Palin's Speech: What do you think?

[_beastie]

Just in case people don't understand Dominionism

(ps, Mormonism won't be welcome)

[_Yoda]

I respectfully ask again, "what is her academic background? Has she proven herself with her own--not speech writers--expression and critical thinking? Does she have a second language ability? I repeat, "Buyer beware!"

I think that Palin's educational background is a weak argument. She has a Bachelor's degree. Reagan had a Bachelor's degree as well, and, in spite of what some may say, he was still one of the best presidents we have ever had.

Also, whether or not she is bilingual is of little concern. Most public officials use translators.

To this point she has been a Big Toad in a very small puddle.

I agree with you here. Her primary experience has been the governor of a very small state, and there are budget issues that she has not had to deal with, based on that fact. From an economic standpoint, Romney would have been a much better choice because he had some solid initiatives, and has a strong financial background.

I will probably vote Democrat this election because I am frankly just not impressed with what the GOP has done. They have thrown away the opportunity they always boasted about. They had both the Presidency, and the majority of House and Senate, and made an absolute mess of things.

I'm disappointed in Obama's VP choice, though. I really think that Hillary deserved that slot. She fought a hard race, and whether he likes it or not, her policies would have balanced his very nicely.

[_moksha]

Upon what evidence do you base your belief that the Democrats are "pro-late term abortion"?

I'm not saying that all Democrat's are. The majority are not. It's the extreme Left wing that is.

Yes, but how many right wing extremists are into full term retroactive abortion?

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Liz, I'm in Blue:

I respectfully ask again, "what is her academic background? Has she proven herself with her own--not speech writers--expression and critical thinking? Does she have a second language ability? I repeat, "Buyer beware!"

I think that Palin's educational background is a weak argument. She has a Bachelor's degree. Which doesn't mean much in today's world. For Regan to have had a BA, from his era is more meaningful... Not all would agree to his Presidential Supremacy ;-) Reagan had a Bachelor's degree as well, and, in spite of what some may say, he was still one of the best presidents we have ever had. Education means more than the certification. It indicates concentration and comprehension abilities and is a requirement in most professions requiring a thoughtful intelligent approach to problem solving. That Politicians require no book-learnin' prerequisites for office, just might give us a clue as to why da world is in da mess it is :-) Politics & Sales are the last remaining vocations where bluff-is-enough...

Also, whether or not she is bilingual is of little concern. Most public officials use translators.
True enough, but language-learnin' is a good cerebral exercise, as well it indicates a broader, less parochial perspective. If that means anything? I think it does today more than ever.

To this point she has been a Big Toad in a very small puddle.

I agree with you here. Her primary experience has been the governor of a very small state, and there are budget issues that she has not had to deal with, based on that fact. From an economic standpoint, Romney would have been a much better choice because he had some solid initiatives, and has a strong financial background. Agree. Romney could have even captured Evan's votes that Sarah, with her Bible, yet in her familial state, will not get

I will probably vote Democrat this election because I am frankly just not impressed with what the GOP has done. They have thrown away the opportunity they always boasted about. They had both the Presidency, and the majority of House and Senate, and made an absolute mess of things. It is wake-up time...

I'm disappointed in Obama's VP choice, though. I really think that Hillary deserved that slot. She fought a hard race, and whether he likes it or not, her policies would have balanced his very nicely. My wife especially, agrees with you. I think his advisors might have thought it difficult for her & Bill to have accepted the back-ground???

It IS a Historical time. I hope it will be read as one that really did "Change" things for the better... I also hope they can stick to "issues", as I see Obama attempting to do. It's too easy to be side-tracked, then derailed by irrevelance. As we often do here, eh ;-)

Roger

[Guest]

McCain/Palin are in Wisconsin today. Palin is still using her zinger against community organizers and it's still a huge applause line for the attending crowd. For the love of God, why?

Does politics give you tunnel vision? Hasn't it even dawned on you that she is responding to Obama's back handed remark about her experience? Speaking of which, there are democrats out there insisting Palin is trying to enforce creationism, endorsed Pat Buchanan for President, and cut funding for special-needs children. For the love of the mechanism, why?

You know, you could just look up the information from an independent source rather than rely on partisan spin.

