Mccain's Vp: Sarah Palin

[Guest JohnDenver]

Did you actually look at the ABC news link? It's not an editorial targeted to women, and it is being broadcast by several similar undisputedly "news outlets."

Did you actually read it? It covered both sides and pointed out that the right and left have switch sides in their support:

Christian conservatives are now touting what some say are "un-family" values, and longtime liberals are finding themselves critical of a woman's choice to raise children and earn a living, calling it "bad parenting."

[Guest JohnDenver]

I don't remember any questions of Geraldine Ferraro or Hillary Clinton. I can't seem to remember asking such questions of any of the 55 Democratic women in Congress, including the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

...and your dismissal of people making editorial statements is laughable. If people on the right raised such objections of a Democratic woman, they would be labeled as sexist and evil.

Further, not all of the comments have been made in print. Both Katie Couric and Solidad O'Brian, both of whom are working professional mom's with lots of professional time demands who employ nannies for their children, conducted the interview where left-leaning pundits spewed such crap. Imagine being an objective women who is professional with kids just letting someone spew this type of sexist bullsh!t and not saying a word to challenge it. ...I'm sure that would happen if the pundit was a conservative talking about a Democrat woman.

This IS a doubestandard. You can choose to ignore it and it may not matter to you, but I certainly understand why so many are up in arms about it.

...For political reasons, I hope it continues. Let the Media and the left-leaning pundits keep hammering away, and they will HAND the election to McCain and Palin.

The major networks and newspapers and MSNBC wonder why they are losing viewers and readers by the droves. LOL!

Umm... wait. Wha?

First of all, yes, all those women have faced these questions. The difference is they aren't still breeding... Hillary isn't having another kid (nor can she). Same goes for Ferraro or Pelosi.

When Kay Baily H adopted her children not too long ago, she got those questions... Is she too old? Will this affect her job? etc. Oh my!

Nor did I ignore this going on. I face these questions DAILY. As I said, my wife and I deal with it all the time... I don't see it coming from the "left." I see it being questions that women and men ask (as pointed out in the ABC article) with a nice degree of sexism. You see the sexism as being a liberal conspiracy, which I don't.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Did you actually read it? It covered both sides and pointed out that the right and left have switch sides in their support:

Sigh...Yes, I read it. I was responding to your claim:

I haven't seen any news outlet (or "Dem") question her ability based upon having a Downs baby... I think the chip on your shoulder is showing.

They question the pick based on the criteria of family values, ethics questions and experience. I haven't seen anything about her mother, or the time required for mothering, as a factor.

Not denying you hadn't seen previously, but if you had clicked the link, you would have seen a news outlet speaking about her motherhood as a factor.

[Guest JohnDenver]

Sigh...Yes, I read it. I was responding to your claim:

Not denying you hadn't seen previously, but if you had clicked the link, you would have seen a news outlet speaking about her motherhood as a factor.

I really hadn't seen any of these articles. It all gives me tired head really...

I have only seen articles questioning her ethics, stances and experience (which there are a lot of those questions).

[yyz28]

Umm... wait. Wha?

First of all, yes, all those women have faced these questions. The difference is they aren't still breeding... Hillary isn't having another kid (nor can she). Same goes for Ferraro or Pelosi.

When Kay Baily H adopted her children not too long ago, she got those questions... Is she too old? Will this affect her job? etc. Oh my!

Nor did I ignore this going on. I face these questions DAILY. As I said, my wife and I deal with it all the time... I don't see it coming from the "left." I see it being questions that women and men ask (as pointed out in the ABC article).

Link? Where has the press or political pundits hammered any of the Female Democrats, still breeding or otherwise. I want to see this.

