Front Office Football Central

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Obama versus McCain (versus the rest) (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=65622)

JonInMiddleGA 09-19-2008 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by digamma (Post 1838051)
The Palin's are swingers? I hadn't read that.


Sheesh. Give the media time to do their thing will ya? ;)

In all seriousness though, would that particular revelation actually come as a big shock to the majority of people? It definitely wouldn't surprise me in the least, just be one more thing for her to discuss with Jerry Springer but maybe I'm just too cynical.

TazFTW 09-19-2008 05:24 PM

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

Maine (9/17), Obama 50 McCain 46. Previous Rasmussen (8/12) Obama 49 McCain 36.

500 Likely Voters.

Big Fo 09-19-2008 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 1838259)
I'm not trying to make any political point here, but Bill O'Reilly is not intelligent.



Bill: "But if your grandma sends you $50 in the mail..."

Lawyer:

st.cronin 09-19-2008 06:45 PM

If Bob Barr wins this election, I'm moving to Madagascar.

SirFozzie 09-19-2008 06:54 PM

This bit of facepalm science comes from The University of Nebraska, and their conclusions were, basically.. "The more conservative you are, the easier it is to make you afraid". (rolls eyes)

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ull/2008/918/2

GrantDawg 09-19-2008 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie (Post 1838289)
This bit of facepalm science comes from The University of Nebraska, and their conclusions were, basically.. "The more conservative you are, the easier it is to make you afraid". (rolls eyes)

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi...ull/2008/918/2



Does this some how surprise anyone?

Big Fo 09-19-2008 07:18 PM

The sample size was only 46...

Flasch186 09-19-2008 07:37 PM

Investigator: Palin probe to end before election - Yahoo! News

Quote:

Investigator: Palin probe to end before election

By MATT VOLZ, Associated Press Writer 26 minutes ago

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - The Alaska lawmaker directing an abuse-of-power investigation of Gov. Sarah Palin promised Friday the probe will be finished before the election, despite refusals by key witnesses to testify, including the governor's husband.

After waiting 35 minutes for Todd Palin and two state administrative employees to appear under subpoena before the state Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Hollis French condemned their refusal to testify and the attorney general's broken promise that seven other witnesses would testify who were not subpoenaed.

French said the retired prosecutor hired by the Alaska Legislature to investigate Palin, Stephen Branchflower, will conclude his investigation by Oct. 10. Still, that report will not include testimony from the Republican vice presidential nominee, her husband or most of the top aides Branchflower hoped to interview.

Sarah Palin's allies hoped the investigation would be delayed past the election to spare her any troublesome revelations — or at least the distraction — before voters have made their choice. Palin's reputation as clean-government advocate who takes on entrenched interests is central to her appeal as Republican John McCain's running mate, and possibly at risk in the probe.

Palin initially promised to cooperate in the investigation, telling the Legislature to "hold me accountable." Lawmakers were investigating accusations she dismissed the state's public safety commissioner because he refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper. She now opposes the investigation.

Palin spokesman Bill McAllister declined to comment Friday. The McCain campaign said there are concerns about the effect of political influence on the Legislature's inquiry and Palin will provide any information needed to a separate investigation by the Alaska State Personnel Board.

The committee subpoenaed six people to appear Friday to testify or meet for private interviews with Branchflower. French said three of those six had complied. Todd Palin, special assistant Ivy Frye and Randy Ruaro, who is the governor's deputy chief of staff, did not.

Todd Palin's attorney sent French a letter Thursday listing Palin's objections to the Legislature's investigation of his wife. Among them, the attorney said, were jurisdiction questions, separation of power issues and an inconvenient travel schedule.

Subpoenas were approved on seven other government employees, but not served because the state attorney general's office had agreed to cooperate, French said. But Attorney General Talis Colberg earlier this week reversed himself, saying the governor declined to participate and that Palin administration employees would not appear.

French said subpoenas will be issued for those seven people, ordering them to testify on Sept. 26.

Witnesses who refuse to testify can be found in contempt under Alaska law. But the full Legislature must be in session, which won't happen until January. That means witnesses can stonewall without penalty beyond the Nov. 4 election, lawmakers said.

One of them, Sen. Gene Therriault, opposed the subpoenas. He said Friday the investigation was intended to uncover whether the governor was justified in firing Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, and he believes she was.

