I'm not sure why conservatives are all that excited about her (other than strictly social conservatives). From the little I've read, she seems weak on both energy & economics (even liberal on economics). Her solution to rising energy prices is Alaska was to impose a windfall profits tax on those evil oil companies then send an additional subsidy check to each & every Alaskan, ideas which have been rightfully mocked until now. The only reason she abandoned the bridge to nowhere is because Congress wouldn't fully fund it & she would have had to devote Alaskan money to it (they got the full amount that had been earmarked for the bridge - Congress in all it's infinite wisdom just removed the requirement that it be used for the bridge). She fired the entire Dairy Board & replaced them with her own puppets because they dared to suggest that a failing state owned dairy be shut down.

While she has a knack for getting what she wants, she doesn't seem to have many good ideas.

Why would Social conservatives be happy that she vetoed a bill that allowed gay couples benefits?

Man, you libs need to huddle up with your talking points.

I'm ELATED to have her. BTW, she never HAD to abandon the bridge to no where because she was never for it to begin with.

Oh, and I was in Ketchikan last week. The natives I talked to it weren't for either, especially when they heard the cost. Alaskans are known to pay their own bills. Their response? "Why would I want to drive 20 minutes out of the way to get to the airport when the ferry only takes 2?". This was Ted Stevens baby...a guy that isn't exactly a friend of Sarah Palin. Try again.

BTW, the airport:

Rebel Wrote:I'm ELATED to have her. BTW, she never HAD to abandon the bridge to no where because she was never for it to begin with.

Yes, she was staunchly opposed to it, so opposed to it that she claimed The Bridge to Nowhere was being misrepresented when the project was cancelled.

Quote:"Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here," Palin said. "But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

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

Quote:Alaskans are known to pay their own bills.

Or maybe not. In 2004 Alaska got back $1.87 in federal dollars for every $1 they contributed, ranking only behind New Mexico. Sounds more like we're paying their bills (remember, they still got all of the money that was going to go to the bridge, they just got to spend it on other things).
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

So now you're saying a windfall profits tax is a good idea? And government transfers of wealth are a-okay? And state ownership of the means of production is just peachy? Yet you call me a lib?

No, you're paying the NATIVE'S bills. Not most Alaskans. As for what they're getting back, it's about f'n time as this country became FILTHY rich off of the gold mines and oil production of Alaska.

BTW, that second quote says nothing about the bridge to Gravina. Maybe YOU should stop generalizing. Sarah was always opposed to it.

This has been the funniest election in my lifetime.(Both sides - Check Youtube)
This selection is just weird.
Especially the background on how it happened.
I see no positives.
Seems more like a terrible decision.

Sorry Reb, but trying to spin this as a positive makes me laugh.

Rebel Wrote:BTW, that second quote says nothing about the bridge to Gravina. Maybe YOU should stop generalizing. Sarah was always opposed to it.

If you bothered to read the linked article, you would have seen that it was about the cancellation of the Bridge to Nowhere project. Any reasonable person would be able to understand that she was including that bridge in her comments. But, just to provide further confirmation...

http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html

Quote:The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them "nowhere." They're still feeling pain today in Ketchikan, over Palin's subsequent decision to use the bridge funds for other projects -- and over the timing of her announcement, which they say came in a pre-dawn press release that seemed aimed at national news deadlines...

Meanwhile, Weinstein noted, the state is continuing to build a road on Gravina Island to an empty beach where the bridge would have gone -- because federal money for the access road, unlike the bridge money, would have otherwise been returned to the federal government...

Businessman Mike Elerding, who helped run Palin's local campaign for governor, told the paper he would have a hard time voting for the McCain ticket because of Palin's subsequent neglect of Ketchikan and her flip-flop on the "Ralph Bartholomew Veterans Memorial Bridge."

This one has nothing to do with the bridge, but it speaks to her record as a fiscal liberal.

Quote:She was able to cut property taxes by three-fourths because sales tax revenues from the city's new big-box stores were soaring. She even pushed for a sales tax increase to build a pet project, a new sports complex for ice hockey.

Rebel Wrote:No, you're paying the NATIVE'S bills. Not most Alaskans.

Do you have anything to back this up, anything at all? Forgive me if I've become a little skeptical about the level of research you do before making these kinds of statements. Alaska still got all of the money that was supposed to go to the Bridge to Nowhere, they just got to use it however they wanted (which is why ending earmarks won't do anything to reduce the federal budget if they're just going to give them unrestricted funds instead). Alaska still built the access road to the Bridge to Nowhere (the Access Road to Nowhere & Nothing?) with federal funds.

Quote:As for what they're getting back, it's about f'n time as this country became FILTHY rich off of the gold mines and oil production of Alaska.

Are you sure you're a conservative - that sounds almost marxist? They already have a $38 billion dollar bank acount whcih sends a check to every Alaskan every year. The state of Alaska continues to be very well compensated for the oil which comes out of its borders. How that justifies sending my tax dollars to build their roads I just don't understand.

There was a big gold rush in California too, yet somehow they're one of the biggest tax donor states. Should we start funneling additional money their way to make up for our blatant exploitation of their natural resources as well?