I read the entire ABC article and there is not a single right wing pundit or other conservative in that article that is questioning Palin's parenting. That article is really just discussing the fact that some are questioning it, it isn't actually an editorial that leans in either direction. The other's posted and the interviews in the major news outlets, however, have been coming from the left. ...and it's not the entire left, by any stretch. The vast majority are disgusted at the idea that it is an issue, but the few that are using it to discredit her (which is all they've got... they've figured out that experinece isn't going to be an issue that disqualifies her when they are running Barak at the top of their ticket, and that the country doesn't think her daughter's situation is even relevant) are doing A LOT of damage to the Obama/Biden ticket. The "win at any cost" crowd and their friends in the press who are pushing their views forward without questioning it are going to do more damage than good. ...if they were smart, they would STFU and take this woman on with the issues. ...the amount of noise coming from the left indicates a great deal of fear.

It's a shame you and your wife are dealing with such questions. I can't imagine asking such questions of any of my employees, male or female.

[emmitt01]

I read the entire ABC article and there is not a single right wing pundit or other conservative in that article that is questioning Palin's parenting

*Gasp*

You mean there are no right wing pundits or conservatives that are doing anything to undermine their candidate for President? Shock of shocks!

Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have kept their big mouths shut for one reason and one reason only...this VP candidate is gonna get plenty of legitimate criticism from moderates and libs, she doesn't need any more "help."

[Guest JohnDenver]

Link? Where has the press or political pundits hammered any of the Female Democrats, still breeding or otherwise. I want to see this.

When those ladies were in child bearing years, the interwebs didn't keep copies around.. I will search later though. Nor were they in national races, so local papers aren't archived like the major news sites.

Even the McCain camp is calling this an "Old Boys Network" in the media and not some liberal conspiracy. Link

[yyz28]

*Gasp*

You mean there are no right wing pundits or conservatives that are doing anything to undermine their candidate for President? Shock of shocks!

Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have kept their big mouths shut for one reason and one reason only...this VP candidate is gonna get plenty of legitimate criticism from moderates and libs, she doesn't need any more "help."

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! That's funny. I made the statement I did because John Denver was stating that infact the right IS raising the same sexist "Mom can't/shoulnd't run for VP" that the left-leaning pundits are. He claims they are, and you say they aren't, and you're both citing political reasons for each. Which one is it? Ya'll ought to stop arguing with me and get your stories straight.

That's awesome.

...OH, BTW... Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and the like are THRILLED with this pick. ...and none of THEM have ever questioned a woman't fitness to serve because se has young children. You suggest a double standard where one doesn't exist. You can't show where people on the right have asked such questions of a Liberal or Democrat politician, yet we can show where Liberal Feminists (who's STATED mission for years has been to free women from being "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen) are now attacking this woman BECAUSE she ISN'T "in her place in the home". Keep hammering on it Libs... KEEP UP THE DOUBLE STANDARD! LOL!!!!

What legitimate criticism? Hum? Experience? She's got more than Obama. A possible ethics problem with the HWP in her state? ...an investigation led by the speaker of the Alaskan house who is a major critic of hers and a Democrat? With Obama's Experience and Ayers/House problem do you REALLY think you're going to get anywere with that? Get real. This thread is officially getting funny.

[yyz28]

When those ladies were in child bearing years, the interwebs didn't keep copies around.. I will search later though. Nor were they in national races, so local papers aren't archived like the major news sites.

Even the McCain camp is calling this an "Old Boys Network" in the media and not some liberal conspiracy. Link

Read again. In context, the article says:

"The statement stood out for its admission that Palin is under siege — it condemns “this vetting controversy” — and for its attempt to blunt questions about how rigorously McCain and his campaign explored the background of a candidate who may get the nation’s second most powerful job. It also suggested that Palin is a victim of gender bias in the media. “The McCain campaign will have no further comment about our long and thorough process,” Schmidt said, lashing out at “the old boys’ network” that he says runs media organizations.

"Media" and "Liberal" are synonymous. I don't think anyone claimed this is a conspiracy... it's simply bad political sparring. ...its going to backfire.

[Guest JohnDenver]

Read again. In context, the article says:

"Media" and "Liberal" are synonymous. I don't think anyone claimed this is a conspiracy... it's simply bad political sparring. ...its going to backfire.

Yawn. Media != Liberal.

