Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[molson]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Oddly enough, I was just reading this page earlier today:

Fight the Smears | Fight the Smears Home

Fatigue and overuse of the term "lie".

The real, intended deceptions just get lumped with with all the crap until nobody cares anymore.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Obama Camp Says "Enough is Enough" -- Political Wire

that's alluding to it, but not necessarily doing it. still...promising.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Galaril

The second thing that caught me was did she not only say if need be we should go to war against Russia but invade Pakistan if need be? I do agree with the later adneven the first could be necessary some day but this is not the place state those types of things.

We invaded Pakistan yesterday.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm sure the spin will be that the Republicans in AK are out for revenge because she went against them in trying to clean up the corruption.

The "spin" is a subpoena plastered on a message board as some kind of evidence of guilt. OF COURSE he's subpoenad. Who was it earlier in the thread that posted, all fired up, that Palin's legal fund was being supported by...gasp...her employer (the State of Alaska).

Hey, maybe there's a real, damming, story out there somewhere. By the time it's dug up nobody's going to give a shit because people are SO FIRED UP to post the slightest, most remotely negative news about someone, no matter how meaningless.

I mean, Jesus, somebody got a SUBPOENA? I've gotten at least 10 subpoenas this year so far. One time I actually spent 10 minutes making photo copies in response.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by molson

Fatigue and overuse of the term "lie".

The real, intended deceptions just get lumped with with all the crap until nobody cares anymore.

I agree, but where do you draw the line? You saw the snopes article I posted with the rumors that Obama is that anti-Christ. That wasn't included. It's a tough call, but when it's his own web page, it's a place people are looking to for that information specifically, so it can't hurt to err on the side of having too much info.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

We invaded Pakistan yesterday.

About Friggen' time.

The thing is, Pakistan is fine with this. They just don't want to be seen within their country as allowing it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

About Friggen' time.

The thing is, Pakistan is fine with this. They just don't want to be seen within their country as allowing it.

Not sure that's true with the leadership change in Pakistan.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by molson

About Friggen' time.

The thing is, Pakistan is fine with this. They just don't want to be seen within their country as allowing it.

I'm pretty sure the civilians who live in the area we invaded aren't OK with it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Not sure that's true with the leadership change in Pakistan.

Maybe, but then the timing of this is interesting.

Maybe we've had more military operations in Pakistan the last 7 years than anyone knows about.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

Fatigue and overuse of the term "lie".

The real, intended deceptions just get lumped with with all the crap until nobody cares anymore.

but the real question is do you care?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

I'm pretty sure the civilians who live in the area we invaded aren't OK with it.

Screw them, this is Al Qaeda's safest haven in the world.

I thought even Democrats were on board with this "right war".

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Maybe, but then the timing of this is interesting.

Maybe we've had more military operations in Pakistan the last 7 years than anyone knows about.

This is just conjecture, but I think we're doing this for a few reasons. One, with the change in leadership we aren't as tied to the leadership anymore. It's not as important for us to keep the current leadership in place, so destabilizing them doesn't carry as much risk. Two, I really think Bush want's to get Bin Laden before he leaves office and is ramping up activities to do so.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

but the real question is do you care?

Not really. It's tough to get a handle on it. If someone says something in a speech that turns out not to be true my assumption is that they were mistaken, rather than it was a "lie". When it's a Democrat looking for dirt on the other side (or vice versa), I don't put a whole lot of stock in someone trying to make a huge deal out of something that isn't a concrete deception.

I guess my tipping point is when after a speech, someone somewhere posts a list of all the errors from factcheck.org or whatever it is, and calls them "lies". Hey, it's great somebody's checking on all this stuff, but a lot of times it's just not a black/white issue, and things can be looked at in a number of ways. Remember Bush going nuts on Gore at one of the debates after Gore said Bush owned a lumber company? Afterwards everyone went to look to see if he did, and it was kind of a grey area. So to liberals, Bush was a liar, and to conservatives, Gore was a liar for brining it up in the first place. And they were really all full of shit.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by molson

Screw them, this is Al Qaeda's safest haven in the world.

I thought even Democrats were on board with this "right war".

So you're all for killing innocent people? That's fantastic. Do you have a certain number in mind? How many until it's unacceptable?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

So you're all for killing innocent people? That's fantastic. Do you have a certain number in mind? How many until it's unacceptable?

