But that's inevitable, Jon. The spectrum of politics is so wide and multidimensional that any one candidate can only cover around 30% of it. But to win the election he has to cover 50% or more. The "real" McCain I suspect covers the third from centre through soft right. But he needs the right also - hence Palin.

But in the end it's the Presidential race that matters and McCain has in some way to stretch his appeal right across the centre to right spectrum and that means "schizophrenic" behaviour. Not a lot he can do about that.

Whether this is worse than simply appealing to his natural constituency and risking the right staying away remains to be seen.

Watching Larry King over the weekend someone commented that, considering the significant problems facing any Republican candidate, only McCain would stand a chance in this election and I think there's some truth in that.

RealClearPolitics - HorseRaceBlog - The State of the Race

Looking back, both candidates got a fairly typical convention bounce. Obama's was cut short and McCain's faded pretty close to what 538 predicted. It's a two point race, IMO, unless something massive happens in the debates.

So RCP now won't be accurate on Nov. 3?

Except election after election the right votes for a Republican that promises the moon and delivers little. The financial side of the party runs things because they'll actually leave if they don't get what they want.

The financial side runs the party because they own the party. The social side will leave long before they will.

Palin lawyer meets with investigator in probe - Yahoo! News

Bear in mind that this is not the 'Troopergate 1' investigation but a seperate concurrent probe that was started...'Troopergate redux'

They keep threatening, but in the end they always come back. Social conservatives are the most reliable voters in the US.

the whole troopergate-refusing-to-testify thing really needs to get more play in the media -- frankly it's fucking disgraceful. if she has nothing to hide everyone ought to be cooperating with every investigation. the fact that she is refusing to cooperate (as are others she has control over -- aka her husband) indicates to me that she's guilty as sin, as it should to any reasonable person.

Has she been subpoenaed yet? As far as I can tell, she hasn't. Also, it was the AG who said the staff didn't have to testify. At this point, it is turning extremely political and there's no reason to think it will ever become the "actual" investigation it once was back in June-July. If I were Palin, I wouldn't let anyone near these people until the election. The tone of the questions will be "when did you stop beating your wife?" and I would want no part of that.

Now, if they have cause to subpoena Palin, they should do it and be over with it. The more this goes on, the more it looks like a fishing expedition. They've had a ton of testimony and evidence gathered (had it back in June). If they having nothing at this point, I wouldn't expect Palin to help them out (esp in this climate).

The big point here is that the onus is on them to prove she acted against ethical standards - not on her to prove her innocence (bolded for Flasch ;) ).

count on Arles for spin control. i know it's pointless to even attempt to engage you in a reasonable non-spun discussion of this Arles, so I won't even bother.

On Larry King Live over the weekend two financial commentators were commenting on the current financial crisis. Despite their political differences they were in complete unison about the causes (deregulation) and solution (better regulation) and that McCain would have a problem overcoming the fact that he had repeatedly been in favour of deregulation.

At the end of the interview the Democratic commentator ribbed the Republican about the consensus and suggested he might vote for Obama. The reply was something like "I'm pro-life. I couldn't".

Interesting that even for an economist pro-life trumps everything :rolleyes:

Awesome job on the coloring here, usually I think it's crazy and a waste of time but this one gave me a chuckle. Shame it doesn't show up in quotes.


But the "liberal media" is out to get her dontcha know :lol:

Why a roll eyes for the idea that values trumps economics? I'd vote for a Socialist over a Republican or Democrat who advocated a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Free Speech (either for national security reasons or hate speech reasons or whathaveyou).

You guys are still talking about this election thing?!?

I'm pro-life and there is zero chance that I will be voting for McCain. However, I agree with ISiddiqui that there are certain values that are important enough to where I could not support a candidate if they went against them. Free Speech was a good example.

You would think that in 34 years (controlling the white house for 22 of them and congress for half of them) that the Republicans could have removed Roe v Wade by now. Maybe its just not that important once you get in office compared to running for office. ;)

It's important, but sometimes they just kept screwing up. Reagan may have had an idea that O'Connor would be pro-choice, but he certainly didn't expect Kennedy to join her. He only went 1 for 3 in appointing anti-Roe justices. Bush Sr. similarly screwed up by trying a stealth candidate that only proved to be stealth for the other side. He did get his other pick right. Still, it's pretty funny that the 3 justices who wrote the opinion upholding Roe were Reagan-Bush appointees.