I wasn't showing *anything* in the ABC news column. I pointed out it appeared to have both sides of the story... so it can't be used as evidence of liberals bashing a woman.

Calm down with the caps. It is intense and inadvertently makes Firefox close on its own accord.

[Guest JohnDenver]

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! That's funny. I made the statement I did because John Denver was stating that infact the right IS raising the same sexist "Mom can't/shoulnd't run for VP" that the left-leaning pundits are. He claims they are, and you say they aren't, and you're both citing political reasons for each. Which one is it? Ya'll ought to stop arguing with me and get your stories straight.

That's awesome.

...OH, BTW... Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and the like are THRILLED with this pick. ...and none of THEM have ever questioned a woman't fitness to serve because se has young children. You suggest a double standard where one doesn't exist. You can't show where people on the right have asked such questions of a Liberal or Democrat politician, yet we can show where Liberal Feminists (who's STATED mission for years has been to free women from being "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen) are now attacking this woman BECAUSE she ISN'T "in her place in the home". Keep hammering on it Libs... KEEP UP THE DOUBLE STANDARD! LOL!!!!

What legitimate criticism? Hum? Experience? She's got more than Obama. A possible ethics problem with the HWP in her state? ...an investigation led by the speaker of the Alaskan house who is a major critic of hers and a Democrat? With Obama's Experience and Ayers/House problem do you REALLY think you're going to get anywere with that? Get real. This thread is officially getting funny.

First of all, it is legitimate to question all things about the second most important job in the US. It is good form to ask about her level of experience (which Obama is questioned all the time), her ethics investigation (which Obama is questioned all the time) and her extremely conservative stances.

Of course the Limbaugh and drones love this lady. She is a female version of Bush.. They would love her even more if she had illegal pain meds and a penis.

[Guest JohnDenver]

Link? Where has the press or political pundits hammered any of the Female Democrats, still breeding or otherwise. I want to see this.

You just laughed it off like 95% of other people... but it was thick for Hillary.

Here is a good example: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/200...ll-is-this.html

Or, if you can handle the awesome layout: http://www.womenamericans.com/sexismhillary.htm

I know, I know.. these women will turn you off immediately. However, there are valid points in there about English and its use with applied to different situations.

[yyz28]

Yawn. Media != Liberal.

That's another thread all together, but media members who identidfy themselves as "Democrats" is north of 90%. If you don't think the Media is in the tank for Obama (SNL even made fun of it) you're not watching.

I wasn't showing *anything* in the ABC news column. I pointed out it appeared to have both sides of the story... so it can't be used as evidence of liberals bashing a woman.

Again, it really didn't have both sides. The headline gives you the impression it's going that way, but then the text is a bunch of folks railing against the idea, and one person who says "it is a legitimate issue" but even that person concluded Palin was up to the challenge.

Calm down with the caps. It is intense and inadvertently makes Firefox close on its own accord.

I use caps to stress like I would when I'm speaking... sorry if I got carried away.

First of all, it is legitimate to question all things about the second most important job in the US. It is good form to ask about her level of experience (which Obama is questioned all the time), her ethics investigation (which Obama is questioned all the time) and her extremely conservative stances.

Not by the news media he isn't. The only folks raising questions is the new media and some authors. The news media gives him a pass on Ayers while laying into her for an investigation being led by a partisian anti-Palin democrat. He is not questioned with the type of intensity that she is being attacked with by anyone in the mainstream media. The talking points about her experience is news, yet the fact that Obama has not written a piece of legislation either at the state or national level and isn't even in the Senate to vote most of the time as he has been campaining after having less than 150 working days in the senate.

I agree questions about her conservative stances are fair game, as are the far left stances of Obama. I'd rahter see the media talk about where Obama/Biden stands on the issues vs. McCain/Palin. I don't see anyone really pushing Obama on the issues yet either...

Of course the Limbaugh and drones love this lady. She is a female version of Bush.. They would love her even more if she had illegal pain meds and a penis.