I'm going to say 10,000 is too many.

Edit: A joke. I didn't say anything about killing civilians intentionally. But some civilian casulties are unavoidable in even worthwhile military operations. If you think otherwise you're even more radical than say, Michael Moore, who supported combat operations in Afghanistan (and, I'm going to assume, WWII).

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm going to say 10,000 is too many.

Edit: A joke. I didn't say anything about killing civilians intentionally. But some civilian casulties are unavoidable in even worthwhile military operations.

Well that's a much better response than "screw them" -- except for joking around about it.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

I'm pretty sure the civilians who live in the area we invaded aren't OK with it.

Are you really trying to parrot the claims of the killed only being civilians and no militants? Not to mention at a certain point, if it's not under Pakistan's control - and Waziristan is not - I really don't care about notional sovereignty.

(Plus if you look up RoE, we've had this authority with regards to both Syria and Iran since at least fall 2004 - somewhere on wikileaks they have the actual RoE posted outlining the ability to cross the borders.)

[molson]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Well that's a much better response than "screw them" -- except for joking around about it.

Again, I wasn't talking about killing anyone, I was responding to someone saying that the civilians in the tribal areas of Northwest Pakistan might not "be OK with" the US "invading" there.

And to that, I affirm, "screw them". I don't particularly care what they're "OK" with.

Is a civilian even a civilian if they give safe haven to Al-Qaeda?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

i highly doubt that that will be the spin, Lar.

Seriously? Or was that sarcasm (which you don't do a lot of IMO, which is why I'm not sure).

I'd say that's the most likely spin and that LMcG's guess was a good one.

Then again, spin or not, it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that there might indeed be more than few Republican Party members in Alaska who would like to see Palin cut off at the knees, drawn, quartered, and the pieces scattered by placing them inside an oil pipeline.

[Flasch186]

unfortunately the tipping point is coming if not already reached when foreign countries state that any foreign incursion will result in a declaration of war, and that may be ok with you but as Molson pointed out, it may not be black and white. So we send some troops to secure georgia and Russia declares war in conjunction with Pakistan, Syria, Iran, etc. etc. etc.

The idea of respecting another countries borders needs to be balanced with that countries willingness to go to war. Funny that the righties seem to use this equation when deciding which countries to run incursions into but dont use the same equation when seeing why Russia felt it ok to fight with Georgia.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Seriously? Or was that sarcasm (which you don't do a lot of IMO, which is why I'm not sure).

I'd say that's the most likely spin and that LMcG's guess was a good one.

Then again, spin or not, it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that there might indeed be more than few Republican Party members in Alaska who would like to see Palin cut off at the knees, drawn, quartered, and the pieces scattered by placing them inside an oil pipeline.

I dont think I was being sarcastic but it was a while ago

I mean that the party may get a nice email letting them know which way the flag needs to fly. not sure though, dont care though, really. all I want is for the sun to shine on the truth, whatever that may be.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

The idea of respecting another countries borders needs to be balanced with that countries willingness to go to war. Funny that the righties seem to use this equation when deciding which countries to run incursions into but dont use the same equation when seeing why Russia felt it ok to fight with Georgia.

Everybody uses that equation, but its not inconsistent to feel the US is right to go into northwest Pakistan and also that Russia was wrong to go into Georgia. Both are arguable points, I guess, but they can be judged on their own merits, they're completely different situations. And even the individual situations can be broken down - someone can see Russia's point of view, but still don't want them to gain influence for the security of their own country (whether it be the US, or the Ukraine)

And yes, I think McCain is (comically) wrong when he tries to make broad points like, "in the 21st century, soverign nations don't invade other soverign nations" where obviously there's a tipping point where even Michael Moore would support invading a soverign nation (and the tipping point for McCain is of course far lower). Every situation is different.

[molson]

"If you are better off than you were eight years ago ... John McCain is your man.

Pretty bold statement by Obama. Unless you have had a serious medical issue, have committed a felony, or are over 40 years old, who isn't better off than they were 8 years ago? If none of that applies to you, and you're worse off than you were in 2000, I think your problems go way beyond George W. Bush, and I don't think Obama will be able to save you.

He's really hitting hard this message that our economy is in near-ruins, but is that really the case, is that really resonating with people?

I know a lot of people have bought houses they couldn't afford and then lost them in those 8 years, but even they're just back where they started (and hopefully have better employment than they did 8 years ago).

