Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[larrymcg421]

Today's state polls...

VA: Obama 50, McCain 46 (SurveyUSA)
NY: Obama 46, McCain 41 (Siena)
OH: McCain 46, Obama 42 (Suffolk)

The NY poll is surprisingly close, but the VA poll is also surprising. If Obama holds the Kerry states, then a combination of VA and IA would get him the White House. However, if McCain steals a Kerry state then Obama is screwed.

As for national polls, the only new one I see right now is Rasmussen's, which has narrowed the gap to a 2 pt McCain lead at 49-47

[larrymcg421]

dola

Gallup's tracking poll still shows a 2 pt lead for McCain.

[JPhillips]

Not a huge deal, but I found it interesting that at the end of this ad Palin is on the left. Given how we read left to right it's an interesting choice by McCain's people.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm sure this will get a lot of play in the coming days, though I'm guessing it will be explained away as something missed in translation. The Iraqi foreign minister is claiming that Obama requested that no troop withdrawals occur until the next administration was in place............

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL - New York Post

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL
Last updated: 4:10 am
September 15, 2008

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

It makes a small difference but doesn't alter the fact that there is a clear association in her mind between the war and God's plan. This idea that events are not the consequences of human behaviour but God's influence in human affairs is only slightly removed from the idea that floods and earhtquakes etc are visitations from God. It's medieval.

I guess JFK, FDR, Carter and Reagan were "medieval" as well. There's nothing wrong with hoping our actions have God's blessing if you are religious. If you can't find the difference between that and the Crusades mentality, then you clearly have an agenda that prevents you from seeing clearly on this issue.

And it continues. "God's will" is involved in building the pipe line, a preacher cries "Lord make a way, Lord make a way" (for her to become governor) and he did.

Having your preacher ask for the Lord's blessing for your candidacy is nothing strange. Heck, before the rev Wright situation blew up, he openly prayed for Barack to be the next president numerous times. I guess Obama should be feared for having his preacher ask God for him to become president, right?

The reality is that nothing is odd with a politician to ask for the Lord's blessing in regards to their political actions. Numerous presidents and leaders have done it throughout time. I guess Winston Chruchill, Eisenhower, FDR, JFK, Reagan and even Clinton are all medieval loons for asking for God's blessing on their decisions.

It's insane, Arles. What's wrong with you?

I agree it's insane. It's insane that you are trying to make a mountain out of this molehill using out-of-text/snipped quotes and a complete lack of reference to the national leaders of the past 50 years. According to the standard you are holding Palin to, JFK and Winston Churchill were medieval in their mentality and leaders to be feared because of their religious beliefs.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Arles

I guess JFK, FDR, Carter and Reagan were "medieval" as well. There's nothing wrong with hoping our actions have God's blessing if you are religious. If you can't find the difference between that and the Crusades mentality, then you clearly have an agenda that prevents you from seeing clearly on this issue.


Having your preacher ask for the Lord's blessing for your candidacy is nothing strange. Heck, before the rev Wright situation blew up, he openly prayed for Barack to be the next president numerous times. I guess Obama should be feared for having his preacher ask God for him to become president, right?

The reality is that nothing is odd with a politician to ask for the Lord's blessing in regards to their political actions. Numerous presidents and leaders have done it throughout time. I guess Winston Chruchill, Eisenhower, FDR, JFK, Reagan and even Clinton are all medieval loons for asking for God's blessing on their decisions.


I agree it's insane. It's insane that you are trying to make a mountain out of this molehill using out-of-text/snipped quotes and a complete lack of reference to the national leaders of the past 50 years. According to the standard you are holding Palin to, JFK and Winston Churchill were medieval in their mentality and leaders to be feared because of their religious beliefs.

You're missing the point Arles and misquoting the videos in much the same way as you accuse others of doing. Let me tackle it this way

400 hundred years ago everything that happened was down to God. Something good happened, it was God rewarding you. Something bad, God was punishing you. The lightning strike - that was God. Everything that happened in the world was God influencing human existence.

We've come a distance since then. We know lightning isn't God. We know that things happen randomly and it's not God that is punishing/rewarding us. Most of the things that go on in life are humans interacting and we don't have to use God to explain them. God's still around but we don't have to explain everything with God.