Palin fired Monegan in July. It later emerged that Palin, her husband and several high-level staffers had contacted Monegan about state trooper Mike Wooten.Palin maintains she fired Monegan over budget disagreements.

Wooten had gone through a nasty divorce from Palin's sister before Palin became governor. Monegan has said no one from the administration ever told him directly to fire Wooten, but he said their repeated contacts made it clear they wanted Wooten gone.

SirFozzie 09-19-2008 07:51 PM

Sorry, I should have made it clear that yes, with the limited subsection, and.. um.. rather sensational conclusions (especially given the time frame), I considered it junk science

Vegas Vic 09-19-2008 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passacaglia (Post 1837791)
fivethirtyeight.com had had McCain as the favorite for at least a week, with a low to mid 50s percent chance of winning. Now they've got him with a 38.8% chance of winning. Crazy.


Not really, considering the way this guy is revising the way that he weights the polls. It's his untested, unproven opinion.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, there's only one site that nailed the 2004 election, RealClearPolitics.com. Right now, they've got Obama up by 2 in the popular vote, and winning the Electoral College 273-265.

Pay close attention to where this thing stands in mid-October, after the first couple of debates. Whoever is leading the electoral college projection at that point is extremely likely to be the next president.

Swaggs 09-19-2008 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic (Post 1838332)
Not really, considering the way this guy is revising the way that he weights the polls. It's his untested, unproven opinion.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, there's only one site that nailed the 2004 election, RealClearPolitics.com. Right now, they've got Obama up by 2 in the popular vote, and winning the Electoral College 273-265.

Pay close attention to where this thing stands in mid-October, after the first couple of debates. Whoever is leading the electoral college projection at that point is extremely likely to be the next president.


I think that Electoral College count has a pretty good chance of being correct if Obama does win. I think it is pretty likely that Obama carries the Kerry states (with New Hampshire a possible exception) and Iowa + New Mexico. I see Colorado as the Florida '00 or Ohio '04 in this election.

JPhillips 09-19-2008 10:10 PM

Bet you'll be seeing this a lot. McCain wrote this for a current issue of an actuarial trade magazine.

Quote:

Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.

Arles 09-19-2008 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 1838259)
I'm not trying to make any political point here, but Bill O'Reilly is not intelligent.


Megyn Kelly is great. O'Reilly.... not so great ;)

Flasch186 09-19-2008 11:48 PM

He was just stuck in his stupidity and wouldnt listen to anything other than what would solidify his stupid position.

Vegas Vic 09-20-2008 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1838539)
He was just stuck in his stupidity and wouldnt listen to anything other than what would solidify his stupid position.


Say what you will about O’Reilly, but he did something tonight that you’ll probably never see again. He got Kelly Anne Conway (Republican hack) and Tanya Acker (Democrat hack) to both admit that their candidate’s recent ads targeting Hispanic voters were misleading and inappropriate.

I think it’s safe to assume that you’ll never see anything like that from Wolf Blitzer, Chris Matthews or Larry King.

Schmidty 09-20-2008 01:00 AM

I think this is the first election that I didn't give even tiny bit of a fuck about.

Wake me up in December.

Big Fo 09-20-2008 01:01 AM

John McCain has played in important role in burying information about Vietnam POWs that never made it home.

The article is rather long so I'll just paste in the opening three paragraphs and here is a link to the rest

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sydney H. Schanberg

John McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn't return home. Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus the war hero who people would logically imagine as a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books.

Almost as striking is the manner in which the mainstream press has shied from reporting the POW story and McCain's role in it, even as the Republican Party has made McCain's military service the focus of his presidential campaign. Reporters who had covered the Vietnam War turned their heads and walked in other directions. McCain doesn't talk about the missing men, and the press never asks him about them.

The sum of the secrets McCain has sought to hide is not small. There exists a telling mass of official documents, radio intercepts, witness depositions, satellite photos of rescue symbols that pilots were trained to use, electronic messages from the ground containing the individual code numbers given to airmen, a rescue mission by a special forces unit that was aborted twice by Washington—and even sworn testimony by two Defense secretaries that "men were left behind." This imposing body of evidence suggests that a large number—the documents indicate probably hundreds—of the US prisoners held by Vietnam were not returned when the peace treaty was signed in January 1973 and Hanoi released 591 men, among them Navy combat pilot John S. McCain.

...