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

Everybody uses that equation, but its not inconsistent to feel the US is right to go into northwest Pakistan and also that Russia was wrong to go into Georgia. Both are arguable points, I guess, but they can be judged on their own merits, they're completely different situations..

neither one is right or wrong, per se...it simply is another domino. The question is, will that domino cause other dominoes to fall. Obviously Russia answered the equation with a "no" or "not only is it 'no' but other former satellites will be watching this and think twice going forward.'" The equation is exactly the same but the variables may be slightly different so do not be shocked by the outcome as it is the policy makers that need to do a much much MUCH better job of speculating and forecasting the dominoes to fall. If anything one could argue that that has been W's weakest aspect...forecasting what is to come and Im not only talking about militarily. For the W example you could say, 'ownership society' vs. the housing bubble v. low interest rates v. the run up of derivitives v. the financial implosion v. katrina, etc. etc. etc.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

"If you are better off than you were eight years ago ... John McCain is your man.
Unless you have had a serious medical issue, have committed a felony, or are over 40 years old, who isn't better off than they were 8 years ago?

I nominate this for dumbest statement in this thread (or at least in recent memory). wow. just wow.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I nominate this for dumbest statement in this thread (or at least in recent memory). wow. just wow.

EIGHT years is a long time to get your shit together. If you can't, you're not good at life. Sorry.

I can see the hardship of losing your job. It doesn't take 8 years to recover from that.

Maybe if you had your life savings in Enron stock, I'll add that as an exception. There's some others I missed.

At the very least, you should have close to 8 years more job experience. 8 years of good credit built up (barring one of the exceptions). 8 years further along on your mortage (or maybe you've gone from renting/buying, or you're renting a nicer place). That stuff stagnates over time, but between 20-40 years old, you need to be seeing some improvements over an 8 year period or you're doing something wrong that the president ain't gonna fix.

I think there was a poll once here about whether you're better off that you were over some time frame. In this age group, it's automatic, you don't have to do too much.

[albionmoonlight]

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

I'm in two minds whether John McCain has lost his mind or never had a soul. But I have to say I am surprised by the barrage of lies and distractions his campaign is throwing out. The farce of the Palin candidacy is one such distraction - but the lies about sex education, the lies about Palin's pork record, the lies about "tiny" Iran, the lies about the lipstick-pig nonsense, the lies about the bridge to nowhere, the lies about the oil pipeline ... I mean, what is going on?

Some believe this is just GOP hardball. But it actually isn't. They're usually not this stupid. If you are going to broadcast a series of outrageous, demonstrable lies to smear your opponent, you tend to to that in the last two weeks of a campaign, so the lies can actually stick before they are debunked. But in September?

I know many people believe that the American people - especially the under-informed swing voters - are too dumb to know when they are being lied to. But these lies are so obvious that this cannot be true. And the sheer viciousness of the personal attacks on Obama make Rove's attack on McCain in 2000 seem mild.

Here's what I think. I think McCain is out of it. I think he checked out of his own campaign and handed it over to Schmidt and his fellow Rovians. This does not mean he does not have total responsibility. John McCain is now for ever a despicable and dishonest and dishonorable man. He has destroyed his reputation. But he is also trying to do what he can to win this election. My view is: if this is how he intends to win this election, he has mis-timed his lies.

So my assumption is that this is all about trying to get into Obama's head and get him to make a mistake. Which is why Obama needs now more than ever to stay calm and confident and focused.

I think that recent events have left Andrew Sullivan just a wee bit perturbed.

[molson]

I'd love to see a list of these McCain "lies", and I swear I'll look at them with an open mind and see if I find them alarming. Is there an online depository of McCain lies?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

EIGHT years is a long time to get your shit together. If you can't, you're not good at life. Sorry.

I can see the hardship of losing your job. It doesn't take 8 years to recover from that.

Maybe if you had your life savings in Enron stock, I'll add that as an exception. There's some others I missed.

At the very least, you should have close to 8 years more job experience. 8 years of good credit built up (barring one of the exceptions). 8 years further along on your mortage (or maybe you've gone from renting/buying, or you're renting a nicer place). That stuff stagnates over time, but between 20-40 years old, you need to be seeing some improvements over an 8 year period or you're doing something wrong that the president ain't gonna fix.

