McCain's veep choice is historic and hardly known

What's with all the "historic" nonesense. Obama was "historic" the other night, now McCain's veep choice is "historic". Heh, surely there is someone at JT that can write an original title?

The article itself does not explain why "historic" is used. As we all know, this is not the first time that a woman has been selected as running mate by one of the major parties. The Republicans are merely catching up to where the Democrats were in 1984 -- nearly a quarter century ago.

She has more experience catching fish than dealing with foreign policy or national affairs.

Wow. Historic as in "the least qualified running mate in history."

So far this year we have silenced the other women who have gotten in Barack's way( Ferraro and Hillary) it will be easy to put this repub away.

McCain and Palin. A team you could only find in Hollywood movies.

McCain and Palin. A team you could only find in Hollywood movies.

Obama and Biden: A pair that can't beat ace high.

Got to spell everything out for you guys lately. The election is historic in the sense that for the first time in American history, it is certain that a non white male will be elected to the Presidency or Vice Presidency.

"Heh, surely there is someone at JT that ( who ) can write an original title"

Pathetic whining. If Palin's not historic, I don't know who is.

It goes beyond whining Sarge. We are dealing with elitist who think they have the right to dictate how everybody else should live.

It didn't matter who McCain picked, it would have generated the same reaction, just a different set of criticisms.

NOrmally I don't care who wins and loses these things. Both parties are pretty much the same except the Democrats like to reach deeper into our pockets. I look forward to seeing the first lady VP if for no other reason to see these know-it-alls overreact yet again.

VOR - "for the first time in American history, it is certain that a non white male will be elected to the Presidency or the Vice Presidency.

Palin's a white woman, VOR. Get with the program! Har! I know what you meant - and, correct me if I'm wrong - for the first time in American history, it is certain that a non white male or a female will be elected president or vice president. Historic indeed! Both the Democrats and the Republicans can take credit for this.

you are correct sir. thanks for the correction.

She has run a state with a total population less than the city of Columbus, Ohio for less than two years. If the old man dies in office, and its never been more likely, she will be the next President of the United States. Are Americans considering that enough?

presiding over a tax increase on oil company profits that now has the state’s treasury swelling.

In addition to all that welfare the state gets! Republicans love welfare!

The move is as shrewd as it is odd. A shrewd one that seems to be overlooked is the oil connection. Will people see her as the messiah of lower gas prices, hoping she can get Alaska opened up to more drilling and more pipelines? I don't know. But what I DO know is that hitting oil companies with more taxes will not lower gas prices.

Anyway, I feel this is a snub to my client, Hillary Clinton, and I demand an apology from McCain for not choosing her for the VP spot. That and several million dollars as compensation.

--Cirroc

Historic today, history tomorrow

moonbeams you must be referring to Hillary Clinton's chances of ever getting to the oval office.

If Obama wins its pretty much over for her. Waiting 8 years for her next shot will take a toll on her. If Obama looses, 2012 will likely shape up as a race between one attractive and highly impressive incumbent and one aged and bitter looking senator from ny.

VOR: " The election is historic in the sense that for the first time in American history, it is certain that a non white male will be elected to the Presidency or Vice Presidency."

I actually thought this was a very clever and well said comment. Good job.

Sarge: "Pathetic whining. If Palin's not historic, I don't know who is."

As the poster above pointed out, it's not the first time a woman was chosen as a running mate by a major party. So explain again why it's so historic. I believe it's historic OF LATE, for sure, and would be historic if they actually won (that's where Obama gets the historic win, however), but beyond that, there's nothing really and truly historic about it all, except for what VOR said above... that the election as a whole is historic because, regardless of whoever wins, there will be ONE 'unusual' person in office.

Smith - Yes, it's not the first time a woman was chosen as a vice presidential running mate by a major party, but Walter Mondale and his running mate Geraldine Ferraro lost ( in a landslide! ). It's historic because - well, just re-read the posts!

She has more experience catching fish than dealing with foreign policy or national affairs. Talk about a rocketing ascent.

This is journalism, is it?

Don't worry about Trig. Cindy McCain is qualified to babysit. Really.

But given McCain's history with younger women and models, when Cindy phones the ovul office to check up on John and Sarah, I bet the words "staff meeting" will set her on edge, along with the fact that Sarah is so gosh darn anti-abortion.

Is what I have said libelous? I don't think anyone will hold it against me since I am just a caveman.