But Palin sees God everywhere like the medievals. The Iraq war - must be God. The pipe line - clearly God. Her election - God must have intervened. And I love the stuff about Alaska being being a refuge from the apocalypse - was that in Revelation? Nostradamus perhaps? Window Twanky? Maybe God told them

You don't need someone in the Whitehouse who lives in the 16th century, Arles. You don't need someone whose decision making has the rigidities of believing God is in every one. You don't need the hypocrisy that goes along with those who believe God is involved in every decision they make.

You don't need a whacko in the WhiteHouse and if you don't wise up that's what you're going to get.


On the others: I don't know much about JFK and FDR but both Carter and Reagan were border line

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm sure this will get a lot of play in the coming days, though I'm guessing it will be explained away as something missed in translation. The Iraqi foreign minister is claiming that Obama requested that no troop withdrawals occur until the next administration was in place............

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL - New York Post

Taheri has a long history of making things up. He's going to need to provide a lot more evidence before this is credible.

[watravaler]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Snipped some stuff and added some bold. Why do you think that is? As far as I know, none of us are politicians. None of us have any kind of reputation that makes what we say worth anything. What difference does it make if anyone here trumps up their own candidate, or slams their opponents? Not to mention that most of the thread isn't any kind of new angle on anything, rather a regurgitation of things other people have said anyway. Is there a point to it all, or is it just an attempt to justify your support in your candidate to yourself, made publicly?

Good point...probably similar to people giving their opinions on coke versus pepsi...

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

You're missing the point Arles and misquoting the videos in much the same way as you accuse others of doing. Let me tackle it this way

400 hundred years ago everything that happened was down to God. Something good happened, it was God rewarding you. Something bad, God was punishing you. The lightning strike - that was God. Everything that happened in the world was God influencing human existence.

We've come a distance since then. We know lightning isn't God. We know that things happen randomly and it's not God that is punishing/rewarding us. Most of the things that go on in life are humans interacting and we don't have to use God to explain them. God's still around but we don't have to explain everything with God.

But Palin sees God everywhere like the medievals. The Iraq war - must be God. The pipe line - clearly God. Her election - God must have intervened. And I love the stuff about Alaska being being a refuge from the apocalypse - was that in Revelation? Nostradamus perhaps? Window Twanky? Maybe God told them

You don't need someone in the Whitehouse who lives in the 16th century, Arles. You don't need someone whose decision making has the rigidities of believing God is in every one. You don't need the hypocrisy that goes along with those who believe God is involved in every decision they make.

You don't need a whacko in the WhiteHouse and if you don't wise up that's what you're going to get.


On the others: I don't know much about JFK and FDR but both Carter and Reagan were border line

Keep in mind, Mac... we're talking about someone who will be the leader of the United States of America. Personally, I'd prefer to have someone in office who believes they answer to a higher power as opposed to someone who thinks they ARE the higher power (speaking generically there, not referring to Obama).

You may not like what you know about Palin's religious beliefs. That's fine. I'm not comfortable with what I've seen from Obama's religious beliefs. But I (and I think a majority of Americans) don't see anything wrong with our leaders having religious beliefs in general. We trust that while they will pray their actions have the blessings of God, they will not seek to force us to believe as they do.

And just as in every other civilization, there may come a time a policy decision is reasonable and practical as well as being morally virtuous. One should not preclude the possibility of the other.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I think there are two things that are pretty obvious at this point:

#1 - Sarah Palin is already the most influential running mate in most of our lifetimes, and there's basically zero chance that will change. You can make arguments for LBJ or Eagleton, but for the contemporary political generation, she is breaking all the rules. You can't win with a good VP choice? Wanna bet?

#2 - The GOP, whether by luck or design, has basically engineered the Palin phenomenon to land right in their wheelhouse. She's an ardent pro-life Christian woman, and that was the essential resume for the pick (one I think made a ton of sense anyway). But now she is also benefiting from the well-cultivated perception that the "liberal media" is unfairly trying to tarnish her -- and at this point, quite a lot of people would probably like her more if a major news organ published some truly damning information about her, just based on their views of the source(s). It's become a can't lose for the GOP, if she does something well they rally for her, if she does something wrong they rally against whomever points that out.


Whatever your views on issues (pretty passe anyhow), you pretty much have to have a ton of respect for the GOP political machine. They do an outstanding job of winning elections, and they understand the nature of American voters so much better than their counterparts in that other "party" it's not even funny.

