Nobody who might've voted republican will be switching to Obama because of Palin. You can't lean republican and vote for a socialist. Doesn't happen. Obama may get more votes, but it won't be because she tried to get a wife-abusing child-tasering cop fired. There can't possibly be a worse person to be a cop in the first place. Whether she was sly in her attempt or not doesn't bother me at all.

I'd rather my 4 year old be president than Obama. She's less likely to end America as we know it (and no, not change in a good way!)

Biden-really? He plagerizes, makes the most outright proven lies in his debate of any of the 4, and HE is who you think is smartest? Smartest at being for Biden, probably. That's about it.

I live in Texas and can say that I have never voted for Bush, for anything. There is some comfort in having been right, for my conscience if nothing else. And I'll be able to say that about Obama too.

So acting within her rights as an executive is somehow an abuse of power? The Branchflower report is the product of one political opponent of Palin's opinion.
He's a Democrat version of Ken Starr writ small. Save that Ken Starr found actual misconduct.

Biden's constant idiocy on the campaign trail makes Dan Quayle look like a MENSA member.

My problem with the report is that I don't know how much of it is factual.

Consider this in trusting its truthfulness
(The following info was gleaned from an Associated Press report on the commissions conclusions. The AP is hardly a fan of Ms. Palin):

1. Sen. Hollis French, the Democrat overseeing the case is a political and pesonal opponent of Ms. Palin who announced before the investigation began that she would be found guilty in an "October surprise." (Reminds me of the old W.C. Fields line "First give 'em a fair trial then hang 'em").

2. The investigation was to have taken months to reach a concluaion in order to allow tne commission members time to ferret through the 300 page report and 1000 pages of supporting documents. At least one commission member (Rep. Peggy Wilson)admitted she had not read the report. However, the so called impartial conclusion was rushed through in time to be released prior to the election.

3. The capper is that the report states that personal animosity was not the sole reson for firing Monegan but, "it likely was a contributing factor." So now we have the commission looking into their crystal ball and deciding what Ms. Palin was thinking as she carried out her duties as governor?

I'm all for investigating political misdoings. But, not by a Kangaroo commission with a predetermined verdict.

From Powerline The "troopergate" report -- thin gruel gives another view.

[edited lightly] It is also not entirely clear (at least to me) that the efforts of Gov. Palin and/or her husband were intended to gain a personal benefit. Wooten seems to have been a genuine menace. Among other things, he tasered his young stepson and apparently had a drinking problem. If a governor concludes that a state trooper is a miscreant, the governor should have the ability to discuss that trooper. The report does not convincingly show that the Palins were driven by the desire to obtain a personal benefit, as opposed to the desire to rid the police force of a bad apple about whom they had personal knowledge. However, Todd Palin's persistence suggests that he had a personal agenda.

In the end, it seems to me that Gov. Palin did not exercise particularly good judgment in this matter. But the case that she abused her power by violating the ethics statute and/or that she fired the public safety commissioner because he wouldn't act against Wooten has not been made.

The Obamabot hacks who whipped up the Branchflower report could not deny that Alaska's constitution gives the Governor authority to fire any Commissioner she pleases ("Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads"). No, I'm not going to ruin my weekend by wading through all 263 pages, but it's perfectly obvious to me that if there was a simple, logical explanation for why a firing could simultaneously be "proper and lawful" AND a violation of ethics, the report would have been 3 pages at most, nor 263.

There's one "ferriner" who Joe Biden knows only too well, namely Neil Kinnock, the former head of the British Labour Party. Joe first ran for President way back in 1987, but he was forced to withdraw that year after he blatantly stole Kinnock's most famous speech.

Here's Neil, addressing the UK in 1986:

"Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to University? [points to wife in audience] Why is Glenys the first woman in her family in a thousand generations to be able to get to University? Was it because all our predecessors were thick?...Did they lack talent? Those people who could sing and play and recite poetry?...Why didn't they get it? Was it because they were weak? Those people who could work 8 hours underground and then come up and play football?...[clenches fists] Does anybody really think that they didn't get what we had because they didn't have the talent or the strength or the commitment? Of course not. It was because there was no platform from upon which they could stand".

And here's Joe, at the Iowa State Fair in 1987:

"I started thinking as I was coming over here, why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family in a thousand generations ever to go to a University? [points to wife in audience] Why is it that my wife is the first in her family in a thousand generations to ever go to college? Is it because our ancestors were not bright?...Those same people who read poetry and wrote poetry and taught me how to sing verse? Is it because they didn't work hard? My ancestors, who worked in the coal mines of Pennsylvania and would come up after 12 hours and play football?...[clenches fists] No, it's not because they weren't as smart. It's not because they didn't work as hard. It's because they didn't have a platform upon which to stand".

Neil's speech didn't win him the election against Maggie Thatcher, but it did become an instant classic in Britain and was reported around the world. That didn't stop Joe from thinking that he could get away with stealing another man's speech and another man's life, or that nobody would wonder whether ancestral Bidens had really been digging coal in Pennsylvania 980 generations before the Mayflower.

And this is the same Joe who just said that President Roosevelt went on TV in 1929 to address the nation about the Great Depression, who told an audience of 70 million people watching the VP debate that they should all go to Katie's Restaurant, which closed in 1984, who insisted that NATO kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, etc, etc.

Honestly Amy, you're the one who's displaying bad judgement here, for bashing Palin over something as flimsy as Troopergate, and even more so for not seeing Biden as the clown in a clownsuit that he is.

momof3:

except for me. I was leaning towards McCain on the promise that he would put a strong economic conservative on his vp spot.

As you can well imagine, Palin to me is a mockery of all that is good with limited government and fiscal responsibility, conservatism, and individual liberty. It is condescending to think that her weak conservative bona fides would convince me that McCain is a competent judge of anything at this point. And the way he has handled himself with this crisis further drives the knife into this back of this longtime conservative voter.

Believe me when I say I won't be voting republican for years to come because of this. It's going to take a long, serious, contemplative gut-check in that party to return itself to the roots which made it worthy of a vote. It has become all pandering nowadays; a party not of principle anymore. I cannot hold my nose any longer Amy, for I cannot breath. I will likely (thought not assuredly) vote for obama out of sheer contempt for the total outrage I have at the GOP right now. My vote now sits with writing in Ron Paul. The McCain campaign and the GOP have embraced everything that is wrong with government and need to be punished. Not only for this year, but for the sins of the party rallying behind W. in 2004 when it was clear the guy was off his rocker. I cannot continue respecting those who feel that McCain's socialist position on economics and warfare is a GOOD thing for the advancement of Conservatism. It isn't, and never will be.

If McCain wins, the notion that conservatism is whatever McCain does will continue to be perpetually bastardized. If McCain loses, this horrific neoconservative ideology dies (hopefully) with W.

Pointing out Obama's or Biden's faults does not convince me that I should vote for McCain. Nor does it make McCain a representative of conservatism by comparison. McCain had a chance to win my vote, and completely lost it. I've already written the GOP and told them I refuse to contribute to them anymore. This isn't country first, it is McCain first. And his choice, whether he wins or not, is going to stick with him for as long as he lives. How amazing that an honorable man can ruin his own reputation in the span of a few months simply to pander to those who have historically held contempt for the man and prevented him from winning the GOP race in 2000.

Let me reassert this point: simply pointing to Obama's problems do not, DO NOT qualify McCain. The same can be said for those who point to France in thier argument to how 'great America is'. And so long as the GOP continues to move thier candidates further left and telling me I should vote for them because 'they're not as leftist as the other candidate" is like telling me to vote for Stalin because his opponent is Marx.

I won't be swindled any longer. To quote Reagan, "It was not I who left the Democratic Party, it was they who left me." The same damn thing can be said about the Republican Party. So go on and vote McCain. Take 1 step back to take 2 steps back. But don't come bitching around when Lieberman and other liberals like Romney are chosen for important cabinet positions.