--Cirroc

From Wikipedia ( if they can be believed ):

"Sarah... was the point guard and captain of the school's basketball team. She helped the team win the Alaska small school basketball championship in 1982, hitting a critical free throw in the final seconds of the game, despite having a stress fracture at the time. She earned the nickname "Sarah Barracuda" because of her intense play."

Oooooooh, Barracuda!

Palin will get creamed! It will be interesting to see how she performs in the debates. I have seen her interviewed and speak. There is nothing inspiring about her except that she has had a army of children including one she knowingly had with down syndrome. Her politics is certainly consistent with that small town redneck mentality, where game hunting, owning guns and getting pregnant as many times as you physically can. Who the hell has five kids these days

Say what you will... she has more executive experience than any of the other three. She's far more suited to the job than Biden for god's sake.

"Palin will get creamed!"

Ha ha ha either that or she and McCain will cream the Dream Team!

"cream the Dream Team!"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! I kill me!

I can't wait for the Palin-Biden debate! It'll be even better than the McCain-Obama debate!

Knowingly bringing a down syndrome child in to the world considering all the challenges and discrimination it will encounter is patently selfish. That alone should be grounds not to vote for her

She earned the nickname "Sarah Barracuda" because of her intense play.

Well that secures this caveman's vote! I am sure all the other cavemen will be voting right along with me and for the same reasons. Barracuda! How can I overcome my primitive instincts to not vote for that?

--Cirroc

Sarge, I can't wait for the debates either! Obama will humilitate McCain and Palin might as well not even show up, given the pasting Biden has in store for her. But, I suppose she has to make an attempt...

Thanks again to Senator McCain for handing the election to President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama!

Everton- Many downs syndrome kids have great lives and are very happy. The parents i am sure, will ensure the child has the best of cre and attention, they hve the resources.

McCains choice is heroic, just like the guy himself. Brave and correct choice for his running mate.

for the first time in American history, it is certain that a non white male or a female will be elected president or vice president. Historic indeed!

Yep. Pretty cool.

People will focus on the historic nature of the situation, but that will die down pretty quickly when the campaigning starts again. She'll have the chance to prove herself in the debates just as Obama will. I think they'll both do well. She seems pretty solid but it will take a lot for people to imagine her being President should the need arise, mostly because we all just found out who she was in the last 24 hours.

Everton2 - "Knowingly bringing a down syndrome child into the world considering all the challenges and discrimination it will encounter is patently selfish. That alone should be grounds not to vote for her."

Oh, heaven forbid anyone should ever bring an imperfect child into the world!

"it will encounter"

Not he or she, but "it," eh?

USAFdude; Surely you jest sir?

Obama cannot debate, that is why he turned down debates with McCain.

McCain and Palin are true patriots not afraid to use soft and hard power to achieve our aims.

The independents are going to vote for McCain, as the guy with traditional values.

The independents are going to vote for McCain, as the guy with traditional values.

Yup. And it is crystal clear how these traditional values have helped the country these past 8 years.

presto345- As you and i both know. We have had 8 years of success.

McCain and Palin will lead us to another 8 years of economic growth, and safety from our enemies.

Obama is a flashy show off, know nothing guy, who wouldn`t know the meaning of the word patriotic.

Knowingly bringing a down syndrome child in to the world considering all the challenges and discrimination it will encounter is patently selfish.

Challenges and discrimination? Sounds like reasons to abort babies of a certain race! No, I think you are better off to stick to pro-choice and leave it up to the mother. Palin made her decision. Its her body and her baby.

The trouble with Palin is that she is not pro-choice. She would force even people like Everton to have a baby with Down syndrome. Operative word here is "force". Even a caveman like me knows there is only so many things you can force people to do, and that is not one of them. Palin cannot see that, and should not be near the White House except as a tourist.

--Cirroc

Conservative: My military colleagues and I are also patriots, who want the US to win the War on Terror. Every one with whom I've spoken (many, let me tell you) are voting for Obama.

The independents will vote against McCain because they value progress over "traditional" values that result in the unacceptable situation thrust upon us today by the Republicans, to include Bush and McCain. Now, you can add McCain's shameless sexism to the list of reasons why Barack Hussein Obama will be our new C-in-C come January 2009, thank God.

No jest, sir; we're serious about improving the US.

Obama cannot debate, that is why he turned down debates with McCain.

How do you know that? Do you think journalists were listening in the phone calls? I got some news for you. Nobody knows.

The Obama camp said they accepted but had some requests to the format and schedule. Sounds reasonable and fair enough. Naturally they are not going to do things totally on the other guy's terms. They say McCain's people never got back to them.