She's hardly a female version of Bush, as she is a fiscal conservative - something Bush certainly is not. C'mon, you can do better than that. Your cantidate admits to being a coke-head in the past. Please tell me you're going to try and make Limbaugh's pain pill addiciton a disqualifier to discuss politics. ...and what's with the name calling? Drones? If we don't agree with you, we're mindless, non-thinking, swallow what Limbaugh and the republican party tells us to swallow drones?

You just laughed it off like 95% of other people... but it was thick for Hillary.

I laughed it off because it A. wasn't coming from the RIGHT, and B. it wasn't coming from legitimate news media. The race and the sex card was played during the primaries, but it wasn't the right who was playing the cards...

Here is a good example: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/200...ll-is-this.html

Or, if you can handle the awesome layout: http://www.womenamericans.com/sexismhillary.htm

Blogs are not the media. ...funny blogs though.

I know, I know.. these women will turn you off immediately. However, there are valid points in there about English and its use with applied to different situations.

There is some interesting stuff in there, but it is hardly an unbiased news outlet making the report.

...on a total side note... I'm passionate, so I stress certain points of my posts, so I'm sorry for the caps. I'm enjoying the debate!

[eulesseagle]

OK, here is what Obama will do .... and ..... we know what Palin stands for:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ELECTION 2008

See for yourself how Obama's values defy America's

'Audacity of Deceit' asks whether we really want 'change' he has in mind

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: September 02, 2008

9:32 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

On the heels of the New York Times multi-week No.1 best-selling book, "Obama Nation," comes another potentially explosive look into the real politics of Barack Obama from WND Books called "The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values."

"'The Audacity of Deceit' is the perfect complement to Jerome Corsi's 'Obama Nation,'" says Joseph Farah, founder of WND Books. "I think there is a strong market still for more information on Obama – a lot of material left unaddressed."

In "The Audacity of Deceit," author Brad O'Leary zeroes in on Obama's domestic policy prescriptions, demonstrating how Obama's campaign promises would affect average Americans should the Democrat be elected president.

O'Leary, the former NBC Westwood One talk show host who has authored 11 books and penned political columns for USA Weekend that drew 90 million readers, looked at the potential consequences of an Obama administration and reached the following conclusions:

Obama will be a radical on the abortion issue as signaled by his blocking of emergency medical aid for babies who survive abortion;

Obama will attempt to ban the use of firearms for defense by law-abiding citizens;

Obama will raise tax rates up to 60 percent;

Obama will push for health care reforms that will let government determine which procedures and operations senior citizens are allowed to have;

Obama will "transform the U.S. Treasury into the United Nations' ATM";

Obama will choke off America's domestic energy resources, sending gas, electricity and food prices through the roof;

Obama will raise the percentage of Americans who pay no taxes at all, from 30 percent to 40 percent – at the expense of those who do;

Obama will transfer child-rearing responsibility and authority from parents to the federal government with his "0 to 5" program.

(Story continues below)

Asked why he wrote "The Audacity of Deceit," O'Leary explained, "Not long ago at a family gathering, I discovered that some of my six daughters and five grandchildren were thinking about voting for Barack Obama – yet they didn't know his views on key issues."

O'Leary began writing a long letter to his loved ones, inviting them to study Obama's values and positions before making such a decision. The letter demonstrated how an Obama presidency would radically alter the face of American values and limit opportunities for future generations. The letter he wrote developed into this new, sure-to-be-controversial book.

In one chapter of "The Audacity of Deceit" called "The Barack Obama Test," O'Leary gathers polling results from America's top pollsters, including Zogby, Rasmussen, Gallup and CNN, demonstrating how Obama's positions on a broad array of issues are in stark contrast to the values held by the vast majority of Americans.

People can see the contrast for themselves at www.BarackObamaTest.com, where visitors can take a 39-question survey to see how closely their values line up with Obama's professed positions.

The book's website also allows anyone to download a free chapter of their choice from the book, including a chapter with exclusive Zogby polls – never before published and available nowhere else – that detail the differences in political views between the 70 percent of Americans who pay federal income taxes and the 30 percent who do not.