Clinton and Dubya were much better at the justice game, getting exactly what they wanted and expected with their picks. For all Dubya's gaffes, he was able to get the most openly anti-Roe justice confirmed, with a majority of the public supporting the pick.

It just came out as an extremely surprising comment. After ten minutes or so of sophisticated economics argument when the McCain supporter had grudgingly accepted that McCain was not the man for the job that he suddenly mumbled his comment about pro-life. It was just so out of context with the debate that he said it almost apologetically.

But you underestimate the "values" in economics. If the financial system collapses and America plunges into depression and the world with it then the price paid in deaths from poverty, ill-health, malnutrition etc will be measure in millions. Not a lot of pro-life in that. I think the abortion debate can hold fire until the financial system is brought back under control.

But that's getting deeper than I intended :)

I think the final average of the polls on RCP will be off by a couple of points on election day.

So, I give a different perspective and get the "I'm going to take my ball and go home response". IMO, this investigation turned from a real investigation into a witch hunt the moment Palin was named VP. There wasn't much there to begin with and the independent investigation was going fine in early August. Palin had completely cooperated and a $100K limit was set ( McClatchy Washington Bureau | 07/28/2008 | Alaska legislature will probe Palin's firing of state's top cop ).

Here's some of the information filed:

There was one tape in the middle of August that involved a staffer asking about the trooper, but that was also handled. The case looked like it was going to end with little action and a report issued in early October with the results.

Then, on August 29 (coincidentally the same day Palin was named VP), everything changed. Suddenly the 100K limit went out the window and the previously content Hollis French seemed to think we needed a ton of subpoenas and needed to bring in Palin's husband and primary aid for full scale interrogation. On Sept 2, French (also on Obama's Alaska campaign team) said this:

So, in those 3 days, French "postponed" the report to the end of October and made the above comments.

Now, with all this, I think it is very prudent for Palin to not do anything above what is specifically required by law to help in this witch hunt. The AG came in days after the "subpoenas" were issued and said they were not valid. So, Palin decided not to subject her husband and staffers to French's kangaroo court. Again, people can rip her for it - I understand that point of view and think it's fair. But I fail to see why Palin should go above what is required by law to help in an obvious witch hunt. That's my opinion and one view on the issue. I guess I am not being as "reasonable" and "non-spun" as DaddyTorgo. I'm just offering a different perspective given the information I have seen.

I may be wrong or right, but I fail to see why my POV is signficantly more off base than those bearing torches against her over the past week. To be honest, these type of responses are why very few conservatives respond here (outside of MBBF and Vegas). A lefty fires off something, he gets 10 "attaboys". A righty tries to give a differing point of view and he gets 10 "he's just too partisan and not worth talking with".

That was a stupid comment by French, but what I don't understand is why the Republican controlled legislature doesn't have him replaced? Palin wants the probe transferred, but they can't get it done. Doesn't make sense to me.

It's going to be hard to paint this as a partisan investigation when the Republicans have the majority in both houses.

You don't understand why a Republican legislature wouldn't want to remove a biased committee lead very publically gunning for a their VP candidate? You have any idea what it would look like if they did that?

I am also guessing that there would be a lot more defense of Palin by the Republican legislators on this issue if they thought there was something to it. My guess is the Dems are pushing this hard to try to discredit Palin, but that their hand is pretty weak.

I don't see how it would look any worse than trying to move the investigation to a group more favorable to Palin, which is what the Palin camp wants to do right now.


Well their silence makes the "partisan" argument look pretty silly. It's like if Bush was impeached in 2004 and called it a partisan witchhunt.

Then you're looking at it from the perspective of someone who wants this to go bad for Palin. Those more favorable to the GOP know that the media would have a field day if the Republicans actually made an overt attempt to remove French in the midst of an investigation of their own VP candidate. It would "play" awful.


