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.

From a political standpoint, this troopergate thing is still holding on and doing some damage. I just don't see the validity of the case against Palin when all the data is put on the table. I think the democrats are smart to focus on how much she is helping (or not helping) the process instead of the actual case (which is really a joke at this point).

In the end, though, this is still Obama's race to win. Troopergate could get settled tomorrow or hang on for another month, but what people feel about Obama as president is what is going to determine this election. McCain is like dusty old cleats that have been OK for years and Obama is the new UnderArmor model. If people can get past their fear of the blisters and have confidence in the new design, he wins. If they just want some stability and the old standby, McCain may win.

Yeah, I'd have to agree with MBBF than it is not a fair comparison. At least Thigpen would make himself available to the press after the game to answer questions.

:D

OK...Here's Sullivan on Palin

- She has lied about the Bridge To Nowhere. She ran for office favoring it, wore a sweatshirt defending it, and only gave it up when the federal congress, Senator McCain in particular, went ballistic. She kept the money anyway and favors funding Don Young's Way, at twice the cost of the original bridge.
- She has lied about her firing of the town librarian and police chief of Wasilla, Alaska.
- She has lied about pressure on Alaska's public safety commissioner to fire her ex-brother-in-law.
- She has lied about her previous statements on climate change.
- She has lied about Alaska's contribution to America's oil and gas production.
- She has lied about when she asked her daughters for their permission for her to run for vice-president.
- She has lied about the actual progress in constructing a natural gas pipeline from Alaska.
- She has lied about Obama's position on habeas corpus.
- She has lied about her alleged tolerance of homosexuality.
- She has lied about the use or non-use of a TelePrompter at the St Paul convention.
- She has lied about her alleged pay-cut as mayor of Wasilla.
- She has lied about what Alaska's state scientists concluded about the health of the polar bear population in Alaska.




No wonder they won't let her do a press conference. ;)

I <3 polar bears. fuck her!

It is very important for the Republicans to seem to be doing something to over-turn Roe. It would be political suicide for them to actually do it. Then that huge, gullible voting block might just evaporate.

Yeah, what he said. :)

I thought Obama would fade in some of these places like Virginia, Indiana, Colorado, Nevada and maybe New Mexico as the election progressed. I guess I thought it'd go the way he has in Texas & Georgia, where he will likely run better than a Dem has in a while, but not have any real chance of winning.

It looks like he has a real chance to flip a couple of these, though. Here are the RCP averages:

New Mexico - Obama +6.0
Colorado (Republican since 1992) - Obama +4.0
Virginia (Republican since 1964) - McCain +1.3
Nevada - McCain +1.7
Indiana (Republican since 1964) - McCain +2.3

Just as an aside, I think this pretty much illustrates how insane this blog world is getting. When "a big lie" is whether you tell your kids a day before or two days before you learn about the nomination, it's getting to the point of being insufferable. Now, this isn't just a left thing, but this Palin "gotcha" game is becoming a little ridiculous.

Almost as ridiculous is someone actually posting the above point to help support a broader argument. The blogs have basically become 4-5 people doing work to actually gain compelling information. Then, about 5000 people filter this and make completely laughable conclusions, claims and assertions. All with "fully documented proof" like Palin's daughter is a little fat so she "MUST" have given birth to her down's syndrome brother (even though the chances were better that the leader of the Daily Kos would be elected president than 16-year old give birth to a down's baby).

And, of course, Palin is a terrible liar because she said she told her daughters two days before the announcement when her other statements show it could have been no more than one day.

HA-HA - got YOU Palin. Take THAT! :jester:

I'm SURE you read all 12 of those in detail...

The point is one or two instances is one thing, a fully documented pattern of compulsive lying is quite another.

Of course when your counter argument can be summarised as LOUD NOISES!!!! it doesn't much matter.

she lied about the polar bears though Arles. that's not okay! polar bears are cute...and vicious. you can't dislike them.

It is a "big lie" because she very clearly described the process as happening one way (we took a vote of the girls) and the very next day very clearly described the process a completely different way (they kept it a secret from the kids). Why she felt the need to blatantly lie about an issue as completely insignificant as when she told her daughters about being chosen as veep is "big", because - taken in context with the dozens of other documented cases where she's lied - it displays a pattern of behavior whereby Sarah Palin has no problem lying about whatever and whenever she wants and expecting to get away with it.

It is a "big lie" because it demonstrates - as clearly as other traits some may bring up - that Sarah Palin is unfit for public service.

So she should have no problem providing all the evidence, and all the witness depositions that are requested, since she did not wrong and said, "Hold me accountable." there is NO OUT HERE and the person being investigated doesnt get to decide when the investigator has enough info to render a report or when the issue is dead. Youre spun and have admitted so, so it should come as no surprise that youre right in line with them, and seem to have changed your tune right when they did too. Shocker.