But to say Obama refused? Does a politician ever make a clear refusal? No. The story from the Obama camp sounds a lot more likely.

--Cirroc

USAFdude; Irespect your views, but why would so may servicemen want to vote for an appeaser?

Obama will allow the terror to enter our country. Our families will be in constant danger. Our freedoms will be violated.

Dude - "McCain's shameless sexism"

Dude, you must have missed this news:

McCain picks Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his veep

"My military colleagues... Every one with whom I've spoken ( many, let me tell you ) are voting for Obama"

Dude, let me tell you, your colleagues are teasing you!

I agree with Sarge.

I cant imagine patriotic servicemen flocking to vote for an appeaser ahead of a respected war hero.

McCain and Palin will lead us to another 8 years of economic growth

But benefiting who? Again, like in the past 8 years just the top 10%?

Dude - "Palin might as well not even show up"

Yeah, ( snort ) more like Biden might as well not even show up, but I hope he will!

McCain and Palin are true patriots not afraid to use soft and hard power to achieve our aims.

The question is: Just what are your aims? That is what worries me, because more aims at countries like Iraq we don't need. Both Biden and Obama have made it clear how they feel about Iraq, and its not a problem of use of power, but one of aims. The current Republican administration is aiming at Iran. I question their aims, and I think it is mostly being done to take attention off of the fiasco in Iraq which is making Afghanistan a fiasco the longer it goes on. I wonder what Palin's aims are?

--Cirroc

Dude, you must have missed this news:

Choosing a woman to appear to be not sexist is still sexist.

--Cirroc

But benefiting who? Again, like in the past 8 years just the top 10%?

I think some Republicans hold fast to a dream that if they can maneuver themselves close enough to that top ten percent they won't feel the burden of paying back our debts like the rest of America will. Keep dreaming.

--Cirroc

CavemanLawyer- McCains aims are to continue our policy of winning the war on terror, and bringing freedom to people living in fear under despots.

The Afghan and Iraq liberations are baring fruit, both countries are now functioning democracies.

Iran may have to be liberated, nothing can be ruled out, those Iranians are unpredictable and may need a regime change.

Obama would run from all these foreign problems and the world would be more dangerous, and mofre people would be living in fear.

USAFdude; Irespect your views, but why would so may servicemen want to vote for an appeaser?

Obama will allow the terror to enter our country. Our families will be in constant danger. Our freedoms will be violated.

Diplomacy is not appeasment. Do you punch everybody you have problem with or what?

--Cirroc

Obama would run from all these foreign problems and the world would be more dangerous, and mofre people would be living in fear.

No. You exaggerate. Obama would move our troops to Afghanistan were they should have been all along. He would do that over time. He has been clear. The Republicans continue to wallow in uncertainty and flip flopping about time.

The Afghan and Iraq liberations are baring fruit, both countries are now functioning democracies.

They will not be functioning democracies until they no longer need us to prop them up. Obama's deadline for Iraq is 2011. That is the same from the Iraqi's, so McCain's hand will be forced to it anyway, not a position a president should be in.

The bottom line is that McCain, having supported the Iraq invasion, could bring us another blunder, such as Iran which you seem to be foolishly supporting. Obama did not support Iraq, and has proven he had better judgement. I trust he will at least keep sincere diplomacy alive with Iran and solve things before there is violence. If violence is necessary I am sure Obama will send enough troops. Har!

--Cirroc

bringing freedom to people living in fear under despots.

I am actually more worried about the despots at home. The ones who are leeching our coffers and sending our boys in a war based on lies, lies and more lies.

--Cirroc

Strewth, Do all Americans argue all the time?

I thought American didnt care much about politics, thats why they keep having nutcase presidents.

So what if Mr McCain picked someone hardly known. How many knew Obama until recently, not many, and i`d put a wager on that.

I hope whoever wins, won`t drag Britain into another war, all that money spent on fighting could be used to increase my pension.

I like his choice.....So far no poster has really told why I shoudn't support his choice except that she is from Alaska and some sort of backward rube. Not good enough in my opinion to slam the lady, sorry.

I like his choice

Why? Or is it enough for you that no one here has given reasons against that are good enough for you? No. Surely you must have a reason to come out and say you like his choice?

--Cirroc

I think this is a very good choice by McCain. I hope it helps him win the White House. All in all, I just do not want Obama to win, so I have to support McCain.

Good luck in November, McCain and Palin!

