Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm starting to wonder if he's borderline schizophrenic ... let's move to the right, no wait, I mean move to the left, no back to the ... At some point, I think he runs a risk of simply making everyone unhappy & leaving himself with a constituency of none.

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.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Arles

I don't know if it's 10-15 points, but it is pretty close, IMO.

RealClearPolitics - HorseRaceBlog - The State of the Race

The State of the Race

There's been a lot of talk about this dynamic race - "game changers" and "moments" and things of that nature. Regular readers of mine know that I don't subscribe to the view of politics inherent to that kind of analysis.

As an alternative to discussing Fannie, Freddie, lipstick on pigs, hacked emails, and patriotic 1040 filers - I thought I would put some simple numbers on the board to give us a sense of exactly what has changed since June 3rd.

I've broken the national polling into two sorting categories. First, we sort by pollster. We group the Gallup polls together, then the Rasmussen polls, then the remaining polls.

Second, we sort by date. We group the polls for June, then for July, then for August prior to the conventions, then for today.

Here are the results.

[table doesn't paste alas, have to go to the above link]

Let's analyze the data by one pollster category at a time. Rasmussen had fewer undecided/other voters to begin with, and this group has declined in size over time. Since June, the gain has been to McCain - though Obama is currently better positioned than he was in July or August.

We find something similar with the other pollsters (and the "today" category reflects the polls in the current RCP average that are not from Gallup or Rasmussen). Today, Obama is basically where he was in June while McCain is 4 points better off. Perhaps not coincidentally, the number of undecided has dropped by 3.7 points. Combined with Rasmussen, this suggests that McCain's convention helped him solidfy his core electorate. My general rule of thumb is that candidates should receive at least 45% of the vote in an open, two-way race. With the completion of a successful convention, McCain has now reached this floor.

Gallup shows something different. It had Obama performing more weakly at the beginning of the summer - and today it has him up. Meanwhile, McCain has barely improved since June. This implies that Obama, not McCain, has benefited from the drop in undecided voters. Of course, Gallup has moved very dramatically over the last three days. Such movement has not been uncommon for Gallup's daily tracker. It bounced a good bit for Obama's Europe trip, then the Democratic convention, then the Republican convention. Each time it has slowly made its way back toward a tighter race. Obama's recent bump in Gallup might correspond to market jitters, and it will be interesting to see if, as the jitters subside, Gallup finds a tighter race.

Let's analyze the race from a higher altitude. What do we see?

We see remarkable stability. Contrary to what one might think if one's only source for information was the political class - there has not been a lot of movement. The movement we have seen seems to have been pretty orderly - with McCain solidifying his Republican base.

We also see a group of undecided voters who have not yet made a choice. They will probably be decisive. In a race with only two salient candidates - the goal is to hit 50%-plus-one. Both McCain and Obama can still do that via the undecided voters, who are becoming the critical voting block.

I am not surprised by the fact that neither candidate has yet obtained enough support to win. This is an open election with no incumbent to evaluate, nor even a candidate from the incumbent administration. This is a bad year for the Republican Party, but the GOP nominated a guy who has built a reputation opposing his own party. The Democrats nominated a candidate with a background dramatically different from any major party nominee in American history. Between 4% and 8% of the country still does not know what to make of it yet. They were probably part of the 7% to 12% that were undecided in June.


My intuition is that this group is going to sort itself out late. I'd guess that they are the true independents, i.e. those without strong party attachments. [Many people say they are independent but they actually behave like partisans.] I'd also wager that they have not been paying a lot of attention yet. The debates might move them, but I wouldn't be surprised if these folks sort themselves out in late October.

It is not unreasonable to expect a close race. Some perspective is called for here. We have in our collective memory the blowouts of 1984, 1972, and 1964. However, presidential elections in the 19th century were persistently close. Between 1876 and 1896 - all five presidential elections were decided by 5% or less. The country was also closely split in the ante-bellum period. Between 1836 and 1860, only William Henry Harrison was able to pull substantially more than 50% of the vote. Typically, one saw multi-candidate fields, as the two major parties (Democratic and Whig) were unable to organize politics into the binary choice we have today. So, sustained periods of close elections and even splits in public opinion are as much a norm as anything in this country - and we might have recently re-entered such a phase.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

Obama was up around 7-8 points after his speech and gaining. The Palin nomination ended that (IMO, it could have gotten to 11-12 if Romney/Liebermann/Pawlenty had been named). Right after the republican convention, McCain was up between 4-7 points. McCain needed every bit of that to handle the bad economic news.