Give us a break EA. I'm being more responsible by actually waiting to see how all this plays out. For the first few days there will be nothing but biased drivel from the Palin haters out there. Obama's campaign, according to the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1220981 ... ical_diary) :

It's no surprise, then, that Democrats have airdropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers into Anchorage, the state capital Juneau and Mrs. Palin's hometown of Wasilla to dig into her record and background. My sources report the first wave arrived in Anchorage less than 24 hours after John McCain selected her on August 29.

The main area of interest to the Democratic SWAT team is Mrs. Palin's dismissal in July of her public safety commissioner. Mrs. Palin says he was fired for cause. Her critics claim he was fired because he wouldn't bend to pressure to get rid of a state trooper, Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a bitter divorce battle with Mrs. Palin's sister. Mr. Wooten is certainly a colorful character. He served a five-day suspension after the Palin family filed a complaint against him alleging he had threatened Mrs. Palin's father. They also accused him of using a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson, drinking in his patrol car and illegally shooting a moose.

At first I was surprised that this liberal source would make it so obvious how desperately in need of smearing the democrats really are. I thought it was a sure sign of objectivity, but then it refers to Wooten's charges as mere "allegations", as if the investigators didn't already conclude in July that four of the thirteen charges were verified as factual [http://www.adn.com/politics/story/476430.html]

Again, she supported the bridge, even after it was being used nationally as a symbol of the problem with pork barrel projects. As governor, she continued building the road that led to the bridge. (They're still building it, since it was either do that or return the funds.) What happened is their congressional delegation lost the political capital to deliver on the funds in the face of ballooning costs.

Much more happened than you know. This played itself out over the course of a few years and there were many ins and outs that you weren't aware of, nor are you going to get the full scoop by reading the liberal attack dogs. Today there was an article published in the Chicago Tribune that provides a more balanced take on the issue:

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin has been criticized for lying in connection with terminating Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" project. This charge, however, reflects widespread misunderstanding as to the nature of the infrastructure budgeting process. While the U.S. Congress did reverse its 2005 decision that had earmarked $223 million for the bridge project, the project itself was not removed from the state's capital budget. A total of $113 million was budgeted to the bridge when Gov. Palin assumed office in 2007.

Among budgetary options, Palin could have drawn on Federal and State moneys to fund the project fully and move ahead with construction. Alternatively, Palin could have deferred the project to future years, possibly changing the funding allocation. In the end, she chose the radical option of removing the project from the capital budget, precluding any future funding allocations or construction. Her claim to have "stopped the bridge" is entirely truthful.
To justify her decision, she argued that the bridge project had become too expensive, and that the state should investigate more cost-effective alternatives. In political terms, her decision was viewed as a blow to the state's Republican establishment, which had strongly championed the project. Without question, the episode buttresses Palin's reputation as an executive who "stands up to her own party."

Palin has offered a bit of misleading rhetoric, however, in discussing the bridge episode. She has stated that terminating the project amounted to telling Congress "thanks, but no thanks." This suggests that Congress was attempting to force the project on Alaska, when in fact it had given the state discretion. Her decision should instead be viewed as conveying the message "thanks, but no thanks" to Alaska's Republican Congressional delegation

Palin's rhetoric also gives the impression that terminating the project was tantamount to rejecting a federal funding offer. The federal contribution to the bridge budget actually amounted to only $36 million, or less than 10 percent of the projected cost of the bridge. By terminating the project, Palin freed these funds for use in other projects, thereby reducing to some extent the need for future earmarks. In this limited sense, the money was indeed returned to Washington.

It is important to note that Palin has worked to overhaul the earmark process, in parallel with Congressional efforts to limit the practice. Alaska's earmark requests have fallen from 54 last year to 31 this year, with only four new requests. Total requested funding has dropped from $550 million to $200 million. Clearly, Gov. Palin has made strong progress in reducing the use of earmarks in Alaska.: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... 4354.story

If Stevens could've delivered the funds, she would've taken them. The impression they are attempting to create is 180 degrees the opposite of reality.

This merely begs the question, and seems to rely on a complete denial of the debate that took place during those years, regarding the use of funds for Katrina victims, as well as McCain's role in convincing fellow Republicans that this kind of earmark was unnecessary. Maybe that's why McCain picked her? If anyone had an inside scoop on Palin's position as the debate evolved, it would be McCain.