I think there was a poll once here about whether you're better off that you were over some time frame. In this age group, it's automatic, you don't have to do too much.

The fault with this is you're assuming that nothing could have happened in the past eight years to lower your standard of living. It's possible to have been better off in 2006 and no worse off than you were in 2000.

[molson]

I should note that even though Obama just told me, and a great majority of people 18-40 to vote for McCain, I'm still not going to.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The fault with this is you're assuming that nothing could have happened in the past eight years to lower your standard of living. It's possible to have been better off in 2006 and no worse off than you were in 2000.

"better off" and "standard of living" aren't necessarily the same thing, though I see your point about the timing of years.

I think you're "better off" if you have the same standard of living, but make more money, have better job prospects, and have more saved for retirement. It's REALLY hard to go backwards entirely.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

EIGHT years is a long time to get your shit together. If you can't, you're not good at life. Sorry.

I can see the hardship of losing your job. It doesn't take 8 years to recover from that.

Maybe if you had your life savings in Enron stock, I'll add that as an exception. There's some others I missed.

At the very least, you should have close to 8 years more job experience.

I'm failing to understand your logic for several reasons:

A) You're sticking to this 8 years thing, as if everything bad only happened the moment Bush was inaugurated.

B) Even if you do recover that doesn't mean you're better off than you were 8 years ago, especially if you had to take money from your savings to get by, lost your health benefits and had to have surgery, etc.

C) It's all about matter of perceptions. In a USA Today/Gallup poll, 81% of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country and only 18% are satisfied. The same poll at this point in Clinton's 2nd term 63% were satisfied to 33% unsatisfied. Furthermore, ABC News has a consumer confidence index, which ranges on a scale from +100 to -100. The all-time high was in January 2000 when it was +38. Currently it stands at -47.

D) We can argue about how good the economy actually was or who was actually responsible for it, but the perception is that Clinton did a great job and Bush did a terrible job. It would be stupid for Obama to not try and take advantage of this.

[Flasch186]

do I have a second to the motion?

[lurker]

There's also the fact that molson stuck in the "or are over 40 years old" clause in his list of calamities. I don't think Obama was only talking about people aged 20-40 in his speech, and it seems weird to make that assumption.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm failing to understand your logic for several reasons:

A) You're sticking to this 8 years thing, as if everything bad only happened the moment Bush was inaugurated.

B) Even if you do recover that doesn't mean you're better off than you were 8 years ago, especially if you had to take money from your savings to get by, lost your health benefits and had to have surgery, etc.

C) It's all about matter of perceptions. In a USA Today/Gallup poll, 81% of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country and only 18% are satisfied. The same poll at this point in Clinton's 2nd term 63% were satisfied to 33% unsatisfied. Furthermore, ABC News has a consumer confidence index, which ranges on a scale from +100 to -100. The all-time high was in January 2000 when it was +38. Currently it stands at -47.

D) We can argue about how good the economy actually was or who was actually responsible for it, but the perception is that Clinton did a great job and Bush did a terrible job. It would be stupid for Obama to not try and take advantage of this.

Obama's smart to hit the economy hard, no question. I just thought the comment was a little silly. I wasn't making a broader point about the economy, and I'm just focussing on the 8 years Obama did in the comment.

Anyone here want to admit they're worse off than they were 8 years ago? I don't see how that's possible without something terrible happening.

[molson]

Originally Posted by lurker

There's also the fact that molson stuck in the "or are over 40 years old" clause in his list of calamities. I don't think Obama was only talking about people aged 20-40 in his speech, and it seems weird to make that assumption.

Right, I'm sure he wasn't limiting his comment at all, I just think it's funny that he told the great majority of people under 40 that "McCain's you're man". They'll vote for him anyway, so it's not a big deal.

I think it's somewhere more likely to be 50 and worse off than you were at 42, but that's still a minority.

[Flasch186]

How is it defined, Mo? Financially? Happiness level? closer to goals? alive? I mean shit, Im closer to the death day so, no?

[JPhillips]

I'm probably no better overall than I was eight years ago and my net worth may be lower. I'm a lot better than I was three years ago, but that was after a pretty good fall.

I don't know the numbers, but I can certainly see how you could be worse off than eight years ago. If had had lost my job or house over the past three or four years, I'd likely be worse off. A catastrophic illness that led to bankruptcy would also likely make me worse off.

