres Рthan has been the industry norm. And Alpine is the first field to come on line with full horizontal drilling technology, allowing a much greater underground reach with less surface disturbance. Although sized to produce 80,000 barrels of oil a day, it has been exceeding expectations, with more than 97,000 barrels extracted one day in early July.
As far as on-site waste, there's a "zero discharge" policy, says Dawn Patience, a spokeswoman for Phillips Petroleum, which owns 78 percent of the oil field.
In Kaktovik, an island village just off the arctic coast and technically the only community of people living within the boundaries of ANWR, city leaders, Native elders and Рaccording to a survey Рa majority of residents say they are confident that the oil industry would do the best possible job in protecting the environment and wildlife in the nearby coastal plain.
"I know it'd be nice for ANWR to be opened up and developed responsibly," said Charlie Brower, a whaling captain. "We know they can do it right. They've got the technology."
Environmentalists say there's plenty of oil to pump out of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, a 23-million-acre area just west of Alpine set aside by President Harding in 1923. This spring, Phillips announced it found oil of commercially viable volumes there.
Chappell, the BP spokesman, said that while the company conducts Prudhoe Bay media tours and handles requests for information, it's not getting into the fray about whether NPR-A should be explored fully before the coastal plain is opened.
"As a business, we're focused on maintaining production on existing fields," as well as studying the possibility of a natural gas pipeline to the Lower 48, he said. "Our plate is very, very full. ... The oil we produce in Alaska and elsewhere in the world is produced to meet real human needs. This isn't about what the oil industry wants or needs."
As for the coastal plain, Chappell concluded: "At BP, we are waiting for the nation to make a decision about that area.""
if Palin has been carefully vetted.
Thank for your reasonable posts explaining your positions regarding the subject matter at hand.
[Former Wasilla mayor John Stein] says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." The librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire her for not giving "full support" to the mayor.
same as bush all the way... I can't wait for her to debate Biden and make public her stands on issues like Iran.
..of her fear mongering creds for the GOP base.
Biden will no doubt clean her clock on the realities of all these situations.
She's going to hope and pray for constant questions on ANWR and oil drilling in Alaska I'm sure.
Shame that only the die hard politics peeps watch these things. But the intrigue of how she might do, and the abnormal buzz around this years election, could increase the number of viewers.
By Kate Klonick and Zachary Roth - September 2, 2008, 1:01PM
It looks like Sarah Palin's claim to represent a cleaner brand of politics could be about to take a bruising.
The Washington Post reports today that, while Mayor of Wasilla, Palin oversaw the hiring of a lobbyist, Steven Silver -- a former chief of staff to now-indicted GOP senator Ted Stevens -- to help win federal earmarks for the city.
But Silver appears to have additional ties that could further undercut Palin's image as a squeaky-clean reformer. According to Senate lobbying disclosure reports examined by TPMmuckraker, from 2002 to 2004 Silver listed as a client Jack Abramoff's lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig. On Greenberg's behalf, Silver lobbied the federal government on "issues relating to Indian/Native American policy," "exploration for oil and gas" and "legislation relating to gaming issues" -- the very issues that Abramoff headed up for Greenberg at the time. In other words, Silver appears to have been a part of "Team Abramoff."
Indeed, one specific bill that Silver lobbied on for Greenberg, according to the forms, was S.627, also known as the Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act. A former Greenberg lobbyist confirmed to TPMmuckraker that Silver wo
Putting her on the ticket is designed to make the Republican base happy. Your time is going to be better spent writing about why your candidate is good, rather than trying to tear down Palin. You're preaching to the choir here.