You should take that up with the McCain campaign that is trying hard to push a complete moratorium on earmarks.

So now you're switching from Palin and moving to McCain. We are talking about Palin's position on earmarks, and I am pointing out that an abuse of earmarks is a specific argument which she has made. You can't just point to any earmark and shout "A ha, she is a hypocrite". Not unless you show it is an abuse of an earmark, such as Barack Obama's earmark for a hospital which immediately rewarded his wife a doubled salary.

"In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama's compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office."

"Obama Requested $1 Million For Construction Of A New Hospital Pavilion At The University Of Chicago. In 2006, Obama requested that the University of Chicago receive $1 million to support its Construction of New Hospital Pavilion. For more than 75 years, the University of Chicago Hospitals (UCH) has provided state of the art medical care on the South Side of Chicago."- http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/13/222812/971

Yea, these hospitals are really hating it financially huh?

This is a perfect example of a conflict of interest and an abuse of earmarking, and that is precisely why McCain wants to be rid of the entire system - there is no oversight and the system is easily corrupted. But Obama has a history of doing "favors" for people who scratched his back. He does this via the earmark process. By contrast, Sarah Palin didn't use earmarks to "get" anything from anyone. She had a consistent 80-90% approval rating, she wasn't in dire need of votes for reelection. The claim that she abused earmarking when promising the people living on that island, a bridge, is pretty ridiculous. For one thing, we're talking about 50 people living on an island. Secondly, the wheels for the project were already put in motion and Palin, as simply a "candidate" for governor, was not familiar with the financial intricacies of the matter.

Legislative efforts he has been apart of thus far to stop it have not been successful, but there has been some success in cutting down on the process. I happen to agree with that stance. It's just that Palin doesn't, or rather she didn't.

She doesn't agree with abolishing the process, true. But name me one democrat who does. She wrote a letter to the newspaper earlier this year about this issue - emphasis mine:

Palin: Setting the earmarks opinion straight

Newspaper column by Gov. Sarah Palin, published March 5, 2008

I feel compelled to respond to your gross mischaracterization (March 2, "Earful of Earmarks") of my position on congressional earmarks.
I am not among those who have said "earmarks are nothing more than pork projects being shoveled home by an overeager congressional delegation." I recognize that Congress, which exercises the power of the purse, has the constitutional responsibility to put its mark on the federal budget, including adding funds that the president has not proposed.

Accordingly, my administration has recommended funding for specific projects and programs when there is an important federal purpose and strong citizen support.

This year, we have requested 31 earmarks, down from 54 in 2007. Of these, 27 involve continuing or previous appropriations and four are new requests. The total dollar amount of these requests has been reduced from approximately $550 million in the previous year to just less than $200 million.

I believe this represents a responsible approach to the changing situation in Congress. Some misinterpret this as criticism of our congressional delegation.

In fact, it responds to messages from the Congressional delegation and the Bush administration. They have told us that the number of earmarks in the federal budget will be reduced and that there must be a strong federal purpose underlying each request.

We have also heard that, wherever possible, earmark requests must be accompanied by a state or local match. So, there are state budget consequences that must be considered as well when we ask for federal help.

There is no inconsistency or hypocrisy between my previous statements concerning earmarks and the recommendations my administration made to the delegation on Feb. 15. Specifically, I said earlier that the state would submit no more than 12 new requests, excluding earmarks for ongoing projects and the Alaska National Guard. Our recommendations are consistent with my previous comments and recognize the new budgetary realities in D.C.
Further, I applaud the delegation's decision to post all earmark requests. Posting, along with other reforms, will help insure the open and transparent public process that good government demands.

Regarding your comments concerning earmarks requested by local governments and other Alaska entities, I have never sought to impose my views on their activities. In fact, my D.C. office meets with dozens of local governments and others requesting earmarks and this interaction has always been cooperative and cordial.

Each entity must interpret the new realities in D.C. for itself. The final decisions about which earmark requests to pursue are made by the congressional delegation as our representatives in Congress.
My role at the federal level is simply to submit the most well-conceived earmark requests we can. Of course, since the congressional delegation has told us that they expect state or local matches, requests submitted by others may have implications for the Alaska Legislature as well.