I cant imagine patriotic servicemen flocking to vote for an appeaser ahead of a respected war hero.

...Unless it's an appeaser of the military-industrial complex, in which case all bets are off.

And I guess you've never heard of appeaser Ron Paul, who has been against intervention in Iraq and has had the most support among military servicepeople.

MILITARY SUPPORT FOR REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES (2007) 49.5% Ron Paul 34.6% McCain 7.0% Romney 4.6% Giuliani 2.0% Hunter 2.3% Others

http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/16/military-support-for-the-republican-candidates

I guess those servicepeople must not be patriotic, according to your definition.

Nessie; Hey, please don`t put words into my mouth, buddy!

There are many military guys, ex and current, that i talk to at my private club. These guys have overwhelming support for McCain.

Palin can only increase support for McCain, by reaching out to more diverse people. Election '98, Bring it on!!

Odd. McCain usually picks richer, blonder women to support his ambitions.

Why? Or is it enough for you that no one here has given reasons against that are good enough for you? No. Surely you must have a reason to come out and say you like his choice?

--Cirroc

The lady is the Governor of Alaska.....She earned that position by the her own merits. I think the good folks of Alaska made a pretty good choice when they elected her....your thoughts on that?

I base McCain's decision to pick her on that by the way.

The lady is the Governor of Alaska.....She earned that position by the her own merits.

Are you completely sure? I have no clue at this point in time how she got to be governor of the 3rd least populous state in the country. If it was her merits, could you please tell me what her merits are?

I think the good folks of Alaska made a pretty good choice when they elected her.

What do you know about Alaska? What makes you so sure they are "good folks" who make good choices?

I base McCain's decision to pick her on that by the way.

On what? Your blind faith that the people of Alaska are good and made a good choice? Or your blind faith that McCain would make a good choice just because he is John McCain? Both maybe?

What I know about her is a few scraps. Which is why I have not said if she is good or bad either way. I asked you why she is a good choice. You gave me "the other guy said so". If you are going to back off of that I won't hold it against you. I think you may know less about her than even I, a caveman does. But if that is good enough for you, then so be it.

--Cirroc

I think the good folks of Alaska made a pretty good choice when they elected her...

Are these the same good folks who kept electing that crook Ted Stevens? Are they the same good folks who kept electing the corrupt Frank Murkowski?

Who was for this so-called "bridge to nowhere?" Governor Palin supported it before she finally reversed her position, ONLY because it would not be fully funded by federal taxpayers. So oil-rich Alaska cuts a project only because they would have had to kick in their own money.

God helps us if those deomocrats win the presidential election... God help us...

You got it right the first time.

TheConservative said:

Iran may have to be liberated, nothing can be ruled out, those Iranians are unpredictable and may need a regime change.

If we could only get McCain to utter those exact words on a video in the possession of the Democrats the election would be sewn up. The American people have learn to decipher doublespeak. When another idiot uses the term "liberated" to mean invade they now know it means wasting resources including young human life if the cause is not actually for the security of our country. By that I mean imminent danger not perceived danger including perceived imminent danger.

By the way Darfur's people need liberating as well as N. Korea, Myanmar, Tibet, and Zimbabwe.

Since McCain brought up the tactic of comparison shopping for the other parties V.P. the Democrats just got a great tool handed to them. People not only outside the Republican party but inside as well (including women listed and not listed on this comment), will want to know why not Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina or Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. Here are additional Republican women more qualified to serve as V.P. than Palin:

Senators: Lisa Murkowski, Alaska(?!?); Olympia Snowe, Maine; Susan Collins, Maine.

Governors: Oline Walker, Utah; Linda Lingle, Hawaii, M. Jodi Rell, Connecticut.

Members of the House: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Florida; Deborah Pryce, Ohio; Barbara Cubin, Wyoming; Sue Myrick North Carolina; Jo Ann Emerson, Missouri; Kay Granger, Texas; Mary Bono, California; Heather Wilson , New Mexico; Judith Borg Biggert , Illinois; Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia; Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee; Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida; Candice Miller, Minnesota; Marilyn Musgrave, Colorado; Thelma Drake, Virginia; Virginia Foxx, North Carolina; Cathy McMorris Rodgers, West Virginia; Jean Schmidt, Ohio.

Cabinet: Condoleezza Rich, Secretary of State; Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor; Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education; Mary Peters, Secretary of Transportation; Susan Schwab, US Special Trade Representative.

The NeoCons can wish it isn't so all they want but his judgment will be called to question over and over on this choice.