Right, those seeking the truth are on a withchunt and those being investigated are now victims, gotcha. Seems to be right in line along political lines which means it should ABSOLUTELY be followed through until the truth is resolved.

She gave more than enough documentation and records to show she had cause to fire Monegan for insubordination. But the proof is not on her end to show why she doesn't need to talk to French, the proof is on French's end to show why he needs to ask more questions to Palin and the staffers. What "cause" does he have to show they need to subpoenaed. According the AG, it wasn't enough for the subpoenas to stand up.

You can't just require people to talk to you in an ethics investigation for no reason. While he is at it, why not subpoena John and Cindy McCain? Maybe they had a conversation with Palin that may have involved this subject?

French has nothing to base this on and is reaching/fishing for something to keep it going. The AG has said the subpoenas are not valid, so why should Palin honor them when it's obvious he has a political axe to grind? Again, it's not her job to make sure he is able to fully investigate the case to his liking. He needs to provide reasons and new, compelling information on why these people need to testify. Until he does that, Palin would be stupid to allow people close to her to enter this fishing expedition.

This is a perfect post to back the comments I made above. Thank you for providing it.

Let's see, the State Senate President who has basically been at loggerheads with Palin because she started to go after corruption among Republicans is suddenly just "seeking the truth". I have a feeling if this was a State Senate President in Illinois, who butted heads with Obama, pushing for a Rezko investigation, you'd sing a different tune.

not for her to decide


When she said she'd cooperate and to hold her accountable she placed the onus on herself to do just that. conveniently she has flip flopped (as have you).


The people subpoenaed have a duty to cooperate and if that should lead to further subpoenas than they should Cooperate as well (this smacks of W's people who stand in contempt of their congressional subpoenas)


Again, look at her own quotes. or for that matter your own quotes, spinster.


If you keep telling the same garbage hopefully you'll get others to believe it too.

no i wouldnt and if this is how you feel than no one ever will be investigated for anything, although that has been par for the course in politics for a long long time.

Yeah, see, I don't believe that.

If someone actually thinks that Green is more interested in the truth than trying to smack down Palin hasn't followed things. I mean she was the one who was yelling at Palin being unprepared as soon as she was tabbed for VP... what Party member does that, unless you are Zell Miller or Joe Libermann and then you are villified by the party you originally came from.

Though in the Palin case, while I think there should be an investigation, it's a bit tainted by the "October Surprise" comments and appearances of a fishing expedition.

Investigation? Hasn't the man been convicted and sentenced already? If there was any dirt to be found between Obama and Rezko, don't you think REPUBLICANS would have been found already? Oh wait, it was there with the housing thing and Obama suffered quite a bit during the primaries for it.

Quit crying a fuckin river for this woman. She's in the big leagues now and she's gotta play be the same rules as everyone else.

Thank you for making my point.

Welp, there you go.

French didn't just show up one day out of the blue. He was appointed by a Republican legislature and the subpoenas were approved by the committee. Whether or not you think she's guilty of any crime is immaterial. Elected officials shouldn't be able to ignore subpoenas.

I love how people are attacking the motives of Green and French, but we're just supposed to believe the word of the completely unbiased Attorney General.

Hmmm, something doesn't sound right. What could it be?


Heh.

No problem. Anytime. :lol:

BTW, its been how long since the (R) convention and this woman has taken three interviews. Three. aOnly one of substance. She's blocking a review of her "leadership" credentials, after she agreed to it. Now she meets with foreign leaders to take pictures, and you guys want her as your VP? Good lord, what a crazy world.

I don't believe any of them, nor think we should trust any of them. They all have their own political motives in this.

Gotta love this plank of the Republican platform, which was only passed last month:

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Economy.htm

Here's a look at how the Senate races are playing out right now...

Both sides have had lofty goals, with the Democrats talking about a filibuster proof majority, and the Republicans saying that a Palin boost could be strong enough to hold at 49 seats. Neither of these is very likely.

The Republicans are in bad shape from the start because they are defending 23 seats, almost twice as many as the Dems. Of these 23, they are pretty much locks to hold in WY, WY, MS, AL, NE, TN, KS, SC, ID, and OK. They also hold good leads in ME, GA, and TX. There was a SurveyUSA poll that showed McConnell in danger in KY, but I still think he's gonna win until we see something to verify that poll.

That leaves 9 seats to defend (MS, NC, OR, MN, VA, NM, NH, CO, AK). I think they will likely win MS and likely lose VA, NM, NH, CO, and AK.

The remaining states are NC, OR, MN, all of which show very close polling. They are at 41 before these three and don't really havce a shot at picking off any incumbent Dems, so I think the best case scenario for the GOP is 44 seats.