To quote William Blake, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Enjoy your walk.

indeed! There are several intelligent women in the Republican party who are considerably better suited for the job, even more so than most of the men. But he had to go pick the youngest, stupidest, most fundamentalist one. There are several highly qualified Republican men who would have been obvious choices too. But no dice. In a way, this can be read as a condescending pick against those who hurt him in 2000. "Shut up and get in line" it says.

What bugs me is how the conservative media have been saying just this about Palin: "Shut up about her, don't question it, and look how bad Obama is". In other words, not only have the GOP shifted thier policy to the left-of-centre, but they have embraced the mentallity of socialist too. Groupthink. My Party, right or left. For all the years I have studied and read and written about conservative politics and ideology, I feel betrayed. I am puzzled, and troubled, by all the cheerleading that goes on and I've begun to question whether conservative pundits are really about the principles and fundamentals, or are they simply irrationally selfish actors who simply see supporting McCain/Palin as a means to thier own financial and populist ends.

Why is it "abuse of power" when a Republican fires someone (Bush and SOME of the US attorneys, Palin and Wooten) but a perfectly legitimate exercise in executive authority when a Democrat does it (Clinton and ALL of the US attorneys, Hillary and the White House Travel Office)?

Who says grudge firings by anybody are legitimate?

I will, Amy. If your beloved assistant started trashing you on her own blog you would be perfectly within your rights to fire her ass regardless of her exemplary performance of her duties.

Then please define the term, Amy.

"except for me. I was leaning towards McCain on the promise that he would put a strong economic conservative on his vp spot."

So.....they aren't fiscally conservative enough for you, so you're going to vote the biggest-government-spending candidate ever? Reference Amy's blog post today about Obama's hand-outs, then tell me you would've voted for a conservative but are now going for Obama.

Momof3: youre error begins when you assume that they are fiscally conservative. have you not read ANYTHING about the expansion of government under Bush? have you read ANYTHING about McCains platform? Obama's hand-outs? What about McCain and Bush's proposed handouts? have you forgotten the promise to cut spending and the complete violation of such a promise over the last 7 years? And you expect me to award them my single vote because "look at the other guy". Are you MAD?

The question, thus, is how far left you are to arrive at the conclusion that McCain is a fiscal conservative. Everything that McCain requires to run his hypothetical government involves more spending.

Has it ever occured to you that the greatest transfer of American wealth, the greatest redistribution of taxpayer dollars to the most frivolous means is the very Iraq War that McCain intends to continue indefinitely? What benefit is derived from such action, aside from 'keeping our pride'? None. So don't tell me that a non-conservative like McCain is measurably different on Obama on spending. Please don't further the rumour that he's a conservative. For the good of the ideals we hold, please don't.

Still...you're pleading us to vote Stalin simply because he's not Marx. And that's not an option.

Look up the definition of "grudge." Consider the difference between firing somebody because you don't like them or like their politics and because they do something that violates their job description or a contract they have with the employer.

So you are saying that Monegan didn't violate his job description? Or Wooten? Which one was the "grudge" and which wasn't? Or were both?

The facts speak for themselves, Amy.

Wooten violated his contract as a State Trooper by making threats, tasering a child, and drinking in his patrol car. The Union covered for him and saved his job.

Government emails made public today show a pattern, from late 2007 through the middle of 2008, of Mr. Monegan's refusal to comply with Administration policy. Despite repeated calls for budget discipline in the major state agencies, Mr. Monegan continued to press his own agenda without regard for either the formal budgeting process or the Governor's clear policy priorities.

Government staffers responsible for budget issues, and who had nothing to do with Mike Wooten, prevailed upon the governor to have Monegan replaced with someone who would not undermine the Palin administration's budget goals.