Yes. I have decided to try and avoid as much of the entire election process as I can, but based on what I on everything I have read and heard, Point #2 is exactly where it's at. The Palin pick and the subequent treatment of it is just the most recent - and perhaps masterful to date - stroke of genius of the GOP political machine.

They play the game so much better than that other "party" that it's almost not really fair. It's like watching the Lions play against actual NFL teams.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Taheri has a long history of making things up. He's going to need to provide a lot more evidence before this is credible.

So credible information is now required to run a negative campaign ad in this election?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Yes. I have decided to try and avoid as much of the entire election process as I can, but based on what I on everything I have read and heard, Point #2 is exactly where it's at. The Palin pick and the subequent treatment of it is just the most recent - and perhaps masterful to date - stroke of genius of the GOP political machine.

They play the game so much better than that other "party" that it's almost not really fair. It's like watching the Lions play against actual NFL teams.

Quite true. It's almost jaw dropping in its effectiveness. In a year they should be getting blown out, they pick the only candidate who could have had a chance for "maverick" credentials, even if the far right wing didn't like him. And then to appease the far right, they pick someone they love, who also happens to be a charismatic woman. And end up using the sexism angle that was oh so true when Hillary Clinton was running the primary and focus it on the attacks on the VP nom.

I mean, wow! The Republicans have no business being even close in this election and they may pull it off by making the most cynically brilliant picks in the roles of Prez and VP.

[watravaler]

I wouldn't call the Palin pick genius, as I do believe the democrats wanted to pick a woman as well. It's obviously pandering, but has politics ever been any different? Unfortunately for the dems, Hillary Clinton got in the way. Independents/Republicans have an overwhelming negative impression of her, and picking a different woman would have turned off 18 million+ women in the democrat base. They were kinda screwed...and it's the main reason why the republicans will win this November.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

But Palin sees God everywhere like the medievals. The Iraq war - must be God. The pipe line - clearly God. Her election - God must have intervened.

This is completely ridiculous. First of all, her pastor made comments on the last one in a much more reasonable manner than Wright made similar comments about Obama. Second, she does not attribute actions in Iraq or the pipeline to "God rewarding us". She prays to God to give us strength and hope that we are making the proper decisions. This is no different than most Christians in this country. If you can find full quotes from her stating that God is in her corner on these issues, please post them. But, you are twisting Palin into what you would like her to be - some loon in the image of the early crusaders. The problem is there is no data to back that up and you've resorted to out of context quotes and snipped comments by her preacher.

And I love the stuff about Alaska being being a refuge from the apocalypse - was that in Revelation? Nostradamus perhaps? Window Twanky? Maybe God told them

When did Palin say anything about Alaska being a refuge from the apocalypse? Oh wait, you were talking about a preacher at her church. So, should we have a debate on who's preacher is more scary - Obama's or Palin's?

You don't need someone in the Whitehouse who lives in the 16th century, Arles. You don't need someone whose decision making has the rigidities of believing God is in every one. You don't need the hypocrisy that goes along with those who believe God is involved in every decision they make.

Every leader that the US (and Britain) have had in the past 50 years has referenced God's will or God's "plan". If that is the mark you have for "wacko-ness" then I certainly hope we get another "wacko" in the White House in 2009.

You don't need a whacko in the WhiteHouse and if you don't wise up that's what you're going to get.

According to your measures above, both McCain and Obama would be classified as wackos. So, it looks like we won't have a choice

[larrymcg421]

Interesting bit from the Newsweek poll. On the question, "

"Shares your views on the abortion issue", 40% said "Does Describe" and 39% said, "Does Not Describe."

The Democrats have got to highlight her abortion position more, because I seriously doubt 40% of the country agrees with it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Interesting bit from the Newsweek poll. On the question, "

"Shares your views on the abortion issue", 40% said "Does Describe" and 39% said, "Does Not Describe."

The Democrats have got to highlight her abortion position more, because I seriously doubt 40% of the country agrees with it.

that means 40% of people want there to be babies with tails running around when father's rape their daughters! (or brothers raping their sisters, or mothers molesting their sons, etc)

[Flasch186]

my mom is not hot.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Interesting bit from the Newsweek poll. On the question, "

"Shares your views on the abortion issue", 40% said "Does Describe" and 39% said, "Does Not Describe."

The Democrats have got to highlight her abortion position more, because I seriously doubt 40% of the country agrees with it.

According to Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, updated May 8-11, Americans as a whole are slightly more likely to call themselves "pro-choice" on abortion than "pro-life," 50% to 44%.

Given it's 50-44 pro-choice/pro-life, I don't think it's that odd to see a 50-50 breakdown on the question in reference to Palin. Plus, there's this as well:

Currently, just 13% of Americans say they will vote only for a candidate who shares their views on abortion, while another 49% say it will be just one of many important factors.

So there's even a decent chance that people (esp women) who disagree with Palin on abortion may still vote for her.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107458/Ab...-Campaign.aspx

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Arles

Given it's 50-44 pro-choice/pro-life, I don't think it's that odd to see a 50-50 breakdown on the question in reference to Palin. Plus, there's this as well:


So there's even a decent chance that people (esp women) who disagree with Palin on abortion may still vote for her.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107458/Ab...-Campaign.aspx

I'm not talking about pro-life vs. pro-choice (in that context, I agree with her). I'm talking about the fact that she's pro-life even in the case of rape. I'm trying to find recent polling info on this, but a Fox News poll last year showed 70% of voters abortion should be legal in the case of rape or incest. I think this specific position would be particularly unpopular with females, which is why I think the Democrats should hit it hard.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm not talking about pro-life vs. pro-choice (in that context, I agree with her). I'm talking about the fact that she's pro-life even in the case of rape. I'm trying to find recent polling info on this, but a Fox News poll last year showed 70% of voters abortion should be legal in the case of rape or incest. I think this specific position would be particularly unpopular with females, which is why I think the Democrats should hit it hard.

Ah, I agree there then. Most people just look at it as Pro-life v Pro-Choice. But, in the context of rape, I think democrats could hit that hard and get some mileage out of it.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Arles

Given it's 50-44 pro-choice/pro-life, I don't think it's that odd to see a 50-50 breakdown on the question in reference to Palin. Plus, there's this as well:

So there's even a decent chance that people (esp women) who disagree with Palin on abortion may still vote for her.

I would be surprised if the percentage who did not have an opinion on abortion was as small as six percent.

I think that there is a very good chance that many people who are pro choice will vote Republican and many pro lifers will vote Democrat. Very few people are going to select a candidate based on their support of abortion. Taxes, healthcare and the like are far more important to your average voter.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

I would be surprised if the percentage who did not have an opinion on abortion was as small as six percent.

I think that there is a very good chance that many people who are pro choice will vote Republican and many pro lifers will vote Democrat.

I think there are more pro-choicers voting Republican than pro-lifers voting Democrat (although I fall into the latter category).

Very few people are going to select a candidate based on their support of abortion. Taxes, healthcare and the like are far more important to your average voter.

That may be true, but if a candidate has a very unpopular position on an issue, it would be stupid to not make sure the voters know about it. I don't think the Democrats have done that very well on this specific issue.

[JPhillips]

Out of people that vote on a single issue I'll almost guarantee that abortion is easily the biggest percentage. There are a lot of people on both sides of the issue that determine their vote solely on abortion. Personally, I don't understand it.

[larrymcg421]

I'd also add that I think the number of pro-choicers voting Republican would drastically change if Roe v. Wade gets overturned as I expect it to if McCain gets elected.

[Vegas Vic]

New State Polls from Rasmussen:

Colorado: McCain +2
Florida: McCain +5
Ohio: McCain +3
Pennsylvania: EVEN
Virginia: EVEN

[Big Fo]

Not good in Colorado. Maybe they can stage a second convention there.

[ISiddiqui]

Maybe this time Obama will pick Hillary to be Veep .

[Buccaneer]

Regarding abortion, where do you put one who is ardently pro-life but does not believe the federal govt should intervene? Or does everything have to be framed as a binary question?

[Buccaneer]

Regarding the report that Obama now has to travel with a teleprompter (they were commenting how one was set up in the middle of a rodeo field down the road in Pueblo today). I recall 25 years ago during the Reagan years, he was widely criticized for not being able to speak unless he had a script in front of him (or Nancy by his telling him what to say). Not being able to speak without a script or not being able to speak with a script are probably better than not being able to do both, as we have now.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Regarding abortion, where do you put one who is ardently pro-life but does not believe the federal govt should intervene? Or does everything have to be framed as a binary question?

There's no fun with a grey area.