Women, plenty of women will all want to know why!

If you don't think that Elizabeth Dole is asking herself, "Why not me? What does she have that I do not?" then guess again. Not only her and not only her discussing it with her husband but think of corporate woman who have struggled to get to the top and then missed the opportunity because of a younger inexperienced girl. You better bet that many women will consider this a slap in the face. Even more important many Republicans will find this to be a dishonorable choice or sign of poor judgment. Yes, I think over time this is one of those decisions that is like handing the election to the Democrats on a silver platter. Not alone but in conjunction with the "houses gaffe" and the poor Hillary ads that I said would backfire because I knew ahead of time ( and said so on JT days ahead) Bill's and Hillary's speech would blow that contention out of the water; together they fit nicely on that beautiful sterling silver platter.

"this is one of those decisions that is like handing the election to the Democrats on a slver platter"

Either that, or the Democrats' decision to annoint Obama and Obama's decision to pick Biden is like handing the election to the Republicans, eh?

VOR:

I look forward to seeing the first lady VP if for no other reason to see these know-it-alls overreact yet again.

Like the hissy fits they threw over Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice. Man, just when you think you own an entire race, the Republicans come along and free them again.

CavemanLawyer:

She has run a state with a total population less than the city of Columbus, Ohio for less than two years. If the old man dies in office, and its never been more likely, she will be the next President of the United States.

The Left was convinced that Cheney wasn't going to survive one term, much less two. I remember the same wishful thinking er, I mean predictions about Reagan.

Everton2:

There is nothing inspiring about her except that she has had a army of children including one she knowingly had with down syndrome.

Why do the leftists have such a problem with that?

Knowingly bringing a down syndrome child in to the world considering all the challenges and discrimination it will encounter is patently selfish. That alone should be grounds not to vote for her

Oh, I see. Letting an imperfect child live to be loved and grow up in a caring and supportive family is selfish. Might as well kill the thing and throw the inconvenience out with the trash, eh? I thought you leftists were supposed to be compassionate liberal types.

TheConservative:

USAFdude; Surely you jest sir? Obama cannot debate, that is why he turned down debates with McCain.

...and went on "vacation" in Hawaii, where he underwent an intensive 12-step rehab program to cure his teleprompter dependency issues.

CavemanLawyer:

The Obama camp said they accepted but had some requests to the format and schedule. Sounds reasonable and fair enough.

Depends on the reuqests. I've heard that the McCain thought they were unreasonable. Knowing Obama's ego, that sounds more likely to me. Funny that he would have requests, after claiming he would meet our enemies unconditionally.

TheConservative:

I agree with Sarge. I cant imagine patriotic servicemen flocking to vote for an appeaser ahead of a respected war hero.

As I said on another thread, niether can I. And I know a lot of military servicemen, both retired and active, several of which have seen action in Iraq. Not a single one is even considering Obama.

presto345:

But benefiting who? Again, like in the past 8 years just the top 10%?

More of the middle class moved up under Bush's economic policies. The only people hurt by them were the lower end of the unskilled labor market, who were replaced by illegal alien labor. On the one hand, it kept the country moving, but on the other, we suffered an increase in violent crime, DUI deaths and child molestations, while paying the replaced labor not to work.

TheConservative:

McCains aims are to continue our policy of winning the war on terror, and bringing freedom to people living in fear under despots.

And there's the difference the more myopic ones on the left fail to grasp. They think everything is Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. But the Iraq war is wrapping up. The combat troops will be out during the next president's term anyway, we already have the agreement with the Iraqi government. They will be able to handle things on their own now, just as Bush and Cheney planned (late, sure, but still). But the war on terror isn't over, and never will be. Whether it's a-holes like Islamic extremists, or a-holes like William Ayers or Timothy McVeigh, terrorism will continue. The effort to stop it before innoncents are killed is a difficult and noble fight, and I won't trust it to someone who is afraid of a certain cable news channel.

GeorgeRoper:

Strewth, Do all Americans argue all the time?

Yes. Well, okay, just some of us. For me, I like having my knowledge and beliefs challenged, because in making my case, I not only express my opinion, but also how I came to it. That doesn't explain why some people keep repeating the same chants, myths, and talking points, however...

So what if Mr McCain picked someone hardly known. How many knew Obama until recently, not many, and i`d put a wager on that.

I was going to make that point later, well done.

Nessie:

And I guess you've never heard of appeaser Ron Paul, who has been against intervention in Iraq and has had the most support among military servicepeople.