I don't know if it's 10-15 points, but it is pretty close, IMO. If McCain names Romney, Obama is up 8-10 points going into a very lackluster republican convention. Maybe they cut it by half and get it to a 4-5 point Obama lead. But then there's no Palin to take bullets for 3-4 weeks and Obama completely focuses on McCain and I'm guessing Obama would be up 10-15 points now with the bad economic news. Even if Romney cut a little more into the bleeding, McCain would still be down 7-10 points.

Like I said, about every card is stacked against McCain now, but it would be even worse without Palin. I also find it real interesting how everyone on the left continues to state what a bad choice Palin was, yet she's the only thing keeping the McCain camp afloat.

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

This thing is far from being over for McCain. I would play close attention to the polls that come out early next week, after the first debate on Friday night. If McCain is within 2 or 3 points of Obama, he's got a decent shot at winning the election. I'm also standing by my prediction that Obama's actual vote will be 2-3 points lower than his final polling numbers on November 3 (and maybe 3-4 points lower in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan). I know a lot of you guys disagree with me on that, but we'll see what happens. Juan Williams has gone on record stating that if Obama isn't up by at least 6 in the final polls, he's not going to win the election.

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

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Unless, of course, it's a break even or losing proposition when he demotivates voters from the core.

At the risk of repeating myself, if the Dems had run anybody but Obama this thing would already be over. And if McCain wants to start touting amnesty again then it might be over anyway. (No idea whether he is or isn't, that's just the gist of what I'm gathering from a quick check of this thread at the moment)

I'm starting to wonder if he's borderline schizophrenic ... let's move to the right, no wait, I mean move to the left, no back to the ... At some point, I think he runs a risk of simply making everyone unhappy & leaving himself with a constituency of none.

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.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

[Flasch186]

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'

Palin lawyer meets with investigator in probe

By MATT VOLZ 14 minutes ago

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Less than a week after balking at the Alaska Legislature's investigation into her alleged abuse of power, Gov. Sarah Palin on Monday indicated she will cooperate with a separate probe run by people she can fire.

An attorney for the GOP vice presidential nominee met with an investigator for the state Personnel Board to discuss sharing documents and schedule witness interviews, McCain spokeswoman Meg Stapleton said. Neither she nor McCain spokesman Ed O'Callaghan had further details about the meeting and said they did not know if the governor or her husband would be interviewed.

Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein said in an e-mail that information on who will be interviewed and when will be known on Tuesday. He said additional coordination meetings with the investigator, Anchorage attorney Timothy Petumenos, are likely.

After that, however, Petumenos wants to keep the progress of the investigation confidential and the campaign will not have any further comment, McCain spokesman Taylor Griffin said.

Both the Legislature and the personnel board have hired investigators in separate inquiries of whether Palin abused her power when she fired Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan this summer. Monegan refused to dismiss a state trooper who went through a bitter divorce with her sister before Palin's became governor.

Palin has refused to participate in the Legislature's investigation since becoming Sen. John McCain's running mate.

The other investigation is overseen by the state Personnel Board, a three-member panel appointed by the governor. Panel members can be fired by the governor for cause. Two members are holdovers from the previous governor and Palin reappointed the third.

One, Alfred Tamagni Sr., donated $400 to Palin's 2006 campaign. Petumenos has donated money to several Democratic candidates.

Separately, two Alaska Democrats urged state police to investigate why subpoenaed witnesses, including Palin's husband, did not testify before the legislative committee last week. The lawmakers, Rep. Les Gara and Sen. Bill Wielechowski, said state law bars witness tampering, but that they did not have enough information to file a formal complaint in the case.

Griffin said the campaign has not advised any witnesses on how to respond to subpoenas.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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

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

[DaddyTorgo]

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.

[Arles]

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 ).

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Social conservatives are the most reliable voters in the US.

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

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Less than a week after balking at the Alaska Legislature's investigation into her alleged abuse of power, Gov. Sarah Palin on Monday indicated she will cooperate with a separate probe run by people she can fire.

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.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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.

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Interesting that even for an economist pro-life trumps everything

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).

[Chief Rum]

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

[larrymcg421]

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.

[fantom1979]

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.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

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.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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).

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

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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

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

[Arles]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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.

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:

Now, according to papers filed by Palin's legal team, this was not the only instance of insubordination from Monegan. On December 9th of '07 Monegan held a press conference with Hollis French to push his own bulletin plan. On January 29th of this year, Palin's staffers had to rework their procedures to keep Monegan from bypassing normal channels for budget requests. In February of this year, Monegan publicly released a letter he wrote to Palin supporting a project that she had vetoed. And in June 26th, Monegan bypassed the governor's office entirely, contacted Alaska's congressional delegation to gain funding for a project.