SirFozzie 09-20-2008 01:11 AM

Please forgive me if I take this "story" with a grain of salt the size of Albany. At the least, its politically unbalanced to cast McCain in the worst possible light, and at the worst, it's about the same level of "journalism" as the Swift Boating of Kerry in 2004.

Big Fo 09-20-2008 02:07 AM

Well it wasn't written by some random hack, Schanberg is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. While he may or may not have overstated the degree of McCain's involvement in the cover-up he presents a lot of compelling evidence backed up with sources, it is a very disturbing article.

JonInMiddleGA 09-20-2008 05:42 AM

I thought the name was familiar. Schanberg is probably most easily recognizable as the guy Sam Waterson plays in The Killing Fields.

Mac Howard 09-20-2008 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 1838259)
I'm not trying to make any political point here, but Bill O'Reilly is not intelligent.



Megyn's softened her image :)

Bill's had a bad week this week - Neil Cavuto gave him a going over on Monday about the naivete of his view on gas prices. At one point O'Reilly was getting over-heated and Cavuto started to repeat what he had to say. It went something like:

O'Reilly: "I know, I know, I heard that already"

Cavuto (ever so calmly) "You were shouting, Bill, you were shouting. So I'll say it again".

He tied O'Relly up in knots :)

He also had an argument with Newt Gingrich - though I must admit I was with O'Reilly on this.

Hell, I can't believe I said that :eek:

stevew 09-20-2008 08:07 AM

Loofah

Flasch186 09-20-2008 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic (Post 1838655)
Say what you will about O’Reilly, but he did something tonight that you’ll probably never see again. He got Kelly Anne Conway (Republican hack) and Tanya Acker (Democrat hack) to both admit that their candidate’s recent ads targeting Hispanic voters were misleading and inappropriate.

I think it’s safe to assume that you’ll never see anything like that from Wolf Blitzer, Chris Matthews or Larry King.


I would LOVE to see that. Can you post a link?

BrianD 09-20-2008 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 1838259)
I'm not trying to make any political point here, but Bill O'Reilly is not intelligent.



Does Bill post here? A stubborn refusal to believe someone with actual knowledge on a subject and reliance on crazy analogies that have nothing to do with the current topic...we see that a lot around here.

GrantDawg 09-20-2008 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianD (Post 1838810)
Does Bill post here? A stubborn refusal to believe someone with actual knowledge on a subject and reliance on crazy analogies that have nothing to do with the current topic...we see that a lot around here.



Did he say that she was wrong on the law, or was he saying the law is wrong? I got the latter out of that. I didn't hear him refusing to believe her on the law. I heard him restating that it shouldn't be so.

BrianD 09-20-2008 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantDawg (Post 1838842)
Did he say that she was wrong on the law, or was he saying the law is wrong? I got the latter out of that. I didn't hear him refusing to believe her on the law. I heard him restating that it shouldn't be so.


I had a hard time distinguishing between the two. On one had it sounded like he was stating that the law shouldn't be so because it made no sense, but on the other had it also sounded like the law couldn't be so because it made no sense. She was clearly stating that she doesn't necessarily like the law as written, so him arguing with her made it sound like he didn't agree with the reading of the law.

Vegas Vic 09-20-2008 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1838798)
I would LOVE to see that. Can you post a link?


Here you go.



Arles 09-20-2008 12:08 PM

well, that was a pretty decent job by O'Reilly. Maybe he does serve a purpose ;)

Flasch186 09-20-2008 01:25 PM

good for Bill and a monkey is running around my office and my butt hurts.

DaddyTorgo 09-20-2008 03:30 PM

idk why i didn't post this days ago when i got it -- funny (to both parties) video

http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm

Dutch 09-20-2008 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1838868)
well, that was a pretty decent job by O'Reilly. Maybe he does serve a purpose ;)


Good for Bill O'Reilly. I've see O'Reilly do this quite a bit, along with bringing a lot of left-wing guests on to his show that hold their own. You hardly ever see this from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or MSNBC's counterparts. Because "conservative opinion (or 50/50 opinion in this case) doesn't sell on TV" is their usual rationale.

Flasch186 09-20-2008 04:41 PM

welp that covered 'em all, Dutch. O'Reilly gets a 'quite a bit' though. mmmmk at least you gave a sleight nod to the idea that other media outlets dont have a liberal bias but a ratings bias. You just slathered it in 'liberal bias' mantra. still tastes good though.