As I have said previously, we can either respond to the changing circumstances in Congress or stick our heads in the sand. For better or worse, earmarks, which represent only about 1 percent of the federal budget, have become a symbol for budgetary discussions in general.

Unfortunately, Alaska has been featured prominently in the debate about reform. By recognizing the necessity for change, we can enhance the state's credibility in the appropriations process and in other areas of federal policy.

One of my goals as governor is making Alaska as self-sufficient as possible. Among other things, that means the ability to develop our natural resources in a responsible manner.

However, I am also mindful of the role that the federal government plays in our state. The federal budget, in its various manifestations, is incredibly important to us, and congressional earmarks are one aspect of this relationship.- http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/ ... -straight/

Keep in mind that this was many months before she had any idea she would be the VP pick. I don't disagree with the idea behind earmarking. Politicians and constantly urged by their constituents to fight on their behalf when Congress is trying to figure out what to do with federal funds. But the problem is that the system is broken. You can usually tell what is a bad earmark. Obama trying to get money for his wife's employer: bad. Palin trying to meet the transportantion/health needs of her fellow Alaskans: good.

It's an interesting tactic you are taking here, defending her history of being as pro-earmark as all get out which is in completely opposition to how she was presented, by arguing that her earmarks were justified.

That isn't what she has argued at all, you're simply refusing to read what she says in preference to the liberal bloggers. She clearly sees a need for earmarks, especially for a state as large as Alaska. You know democrats like to spin the numbers any way they can so they highlight the fact that Alaska receives more earmark funds per person, but what they don't tell you is that it receives the least amount per square mile. Funding for bridges, water treatment facilities, sewage maintenance, all the usual federally funded projects that would keep Alaska from resembling a third world country, is necessary. What they don't tell you is that this has always been the norm; Alaska gets more per person.

Before Palin, in fiscal year 2005, there were 366 earmarks totaling $705,461,000 for Alaska [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/earmarks/preview-public-site/statesc49e.html?source=APP&mode=agencies]

Also, Alaska is home to Sen. Ted Stevens, a senior Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, which largely controls how money is doled out in Washington. Palin took office at the end of 2006, and saw earmarks dropped by 20% and then in 2008 it dropped more than 50%.
Now anyone with eyes can see this woman has taken measures to reduce earmarking dramatically.

I posted an op-ed written by Sarah Palin arguing that the reason for doing this was the climate in the federal government turning sour for pork.

And? How does this change the fact that she still reduced spending by 43%? What other governor did that? Were they not paying any attention to the "climate in the federal government"?

They're still managing to get the highest per capita pork in the country, it's just that it's harder for their congressional delegation to deliver the bacon.

This silly comment flies in the face of the fact that pre-Palin Alaska managed to get .7 billion. AGain, you're ignoring the trend and making excuses as to why she shouldn't get credit for doing what no other governor has even attempted.

She specifically says it is necessary to reduce the amount of requests in order to maintain credibility in their appropriation requests given the increased difficulty in receiving them. Hardly an expression of anti-pork that McCain legitimately represents.

[/quote]
You take one comment from that whole article and spin it the way you prefer to spin it. I highlighted the portions that jumped out at me. She made it clear that she requests earmarks only when, "there is an important federal purpose and strong citizen support." Sure, she said this was in response to the Bush administration: "They have told us that the number of earmarks in the federal budget will be reduced and that there must be a strong federal purpose underlying each request."
I interpret this as a responsible approach to the requests made by the Federal government. If she were such a pork hog, one would expect her to just keep plugging along with the usual system of lobbying and let Stevens get as much as he can.

You somehow view this as an example of Palin's attempt to undercut the system. How? Well, apparently, according to you, Palin's cuts in spending say nothing about her position on spending, but instead say everything about her ability to do what she is told. Jesus H. Christ.

I guess the logic goes like this...she is just "playing along" so the Federal government will cut Alaska some slack for trying to be responsible with the money, even though according to you, it is only pretending to try. In the end Alaska will gain its credibility in the eyes of Congress, and the reward will be, not credibility as Palin said, but rather more earmark funds and she will be back to spending.

Yea, that makes a whole lot of sense.

Not.