Or they know it doesn't amount to much, and to go to a hue and cry about it would only make it out to be a bigger deal than it is.

Also don't underestimate the dislike some of the Alaskan republicans have for Palin:


The Scorecard: 2008 Congressional campaign news and analysis - Politico.com

Well then it might be better to call it a crooked investigation, which it may well be. Calling it partisan just sounds stupid.

I think it's partisan against Palin, but there's no desire from the republicans in Alaska to put a stop to it. Quite honestly, I think some of them are enjoying seeing her on the hot seat after some of the things she did to them as governor. It seems to me to be a big "good ole' boy" network out there and she didn't seem to play well with them.

Maybe we should all agree that all investigations are partisan and just let our elected officials do whatever the hell they want. Oversight is the new Charlie Gibson is the new Al Queda.

Reagan's primary concern at the time wasn't anti-Roe justices, but pro-Federalism justices. Reagan was probably more for states rights vs. federal power than he was anti-abortion. Recall that this was a time before US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison and the feds could basically do anything they wanted under the Commerce Clause. Reagan's first goal appeared to be to institute a New Federalism and give Rehnquist the justices he needed to do so.

Roe was secondary.

Where's the Arles from a few pages ago that wanted the truth to come out? See that's the problem. I dont care the results of the investigation (or any investigation for that matter) other than the fact that we find out the truth. You can't subpoena people without cause and I'd bet that threshold is even greater when youre the governor (sans the fact that she said she supported this earlier). If the other people subpoenaed cooperate and then nothing comes of it, than great! However this smacks of corruption WHEN people stop cooperating int he middle, people subpoenaed dont cooperate, and the environment changes to rhetoric instead of substance. Her camp needs to cooperate so that they can say "see, nothing here." but the whole country gets to see the right fold their wing over this and fly in the face of this transparency theyre touting. Dont flip here, Arles, stand up to corruption and stand up for the truth to come out. when she's absolved of this you can stand even taller in her defense. Oh, forgot, you admitted to bias. Total horsehsit you said it spun out of control when she was named VP but looking at the timing of your posts and your feelings in them you just started coming off of the tracks after that....you held the troopergate thread just long enough to be able to state you also wanted truth to come out, but now that's completely gone. Eh, who cares about credibility or truth when youve got spin to hang onto.

Biden and Obama seem not to be lockstep with each other:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonath...t.html?showall


WOW. I don't I've ever seen a VP nominee pull something like this about their running mate.

And apparently Conservatives are bit upset today because McCain's recommendation for Cox's replacement as Chair of the SEC is Democratic AG of NY, Andrew Cuomo.

Arguing that Roe should be overturned is great for conservative politicians. Actually overturning Roe would be a disaster.

Hillary, probably. But anyone else?

Biden would have been painted with the usual "most liberal northeast senator in the senate" (which he's not), Richardson isn't exactly Mr Personality, John Edwards had that whole little scandal problem, Dennis Kucinch is Dennis Kucinich which is like being the Ron Paul of the Democrats- fun for a soundbyte but too wacky to lead the party, and then there were a couple of others who also never really had a chance (Dodd, Gravel, etc).

SI

Unless it's related to the economy. Then it's the new panacea ;)

SI

Maybe the debates won't have as much effect as I thought. Here's a chart I got from 538 that shows how little the numbers have moved after debates since 1988. It's not really predictive, but still interesting.

I don't know. A 2 point movement one way or the other would be crucial in this election.

Those numbers aren't very surprising, either. The second debate in 1992 was the town hall debate where Bush screwed up a question on how the deficit has affected him, and Clinton came behind him to give the correct answer in his "feel your pain" way. The first debate in 2004 was clearly Bush's worst performance and nearly cost him the election.

When they "stopped cooperating", here's what Palin and company had presented on Monegan:

So, we have 5 specific and documented instances of Monegan acting directly against the governors wishes independent of the trooper issue. Once again, Monegan's sole role is to serve at the pleasure of the governor. Here's his direct quotes after he was removed from his post and refused to accept a different job (as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board):

He didn't seem to feel any "pressure" before the removal. In fact, he had no idea why he was removed. Again, that would be odd if he had been pressured to do something against his will and then got fired.