JPhillips 09-20-2008 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 1838999)
Good for Bill O'Reilly. I've see O'Reilly do this quite a bit, along with bringing a lot of left-wing guests on to his show that hold their own. You hardly ever see this from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or MSNBC's counterparts. Because "conservative opinion (or 50/50 opinion in this case) doesn't sell on TV" is their usual rationale.


Let's see,

on Face the Nation, David Brooks is a regular
on This Week George Will is a regular
on Meet the Press Mike Murphy is a regular
on CNN Alex Castellanos and Amy Holmes are regulars
on Headline News Glenn Beck has his own show
on MSNBC Joe Scarborough has his own show

Arles 09-20-2008 06:31 PM

And Fox News has Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, Geraldine Ferraro, Susan Estrich, Jill Zuckman, Nina Easton, Geraldo and Alan Colmes as regulars commenting from the left. So, given all those names, they must be balanced, right?

The point is about content, not token commentators. If you look at overall content, Fox is biased right, while the networks, CNN and MSNBC are biased left. I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise.

fantom1979 09-20-2008 07:17 PM

I really like Keith Olbermann, but I can only watch him in small doses at a time. It would be nice if he would get someone with a different opinion every once in a while. Its pretty boring watching him talk about an issue for 10 minutes and then interview someone who just confirms his opinion for another five.

Arles 09-20-2008 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fantom1979 (Post 1839064)
I really like Keith Olbermann, but I can only watch him in small doses at a time. It would be nice if he would get someone with a different opinion every once in a while. Its pretty boring watching him talk about an issue for 10 minutes and then interview someone who just confirms his opinion for another five.

I agree 100%. I find him witty, funny and even enjoy his NBC/NFL rants. Still, he gets way too loony too quick. I much prefer to watch Matthews on MSNBC.

JPhillips 09-20-2008 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1839052)
And Fox News has Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, Geraldine Ferraro, Susan Estrich, Jill Zuckman, Nina Easton, Geraldo and Alan Colmes as regulars commenting from the left. So, given all those names, they must be balanced, right?

The point is about content, not token commentators. If you look at overall content, Fox is biased right, while the networks, CNN and MSNBC are biased left. I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise.


It isn't about bias. Dutch said these sort of left/right debates hardly ever happen, but somehow every Sunday show and every cable news network show left/right debate all the time. It's part of the problem. Balance is more important than accuracy.

flere-imsaho 09-20-2008 07:54 PM

These kind of left/right debates happen every day, several times a day, in a far less heated format, on NPR's Morning Edition, All Things Considered and PBS' Newshour with Jim Lehrer.

Vegas Vic 09-20-2008 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho (Post 1839073)
These kind of left/right debates happen every day, several times a day, in a far less heated format, on NPR's Morning Edition, All Things Considered and PBS' Newshour with Jim Lehrer.


Yes, these debates happen, but getting back to my original point -- this is the first time that I've ever seen a host get both parties to admit that their campaigns were disingenuous and misleading in their political ad. You won't see that on any of the other talk shows.

Flasch186 09-20-2008 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1839052)
And Fox News has Juan Williams, Mara Liasson, Geraldine Ferraro, Susan Estrich, Jill Zuckman, Nina Easton, Geraldo and Alan Colmes as regulars commenting from the left. So, given all those names, they must be balanced, right?

The point is about content, not token commentators. If you look at overall content, Fox is biased right, while the networks, CNN and MSNBC are biased left. I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise.


its the list and the word 'hardly' arles.

Vegas Vic 09-22-2008 01:19 AM

Sarah Palin drew a crowd of 60,000 at a campaign rally in central Florida today. It is the largest crowd in Florida history for either a presidential or vice-presidential candidate.

Jas_lov 09-22-2008 01:27 AM

That's a pretty impressive crowd. Better send her to North Carolina. I saw a link on 538 that said McCain is moving more resources there so he must be somewhat worried about it. The same goes for Obama and Minnesota. He is moving resources out of North Dakota and into Minnesota.

DaddyTorgo 09-22-2008 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic (Post 1839882)
Sarah Palin drew a crowd of 60,000 at a campaign rally in central Florida today. It is the largest crowd in Florida history for either a presidential or vice-presidential candidate.



Quote:

Originally Posted by from the article

The fire chief estimated the crowd at 60,000.



we've already been over in this thread how reliable those estimates are. i don't doubt it was a sizeable crowd, but i highly doubt it was 60k

Young Drachma 09-22-2008 01:40 AM

Sarah Palin's Florida speech draws tens of thousands - 09/21/2008 - MiamiHerald.com

Quote:

Palin made her Florida debut in The Villages, one of the fastest-growing retirement communities in the country and a treasure trove of Republican voters. President Bush put it on the map when he campaigned here in the homestretch of the 2004 campaign.

But Palin drew thousands more than the estimated 20,000 people that turned out for Bush. A fire rescue official estimated the crowd at 25,000 to 30,000, while the Republican Party of Florida pegged the audience at twice that size.

Big Fo 09-22-2008 07:07 AM

Maybe the Republicans' inability to count has something to do with their inability to balance a budget.

Flasch186 09-22-2008 10:31 AM

Well I guess he either got it then, or he gets it now.

McCain says economy in crisis - Yahoo! News

Quote:

McCain says economy in crisis

2 hours, 48 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Republican presidential nominee John McCain, who only a week ago said the economy was fundamentally sound, now says the U.S. financial system is facing a major crisis.


Speaking Monday on NBC's "Today" show McCain said, "We are in the most serious crisis since World War II."

He also said that despite the ballooning national debt he would not raise taxes if elected president.

McCain said "history shows us that if you raise people's taxes in tough economic times that makes problems worse."

DaddyTorgo 09-22-2008 10:36 AM

so how's he plan on paying down the debt or at least holding it steady without raising taxes? slashing everything else in the budget? geee that sounds great.

Kodos 09-22-2008 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Fo (Post 1839917)
Maybe the Republicans' inability to count has something to do with their inability to balance a budget.


Maybe the Supreme Court stepped in and decided it was 60,000.

DaddyTorgo 09-22-2008 11:50 AM

this just in -- okay maybe not just in, but first i'd heard of it.

Palin's town charged women for rape exams - CNN.com

Quote:


Palin's town charged women for rape exams
Story Highlights
  • While Sarah Palin was mayor, Wasilla charged victims for their rape exams
  • Interviews, review of records show no evidence Palin knew victims were charged
  • Former state representative says it seems unlikely Palin was not aware of issue
From Jessica Yellin
CNN