You seem to be missing out on the fact that Palin's trend began immediately when she entered office. Was all this a response to credibility threats? Once she got a grasp of the system, and saw how corrupt it really was, she immediately started cuts in spending. All the rhetoric about "funds per person the highest in Alaska," ignores the point that this has always been the case with Alaska, and for good reason too. The state is huge, and barely populated. It can hardly generate the funds for the massive amounts of bridges and roads and basic health needs of its dozens of tiny towns speckled all over the place.

[_Jason Bourne]

As would Obama's involvement in a radical black Church for 20 years and his constant denial that he never hear Rev Wright preach the radical ideas that he most certainly preached regularly.

The context behind Rev Wright's comments

Given the context of his statements, I agree that if a God existed, "he" would damn, not bless, America for our past actions he cites.

The context does not help Wright and his damning of America is not the only troublesome thing he says. Anyone attending his church for 20 years and then pretending to never heard the sorts of things Wright says is simply disingenuous about it.

As for your willingness to damn America as well frankly you appall me. Sure America has done some lousy things. But to agree with Wright is just over the top.

[Guest]

I get a kick out of all of this. The democrats drop dozens of liberal attack dogs on Alaskan soil and they interview anyone and everyone who might have something negative to say, particularly the local democrats. I watched FoxNews' background story on Palin and they walked the streets asking people out of the blue. Most everyone in the town referred to her as "Sarah" and not Governor Palin. Then I flip on over to CNN and they are interviewing her "former" Pastor and then try to make a big deal of his personal views on Palin. This nimrod said Palin would follow Genesis and uphold her responsibility to take care of the environment and abandon the natural gasline plan. What a nut. All this interview did was prove that this pastor really doesn't have a clue about Palin. Yea, people in that church spoke in tongues, but the pastor said he never recalled seeing Palin do so. No wonder she left that Church.

But it is funny just watching how desperate these democrats are. If twenty locals have some inside knowledge about the "bridge to nowhere," or the Hockey Rink, or the Wooten affair, CNN and CBS and ABC are going to interview the two or three local activists who have been against Palin from the start. I've been sitting back and waiting to see how much of this unfolds.

Beastie just starts cutting and pasting any article that will say something she likes, completely oblivious apparently, to the fact that it is biased beyond words. The article she links us to provides the following falsehoods:

Palin set out to fire a librarian who didn’t share her interest in book-banning (resulting in a community outcry); requested the resignation of city employees who had shown support for her opponent; and successfully terminated the well-liked police chief.
That Palin allegedly demonstrated the same lack of professional judgment as governor when she removed the state public safety director for refusing to fire a state trooper who was involved in a messy marital situation with Palin’s sister should come as no surprise

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... palin.html

Palin claims to oppose earmarking

Straw man. She never said she "opposes earmarking." Instead of jumping the gun and taking for granted every slime article the liberal media coughs up, maybe you guys should get all your ducks in a row and understand what her position really is first.

but hired a lobbyist who obtained 27 million dollars in federal funds for Wasilla.

In her first four years in office, she avoided the earmark process altogether, probably feeling she had neglected her duties as a mayor to obtain federal earmarks like every other mayor was doing. It wasn't until her fifth year in office did she proceed with that initiative.

She actually supported the “bridge to nowhere”, despite the current spin being put on her stance.

She supported it before she was elected when the bridge was hyped up by the locals as a good thing, but after obtaining office and being put in a position to review the finances and being presented a cost-benefit analysis, and hearing the counter-arguments from people like McCain, she changed her stance, making the right choice and using the money for other projects in a responsible manner. This proves she is reasonable.
You guys are holding Palin to standards that would not be tolerated if given to any democrat. Obama gets money for his wife's employer and she is rewarded with a doubled salary. For you guys, that's OK. He's ready to lead! He's ready for "change" in politics. Palin makes dramatic cuts in spending (dropping earmark requests from 700 million to just over 200) in a few years, and all you guys can do is make up excuses as to why she did this for her own purposes.

7. Palin raised taxes and encouraged debt

Encouraged debt? That isn't what teh article said. She punished big oil with taxes, we all know this. She gave money back to the Alaskans.