For the GOP dream of 49 seats, they'd have to win all three of those close races, keep their seats in AK, CO, and NH, and pick off two Dem incumbents (best bets are Lautenberg and Landrieu and they're not very good bets). For the Dem dream of 60 seats, they'd have to win all three of those close races, and pick off McConnell in KY or Wicker in MS.

For those who think Palin, her husband and her staff should enter French and Green's fishing expedition on their own accord, what possible "successful" scenario could come from such a move on Palin's part?

She's already provided more than enough information show cause for Monegan's removal, so it's doubtful the case will be dropped. It's doubtful she will get any credit for speaking with them as she got no credit when she released all the documents both in early August and even some internal memos in September. To me, I see no positive result from Palin speaking to these people.

With that in mind, why would Palin willingly put herself in a situation (in the middle of a very angry campaign against her) that has no positive result? It would be sheer stupidity to do so.

because she said it herself, to hold her accountable and investigate. Again, She doesnt get to decide what is enough proof or evidence or information. If you want to argue that Fench needs to be removed, thats a whole 'nother ballgame, but arguing that the investigation shouldnt continue to its fruition smacks of spin, ignorance, deceit, and scumbaggery. (BTW, love the additional person added to the list of those who are biased in their investigation - it's not just French now....I assume the list will grow to encompass anyone who wants the investigation to follow the path to its honest conclusion)

Palin meets her first world leaders in New York - Yahoo! News

I think where we differ is I feel she has done more than enough to help the investigation - at a very minimum she's met her legal requirements. If they don't have enough for a conviction at this point, that's a French problem - not a Palin problem.

I'll try that line the next time I get subpoenaed.

btw- When was it that Republicans became such passive-aggressive pussies? This used to be a kick ass and take names party, but now all they can do is complain about being mistreated.

Palin never got subpoenaed and the AG determined the subpoenas French and company submitted to her husband and staffer was invalid.

So, if a judge stated that a subpoena sent to you or your family on a civil/criminal case against you was invalid, you would go and testify anyway? Even if no positive result could come from it?

I don't think Palin is being mistreated on troopergate. She's taken some hits publicly for her choices and I think that's fair. I'm just amazed that people think she isn't making the right decision. I'm of the opinion that if you are charged with a crime and nothing good can come from you testifying - why do it and potentially help the prosecution? Especially when there is no legal reason for you to do so. And, when you look at the flimsy case they have, I don't see much to really knock Palin on.

hmmm, I wonder how people wouldve felt had Clinton refused to testify anyways, the 'pleading the 5th' case makes sense, if thats where youre going BUT I REALLY REALLY dont like that we have a Pol. pleading the 5th in something (right or wrong) before even being elected. That's a really really bad sign.

Judge > Appointed AG

good point

When did the Attorney General become a judge? I know Alaska's small but I think they have actual judges. If an actual judge had said that, then they'd have every right to ignore the subpoenas. The Attorney General has as much standing to say this as I do.

The son of a colleague of mine was killed in Iraq this weekend. It can be easy to lose sight of the real world when arguing about politics, but I very much hope that the next administration will move us closer to ending the conflict in Iraq.

+1

I'm of the opinion that politicians shouldn't have the option of pleading the 5th (i'm sure people could come up with some cases where i'd say it was okay, but by and large i don't think there are any).

Then why have no charges been filed by the Alaska legislature or law enforcement for Todd Palin and her staffers ignoring the subpoenas? I mean, if you said Todd Palin didn't have to heed the subpoena, I'm thinking he would still have to honor it. Yet, neither him or the staffers are required to do so - meaning the subpoenas are not valid.

Who pleaded the fifth in the Palin investigation? As far as I can tell, they haven't even requested additional testimony from Sarah Palin. Did I miss something?

no you didn't miss something. i was responding to flasch's comment (although i guess i didn't quote it)

Palin's inexperience is starting to become more of an issue when compared with the seasoning and expertise of Joe Biden. Here is Biden's take on the need for action due to the recent financial crisis:

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened'".

"October 29, 1929, a date which will live in infamy."

I'm sorry, but using the AG's argument is pretty ridiculous. The AG is part of Palin's administration. Are we really expecting him to say anything different? How can you criticize Green and French because of their obvious biases, but then use the AG's position to make your point?

And Biden was there to see it live! :lol:

Nope. But McCain was pretty damn close to there. He was born while FDR was still in office.

By the way, what happened to the good ole days when someone went from Secretary of Commerce to President of the United States?

shame on you! trying to apply LOGIC to the spin! what are you thinking?

Yeah, and apparently he was the only one who had a TV in 1929, because the rest of the country had to wait another 10 years. :lol: