Sacrificing pay for conscience (political)

[silverscreenselect]

The opposite side of this coin is McCain not using Rev Wright to attack Obama. McCain said it was out of bounds and has, thus far, kept to that.

So, he kept his word, but at, probably, great political cost.

I respect the act of keeping his word, not the practical matter of giving up a big political gain.

One of the tremendous ironies of this campaign is that John McCain has run a fairly clean campaign but has continued to be attacked by Obama and the media as being underhanded and racist. By historic standards, and especially by Republican historic standards, he has kept it clean, but his reputation is being destroyed. Sadly, I think he thinks he's still debating Hubert Humphrey or Mike Mansfield and can engage in reasoned civilized discourse on the issues.

Obama has run a sleazy campaign but has done it mostly through his surrogates and manages to give the appearance of being diplomatic and high minded when he gives his rehearsed speeches, and the media goes along with it every step of the way.

If it's a matter of integrity, John McCain has more of it in his little finger than Obama in his entire campaign.

[No Eye Deer]

I never found out whether or not McCain took out a loan using matching funds as collateral. I do know he skirted the McCain-Feingold Act (oh, the irony!) by having the party pay for the Palin wardrobe since the campaign was specifically prohibited from buying clothing.

[Jeemie]

Jeemie, are you saying that it is news because it makes one specific candidate look bad, rather than another specific candidate?

Please don't give me the "media bias" excuse.

The right-wing media (talk radio, TV, worldnetdaily, etc) is just as pervasive as what they call the "mainstream media".

Both "sides" are doing it.

Why else is "Joe the Plumber" giving speeches on foreign policy now?

[silverscreenselect]

I never found out whether or not McCain took out a loan using matching funds as collateral. I do know he skirted the McCain-Feingold Act (oh, the irony!) by having the party pay for the Palin wardrobe since the campaign was specifically prohibited from buying clothing.

Who paid the $5 million for the Greek columns at the Obama lovefest in Denver?

And considering the number of questionable Obama contributions and the complete lack of controls the campaign has on monitoring and verifying the source of the contributions, I'd say he's doing a good bit of "skirting" on that front as well.

[Boring Mini]

I never found out whether or not McCain took out a loan using matching funds as collateral. I do know he skirted the McCain-Feingold Act (oh, the irony!) by having the party pay for the Palin wardrobe since the campaign was specifically prohibited from buying clothing.

Who paid the $5 million for the Greek columns at the Obama lovefest in Denver?

Donors. Columns aren't clothing.

[TheCalvinator24]

jeemie, I agree, shorter season, less money, done with it.


gsabc, no, it's not whining because the Democrats are outraising and outspending the Republicans, it's that Obama gave his word, both verbally and in writing, that he'd use the federal money.

It's the not keeping his word that is the issue.




A politician breaking his word, I shocked, I tell you, shocked!

So you're basically upset he's not spending your tax dollars?

I tried to get you to look this up before by telling you you were wrong. You apparently ignored me. Campaign funding does NOT come from tax dollars. And there are no "matching funds" for the General Election.

[Boring Mini]

jeemie, I agree, shorter season, less money, done with it.


gsabc, no, it's not whining because the Democrats are outraising and outspending the Republicans, it's that Obama gave his word, both verbally and in writing, that he'd use the federal money.

It's the not keeping his word that is the issue.




A politician breaking his word, I shocked, I tell you, shocked!

So you're basically upset he's not spending your tax dollars?

I tried to get you to look this up before by telling you you were wrong. You apparently ignored me. Campaign funding does NOT come from tax dollars. And there are no "matching funds" for the General Election.

Where does it come from, then?

The presidential public financing system is funded by a $3 tax check-off on individual tax returns (the check off does not increase the filer's taxes, but merely directs $3 to the presidential fund).

[TheCalvinator24]

Where does it come from, then?

The presidential public financing system is funded by a $3 tax check-off on individual tax returns (the check off does not increase the filer's taxes, but merely directs $3 to the presidential fund).

I guess I am just playing semantics. To me, the voluntary check off actually reduces your tax liability by $3 and you then make a voluntary contribution to the Fund, but I can see how the money could just as easily be seen as a "dedicated fund" being paid for out of tax revenues.

So, I apologize for the uncharitable tone I took.

However, there are no "matching funds" for the General Election. Senator McCain was given $84 Million after he accepted the GOP Nomination. That was not based on any matching formula. Senator Obama would have received the exact same amount had he not opted out.

Matching funds are provided during the primary season.

[Boring Mini]

See, I take it to mean "whether or not you check the box, your tax liability is the same. Checking the box means you allow 3 bucks of your tax money to go into the fund."

Which if applied to ALL funding would create chaos along the lines of some of the California propositions. Some things just don't work well under direct Democracy rather than representative Democracy. I can see all the folks who object to the jet noise around here opting to withhold money for the military until things quieted down and that would be disastrous.

I was just trying to find logic in those who talk about "spending our tax dollars" all the time objecting to someone NOT spending their tax dollars.

[Appa23]

See, I take it to mean "whether or not you check the box, your tax liability is the same. Checking the box means you allow 3 bucks of your tax money to go into the fund."

Which if applied to ALL funding would create chaos along the lines of some of the California propositions. Some things just don't work well under direct Democracy rather than representative Democracy. I can see all the folks who object to the jet noise around here opting to withhold money for the military until things quieted down and that would be disastrous.

I was just trying to find logic in those who talk about "spending our tax dollars" all the time objecting to someone NOT spending their tax dollars.

The problem is that the money already is authorized and allocated to the Presidential Election Fund. It is not available to be spent for something else. (I presume that it is no year money, and it would require Congressional action to be re-programmed.) It is the "brilliance" of federal appropriation, and the reason why so much money is spent during September of every year.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

Americall is a pretty big organization, and pays its workers like day laborers. So when they got the contract from the McCain people, some of the workers who apparently have no problems selling unwanted crap to unaware senior citizens had a problem with the language in the script. So they threatened to leave, and the bosses said, "go ahead, but you don't get paid." The did, and they didn't. Woohoo.

This is one reason why in-person phone polling may be somewhat suspect too. The pollsters get their employees from the same general segment of the population as do the telemarketers: poorly paid, poor working conditions, usually very young, usually not lasting too long (for a lot of reasons). Turnover rate tends to be extremely high.

In-person phone polling seems to me to be a big waste:

Ring Ring
Hello?
Hi. I'm at your door. Could you come to my door and hang out while I continue to talk to you on the phone?

In seriousness, I'm not 100% convinced this lowers the accuracy of the polling. Poorly-skilled callers might be better at just sticking to the script rather than letting their personality into it and thus injecting whatever biases they may have. [ETA Even if the better-quality callers are good at not injecting biases, generally better phone staff are better at building empathy and the more empathy you build, the more the person being surveyed wants to please them. You might get more people trying to guess what the caller wants to hear and answering that. With a less-skilled caller you might not get as much of that.] At least one of the most-respected (I want to say Raz, but I'm too busy to look it up) uses robocalls for this reason; they want every call to be as neutral as possible and the same as every other call.

[ghostjmf]

I a while ago gave me story about refusing to read a script. Here it is again.

I had been doing polls for Cambridge Survey Research, Pat Cadell's group that Carter hired during his one term in office. Their polls in the run against Reagan were real polls.

Occasionally, however, the company ran out of political polls & started passing out things that weren't really polls, to my thought, but thinly veiled advertisements for a nuclear power plant.
I went home early "without prejudice" on days those were passed out, along with many others; TPTB then asked us not to work shifts where the political polling might be over & we'd be scheduled for those other things, & we complied.

There was also a branch-banking-to-be-allowed-in-Colorado "poll" which I didn't mind reading.

Other poll readers said that the Repubs were doing polls too. "No harm in reading a poll", I thought. 1st of all, the Repubs subjected to us a 2-hour unpaid training of "how to speak on the phone". The Dems, in contrast, had simply quickly weeded out anybody who really couldn't speak coherently on the phone.

But the training material was completely innocuous; "real polls".

Then came phone time. They had me call some old lady in Texas. I started to read the "poll" & am proud to say I actually couldn't get the words out of my mouth. I am not proud to say that I, a reflexive reader since age-very-young, actually did try to read the thing in the few seconds before the words hit my brain. I was then literally choking on the words.

Basically, the script said "Do you know the Democratic candidate for House of Reps in your district was arrested for drunk-driving down the middle of the road --yes or no?" & went downhill, if there actually is a downhill from that, from there.

I apologized to old-lady-in-Texas, who was blessedly deaf anyway, hung up, told overseer I was leaving. I should have spirited evil script out on a bathroom break from which I never returned, & given it to the local "uinderground" newspaper, but I wasn't thinking that clearly; I just wanted out.

"You can't leave; you have to work your shift" said the overseer. "I think I am still in the United States of America & you can't make me read this crap" I said. "You do not have to pay me." "Oh yes we do", they said. They did let me walk out, rather than tackle me & put me on level 5, or whatever.

A few days later check for 2 hours work, apparently the minimum they were able to cut a check for, arrived in the mail. I did cash it. $8.40 was $8.40.

[gotribego26]

I recall that you've already voted, so I infer that Jeff has not. I understand that they stop calling once the household shows up on the list of people who have voted. --Bob

The fact that I've voted is public record? I don't think elections bureaus should report that to anyone. Or is there an option in CA for that.

In Colorado, the fact that you have voted is public record. If you voted in the previous three general elections AND the previous three primaries, you're "super-active;" in the previous three generals, you're "active." If you're affiliated, you're very attractive to your party and will get calls from them. If you're unaffiliated, you're attractive to both parties and will get calls from both.

I understand that there would be archived records that are public - I don't recall early voting in Colorado - so I don't know if they have it know. If they did - how soon could a campaign find out about it - in time to stop robocalls?

[ne1410s]

ghost:

I apologized to old-lady-in-Texas, who was blessedly deaf anyway, hung up, told overseer I was leaving.

Good on you, ghost.

[KillerTomato]

One of the tremendous ironies of this campaign is that John McCain has run a fairly clean campaign but has continued to be attacked by Obama and the media as being underhanded and racist. By historic standards, and especially by Republican historic standards, he has kept it clean, but his reputation is being destroyed. Sadly, I think he thinks he's still debating Hubert Humphrey or Mike Mansfield and can engage in reasoned civilized discourse on the issues.

Obama has run a sleazy campaign but has done it mostly through his surrogates and manages to give the appearance of being diplomatic and high minded when he gives his rehearsed speeches, and the media goes along with it every step of the way.

If it's a matter of integrity, John McCain has more of it in his little finger than Obama in his entire campaign.

OK, for this I MUST temporarily leave the Lounge.

"A relatively clean campaign" from McCain? Are you high? Thiis campaign by McCain is one of the dirtiest in HISTORY, and not just by surrogates. And this after the good Senator made his own pledge to run a clean one (which, like Obama and the public funding, he didn't manage to keep). Have you read Faux News lately? Listened to Sean Hand-it-to-me? Watched TV and seen the sleazy, underhanded ads by McCain (including, but not limited to, all the lies about Ayers -- which frankly didn't work for Hillary either! -- and the poor choice of words about "spreading the wealth and the lies about his tax plan, all of which were debunked time and time and time again, but were continued to be spouted by McCain, Palin and all the ultraconservative and neo-con pundits)? Listened to the radio and heard the incessant negative and fact-challenged ads by McCain and the RNC?

McCain didn't want Rev. Wright used only because it would open him up to Rev. Hagee and Palin up to that whack-o witch doctor who prayed over her to spare her from witchcraft. But he threw everything AND the kitchen sink at Obama, and NONE of it stuck only because people are smart enough to know lies when they hear it. Do yourself a favor and go to FactCheck.org and look at all the McCain lies...there are PLENTY of examples there.

This isn't to say that Obama hasn't been smearing McCain, too, unfairly. FactCheck.org (being nonpartisan) is chock full of lies from Obama's campaign, too. But the real difference comes in the amount of advertising that's spent on falsehoods by Obama versus those by McCain. There was a week in October (I think) where a nonpartisan group identified 34% of Obama's advertising as "negative". The problem is that that same week, 100% of McCain's ads were "negative". 100%. ALL OF IT. EVERY PENNY.

If you can honestly sit there and claim that "McCain has run a fairly clean campaign" then you truly are living in a fantasy land where Sarah Palin is a good candidate who doesn't stand for everything Hillary Clinton is against and eminently qualified to talk to foreign leaders because she can see Russia from her house and is ready to "[be] in charge of the Senate" and can name plenty of Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with (including the one she had a vested interest in!), Joe the Plumber is qualified to discuss not only economic policy but foreign affairs as well, the continuation of trickle-down economics is a good thing, our progressive tax system is purely capitalistic, and Colin Powell, Chris Buckley, Gov. Weld and all those other Republicans aren't endorsing Obama.

John McCain chose to go negative as soon as he hired Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis, and all the former Bush staffers, even as he claimed to be distancing himself from the current administration. And it's truly saddening to know that, considering that he used to be such an honorable, upright man. What these same guys (led by Karl Rove) did to him in 2000 in South Carolina was a crime, but what's worse is that he chose to hire the same people to do the same thing to Obama. There is no honor in that.

[BackInTex]

OK, for this I MUST temporarily leave the Lounge.



"A relatively clean campaign" from McCain? Are you high? Thiis campaign by McCain is one of the dirtiest in HISTORY, and not just by surrogates. And this after the good Senator made his own pledge to run a clean one (which, like Obama and the public funding, he didn't manage to keep). Have you read Faux News lately? Listened to Sean Hand-it-to-me? Watched TV and seen the sleazy, underhanded ads by McCain (including, but not limited to, all the lies about Ayers -- which frankly didn't work for Hillary either! -- and the poor choice of words about "spreading the wealth and the lies about his tax plan, all of which were debunked time and time and time again, but were continued to be spouted by McCain, Palin and all the ultraconservative and neo-con pundits)? Listened to the radio and heard the incessant negative and fact-challenged ads by McCain and the RNC?

Fact challenged? I like that. Maybe some facts are overblown but far to many are just simply ingnored by the Obamabots. Obama has yet to say anything about Ayers other thatn "I was 8 years old when he did bad things". Obama wasn't 8 when Ayers said "I don't regret it and I don't think we did enough." Obama has not stated that Ayes is a criminal and should not be a free man.

McCain didn't want Rev. Wright used only because it would open him up to Rev. Hagee and Palin up to that whack-o witch doctor who prayed over her to spare her from witchcraft. But he threw everything AND the kitchen sink at Obama, and NONE of it stuck only because people are smart enough to know lies when they hear it. Do yourself a favor and go to FactCheck.org and look at all the McCain lies...there are PLENTY of examples there.

I realize the liberals would try to use Hagee against McCain but the fact is McCain didn't attened Hagee's church for 20 years, Hagee didn't marry him, Haggee didn't baptize his kids, and he doesn't view Hagee as a father figure.

This isn't to say that Obama hasn't been smearing McCain, too, unfairly. FactCheck.org (being nonpartisan) is chock full of lies from Obama's campaign, too. But the real difference comes in the amount of advertising that's spent on falsehoods by Obama versus those by McCain. There was a week in October (I think) where a nonpartisan group identified 34% of Obama's advertising as "negative". The problem is that that same week, 100% of McCain's ads were "negative". 100%. ALL OF IT. EVERY PENNY.

Whether factcheck.org is 'non-partisan' or not I'll leave to others. % of spending is the wrong number to use. What werer the real $. If McCain spend $1,000 that week on 1 negative ad and Obama spent $10,000,000 on 10,000 negative ads and $40,000,000 on non-negative ad would you say McCain was more negative?

If you can honestly sit there and claim that "McCain has run a fairly clean campaign" then you truly are living in a fantasy land where Sarah Palin is a good candidate who doesn't stand for everything Hillary Clinton is against and eminently qualified to talk to foreign leaders because she can see Russia from her house and is ready to "[be] in charge of the Senate" and can name plenty of Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with (including the one she had a vested interest in!), Joe the Plumber is qualified to discuss not only economic policy but foreign affairs as well, the continuation of trickle-down economics is a good thing, our progressive tax system is purely capitalistic, and Colin Powell, Chris Buckley, Gov. Weld and all those other Republicans aren't endorsing Obama.

Palin is not a great candidate but she is much better than Obama.

[SportsFan68]

The fact that I've voted is public record? I don't think elections bureaus should report that to anyone. Or is there an option in CA for that.

In Colorado, the fact that you have voted is public record. If you voted in the previous three general elections AND the previous three primaries, you're "super-active;" in the previous three generals, you're "active." If you're affiliated, you're very attractive to your party and will get calls from them. If you're unaffiliated, you're attractive to both parties and will get calls from both.

I understand that there would be archived records that are public - I don't recall early voting in Colorado - so I don't know if they have it know. If they did - how soon could a campaign find out about it - in time to stop robocalls?

AAAAAAAARGH! NOTHING STOPS THOSE HORRIBLE ROBOCALLS!!!!!! THEY'RE LIKE ES!! (Keep that fuzzy little wretch away from me.)

My 79-year-old friend got a robocall today encouraging her to vote for LocalCandidateA, whom she had already voted for. I got one encouraging me to vote against Prop 54, which I had already voted against.

The process is different for robocalls -- the phone number lists and the recording have to go in two days in advance to the robocall company. Then they're programmed to call down the list, but only during certain hours. So you could get a call five or six days after you voted. Editing the list after you turn it in is almost impossible, unless you want to start over.

AAAAAAAARGH!

[SportsFan68]

ghost:

I apologized to old-lady-in-Texas, who was blessedly deaf anyway, hung up, told overseer I was leaving.

Good on you, ghost.

What Tennis said.

[gotribego26]

AAAAAAAARGH! NOTHING STOPS THOSE HORRIBLE ROBOCALLS!!!!!! THEY'RE LIKE ES!! (Keep that fuzzy little wretch away from me.)

My 79-year-old friend got a robocall today encouraging her to vote for LocalCandidateA, whom she had already voted for. I got one encouraging me to vote against Prop 54, which I had already voted against.

The process is different for robocalls -- the phone number lists and the recording have to go in two days in advance to the robocall company. Then they're programmed to call down the list, but only during certain hours. So you could get a call five or six days after you voted. Editing the list after you turn it in is almost impossible, unless you want to start over.

AAAAAAAARGH!

This is the first time in the robocall era that I've lived in a state that was in play. I like life in a given up state better. I have Caller ID - we have probalby ignored 80% of phone calls for two weeks now. I don't know how many were live and how many were recorded. Without caller ID I'd be bonkers by now.

[KillerTomato]

Fact challenged? I like that. Maybe some facts are overblown but far to many are just simply ingnored by the Obamabots. Obama has yet to say anything about Ayers other thatn "I was 8 years old when he did bad things". Obama wasn't 8 when Ayers said "I don't regret it and I don't think we did enough." Obama has not stated that Ayes is a criminal and should not be a free man.

That's not true and you know it, BiT. Obama (and FactCheck, and Politico and every evil MSM outlet you can name) have discussed the Ayers "relationship" ad nauseum. You must just choose to ignore the explanations. Perhaps you choose to believe Obama, Ayers, the Annenberg group, and everyone else is lying, and that's your prerogative, but you can't say that "Obama has yet to say anything about Ayers other than 'I was 8 years old when he did bad things'."

As for Ayers being a criminal and that he shouldn't be a free man, I leave that up to our Justice System, flawed as it is. If this were really true, I believe he wouldn't be free. I also believe that Walter Annenberg (a Republican) knew about Ayers' past when he chose him for his foundation, and that the U of Chicago knew about his past when he was hired. Is Ayers unrepentant? I think that's obviously a "yes". Should Obama denounce Ayers' past actions? Absolutely, and he did.

I realize the liberals would try to use Hagee against McCain but the fact is McCain didn't attened Hagee's church for 20 years, Hagee didn't marry him, Haggee didn't baptize his kids, and he doesn't view Hagee as a father figure.

Funnily enough, Rev. Wright has been "charged" with three "radical" sermons over the 20 years that Obama knew him. My own priest has preached more sermons than that that I disagree with, and yet I have never denounced him. And have you ever read the subject sermons (in context, and not just the highlights that the Republicans decided to cherry pick? Personally, I don't find them as objectionable as some, and more importantly, I'm a firm believer in the First Amendment: Even if I don't agree with Wright's views, he has every right to say them. And for Obama to denounce him for those views (which he DIDN'T do, btw...Wright was thrown under the bus more for his grandstanding than Obama's disagreement over the sermons) would be worse than agreeing with him in the first place, IMO. YMMV, of course.

So go ahead and lash Obama for choosing expediency in tossing Wright aside, but I believe (again, YMMV) that he had nothing to be ashamed of for being a member of Wright's church.

And I notice you didn't mention Palin's relationship with Pastor Muthee.

Whether factcheck.org is 'non-partisan' or not I'll leave to others. % of spending is the wrong number to use. What werer the real $. If McCain spend $1,000 that week on 1 negative ad and Obama spent $10,000,000 on 10,000 negative ads and $40,000,000 non-negative ad would you say McCain was more negative?

You're exactly right on this point, and it's something I'll have to look into. However, judging solely by my unscientific "Whose ads do I hear more of, all through the campaign" poll of my own memory, I'd guess the spending wasn't that far apart.

Palin is not a great candidate but she is much better than Obama.

I won't argue your opinion, but I do disagree with it. 18 million Democrats vetted Obama over 20 months. Judging solely by the three major interviews she's done in the last 2 months, and her actions on the stump, it's clear to me that nobody bothered to vet Gov. Palin. My own problems with Gov. Palin run very very deep: she reminds me of a cross between Bush and Cheney, neither of whom should have been allowed anywhere near the White House without a visitors pass. She appears to be woefully ignorant of foreign affairs, the Constitution, scientific theory, or economic policy, but is well versed in leveraging power, censorship, and Biblical scholarship. She took over the mayorship (is that even a word???) of Wasilla with a budget surplus, and left it heavily in debt (which seems to be a VERY Republican trait). She says she's anti-pork, but hired lobbyists to deliver more to Alaska and Wasilla. And that's just the stuff that's come out in those three interviews in 2 months. I have to wonder what else is out there that just hasn't come to light yet.

[Hello, Mini!]

I've been thinking about this and a couple of things that have actually happened to me had me thinking (yeah, I know...)

Case 1: My sister had a friend (Stephanie) who had a friend named Carol, who had two older brothers (Mark and Kevin). So one night we were all hanging out at Carol's house watching Warriors on HBO, then we decided to go to the late show and all six of us piled into a car and drove down to the beach, where we got turned away because my sister and Stephanie were both too young to be out after curfew. So we went to the arcade where we were turned out for the same reason, and we ended up sitting on the beach talking and singing and saying "Warriors, come out to play-ayyy" over and over like in that stupid movie and then drove around until maybe three in the morning until we all went home, where Carol's parents had called the police because all the kids and the car had gone missing.

ANYway, about 6 or 7 years later I read in the paper where Kevin stabbed his roommate and rolled him up in a carpet and stuffed the body in a Dumpster.

Does that mean I associate with murderers? Do I condone murder? If I were elected to office (HA!), would I free all murderers currentl incarcerated and abolish all penalties for future murders?

Case 2: When Gifted Education started in this city, it consisted of the kids getting pulled out one day a week and going to these trailers behind a central elementary school, so you got to meet kids form other schools around the city. Ben came from my school, and Doug and Lisa came from another. Lisa and I became friends and Lisa started "dating" (or "going with" or whatever we called it when we were 12) Ben, so the four of us kinda hung together and grouped up when we had field trips which raised eyebrows since we were the only mixed-sex group. Sometimes we'd go to each other's houses.

So a couple years ago Doug was arrested and charged with an improper relationship with one of his teenaged students. I can't say we were "just classmates once a week" since we had been field trip partners and I went to his house once.

Do I condone teachers hooking up with their students? Would I encourage girls to do anything for a little extra credit?

And does listening to The Eagles cause you to engage in improper conduct? Because we were listening to the Greatest Hits album at Doug's and we had The Long Run tape playing in the car when we were out all night.

If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, you have a future as a political operative.

[silverscreenselect]

She took over the mayorship (is that even a word???) of Wasilla with a budget surplus, and left it heavily in debt (which seems to be a VERY Republican trait). She says she's anti-pork, but hired lobbyists to deliver more to Alaska and Wasilla. And that's just the stuff that's come out in those three interviews in 2 months. I have to wonder what else is out there that just hasn't come to light yet.

The debt associated with Wasilla is indebtedness for a bond referendum for the building of a sports arena. It is common practice for cities and states to borrow separately for long term capital improvements. It's not ongoing operational debt. Projects of this nature tend to take a while to generate a profit, which often is a result of ancillary business that the arena attracts rather than revenue to the arena itself (people come to the arena to attend a game or concert and spend money nearby or businesses relocate nearby for the same reason).

Plus, there is a fundamental difference between what a mayor and even a governor does to attract money and what a President should do. Money that Palin was able to get in Wasilla is money that wasn't spent on gardens in Chicago or bridges to Deleware beaches. To the extent that Palin was able to get the money, it meant that she either provided more services to Wasilla than she would otherwise have been able to do or she provided needed services at a lower cost to her constituency. Lobbying Washington is no different than going to major corporations and lobbying them to relocate to her town.

Palin has shown that she is a sensible businessperson, which is far more than Obama can say. She was able to take on the oil companies and renegotiate some deals when she became governor.

Plus, unless you think the entire population of Alaska is completely stupid, how do you account for her popularity rating which is higher than virtually every other governor, Democrat or Republican? They're not voicing approval for her looks or her moose hunting skills.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

I've been thinking about this and a couple of things that have actually happened to me had me thinking (yeah, I know...)

Case 1: My sister had a friend (Stephanie) who had a friend named Carol, who had two older brothers (Mark and Kevin). So one night we were all hanging out at Carol's house watching Warriors on HBO, then we decided to go to the late show and all six of us piled into a car and drove down to the beach, where we got turned away because my sister and Stephanie were both too young to be out after curfew. So we went to the arcade where we were turned out for the same reason, and we ended up sitting on the beach talking and singing and saying "Warriors, come out to play-ayyy" over and over like in that stupid movie and then drove around until maybe three in the morning until we all went home, where Carol's parents had called the police because all the kids and the car had gone missing.

ANYway, about 6 or 7 years later I read in the paper where Kevin stabbed his roommate and rolled him up in a carpet and stuffed the body in a Dumpster.

Does that mean I associate with murderers? Do I condone murder? If I were elected to office (HA!), would I free all murderers currentl incarcerated and abolish all penalties for future murders?

Case 2: When Gifted Education started in this city, it consisted of the kids getting pulled out one day a week and going to these trailers behind a central elementary school, so you got to meet kids form other schools around the city. Ben came from my school, and Doug and Lisa came from another. Lisa and I became friends and Lisa started "dating" (or "going with" or whatever we called it when we were 12) Ben, so the four of us kinda hung together and grouped up when we had field trips which raised eyebrows since we were the only mixed-sex group. Sometimes we'd go to each other's houses.

So a couple years ago Doug was arrested and charged with an improper relationship with one of his teenaged students. I can't say we were "just classmates once a week" since we had been field trip partners and I went to his house once.

Do I condone teachers hooking up with their students? Would I encourage girls to do anything for a little extra credit?

And does listening to The Eagles cause you to engage in improper conduct? Because we were listening to the Greatest Hits album at Doug's and we had The Long Run tape playing in the car when we were out all night.

If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, you have a future as a political operative.

An argument could be made that the difference is that you didn't associate with these people AFTER they did the bad things they did. I don't buy it, but that argument could be made.

Plus, unless you think the entire population of Alaska is completely stupid, how do you account for her popularity rating which is higher than virtually every other governor, Democrat or Republican?

Unless you think the entire population of the United States is completely stupid, how do you account for those same pollsters showing Obama favorables ~20 points ahead of his unfavorables?

[Hello, Mini!]

An argument could be made that the difference is that you didn't associate with these people AFTER they did the bad things they did. I don't buy it, but that argument could be made.

What?! You didn't say these were life-long, childhood friends of mine and that their association with me shaped their futures and turned them into the monsters they had become?!?

No job for you!

[silverscreenselect]

Plus, unless you think the entire population of Alaska is completely stupid, how do you account for her popularity rating which is higher than virtually every other governor, Democrat or Republican?

Unless you think the entire population of the United States is completely stupid, how do you account for those same pollsters showing Obama favorables ~20 points ahead of his unfavorables?

Because Obama hasn't been in office yet and a lot of people are judging him based on his speeches and the media's fawning adulation of him. Bush's favorable rating after 9/11 was 90% because he gave an impressive speech. Once most people saw how he actually ran the country, it dropped down to 30%. Palin has been in office and people approve or disapprove of their governor based on what she (or he) has done and not on a bunch of nice speeches (in addition, governor's speeches get far less media coverage than a President's do).