Through the poll results, O'Leary reveals for the first time who the non-taxpaying Americans are – detailing their income levels, education, marital status, and even religious practices – and who they plan to vote for.

The book is set for nationwide release Tuesday, Sept. 9, but the book is immediately available from WND's online store, Shop.WND.com, at a reduced price of just $19.99.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related offers:

"The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values"

Get Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation," autographed by the author, exclusively from WND's online store.

Get the magnetized bumper sticker that is sure to be a political collector's item no matter how the election turns out: "Defeat Osama, Obama and Chelsea's Mama"

Get your NObama magnetized bumper sticker exclusively from WND's online store

Find out why you shouldn't vote for Obama or McCain this year in Joseph Farah's "None of the Above"

[Bryan316]

You've pretty much lost all credibility by posting a spam chain email featuring a guy that's trying to hawk a book to the lowest common denominator. I guess your solution to the election would be to sign more Trinity players?

[KingDL1]

Sarah Palin rocks, I have now made up my mind, I am voting Republican. I am very impressed by her, she makes me feel better about McCain. Wow, just wow.

[FirefightnRick]

Not by the news media he isn't.

Great points yy. I hate to interupt for one second, but I want to remind of the one time I have seen Obama pressed by the mainstream media in an interview, and that was while in Jordan, Katie Couric asked him 6 times why he refused to admit that the surge in which he voted against, has been an overall success. I nearly fell over when she just kept bringing it up time and time again and he just kept sidestepping the question over and over. He does admit that it helped reduce the violence, but wasn't going to admit he was wrong in voting. And hey, at least he voted that day for something rather than stamping "Present".

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/22/...in4283623.shtml

By the way, a great qoute by Rudy Giuliani tonight prior to Governor Palin being introduced, and I paraphrase: "How dare they question whether or not Governor Palin can do her job as Vice President and be a mother to her children at the same time?". He didn't pull that accusation out of his ass, it's been the discussion all week long.

Carry on.

Rick

[emmitt01]

Great points yy. I hate to interupt for one second, but I want to remind of the one time I have seen Obama pressed by the mainstream media in an interview, and that was while in Jordan, Katie Couric asked him 6 times why he refused to admit that the surge in which he voted against, has been an overall success. I nearly fell over when she just kept bringing it up time and time again and he just kept sidestepping the question over and over. He does admit that it helped reduce the violence, but wasn't going to admit he was wrong in voting. And hey, at least he voted that day for something rather than stamping "Present".

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

[Smitty]

Again, I could not care less about Palin's family issues. As Mr. Obama said, leave her children alone. I don't care that her daughter is pregnant, or that she has a baby to take care of. I don't care about a 20-year-old DUI her husband had. Those are non-issues to me. But there are still some very troubling issues about Ms. Palin. From the Associated Press:

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.

Some examples:

PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."

(And something the AP left out but a reporter from Los Angeles has found: after the funding came through, she cancelled the bridge project - BUT KEPT THE MONEY. According to the report, she did not send the money back to Washington but instead used it for other state projects. So zero credit for being a champion to end abuses of earmark spending.)

PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform _ not even in the state senate."

THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.

PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."

THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded. Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families. He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.

MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. I'm entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America," he said in an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson.

THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state _ by population.

MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC.

THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.

Not to mention the Troopergate scandal for which she is currently under investigation.

And for full disclosure, I am not a life-long democrat. I vote Republican or Democrat, whichever I think is the better candidate.

Edited September 4, 2008 by Smitty

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

Well, she does read a speach pretty well. Wait! Where have I heard that before?

I think I'll just let the right argue with themselves about what can and cannot be said about Palin:

Sarah Palin gender card

Edited September 4, 2008 by BeanCounterGrad'03

[UNTLifer]

Dude, she's hot.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

Dude, she's hot.

Amen, that's something EVERYONE can agree on.

[yyz28]

PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."

THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded. Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families. He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.

I can argue every point, but I don't have the time to day I did yesterday to debate...