Palin increased sales Tax for Wasilla

Yes, and I think it is funny how these liberal articles are spinning it by equating sales tax with income tax. When I was living in Orlando there was an outcry for better roads. Orlando was just too congested, so someone proposed a new road that would run parallel to I-4, but it would be a toll road. A sales tax increase was proposed to pay for it but eventually the constituents made their case known; they didn't want it. They were already calling it the "Lexus lane" because only those who were rich would be using it. In Wasilla, virtually everyone would be using this complex and it would generate revenues.
Increasing sales taxes for projects like these is the norm in city politics, and is rarely done without the consent of the majority. How can Palin be faulted for going through with something the voters wanted? This is hardly equivalent to increasing a nation wide income tax against the will of the people.

Palin cares about her constituents and she fights for them. This much is certain, and this is why America is in love with her. She didn't fall in love with politics, politics fell in love with her. People can be rest assured that political aspiration is not the source of her passion in life. Her family and her love of community appears to be more importnat to her than anything else.

Obama cares about himself and being the first black man to do this and that, while vindicating black liberation theology which says the black race is chosen by God.

He is a career politician from the get-go, which is why he went to Harvard and got his JD and ended up doing nothing with it. It was just for window dressing his resume. This is why he ran for senate and after a year in office he starts campaigning for the highest office in the land, riding that wave of victimhood that got him where he is today. The timing is perfect. The black voters are behind him in ways Jessie Jackson could only dream. He's got loads of money backing him, an all star cast including one of the richest women in the world backing him - who is prone to victimhood complex just the same - readily available free publicity, a national hatred of Bush, etc. He's going for broke. And compare this to Palin.

Palin went to a state university, as she did not aspire to be a politician. The people called upon Palin in a time of scandal and she cleaned it up. She did not seek the VP position, it sought her. Back in April she appeared in an interview on the Glen Beck program because she was making a name for herself as a reformer who turned Alaska's political arena on its head. A woman of action, not words. She was commended for her uncanny ability to win minds in controversy - precisely the kind of thing we would need in foreign relations - and she was asked by Beck if she would be interested in the VP position, to which she laughed and said no, because she has more to do in her state of Alaska.

So all of her accomplishments over the last few years cannot be said to have been by design for political ambition. Americans see this clearly, which is why she is so attractive as a fixer, unpolluted by the political norms of our day. She will go against her own if she needs to. Obama is a traditional politician. He voted along extreme liberal lines 96-98% of the time while he was in office. He is a predictable partisan. McCain has voted against republican lines as much as 35% over the years. Palin went up against her own when she tackled big oil in Alaska. Isn't that what we really need? Someone who is willing to do what she thinks is right, despite political correctness?

The same cannot be said of Obama as he throws up this illusion of accomplishment. By contrast, Obama is the one who is forcing his own way through the fast track of political achievment.

Yes, Palin attended a whacko Church but that is because that is where she attended as a kid; she was socially tied to it the same way some ex-Mormons are socially tied to the LDS faith. But unlike Obama, she was reasonable enough to get out of it. I'm not sure how many churches there are to choose from in a town like Wasilla to begin with. But in Chicago there are hundreds to choose from and Obama has been attending the craziest leftist radical Church for twenty years. How can you sit through these sermons every sunday and not be influenced by this nonsense of "black liberation theology"? And Obama distances himself from the Church now, only because it is damaging to his own political aspirations. Obama's theology teaches that God has chosen the black people to lead the world. When you see beastie defending a theist for his religious beliefs, then you know you guys are really beyond the brink.

And is it any wonder he has been playing the race card? Is it any wonder his wife went to Princeton and studied sociology and....get this, "African American Studies"? Is there any other way to prepare for battle against the white man? According to wiki, Obama's wife got her JD from Harvard as well, and "She participated in political demonstrations advocating the hiring of professors who are members of minorities." Gee, what a surprise. The eternal struggle against the white man.

She met her husband at a law firm. They were the only two blacks working there. These highly educated and sophisticated individuals went to a movie on their first date. What did they see? The film Do the Right Thing, : "The film tells a tale of bigotry and racial conflict in a multi-ethnic community" and was produced by, Holywood's biggest race-baiter, Spike Lee. This is the same guy who called Clint Eastwood a racist because his war film didn't include enough black soldiers in it. This couple just strikes me as one that is too absorbed in the victimhood syndrome of Black America. Did McCain minor in "Caucassian American Studies"? Oh wait, that course doesn't exist. It would be racist.