So, to summarize, Palin presented a case that had 5 instances of insubordination from a cabinet post (one is enough cause for removal). There was no outcry from Monegan when he was initially removed and everything seemed to be fairly clear with the investigation until she was named VP. Then, suddenly French makes a huge issue out of the "lack of information" he has, starts sending off trumped up subpoenas and says this:


I don't know how anyone with common sense can think this isn't a complete political witch hunt. There was no crime, no official criminal charges, just some ethical complaints. And those ethical complaints were easily dealt with when the 5 instances of insubordination were proven and documented. There is not evidence of the governor or her staff specifically threatening Monegan to remove Wooten or be fired. And, without that, there is no case given the information presented. All French is trying to do right now is fish around for a comment from her husband or the staff he can use to keep this investigation alive. At this point, there's really nothing to it and that's why Palin stopped participating. She's proven she had cause to remove him and they have no evidence she (or her staff) threatened Monegan. So, unless they can dig up something new, the case is dead.

Anyone who looks at the actual reason for the investigation (ethical claims involving Monegan's removal), the evidence Palin has presented (5 cases of insubordination) and the evidence given against her (one staffer asking why Wooten was still employed given his documented reprimands and a conversation between Monegan and her husband where Todd Palin DID NOT threaten Monegan or even asked for Wooten to be fired) can see this is paper thin. In fact, there has been very little discussion of that here. It's been more on talking points from the left or soundbites where the main outcry is that Palin is "preventing" them from making a case against her (just the claim itself sounds ridiculous).

It's their job to prove she threatened or had her staff threaten Monegan. They haven't done that to this point, French is panicking and now trying whatever he can do to keep the case alive. Palin has more than done enough to prove her innocence and had she not been named VP, it would already been done and put to bed for the Oct report.

Saying you're innocent should be good enough.

Yeah, not sure how anyone could think that...



The presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin has taken effective charge of the Alaska state government's response to the legislative investigation into abuse of power allegations against Palin.



An investigation that began on a bipartisan basis with several pledges from Palin to participate, is now being manipulated to protect Palin by campaign attorneys who appear to be directing the Palin administration's response, top legislators say.



"The state of Alaska and the Alaska Attorney General's Office don't need any help from a national campaign," said Sen. President Lyda Green, R-Wasilla.



Green said the Palin administration's response seems more geared to help the McCain campaign by shutting down the investigation that's become known as "Troopergate" than informing the Alaska public.

I've seen a few interviews of Lyda Green on TV. Anyone who doesn't think she has a chip on her shoulder from past political run-ins with Palin is fooling themselves. This woman is hell-bent on revenge, despite the fact that the Palin's have done plenty to prove that this investigation doesn't have any legs.

Everything Arles says needs to be archived for reference if Obama is President.

Fixed.

Found some very interesting work by DJ Drummond on the weighting of polls and just how misleading those results can be........

There Is No Alternate Universe (Wizbang)

Here are the calculations from the past few weeks of Gallup polls showing the results using support by voter group. Last week's results are the most telling of the bunch. Despite McCain support remaining steady or climbing over the last week in every voting group and Obama losing support in some groups, the change in weight resulting in an Obama gain being reported by Gallup. Certainly some very interesting analysis........

Errata (Wizbang)

I just read this on another website and found it funny:

Hey! But Palin can see Russia from Alaska. But, then again, Tyler Thigpen can see the endzone from his own 20 yard-line, but that doesn’t make him qualified to be a quarterback.

EPIC....BURN

:D

It's not even remotely close to a fair comparison. Thigpen is a disaster (three hours of my life I'll never get back). Palin at least has some experience and will be a backup rather than the starter.

It's totally on point. Thigpen had some experience (as a starting college QB, an apt comparison if there ever was one to being the mayor of Backwater, AL and the governor of AL for 2 years) was a backup rather than a starter. Palin will be a disaster (could be three years of your life you'll never get back).

Game. Set. Match.

True or not, that is pretty darn funny. Also, chalk me up as someone who has really enjoyed the SNL skits of the past 2-3 weeks. I'm hoping for even better material once the debates start.