For someone who "won" a lot of polls, Paul never seemed to get many actual live votes. And I've yet to meet any active duty or retired military folks who liked him, either.

CavemanLawyer:

Are you completely sure? I have no clue at this point in time how she got to be governor of the 3rd least populous state in the country. If it was her merits, could you please tell me what her merits are?

Maybe her campaign team had her opponent disqualified. Oh wait, that was Obama. Sorry.

yabits:

Are these the same good folks who kept electing that crook Ted Stevens? Are they the same good folks who kept electing the corrupt Frank Murkowski?

Speaking of desperation...

Palin beat Murkowski in the primary, then defeated the better-funded democrat opponent in the general. How? By promising to clean up the corruption (same tactic Jindal used in the 60-year democrat stronghold of Louisiana). And Stevens? Palin pressured him to come clean.

Who was for this so-called "bridge to nowhere?" Governor Palin supported it before she finally reversed her position, ONLY because it would not be fully funded by federal taxpayers. So oil-rich Alaska cuts a project only because they would have had to kick in their own money.

If you're going to quote Wikipedia articles, you might want to read the original sources referenced in the footnotes. None of them support your Wiki-based editorial.

One of those sources does, however, explain how Palin got elected:

She made three other promises: to end corruption in state government, cut spending, and provide accountability. She's now redeeming those promises.

goodDonkey:

If you don't think that Elizabeth Dole is asking herself, "Why not me? What does she have that I do not?" then guess again.

You know Mrs. Dole personally, do you? I haven't heard the first thing about her being interested, and I doubt she would be after her husband's unsuccessful presidential bid.

Damn. I just realized that my last post will have people whining "Well, McCain's 72 years old and he's looking to be the president!" Let me re-phrase: McCain is fully aware that people have concerns about his age. Picking a vice president the same age is not going to allay those concerns. Palin brings balance to the ticket in this respect.

WhiteHawk

I haven't heard the first thing about her being interested, and I doubt she would be after her husband's unsuccessful presidential bid.

You are hilarious. You are better at gaffes than McCain. Elizabeth Dole ran for president since "her husband's unsuccessful presidential bid." That just might be the clue you need to understand that she is interested in an executive position. No I don't know her personally; but I don't need to. I just need to know recent history; I am clued in to what is going on, maybe it would help if you got a clue!

Oh and about that "maverick" thing? Just because you do something stupid, impulsive and impetuous doesn't make you a maverick. Remember the saying, "There is no fool like an old fool."

if I recall...

After the comments you have already made I think most of the readers here will assume you mean "since I looked it up" rather than "if I recall." Your recollection is exactly what is in question here. At least that is the nicest way to put it.

White Hawk: The evidence for Palin's support for the "bridge to nowhere" is abundant and in the public record.

Here's what she told the Anchorage Daily News on October 22, 2006, during the race for the governor's seat (via Nexis):

Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?

Answer: Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

goodDonkey:

After the comments you have already made I think most of the readers here will assume you mean "since I looked it up" rather than "if I recall." Your recollection is exactly what is in question here. At least that is the nicest way to put it.

Which is moot, since you've yet to provide any evidence whatsoever to back up your impulsive and impetuous claim that Dole is miffed she didn't get picked for VP, or was even interested.

yabits:

The evidence for Palin's support for the "bridge to nowhere" is abundant and in the public record.

I'm not debating her early support for the bridge (the planning and lobbying for which were already in the works long before she took office), but rather your Wiki-based claim as to why she dropped her support:

Governor Palin supported it before she finally reversed her position, ONLY because it would not be fully funded by federal taxpayers.

The footnoted sources for that line do not back up that Wiki claim, and neither have you.

From the Alaska governor's website, press archive for 9/21/2007:

“Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer,” said Governor Palin. “Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Governor Palin added.

So, Palin was FOR the bridge until it was clear that US taxpayers weren't going to fund it. Case closed.

yabits

What a perfect example. I barely remember a reference to the "bridge to nowhere" from the scandal involving Ted Stevens. Several of his outlandish pork barrel were mentioned and the Ravina Island Bridge project was one of them. I didn't remember any of it except some mention of the "bridge to nowhere" and that it was very expensive only to carry very few people on it. When I read your comment I had to google "bridge to nowhere" with the quotes of course. Well that phrase is now an icon unto itself as anyone wishing to google it can see. No point in expanding on the story at this time because it will be brought up over and over as to one of her great successes.