...but the amount of "take home income" the middle class gets to keep isn't the measure of the tax burden. After their "take home" is in their pockets, they start paying more taxes. Specifically, the increased taxes on the businesses that will have their tax burden go up. Do you think if Best Buy is paying a higer tax rate they won't pass that cost onto consumers? Do you think if we tax the oil companies more, they won't pass the cost on to the consumer?

...oh, neat, we're going to increase taxes on the weathiest! ($250,000 doesn't make you wealthy, but I digress...) Capital Gains Taxes, Dividend Taxes and Income Taxes on the "wealthy" means the wealthy will have less money to invest in business. Less investment in business means fewer raises and fewer jobs for the middle class.

Anyplace you raise taxes - the middle class will get hurt. PERIOD.

PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."

(And something the AP left out but a reporter from Los Angeles has found: after the funding came through, she cancelled the bridge project - BUT KEPT THE MONEY. According to the report, she did not send the money back to Washington but instead used it for other state projects. So zero credit for being a champion to end abuses of earmark spending.)

Your Los Angeles reporter is wrong. The bridge was never funded by congress, so the money was never given to the state for that bridge. She hired a "gasp" lobbiest for her town? What does that have to do with wasteful spending? Just because a lobbiest is involved, the project isn't worth while? Really? ...and the amount of money requested by Alaska being highest per capita isn't that stragne. Most federal money is for infrastructure, and there is more infrastructure between each person in that state than in any other. Again, what's the point?

Nice try.

...and trying to defend the one issue Obama actually did something other than vote on? ...his only work on that measure was to meet with a couple of senators in an attempt to win their vote on the measure. ...Obama's name wasn't on the measure.. the two Republicans listed AUTHORED THE BILL!!!

...the AP is really grasping as straws here.

Edited September 4, 2008 by yyz28

[meangreenacct]

Your Los Angeles reporter is wrong. The bridge was never funded by congress, so the money was never given to the state for that bridge. She hired a "gasp" lobbiest for her town? What does that have to do with wasteful spending? Just because a lobbiest is involved, the project isn't worth while? Really? ...and the amount of money requested by Alaska being highest per capita isn't that stragne. Most federal money is for infrastructure, and there is more infrastructure between each person in that state than in any other. Again, what's the point?

Nice try.

...and trying to defend the one issue Obama actually did something other than vote on? ...his only work on that measure was to meet with a couple of senators in an attempt to win their vote on the measure. ...Obama's name wasn't on the measure.. the two Republicans listed AUTHORED THE BILL!!!

...the AP is really grasping as straws here.

Your kidding right? The bridge was never funded by Congress?

That may technically be true, Congress originally earmarked approximately $200M specifically for the bridge. Since there was so much heat over it, Congress removed the restriction that the money be used for that but still sent the same amount of money to Alaska.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/

Pertinent info from article -

U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young, both Republicans, championed the project through Congress two years ago, securing more than $200 million for the bridge between Revillagigedo and Gravina islands.

Under mounting political pressure over pork projects, Congress stripped the earmark -- or stipulation -- that the money be used for the airport, but still sent the money to the state for any use it deemed appropriate.

Stevens spokesman Aaron Saunders said Friday the senator was interested in how the state ultimately used the money. A spokeswoman for Young said the congressman would have no comment.

[KingDL1]

I love the that the media and democratic party keep comparing Palin with Obama in regards to experience, at least she has been the head of several things. But more importantly if they really want to go head to head on this comparison, maybe Obama should run for VP.

Palin has been in public office for 14 years

Obama has been in public office for 11 years

Obama has spent nearly as much time campaigning as he has been in office. He has campaigned for president, for US senator, and for US house of Reps. In each of these races he put nearly two years or more in.

Plus Obama has never been the executive head of any public office. He has never had to be the one in charge, well I guess he is of his campaign.

Palin was a Mayor for 6 years, a chairman of Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for 2 years, and Governor for nearly 2 years.

Edited September 4, 2008 by KingDL1