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:

"If they had done their job they never would have picked her," said French. "Now they may have to deal with an October surprise," he said.

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".

[larrymcg421]

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.

[Chief Rum]

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.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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 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.

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.

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Arles]

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

Originally Posted by August 29th

It will be fascinating to see the Alaska Republican delegation front and center at this week’s Republican National Convention now that Alaska governor Sarah Palin will be on the ticket.

This is a state party whose establishment faction, to put it mildly, isn’t too enamored with their reform-minded governor.

This is a state party whose chairman, Randy Ruedrich, has been feuding with Palin for years. Palin exposed Ruedrich for ethical violations in 2004 when both served on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission — and their relationship has been frosty ever since.

Ruedrich declined to comment at the historic nature of having an Alaskan on the national ticket for the first time in the state’s history.

And this is a governor who bucked the establishment in endorsing her lieutenant governor, Sean Parnell, over Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who has represented the state in Congress for more than three decades.

The legislative leadership of the Alaska Republican Party isn’t enamored with Palin’s selection, either, according to the Anchorage Daily News.

State Senate President Lyda Green said she thought it was a joke when someone called her at 6 a.m. to tell her the news.

"She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Green, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"

Green, who has feuded with Palin, brought up the big oil tax increase Palin pushed through last year. She also pointed to the award of a $500 million state subsidy to a Canadian firm to pursue a natural gas pipeline that's far from guaranteed.

House Speaker John Harris, a Republican from Valdez, was also astonished at the news. He didn't want to get into the issue of her qualifications.

"She's old enough," Harris said. "She's a U.S. citizen."

It's striking to see the state's Democratic congressional nominee effusively praising Palin, while the leading Alaska Republicans are shunning her.

Taking on the GOP establishment is a central part of her appeal — and a major reason why McCain picked her — but her frosty relationship with much of her own statewide party will make for some interesting Alaska delegation breakfasts next week.

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

[larrymcg421]

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

[Arles]

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.

[JPhillips]

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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.

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.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

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 ).

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.

[ISiddiqui]

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

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

Joe Biden offered perhaps his most off-message statement yet since being tapped as Barack Obama's running mate, saying in an interview that he thought one of his campaign's own ads was "terrible" and hadn't know about it in advance.

Asked by CBS's Katie Couric about an ad Obama released earlier this month mocking John McCain for not being able to use a computer, Biden criticized the commercial and suggested it had been aired without his knowledge.

"I thought that was terrible by the way," Biden said of the computer ad in an interview broadcast tonight on the CBS Evening News

Asked why it was aired, Biden said: "I didn't know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we would have never done it."

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

[ISiddiqui]

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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.

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

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

At the risk of repeating myself, if the Dems had run anybody but Obama this thing would already be over.

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

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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

SI

[JPhillips]

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.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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!

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

- subordination item #1 - In one message, the governor’s budget director, Karen Rehfeld, wrote that she was “stunned and amazed” that Monegan appeared to be working with a powerful state legislator, Anchorage Republican Rep. Kevin Meyer, to seek funding for a project Palin previously had vetoed.

- subordination item #2 (12/9/07): Monegan holds a press conference with Hollis French to push his own budget plan.

- subordination item #3 (1/29/08): Palin’s staffers have to rework their procedures to keep Monegan from bypassing normal channels for budget requests.

- subordination item #4 (February 2008): Monegan publicly releases a letter he wrote to Palin supporting a project she vetoed.

- subordination item #5 (June 26, 2008): Monegan bypassed the governor’s office entirely and contacted Alaska’s Congressional delegation to gain funding for a project.

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):

"If the governor was upset with me for one thing or another, it had never been communicated to me," he said in an interview Saturday evening.

Monegan joked that he's "getting a complex," but said the kinds of jobs he's had lately are ones where you serve at the pleasure of your boss.

"They can call me in and say, you know, 'I don't like your hair; you're fired,' " Monegan said.

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:

"If they had done their job they never would have picked her," said French. "Now they may have to deal with an October surprise," he said.

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.

[JPhillips]

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.

[Fighter of Foo]

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.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

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.

[JPhillips]

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

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Everything JPhillips says needs to be archived for reference if Palin, errrrr McCain is President.

Fixed.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

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)

[Honolulu_Blue]

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.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

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

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

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.

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.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

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.

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.