[watravaler]

Apparently this election is going to play out like this:

Obama/Democrats: "Something that could be construed/spun as sexist"
Palin/Republicans: (make no mistake, it's now Palin versus Obama) unleash the sensitive women brigade...
Obama/Democrats: "What we really meant was..."
Palin/Republicans: Check-mate...

Rinse and repeat till November...

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by watravaler

Apparently this election is going to play out like this:

Obama/Democrats: "Something that could be construed/spun as sexist"
Palin/Republicans: (make no mistake, it's now Palin versus Obama) unleash the sensitive women brigade...
Obama/Democrats: "What we really meant was..."
Palin/Republicans: Check-mate...

Rinse and repeat till November...

The Clintons want their script back, with a rewrite of the ending.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Regarding abortion, where do you put one who is ardently pro-life but does not believe the federal govt should intervene? Or does everything have to be framed as a binary question?

I think you'd still be considered pro-life. I don't think many people are suggesting that the federal government should outlaw abortion nationwide. The pro-lifers want Roe overturned so the states could make their own abortion laws. SCOTUS would have to overturn alot more precedent than Roe to force states to outlaw abortion.

[Maple Leafs]

[Flasch186]

Troopergate

Um Arles, I have a substantial problem with this as you can imagine:

Palin won't meet with 'Troopergate' investigator - Yahoo! News

Palin won't meet with 'Troopergate' investigator

By GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer 24 minutes ago

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - A campaign spokesman says Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin won't speak with an investigator hired by lawmakers to look into the firing of her public safety commissioner.
ADVERTISEMENT

McCain campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan told a news conference Monday that the governor, the Republican nominee for vice president, will not cooperate as long as the investigation "remains tainted." He said he doesn't know whether Palin's husband would challenge a subpoena issued to compel his cooperation.

The campaign insists the investigation has been hijacked by Democrats. It says it can prove Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan was fired because of insubordination on budget issues — not because he refused to fire a state trooper who had divorced Palin's sister.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Keep in mind, Mac... we're talking about someone who will be the leader of the United States of America.

And that's why you need to learn a lot more about this woman (and important to me even as an Australian). Just as there have been demands to learn about Obama you need to know much more about her.

Personally, I'd prefer to have someone in office who believes they answer to a higher power as opposed to someone who thinks they ARE the higher power

That's a lawyer's trick, Cam. That's not the choice. If that were I'd probably agree with you but that isn't the choice.

You may not like what you know about Palin's religious beliefs. That's fine. I'm not comfortable with what I've seen from Obama's religious beliefs.

Search my posts and you'll see I was one of those insisting Obama explain fully his Rev Wright links. I still have some reservations about these. This is not a partisan thing. I've defended Palin over unreasonable attacks in this thread (the Bush's doctrine and defending Georgia criticisms where Palin was at no fault). But these religious aspects go to character and attitude and need to be investigated.

But I (and I think a majority of Americans) don't see anything wrong with our leaders having religious beliefs in general.

It's not the beliefs themselves - I'm resigned to a world where unsupportable religious beliefs have so much sway - but the excess. It's not unknown to see God's will in war though I might have hoped that Dylans "With God on Our Side" had sunk in to politicians by now, but in the laying of a pipeline? And I would expect her to at least flinch when she's told to go out and tell America when the last days come Alaska will be a refuge. Now I dare say you can rationalise this but it really is out there with the fairies

We trust that while they will pray their actions have the blessings of God, they will not seek to force us to believe as they do.

Unfortunately you can't trust to that as we found out last year here when we discovered the minister for health, a Catholic, buried legislation in a tax bill to limit abortion against the wishes of the Australian people (who voted in a referendum for the current situation). When this came out, years later after thousands of Australian woman had been forced to give birth against their wishes or had unnecessary invasive surgery, and he was criticised for abusing his position and lying to both parliament and the Australian people he even had the gall to accuse the criticism of being a Catholic witch hunt. That's the problem with religion - self-righteousness is often not far away.

I also lived through the Margaret Thatcher years in Britain. She was worshipped when she arrived. She was positively hated by a majority of people when she was thrown out of politics by her own party.

I see similarities in the personalities of Palin and Thatcher. The same right-wing, over confident certainty backed by God (and, as I said in another thread, "you can't argue with God") and doses of hypocrisy.

Palin's appeal is that she's attractive, personable, feisty and, well, a woman - not generally thought of being the first criteria you look for in a VP candidate. It's clear she's selected to boost McCain's appeal to voters (what happened to "the nation first"?). But we've only had one speech, one interview and a few grainy videos and there's already evidence that she may be - to put it crudely - full of bullshit, hypocritical and a whacko.