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's hometown required women to pay for their own rape examinations while she was mayor, a practice her police chief fought to keep as late as 2000.
Former state Rep. Eric Croft, a Democrat, sponsored a state law requiring cities to provide the examinations free of charge to victims. He said the only ongoing resistance he met was from Wasilla, where Palin was mayor from 1996 to 2002.
"It was one of those things everyone could agree on except Wasilla," Croft told CNN. "We couldn't convince the chief of police to stop charging them."
Alaska's Legislature in 2000 banned the practice of charging women for rape exam kits -- which experts said could cost up to $1,000.
Palin, the Republican nominee for vice president, often talks about her experience running Wasilla, population approximately 7,000, and that has prompted close scrutiny of her record there. Wasilla's practice of charging victims for their rape exams while she was mayor has gotten wide circulation on the Internet and in the mainstream media. Watch CNN's Jessica Yellin check the facts in Wasilla »
Some supporters of Palin say they believe she had no knowledge of the practice.But critics call it "outrageous" and question Palin's commitment to helping women who are the victims of violence.
For years, Alaska has had the worst record of any state in rape and in murder of women by men. The rape rate in Alaska is 2.5 times the national average.
Interviews and a review of records turned up no evidence that Palin knew that rape victims were being charged in her town. But Croft, the former state representative who sponsored the law changing the practice, says it seems unlikely Palin was not aware of the issue.
"I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it," Croft said.
During the time Palin was mayor of Wasilla, her city was not the only one in Alaska charging rape victims. Experts testified before the Legislature that in a handful of small cities across Alaska, law enforcement agencies were charging victims or their insurance "more than sporadically."
One woman who wrote in support of the legislation says she was charged for her rape exam by a police department in the city of Juneau, which is hundreds of miles from Wasilla.
But Wasilla stood out. Tara Henry, a forensic nurse who has been treating rape victims across Alaska for the last 12 years, told CNN that opposition to Croft's bill from Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon was memorable.
"Several municipal law enforcement agencies in the state did have trouble budgeting and paying for the evidence collection for sexual assault victims," Henry said. "What I recall is that the chief of police in the Wasilla police department seemed to be the most vocal about how it was going to affect their budget."
Croft has a similar memory. He said victims' advocates suggested he introduce legislation as a way to shame cities into changing their practice, and Wasilla resisted.
"I remember they had continued opposition," Croft said. "It was eight years ago now, but they were sort of unrepentant that they thought the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for that."
He does not recall discussing the issue with then-Mayor Palin.
The bill, HB270, was before the legislature for six months. In testimony, one expert called the practice of billing the victim "incomprehensible." Others compared it to "dust[ing] for fingerprints" after a burglary, only "the victim's body is the crime scene."
During a rape exam, the victim removes her clothing and a medical professional gathers DNA evidence from her body. There is also a medical component to assess her injuries. That component has led some law enforcement agencies to balk at paying.
Henry, the forensic nurse, said charging victims "retraumatizes them."
"Asking them to pay for something law enforcement needs in order to investigate their case, it's almost like blaming them for getting sexually assaulted," she said.
The Alaska Legislature agreed. The bill passed unanimously with the support of the Alaska Department of Public Safety, the Alaska Peace Officers Association and more than two dozen co-sponsors.
After it became law, Wasilla's police chief told the local paper, The Frontiersman, that it would cost the city $5,000 to $14,000 a year -- money that he'd have to find.
"In the past, we've charged the cost of the exams to the victim's insurance company when possible," Fannon was quoted as saying. "I just don't want to see any more burden on the taxpayer."
He suggested the criminals should pay as restitution if and when they're convicted. Repeated attempts to reach Fannon for comment were unsuccessful.
Judy Patrick, who was Palin's deputy mayor and friend, blames the state.
"The bigger picture of what was going on at the time was that the state was trying to cut their own budget, and one of the things that they were doing was passing on costs to cities, and that was one of the many things that they were passing on, the cost to the city," said Patrick, who recalls enormous pressure to keep the city's budget down.
But the state was never responsible for paying the costs of local investigations. Patrick was also a member of Wasilla City Council, and she doesn't recall the issue coming before council members, nor does she remember discussing the issue with Palin.
She does recall Palin going through the budget in detail. She said Palin would review each department's budget line by line and send it back to department heads with her changes.
"Sarah is a fiscal conservative, and so she had seen that the city was heading in a direction of bigger projects, costing taxpayers more money, and she was determined to change that," Patrick said.
Before Palin came to City Hall, the Wasilla Police Department paid for rape kits out of a fund for miscellaneous costs, according to the police chief who preceded Fannon and was fired by Palin. That budget line was cut by more than half during Palin's tenure, but it did not specifically mention rape exams.
In a statement, Jill Hazelbaker, communications director for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, said that "to imply that Gov. Palin is or has ever been an advocate of charging victims for evidence gathering kits is an utter distortion of reality."
"As her record shows, Gov. Palin is committed to supporting victims and bringing violent criminals to justice," Hazelbaker said. "She does not, nor has she ever believed that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence gathering test."
Those who fought the policy are unconvinced.
"It's incomprehensible to me that this could be a rogue police chief and not a policy decision. It lasted too long and it was too high-profile," Croft said.
The rape kit charges have become an issue among Palin critics who say as governor she has not done enough to combat Alaska's epidemic problem of violence against women. They point to a small funding increase for domestic violence shelters at a time when Alaska has a multibillion-dollar budget surplus. Victims' advocates say that services are lacking and that Palin cut funding for a number of programs that treat female victims of violence.
In the past week, Alaska's challenges with sexual assault have been in the spotlight again -- in connection with an ongoing inquiry into whether Palin abused her power by firing the head of Alaska's Department of Public Safety. Palin's office released e-mails showing that one area of disagreement between her and Department of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan was his lobbying in Washington for $30 million to fund a new program of sexual assault response teams.
The McCain-Palin campaign insists that fighting domestic violence and sexual assault are priorities for Palin. And they say she has been looking at other programs to support. As governor, Palin approved a funding increase for domestic violence shelters -- $266,200 over two years. And she reauthorized a Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault.



Mizzou B-ball fan 09-22-2008 11:50 AM

Looks like the McCain campaign has decided to go on the attack. New ad linking Obama with Chicago corruption.

YouTube - Chicago Machine

McCain campaign has also privately stated that more ads about Obama's connection to Ayers and Wright are part of the plan.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.