Palin has been dipping in Alaska's Funds

[BetteDavisEyes]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

I am already sick of the liberal mudslinging towards Governor Palin.
That article fails to mention that her predecessor billed over $500,000 to that same account every year, I WOULD call that reform. She doesn't pay maids, chefs, personal assistants, etc. She is a normal person with a NORMAL family. The fact of the matter is that the expenses that she billed were necessary for her to be able to hold the office of Governor, that is the purpose of that account. This is another pathetic attempt to cast her in a negative light, and it will fail just like the rest of the left's propaganda.
First was that her teenage daughter was pregnant. She was a terrible mother for allowing this to happen. That attack showed just how out of touch the democrats are with average Americans, teenage pregnancy happens sometimes even in the presence of great parenting. It was reminiscient of the attacks on Jenna Bush for drinking underage. Maybe we should focus on Joe Biden's son who is going to trial for FRAUD and EMBEZZLEMENT and there are allegations that Biden's brother will soon face similar charges.
Another weak attack was that Palin was from a small state, Obama even made a demeaning comment about her being a mayor. Maybe the liberals should have compared the population of Delaware (Senator Biden's constituency) to Alaska before they opened their mouths.
The bottom line is this: Sarah Palin is an amazing person, a great speaker, and is able to claim a moral highground on just about everyone in the political arena. She didn't sacrifice any of her values to get to where she is today and the Democrats are scared shitless. I won't say that I'm angry about the liberal attacks, they are DESTROYING themselves with this crap. The "unthinkable" has happened because of this: McCain is leading Obama and will win this November.

Here's an idea. Stop reading the threads & stop watching the news!
There are plenty of us here who don't care for Palin so we'll damn well give our opinions on her & her policies. As for the media, get over it. Stick to Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

[SWTXBelle]

Back to the op - I need more information. Even if she were at home that night, she might have been traveling during the day. I also seem to recall that she did not move her family to the capital - that might explain the family travel expenses. I'm sure the story will develop, and then we'll see. I'm not quite ready to call her a thief.

As an aside, I think it is far more of a theft of taxpayer's money when sitting, oh, I don't know, SENATORS, are off on the campaign trail and not working - yet still collect their pay. It's one reason I think the campaign season should be streamlined.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

As an aside, I think it is far more of a theft of taxpayer's money when sitting, oh, I don't know, SENATORS, are off on the campaign trail and not working - yet still collect their pay. It's one reason I think the campaign season should be streamlined.

I would love it if the campaign season was streamlined. However, the trend still seems to be going the other way. I can't think of a candidate, other than Ross Perot, who wasn't a current politician and placed in this position. It stinks though.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I would love it if the campaign season was streamlined. However, the trend still seems to be going the other way. I can't think of a candidate, other than Ross Perot, who wasn't a current politician and placed in this position. It stinks though.

How would you do it, especially with the sort of mind-boggling amounts of money they have to raise to even be competitive in the primaries?

It sounds like a great idea, but how?

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

How would you do it, especially with the sort of mind-boggling amounts of money they have to raise to even be competitive in the primaries?

It sounds like a great idea, but how?

Well, I have problems with how much money is spent on these things too. How many hungry people could be fed with that money instead? There was a time when the candidate was actually determined AT the convention... what a concept, eh?

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

How would you do it, especially with the sort of mind-boggling amounts of money they have to raise to even be competitive in the primaries?

It sounds like a great idea, but how?

I thought about this more while laying in bed trying to fall asleep. This is what I would do:

Primary candidates announce their intentions to run in May of the election year, a set number of debates are held by each party.

Primaries are a one day event in August, the whole country, same day. Then the Conventions are held with the same timing as this year.

10 televised/radio broadcast debates of varying formats between mid-September and November with no personal appearances, no bus tours of the country, no flying all over the place. There can still be grass roots level things like mailings, door to door, lawn signs, etc, but NO pre-recorded telephone calls! NO PRE-RECORDED TELEPHONE CALLS! (they are making me crazy, honestly, and I think the No Call List should include political propaganda)

That gives us a 6 month election process rather than two years. It really was two full years this time and that's just nuts.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I thought about this more while laying in bed trying to fall asleep. This is what I would do:

Primary candidates announce their intentions to run in May of the election year, a set number of debates are held by each party.

Primaries are a one day event in August, the whole country, same day. Then the Conventions are held with the same timing as this year.

10 televised/radio broadcast debates of varying formats between mid-September and November with no personal appearances, no bus tours of the country, no flying all over the place. There can still be grass roots level things like mailings, door to door, lawn signs, etc, but NO pre-recorded telephone calls! NO PRE-RECORDED TELEPHONE CALLS! (they are making me crazy, honestly, and I think the No Call List should include political propaganda)

That gives us a 6 month election process rather than two years. It really was two full years this time and that's just nuts.

Mainly playing devil's advocate here: so you are willing to place limits on people's first amendment rights (of speech and assembly) to shorten the process?

I don't answer or listen to the calls so it's a pretty quick fix to hit delete.

If the parties both just agree to the terms because members of the public will hate them if they don't, it's not really a constitutional issue. But if there are actually legal restrictions, you get into some funny areas pretty quickly. Isn't this the biggest objection to the campaign finance reforms that almost all of us want? To make them, you actually interfere with other people's political expression?

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Mainly playing devil's advocate here: so you are willing to place limits on people's first amendment rights (of speech and assembly) to shorten the process?

I don't answer or listen to the calls so it's a pretty quick fix to hit delete.

If the parties both just agree to the terms because members of the public will hate them if they don't, it's not really a constitutional issue. But if there are actually legal restrictions, you get into some funny areas pretty quickly. Isn't this the biggest objection to the campaign finance reforms that almost all of us want? To make them, you actually interfere with other people's political expression?

I can see where this could be seen as a limit on a right to assembly, but not of speech. Nobody would be stopping them from saying anything they want during their alloted times, or at any other time either. However, we do have certain laws in affect with regards to elections that could arguably be seen as such also, so there is some precedent. There are limits on how close to the polls campaigners can be, where literature can be distributed, etc. I wouldn't see this as being all that different from those rules. All of those rules were more geared toward eliminating campaign funds/contributions than shortening the time.

Just before the last election, the calls completely filled up my voicemails both at home (while at work) and at work (while at home) to the point that I couldn't receive messages that I needed to receive. THAT is annoying. Perhaps this is considerably worse in battleground states?

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by BetteDavisEyes

Here's an idea. Stop reading the threads & stop watching the news!
There are plenty of us here who don't care for Palin so we'll damn well give our opinions on her & her policies. As for the media, get over it. Stick to Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

Erroneous, read what I posted and try again.

[BetteDavisEyes]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Erroneous, read what I posted and try again.

Well, I read what you posted again and again and I stand by what I said. Keep on rocking your belief that Palin is an amazing person that is being mistreated by the media and us mean people here on GC and I'll keep on rocking my belief that she's full of shit. End of story. Agree to disagree.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by BetteDavisEyes

Well, I read what you posted again and again and I stand by what I said. Keep on rocking your belief that Palin is an amazing person that is being mistreated by the media and us mean people here on GC and I'll keep on rocking my belief that she's full of shit. End of story. Agree to disagree.

Ok...

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Ok...

While you 2 are at it...check out more new old news...

Sept. 11 (Bloomberg) -- John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate sent a signal that he would end business as usual and cronyism in government. Her record shows the Alaska governor engaged in some of the same practices she and McCain now condemn.

Palin's office approved a state job for a friend and campaign aide with whom she shared a land investment, financial records and interviews over the past two weeks show. She hired a former lobbyist for a pipeline company to help oversee a multibillion-dollar deal with that same company.

She named a police chief accused of harassment to head the state police. And she sent campaign e-mails on her city hall account while serving as mayor of Wasilla -- conduct for which she later turned in an oil commissioner on ethics charges.

These incidents raise ``some serious questions about her judgment and serious questions about her standards of ethics in public service,'' said James Thurber, director of American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies in Washington. Suggesting a real estate investment partner for a job ``may be acceptable in Alaska; it would not be acceptable in Washington, D.C., a place whose norms she wants to change.''

Palin defeated an incumbent governor, a fellow Republican, in 2006 charging that her party's old guard had committed ethical lapses and become too cozy with special interests, including oil companies. A central theme in this year's presidential campaign has been that Palin's record demonstrates the change a McCain administration would bring to Washington.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20...g/alulrclkxig4



I seem to remember that McCain said that he would put an end to pork barrel spending and also name names of those who would try to do otherwise...is he willing to put Sarah near the top of his list?

[awkward1]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

While you 2 are at it...check out more new old news...

Sept. 11 (Bloomberg) -- John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate sent a signal that he would end business as usual and cronyism in government. Her record shows the Alaska governor engaged in some of the same practices she and McCain now condemn.

Palin's office approved a state job for a friend and campaign aide with whom she shared a land investment, financial records and interviews over the past two weeks show. She hired a former lobbyist for a pipeline company to help oversee a multibillion-dollar deal with that same company.

She named a police chief accused of harassment to head the state police. And she sent campaign e-mails on her city hall account while serving as mayor of Wasilla -- conduct for which she later turned in an oil commissioner on ethics charges.

These incidents raise ``some serious questions about her judgment and serious questions about her standards of ethics in public service,'' said James Thurber, director of American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies in Washington. Suggesting a real estate investment partner for a job ``may be acceptable in Alaska; it would not be acceptable in Washington, D.C., a place whose norms she wants to change.''

Palin defeated an incumbent governor, a fellow Republican, in 2006 charging that her party's old guard had committed ethical lapses and become too cozy with special interests, including oil companies. A central theme in this year's presidential campaign has been that Palin's record demonstrates the change a McCain administration would bring to Washington.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20...g/alulrclkxig4



I seem to remember that McCain said that he would put an end to pork barrel spending and also name names of those who would try to do otherwise...is he willing to put Sarah near the top of his list?

I'll withhold judgment until these allegations have been fully vetted. There have been entirely too many false accusations against all candidates in this election for me to believe something that has only recently been 'unearthed'. I do believe that the media has a right to get facts about Sarah and to figure out where she stands on issues. However, I feel like it has crossed the line at this point and facts are being misrepresented and misconstrued to favor whoever is speaking. My gut feeling is that this will continue until one candidate is successfully 'swiftboated'. As I stood in front of a 9 11 memorial today I was truly overcome with emotion wondering what would the victims say to us if they had a voice? Stop being nasty to one another? Win elections on your own merit? How do the soldiers feel when they see our leaders saying anything, true, semi-true, or untrue, just to get elected. I was disgusted by the media attacks on Obama during the primaries and I am now disgusted by the attacks on Sarah Palin.

[SWTXBelle]

In observance of 9/11 both campaigns agreed to stop the nastiness today.

It has been wonderful.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by awkward1

I'll withhold judgment until these allegations have been fully vetted. There have been entirely too many false accusations against all candidates in this election for me to believe something that has only recently been 'unearthed'. I do believe that the media has a right to get facts about Sarah and to figure out where she stands on issues. However, I feel like it has crossed the line at this point and facts are being misrepresented and misconstrued to favor whoever is speaking. My gut feeling is that this will continue until one candidate is successfully 'swiftboated'. As I stood in front of a 9 11 memorial today I was truly overcome with emotion wondering what would the victims say to us if they had a voice? Stop being nasty to one another? Win elections on your own merit? How do the soldiers feel when they see our leaders saying anything, true, semi-true, or untrue, just to get elected. I was disgusted by the media attacks on Obama during the primaries and I am now disgusted by the attacks on Sarah Palin.

I think it's admirable to feel like you do in the bolded part, but it's kind of funny when you think about who is doing the vetting.

Basically, I think most of us are at the point where it's like, oh, here's some partisan crap, let's wait in until the other partisan hacks mess around with it for a while and we'll see if anything sticks.