WhiteHawk

The difference between you and myself is that I present my view of Elizabeth Dole's thoughts to be my opinion. You present information as facts and they turn out to be erroneous. I can stand by my opinions as I do but when your facts are proven to be wrong you are left without a leg to stand on.

If you do not yet know how to recognize opinion when it doesn't begin with "I believe" or "In my opinion" I can quote my words which indicate opinion.

If you don't think that Elizabeth Dole is asking herself, "Why not me? What does she have that I do not?" then guess again.

. . . will want to know why not Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina

I don't claim to read people's mind and I don't claim to know the future. It is called poetic license. But I am very clear when I state something to be a fact. I am sure I will someday be called to task on a fact I got wrong. But not today!

Moderator: Readers, please stay on topic. Elizabeth Dole is not relevant to this discussion.

Are you completely sure? I have no clue at this point in time how she got to be governor of the 3rd least populous state in the country.

It was called a general election, she ran agaisn't several opponents and won. It's pretty standard stuff on how one get's to be a Governor. I do understand that you don't know much about Alaska but I can assure you they do things the same way as the rest of the 49 states do when electing their officials. Hope that clarifies things for you. Strange though being a lawyer and all I thought that would one of the first things they would teach in law school. Our legal process to run for office.

What do you know about Alaska? What makes you so sure they are "good folks" who make good choices?

Dang, not much faith in representatvie Democracy shown here. I don't think I'm even really going to touch the implications of your statement about fellow American citizens who happen to be residents of Alaska.

I

agree with Sarge. I cant imagine patriotic servicemen flocking to vote for an appeaser ahead of a respected war hero.

You don't have to imagine. Just count the support, and lo and behold...

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/08/military_abroad.html

It's not a ton of money or large number of donors, but it is interesting to note that more US military members deployed abroad are backing Democrat Barack Obama than Republican John McCain.

The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign money, reported today that Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than McCain. Ron Paul, who like Obama opposes the Iraq war, has received four times McCain's amount though he suspended his campaign for the Republican nomination.

I should also point out that military support for Obama is higher among active duty service members. I guess those must be the unpatriotic ones, eh?

The Consevative:

And I know a lot of military servicemen, both retired and active, several of which have seen action in Iraq. Not a single one is even considering Obama.

Not a single one? I guess you travel in very exclusive circles then. McCain does lead in support from veterans. 56% to be exact. What I want to know is how you managed to avoid the 34% that support Obama? My instinct is telling me it is something racial, and we cavemen have pretty good instincts.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109654/Veterans-Solidly-Back-McCain.aspx

I cannot find statistics to support Nessie's contention that more active duty support Obama, but I don't doubt it. A majority of military I have encountered through this spirit box support Obama.

What some of the good folks in Alaska are saying about her now that she's the V.P choice.

The folks in Alaska seem pretty sharp to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MDHvVT9QX8

The 'speedo' comment at the end is a classic.

Strange though being a lawyer and all I thought that would one of the first things they would teach in law school. Our legal process to run for office.

It is far from the first thing, but early enough. Later we learn how to exploit the process. It came to my attention even before Whitehawk mentioned it that Obama ran against no one for state senator. You read correctly. No opponents. All opponents were removed from the ballot by legal process. Fairly done it would seem, but I wonder how Obama's men knew where to look? Just clever? Maybe.

So again, we have you assuming how things work. There are several ways Palin could have gotten that governorship, and until you know for sure how, you should not be assuming it was by the purest methods we all hope for. I wish I could tell you how, and when I find the answer I will tell you.

Dang, not much faith in representatvie Democracy shown here.

Yes and no. Sometimes it is subverted. Do you know how voting machines were taken out of black districts in Florida in 2000 creating havoc at the polls? Or how voters were turned away for having names similar to criminals in other states?

And sometimes bad people elect the bad people they want. What I have no faith in right now is the people of Alaska. That is because I know nothing about them or their politics at this time.

I have recently learned a lot about the politics of Chicago. Add that to what I know of Washington. Next I intend to learn about Alaska. So far I see many clues pointing to shenanigans, but my investigations are far from complete. There is still two months to November. I suggest you also dig deeper.

--Cirroc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MDHvVT9QX8

Good video. Thank you.

The folks in Alaska seem pretty sharp to me.

Yes. All 6 or so of them.

--Cirroc

It seems the good people of Alaska have quite a few corrupt elected officials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_political_corruption_probe http://www.adn.com/news/politics/fbi/

But Palin has nothing to do with it for good or bad. Even so, we now have reason to be dubious about the voting choices of the good people of Alaska.