You need to know a lot more about this woman before you put her in the White House and unfortunately there is a mood in the nation that would preclude any real attempt to do that. The idea, expressed earlier in this forum and I suspect accurate, that if anything really does come out that renders her unsuitable then many will ignore that and put it down to a press that's out to damage her. Every time she's criticised the McCain vote rises. There's a dangerous form of censorship here.

[Big Fo]

Palin's net favorability (R2K poll)

Sept. 11: +17 net positive
Sept. 12: +14
Sept. 13: +9
Sept. 14: +5
Sept. 15: +4

The Gibson interview aired on September 11. Maybe people didn't like what they saw when she had to go off-script.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Palin's net favorability (R2K poll)

Sept. 11: +17 net positive
Sept. 12: +14
Sept. 13: +9
Sept. 14: +5
Sept. 15: +4

The Gibson interview aired on September 11. Maybe people didn't like what they saw when she had to go off-script.

My faith in the American people has returned

[Flasch186]

Hey Brotha! Im not ready to be NWO Hulk

[Arles]

On the troopergate issue, it seems that the state congress leader who handed out the subpoenas (Sen Hollis French) is a massive Obama supporter:

“Senator Obama has a plan to end our dependence on foreign oil and reduce skyrocketing energy prices,” said Senator Hollis French of Anchorage, a former oil rig worker. “Having worked in the oil business in Alaska for twelve years, I know firsthand the importance of oil and natural gas to Alaska. Senator Obama will not only invest in renewable fuels and increase car fuel efficiency standards, he strongly supports construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline and accelerated drilling in the Alaska National Petroleum Reserve which will provide affordable energy to Alaska and our country and good jobs for Alaskans.”

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | AK HQ Blog

Also, we know that Palin has offered to have everyone come in and speak without subpoenas:

However, the letter also suggested that if lawmakers agree that the governor has legal authority to designate staff to review confidential personnel files, the staff members will voluntarily speak with the Legislature’s investigator — no subpoenas necessary.

“If the Legislative Council will acknowledge in writing its agreement … the Department of Law will drop its objections and the depositions may proceed without subpoenas,” Senior Assistant Attorney General Michael Barnhill wrote in the letter, which was dated Tuesday and released Thursday.

Sen. Kim Elton, who chairs the Legislative Council, was on a plane and could not be reached for comment Thursday. An aide, Jesse Kiehl, said: “He’s read the letter. I don’t believe that we have written back.”

This was also posted as part of the Palin defense:

McCain's campaign insists the investigation into the firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan has been hijacked by Democrats. The campaign says it can prove Monegan was fired in July because of insubordination on budget issues, and not because he refused to fire a state trooper who went through a nasty divorce from Palin's sister.

To that end, the campaign released a series of e-mails detailing the frustration several Palin administration officials experienced in dealing with Monegan. The "last straw," the campaign said, was a trip Monegan planned to Washington in July to seek federal money for investigating and prosecuting sexual assault cases.

If I were Palin, I would also be very careful before allowing my staff and husband to enter some "kangaroo court" setup by two major Obama supporters. I agree it looks bad for her right now, but it's probably the right move. All these two legislatures have to do is agree with their wish to properly handle confidential personnel files and they'll speak without a subpoena.

[Flasch186]

Dont flip flop on this issue Arles. EVERYONE should testify and if wrongdoing was done it should come out and if there was no wrong doing we should be able to find that out as well. The REPUBLICAN Legislature started this, the investigator was assigned, and we should all be going to the truthful end. I hope you're not changing youre tune...

Amazing timing that NOW that she's on the ticket, the campaign is in full spin mode on this instead of full truth mode. NOWWWWWW, it's been hijacked but a month ago it wasn't. Such BS. Seriously when will the truth become important?

BTW on a more analytical note, If I were the Obama camp the ads would be flying since it is such a reminder of the W administrations unwillingness to cooperate with investigations. In all seriousness I think that this could be HUGE if the Obama Campaign uses this well.

Those emails count more than the one's released from her personal email account? C'mon, i know youve admitted to being biased but this issue is about finding out what happened, the truth.

[larrymcg421]

Hmm, seems that the GOP has an 11-9 edge in the state senate and a 23-17 lead in the state house. Not sure how much traction McCain-Palin can get out of trying to spin this as a partisan witch hunt.