Not sure I believe it, but it's pretty convincing:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8...486/580223

The kid sure looks pregnant to me....

niuhuskie84 Wrote:Not sure I believe it, but it's pretty convincing:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8...486/580223

The kid sure looks pregnant to me....

You know I hope that the democrats run ads on this. I hope they give speeches about it and the media hammers it all over the place. Want to know why? Because it will guarantee McCain a victory.

The majority of Americans will be so outright disgusted with the party and the media for attacking her over this they'll pull the lever for her just to prove a point.

Run with it dems. I'm beggin you.

(BTW, I don't believe it.)

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:Not sure I believe it, but it's pretty convincing:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8...486/580223

The kid sure looks pregnant to me....

You know I hope that the democrats run ads on this. I hope they give speeches about it and the media hammers it all over the place. Want to know why? Because it will guarantee McCain a victory.

The majority of Americans will be so outright disgusted with the party and the media for attacking her over this they'll pull the lever for her just to prove a point.

Run with it dems. I'm beggin you.

(BTW, I don't believe it.)

Like I said, I think its pretty unlikely. But the other side has played these games too (Larry Sinclair anyone?)

Guys,

There are so many things running through my head right now.


1) If it is true why would you go through the charade.

jeez, it's 2008. There have been teen pregnancies.

2) Why didn't McCain vet her properly? This shooting from the hip will cause him more trouble in the election than anything.

3) Will they pull a Harriet Miers.

niuhuskie84 Wrote:Like I said, I think its pretty unlikely. But the other side has played these games too (Larry Sinclair anyone?)

The other side meaning the other side of the dem primary ticket? Sinclair is a Hillary supporter.

And trying to draw a moral equivalence between a nut job claiming to have had oral sex with the actual candidate as opposed to attacking another candidate's teenage daughter can't be done in any reasonable fashion.

Machiavelli Wrote:2) Why didn't McCain vet her properly? This shooting from the hip will cause him more trouble in the election than anything.

niuhuskie84 Wrote:Not sure I believe it, but it's pretty convincing:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8...486/580223

The kid sure looks pregnant to me....

A pregnant kid isn't the same as a racist pastor. Palin can't control what her kid does (that is, if she's even pregnant at all) but Obama can control who he follows and he chose a racist, anti-American pastor. After his 2nd nationally public rambling Obama dropped Wright like 3rd grade French which only shored up the case that Wright is a loon that Obama admittedly followed for 20 years. Does anyone think Palin will disown her daughter because she's pregnant? I doubt it. Besides, if true, this is nothing compared to what Edwards did.

smn1256 Wrote:A pregnant kid isn't the same as a racist pastor. Palin can't control what her kid does (that is, if she's even pregnant at all) but Obama can control who he follows and he chose a racist, anti-American pastor. After his 2nd nationally public rambling Obama dropped Wright like 3rd grade French which only shored up the case that Wright is a loon that Obama admittedly followed for 20 years. Does anyone think Palin will disown her daughter because she's pregnant? I doubt it. Besides, if true, this is nothing compared to what Edwards did.

What the hell are you getting at? What does Obama have to do with whether or not Palin's daughter had a baby? What does Rev. Wright have to do with this? Who said she was going to disown her daughter? Why the comparison to John Edwards?

The only reason this should be investigated is because she's using her son to back up her staunchly pro-life position. If it's her daughter's son, then that makes her an opportunistic liar, making her someone who is too unethically fit for office. If you want to rehash the Rev. Wright controversy or John Edwards love affair, then make a new thread and have at it.

perunapower Wrote:What the hell are you getting at? What does Obama have to do with whether or not Palin's daughter had a baby?

Like I said earlier, Palin can't control what her daughter does just like millions of parents across the country can't always control their own kids, yet the Dems look like they're gearing up for an assault on her anyway. But Obama CAN control who he worships and he chose an anti-American luntic. If we're going to judge people by the company they keep or family values, which is what the accusation against Palin's daughter is, then the people doing the judging might want to make sure their own laundry is pretty clean.

It goes to McCain's judgement. The shoot from the hip. Quickdraw McCain.

Machiavelli Wrote:It goes to McCain's judgement. The shoot from the hip. Quickdraw McCain.

So, I guess we can now criticize Obama for having a father that was a radical Muslim?

You make NO sense. ....as usual.

smn1256 Wrote:Like I said earlier, Palin can't control what her daughter does just like millions of parents across the country can't always control their own kids, yet the Dems look like they're gearing up for an assault on her anyway. But Obama CAN control who he worships and he chose an anti-American luntic. If we're going to judge people by the company they keep or family values, which is what the accusation against Palin's daughter is, then the people doing the judging might want to make sure their own laundry is pretty clean.

No one said Palin can control her daughter's every move. I don't see anyone "gearing up for an assault" on Bristol or Sarah for this unless there is something substantive. The accusation isn't against Bristol, I don't think most people care. The accusations and attention are on Sarah on her actions and decisions, potentially covering up her daughter's pregnancy, exploiting her grandson for political gain, etc.