Potentially rigged election in Alaska?

http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/ap_alaska/story/8270887p-8167765c.html

"As a result of these modifications, data from the 2004 election appears to have been altered," Metcalfe wrote in his letter, dated Thursday.

Not directly tied to Palin either, but just goes to show that things are not always on the up and up in Alaska.

Still working on Palin. It seems that she has reported some people for corrupt practices in the past. I like that. But its off-set by her alleged firings of people for purely political reasons and attempted firings of people for personal reasons. Makes me wonder if she might have had ulterior motives for reporting the corrupt fellows. More to come...

--Cirroc

Most of what I see says Palin looks ok, at best. The important thing is that I can give you reasons.

-She has irked her base by not denying gays certain benefits, even though she herself is anti-gay. That takes some guts and integrity. She is not swayed by blind hate as some of her constituents are.

-She is not afraid to toss people out. She does not seem to be a corporate plant in government. Not only will she out the scum, but she will also reverse last minute appointments made by the previous office holder, even if that person is in her own party. Unfortunately, she won't be making that decision with regard to Bush's last minute whatever as VP. Obama will as president if he wins. I just worry that she can't separate political and personal reasons to out someone from real justice.

-She does not believe global warming is man-made. But she still supports reduction of greenhouse gasses ie pollution. Who could be against reducing pollution?

-She does not seem to have a problem with taxing the rich. But neither does Obama, who will actually have some authority on that if he wins. But also she raised sales tax as mayor to build an ice rink, and that hits the little guy. But then again she is pretty supportive of welfare when she sees a need. It balances out at the bottom. So if she supports taxing the bloated rich that looks good to me.

-She smoked pot. b(^o^) But hypocritcally opposes legalization. p(><)q

-Her position on Iraq? Fat mystery. This is key. How can she have a son there and not have clear feelings on the web?

The things I really disagree with her on like the death penalty, abortion, etc. don't really amount to much, and some little things above I mention because it shows her thought process. She won't be changing those little things. But I can't give her even a little thumbs up until I know her feelings on Iraq, and among those, pre-invasion feelings are paramount. Obama was one of the few who said "Hell no!" and it is a big reason I support him. We need someone who can say "Hell no!" to invading Iran prematurely (as opposed to maturely), not someone who does not have an opinion.

--Cirroc

Answer: Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

It is a good answer. If the fed is going to throw money at Alaska, it could be politically unwise to accept. I would have supported it myself. At present you have to take a car ferry to get to the airport. It is cheap, but all it will take is for the ferry to sink and everyone will be screaming about how that bridge should have been built.

Connecting the airport to the city is a good idea. It really is. The sticking point was just the price.

--Cirroc

it could be politically unwise to accept.

I meant to not accept. Sorry, I am just a caveman.

--Cirroc

I cannot find statistics to support Nessie's contention that more active duty support Obama, but I don't doubt it. A majority of military I have encountered through this spirit box support Obama.

Check my link to the Boston newspaper.

Connecting the airport to the city is a good idea. It really is. The sticking point was just the price.

And I totally agree with you, CL.

What I object to and try to counter is the misinformation currently being disseminated by Republican supporters that Governor Palin was somehow always opposed to the project herself, or that she killed it on grounds that were something other than what they truly were.

This was previously done in the selling of George Bush's "getting health care legislation passed in Texas" and it never fails to amaze me how many fish they can reel in with it.

America: Meet Sarah Palin ( on YouTube )

Oooooooooh, Barracuda!

Barracuda...

America, something is really fishy about all this.

Nessie: Fantastic Boston article! Thank you for sharing. I hope every American reads this article and appreciates just how much hope we American troops have for an Obama victory, which will then lead us to a US victory in the War on Terror.

yabits - sorry, but you failed to make your case.

Peggy Noonan: Yeah.

Mike Murphy: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state governor world: Engler, Whitman, Tommy Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. I mean, these guys -- this is how you win a Texas race, just run it up. And it's not gonna work. And --

PN: It's over.

MM: Still McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.

CT: I also think the Palin pick is insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too.

PN: Saw Kay this morning.

CT: Yeah, she's never looked comfortable about this --

MM: They're all bummed out.

CT: Yeah, I mean is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?

PN: The most qualified? No! I think they went for this -- excuse me-- political bullshit about narratives --

CT: Yeah they went to a narrative.

MM: I totally agree.

PN: Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at, they blow it.

MM: You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical.

CT: This is cynical, and as you called it, gimmicky.

MM: Yeah.