[Guest]

The following is from Michelle Malkin:

Nobody is mocking community organizers in church basements and community centers across the country working to improve their neighbors’ lives. What deserves ridicule is the notion that Barack Obama’s brief stint as a South Side rabble-rouser for tax-subsidized, partisan non-profits qualifies as executive experience you can believe in.

What deserves derision is “community organizing” that relies on a community of homeless people and ex-cons to organize for the purpose of registering dead people and shaking down corporations and using the race card as a bludgeon.

As I’ve reported previously, Obama’s community organizing days revolved around training grievance-mongers from the far left group ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). The ACORN mob is infamous for its bully tactics (which they dub “direct actions”); Obama supporters have recounted his role in organizing an ambush of a government planning meeting on a landfill project opposed by Chicago minority lobbies.

With benefactors like Obama in office, ACORN has milked nearly four decades of government subsidies to prop up chapters that promote the welfare state, undermine the free market, and perpetuate illegal immigration and voter fraud. Since I last detailed ACORN’s illicit activities in this column in June (see “The ACORN Obama knows,” June 19, 2008), the group continues to garner scrutiny of law enforcement:

Last week, Milwaukee’s top election official announced plans to seek criminal investigations of 37 ACORN employees accused of offering gifts to sign up voters (including pre-paid gas cards and restaurant cards) or falsifying driver’s license numbers, Social Security numbers or other information on voter registration cards.

Last month, a New Mexico TV station reported on child rapists, drug offenders, and forgery convicts on ACORN’s payroll. In July, Pennsylvania investigators asked the public for help in locating a fugitive named Luis R. Torres-Serrano, who is accused “of submitting more than 100 fraudulent voter registration forms he collected on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now to county election officials.” Also in July, a massive, nearly-$1 million embezzlement scheme by top ACORN officials was exposed.

ACORN’s political arm endorsed Obama in February and has ramped up efforts to sign up voters across the country. In the meantime, completely ignored by the mainstream commentariat and clean-election crusaders, the Obama campaign admitted failing to report $800,000 in campaign payments to ACORN. They were disguised as payments to a front group called “Citizen Services, Inc.” for “advance work.”

Jim Terry, an official from the Consumer Rights League, a watchdog group that monitors ACORN, noted: “ACORN has a long and sordid history of employing convoluted Enron-style accounting to illegally use taxpayer funds for their own political gain. Now it looks like ACORN is using the same type of convoluted accounting scheme for Obama’s political gain.” With a wave of his magic wand, Obama changed his FEC forms to change the “advance work” to “get-out-the-vote” work.

Now, don’t you dare challenge his commitment to following tax and election laws. And don’t you even think of entertaining the possibility that The One exploited a non-profit supposedly focused on helping low-income people for political gain.

He was just “organizing” his “community.” Guffaw.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/05/ex ... aged-left/

[_dartagnan]

Palin did not sell the governor's jet on Ebay. Instead, it was sold at a discount to one of her campaign contributors.

At a discount? You see, this is the kind of spin that only a Sean Hannity could appreciate.

A discount!

Nevermind the fact that the plane was used, and as most used merchandise does, it depreciated in value.

Nevermind the fact that she tried to sell it on E-bay first.

Nevermind the fact that this buyer did her and the state a favor, not vice-versa.

You're amazing EA. You cannot even hgive her the well deserved kudos for doing something no other governor thought of. You make it sound sleazy, as if it was all about doing a favor for one of her "campaign contributors."

No EA, if you want examples of this kind of "favoring" then look no further than Barack Obama, who is a master of behind the scenes dealing and back scratching, using federal earmarks as payment.

[_JustMe]

Just in the news, Palin is spinning and telling only half the truth and story. I'm just not all that impressed. I think Obama has shown far greater insight and capability to make choices by choosing Beiden. Beiden never said anything I could disagree with during the debates. I think Obama and Beiden will make good decisions together. Palin just doesn't cut it. And old boy, well, he doesn't have the health to make it all the way through, and if the "babe" gets in as head, what nation in the East is even going to give her cosideration? We need to keep the long goal and long term in our sites, not elect someone cause their young and bouncin and acting all perky. Republicans for the last 8 years have shown us they don't care about our nation, so why continue their idiotic legacy?