[Flasch186]

well they won Arles over in the last week when nothing changed except her unwillingness to cooperate.

[JPhillips]

Arles: How do you explain that in August she told the New Yorker that she didn't fire Monegan, but that he quit?

[Flasch186]

for reference:

Palin: Monegan wasn't fired, he quit - UPI.com

NEW YORK, Sept. 13 (UPI) -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, under investigation for the dismissal of a former commissioner of public safety, says she didn't fire him -- he quit.

In an interview with The New Yorker, the Republican vice presidential nominee said she wanted Walter Monegan to accept a reassignment as director of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, where he would focus on Alaska's drinking problem.

"It was a job that was open, commensurate in salary, pretty much -- $10,000 less," but she told the magazine Monegan didn't want the job so he quit working for the state.

The state Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to authorize subpoenas in an investigation into the matter, including for Palin's husband Todd, and several of her top aides.

The committee is investigating whether the governor improperly pressured Monegan to fire her former brother-in-law, Michael Wooten, an Alaska state trooper, and then fired Monegan when he refused.

The governor has said her handling of the matter in July had nothing to do with Monegan's refusal to fire Wooten.

Also in The New Yorker interview, the governor acknowledged speaking to Monegan before she was a candidate for governor about her complaints regarding Wooten.

but...

Palin warned about commissioner firing - UPI.com

ANCHORAGE, Alaska, Sept. 12 (UPI) -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was warned against firing her public safety commissioner, now the subject of a state inquiry, a former ethics adviser says.

Wesley Shea, a former U.S. attorney and Republican Party member, told CNN he wrote Palin, now the GOP nominee for vice president, that dismissing Commissioner Walt Monegan would become a "grave concern" for her administration.

The governor is battling allegations she and her advisers pressured Monegan to fire State Trooper Mike Wooten, Palin's former brother-in-law.

Shea said the governor was given bad advice and recommended an apology to Monegan.

Palin said she fired Monegan over budget issues and denies any wrongdoing. She described Wooten as a "rogue trooper" who threatened her family while divorcing her sister.

The Alaska State Legislature's inquiry into the incident is to wind up by Oct. 10.

Plus, if Im not mistaken she once said she never communicated with Monegan about the trooper but...

Also in The New Yorker interview, the governor acknowledged speaking to Monegan before she was a candidate for governor about her complaints regarding Wooten.

[st.cronin]

Have some more respect for your next Vice President, Flasch.

[cartman]

I'm sure this will all be cleared up in her next interview with...

Sean Hannity.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Dont flip flop on this issue Arles. EVERYONE should testify and if wrongdoing was done it should come out and if there was no wrong doing we should be able to find that out as well. The REPUBLICAN Legislature started this, the investigator was assigned, and we should all be going to the truthful end. I hope you're not changing youre tune...

Amazing timing that NOW that she's on the ticket, the campaign is in full spin mode on this instead of full truth mode. NOWWWWWW, it's been hijacked but a month ago it wasn't. Such BS. Seriously when will the truth become important?

BTW on a more analytical note, If I were the Obama camp the ads would be flying since it is such a reminder of the W administrations unwillingness to cooperate with investigations. In all seriousness I think that this could be HUGE if the Obama Campaign uses this well.

Those emails count more than the one's released from her personal email account? C'mon, i know youve admitted to being biased but this issue is about finding out what happened, the truth.

Flasch,

Wouldn't you say we would have a better chance of finding out the truth and less of a chance of this matter being contaminated by politics if French were to recuse himself from handling the investigation?

It seems to me like that would be the easiest thing to do, because there's going to be a ready made excuse of "Well, the guy in charge of the investigation is a huge supporter of Obama" if the investigation were to turn up evidence of impropriety.

[Arles]

Palin basically reassigned him to a post that would be a demotion and he quit. So, he was removed from his current post, but not fired. So, by "fired" they are referring to his old post, not having a spot with the government.

Again, I think this may hurt Palin a bit in the short term, but I think she's handled everything very well. At this point, no fair-minded individual can think this hearing will not be a political witch hunt if left unfettered.

[JPhillips]

Hannity won't go crazy on her like Charlie "Good Morning America" Gibson. No one should have to face the heat of a former morning show host. Next thing you know we'll want her to sit down with Matt Lauer. Oh, the horror!