[lurker]

Originally Posted by molson

Right, I'm sure he wasn't limiting his comment at all, I just think it's funny that he told the great majority of people under 40 that "McCain's you're man".

Okay, so if he's not limiting his comment to under 40-year olds, why are you doing it for him? Are you trying to say that most voters are under 40 (doubtful), and that most of those people will vote for him? In that case, he'd be all set and not even need to be doing any campaigning!

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

How is it defined, Mo? Financially? Happiness level? closer to goals? alive? I mean shit, Im closer to the death day so, no?

I don't know. If I was drinking with friends at a bar though, and we were talking about our lives the last 8 years, it'd be pretty damn depressing if someone even felt they were worse off then they were in 2000.

[larrymcg421]

I thought it was obvious that Obama is doing a riff on Reagan's 1980 strategy against Carter. That's where the "Are you better off?" thing came from.

The thing is most people do not feel that they are better off than they were 8 years ago, and clearly feel that things are only going to get worse. It's a little harder for Obama since he's not running against an incumbent, but it is still the incumbent party and he needs to hammer this home.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by molson

"If you are better off than you were eight years ago ... John McCain is your man.

Pretty bold statement by Obama. Unless you have had a serious medical issue, have committed a felony, or are over 40 years old, who isn't better off than they were 8 years ago? If none of that applies to you, and you're worse off than you were in 2000, I think your problems go way beyond George W. Bush, and I don't think Obama will be able to save you.

He's really hitting hard this message that our economy is in near-ruins, but is that really the case, is that really resonating with people?

I know a lot of people have bought houses they couldn't afford and then lost them in those 8 years, but even they're just back where they started (and hopefully have better employment than they did 8 years ago).

Yeah it really is a mess, the economy. I just came from a meeting with the CFO of the client company I am an IT PM at. The meeting was to let me know the company has decided to cut 60% of there projects and that includes most of the projects left in my team. So, now I have to go tell the 4 people in my team since they are not salaried perms that they should start looking for a new job.

[molson]

I've decided that I'm probably biased on this because I graduated college in 2000. So the Bush years about been about huge life gains for everyone I know, because we started at around zero when Bush was sworn in.

2000-2008 is the time my peers found careers, bought a house, got promoted, got marrried, started saving for retirement, etc. There's no way 2008-2016 will see that kind of rate of improvement, no matter who's president.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Anyone here want to admit they're worse off than they were 8 years ago?

{scratches head}

Financially you mean? Yeah, I'd say we are ... but that doesn't have a hell of a lot to do with who has been President or in Congress. Has a lot more to do with shifts within our industry that were influenced by the free market than it has to do with government, policy, etc.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't know. If I was drinking with friends at a bar though, and we were talking about our lives the last 8 years, it'd be pretty damn depressing if someone even felt they were worse off then they were in 2000.

Don't think anyone would disagree with that. After I lost my second job in less than a year I was pretty depressed.

[miked]

My mom and sister have both lost their jobs and are on state health care, which in GA is something to be desired. My budget (from the NIH) which was promised and on target to double, was frozen and is now being reduced annually (especially if you account that new funds are only being made available for bioterrorism related projects).

So, uhm, yeah, things are pretty much the worst they've been for me and my family, but thankfully we planned well and are able to weather the storm for now. Sadly, many people aren't in the same situation.

[larrymcg421]

I'm actually much, much better off than I was 8 years ago. My salary has more than doubled since then and I stand to make more this year than I ever have.

But I still plan to vote for Obama eventhough he's telling me to vote for McCain.

[stevew]

I'd say I'm better off, but the prices on everything are just killing any kind of financial momentum I'm trying to build.

Utilities and Energy costs are taking up way too much of my check in relation to where they were in 2000.

[Flasch186]

A little more detail on the subpoena for Palin's husband and some other documents:

Lawmakers vote to subpoena Palin's husband, aides - CNN.com

Originally Posted by Article

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) -- Alaska lawmakers voted Friday to subpoena Gov. Sarah Palin's husband, several aides and phone records in their investigation into Palin's firing of her public safety commissioner, setting up what one senator called a "branch-versus-branch smackdown."
Gov. Sarah Palin is fighting allegations she improperly tried to force the firing of her former brother-in-law.

Todd Palin has been a "principal critic" of his wife's ex-brother-in-law, state Trooper Mike Wooten, and had "many contacts" with Department of Public Safety officials about his status, said Steve Branchflower, the former prosecutor hired by the state Legislature to investigate the firing.

Sarah Palin, now the Republican nominee for vice president, is battling allegations that she and her advisers pressured then-Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan to fire Wooten and that Monegan was terminated when he refused.

Palin has said she fired Monegan over budget issues and denies any wrongdoing.

Branchflower said 16 of the 33 people he planned to interview have given statements. But since last week, when Palin's attorneys began to argue that the state Personnel Board should handle the investigation, numerous witnesses have refused to cooperate.

"While we will hopefully get over this little bump in the road, there may arise others," he said. "And so the subpoena is always a good thing to have standing by."

Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein told reporters after the vote that the Democratic lawmaker managing the investigation, state Sen. Hollis French, "has partisan motives for doing this." And Palin's lieutenant governor, Sean Parnell, repeated claims that the probe was "a political circus."


"Using subpoenas like this looks like an abuse of power, and it's become a circus," Parnell said. Friday's action goes "well beyond the pale of a legislative committee's normal responsibilities," he added.

Palin's lawyers say the investigation -- which the Legislature commissioned on a bipartisan basis in July -- belongs before the state Personnel Board, which met to consider the request Thursday.

One Republican senator -- Charlie Huggins, of Palin's hometown of Wasilla -- joined the two Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 3-2 vote supporting the subpoenas. Huggins said he did not believe the probe would amount to a "hill of beans," but he said the truth should come out "the sooner the better."

The House Judiciary Committee concurred in a nonbinding vote, and Republican state Senate president Lyda Green -- an outspoken critic of the governor -- told CNN that she would approve the subpoenas.

Palin herself was not on the list Branchflower presented to the House and Senate judiciary committees, but lawmakers have said they hope she will be able to talk to them during the probe. They have set an October 10 date for completing the investigation -- a date moved up three weeks after Palin became Sen. John McCain's running mate.

Branchflower, a former Anchorage prosecutor, asked lawmakers to subpoena 10 members of Sarah Palin's administration as well as the phone records for suspended Board and Commissions Director Frank Bailey, who was recorded in February discussing Wooten's status with a state police lieutenant. He also asked lawmakers to subpoena the employee of a worker's compensation insurance firm who handled a claim Wooten filed in 2007.

But he added that no witnesses have said Palin directly told anyone, "I want that guy fired."

Wooten and Sarah Palin's sister divorced in 2005. The governor and her family have complained extensively about him since then, describing him as a "rogue trooper" who threatened family members, and say they brought him up to state officials as a possible threat to the governor's security.

In 2006, Wooten was suspended for five days for using a stun gun on his 10-year-old stepson "in a training capacity"; drinking beer while driving his patrol car; and illegally shooting a moose using his wife's permit. In papers filed with the state Personnel Board, the governor has said she was unaware of Wooten's punishment until after Monegan's dismissal.

In addition to Todd Palin, the subpoenas cover 11 members of the Palin administration, including the governor's chief of staff, deputy chief of staff and executive secretary; and Frank Bailey, an official suspended in August after Sarah Palin disclosed he had called a state police lieutenant to discuss Wooten.

Branchflower also requested a subpoena for Bailey's phone records, in order to determine whom he called before and after that February 2008 call. One call was to Murlene Wilkes, an insurance adjuster who was involved in handling a worker's compensation claim Wooten filed.

Sarah Palin once pledged to cooperate with the investigation. But aides are refusing now because the investigation has become a "circus," said Parnell, the lieutenant governor.

Republicans unsuccessfully have asked to get French, the state senator running the investigation, removed from the probe after he suggested in an ABC News interview that the case could produce criminal charges or an "October surprise" for the GOP ticket.

On Friday, Republican state Sen. Gene Therriault questioned whether Branchflower was being steered toward or turned away from particular witnesses after French said there was no "political will" to subpoena Palin's former chief of staff.

"Something is fishy here," Therriault said.

He said the decision to pursue subpoenas means "we are heading for a branch-versus-branch smackdown."

[CamEdwards]

I'm still amazed that drinking while driving your patrol car and Tasering your ten year old only gets you a five day suspension. I'm thinking for most folks those two items would earn you a court date, hefty fine, and maybe even some jail time.