Linky

So where's the grudge as you define it, Amy?

i can't believe this needs to be spelled out in a painstakingly simple manner. Amy is right. perhaps if you kept reading it over and over and over again, let it marinate, it will turn the lights on.

i can't believe this needs to be spelled out in a painstakingly simple manner.

Go for it. I are dum. Apparently.

Sorry.

Forgot to close a tag. I are REEL dum.

have you not read ANYTHING about the expansion of government under Bush?

I promised myself, Amy, that I wasn't going to post the following, until I read that statement by farker. Now, I feel compelled:

BUSH'S RESIGNATION SPEECH

The following 'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maine-iac [a resident of the People's Republic of Maine]. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective.

This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.

The speech George W. Bush might give:

Normally, I start these things out by saying My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time.
If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore.
I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.
I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office. The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media.
Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named 'Clinton' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan, a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel. Did you sleep through high school?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.
That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die.
That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'
Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well Fed Ex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.

I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream of) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.
Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it.
Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America.

Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.

PS - You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.

Flynne: LOL! I love it. Would that only one person would be brave enough to say such, for real.

Nobody who might've voted republican will be switching to Obama because of Palin.

Wrong. Reasonable or not, rational or not, there are a great many repub leaning folks doing just that. They weren't too keen on McCain anyways and throwing Palin on the ticket made it bad enough that not only won't they vote for McCain, they want to vote against him. There are several of them who comment over at Dispatches (where I have noticed you lately).

So.....they aren't fiscally conservative enough for you, so you're going to vote the biggest-government-spending candidate ever?

Ok, I realize that he wasn't actually running as a "big government spender," but bush sure managed to be the biggest we've had. And I doubt that even Obama could top him (though a lot will be spent to clean up W's monstrous fucking mess, could that be what you were referring to?). He did run for a second term so I think even though it was still missing from his platform, bush ranks as the biggest-government-spending candidate ever.

I hope people like Flynne are still posting on blogs in a year. There are many reasons not to vote Democratic, but that it's the same as arming terrorists is not one of them. Obama seems the likely winner, and in a year his policies may do a certain amount of damage. What they won't do, however, is turn us over to terrorists, and I hope in a year such commenters, now all over the place, will have the decency to step forward and say that they might have been a lil hysterical during election season.

so momof3 and flynne stand in the fringe-hysterical category. This isn't suprising. Even the the neocons don't get that nuts, althought I have seen them get close.

But they are the legacy of the Bush administration. The black-and-white thinking that is cancerous to serious conservative and libertarian thought. The atrophy of the mind occurs when one forgoes critical thought; and because its so rediculously easy to categorize things as black-and-white (ie, with us or against us), everything is either perfect or evil. Which is to say, everything W., McCain, or Palin do is unquestionably good. This groupthink mentality is firmly rooted in socialist societies: Do not speak out! Do not speak against them! Do not question! And ultimately: do not think.

It is thus not suprising that criticism against McCain is read as a sponsoring remark for Obama.

Amy, this is the very anti-intellectualism that is going to destroy the Republican party. And it is ironic that is comes not from external forces, but from within. The question is not whether they can see the trees from the forest. It can already be concluded that they cannot. The question remains, do they see that the forest is on fire?

I hope that there are enough of us to vote on principles, and not allow ourselves to avoid asking, "what does McCain and Palin take us for???" Part of me wants the forest to burn to the ground in hopes that the land would be ripe for the sapplings of limited government and economic freedoms to grow and prosper. Like in medicine, sometimes a fractured bone will be broken so that it will heal stronger.

Wandering Jew: I agree, but I think you understand hysterical with the "lil" modifier. It's overwhelming hysteria.

Farker,

how am I nutty, or engaging in groupthink? If you read any of my posts on the topic you'd know I hate Bush, never voted for him for Pres or Governer. I also hate Obama with an equal passion. I'm really not thrilled with Mccain's recent trip down left-ist bailout lane, but he's still better than Obama. And I do think most Americans are rather stupid and easily bought. People on this blog are here to hear other's views, and think. Therefor, most everyone on this blog is much smarter than the typical american (progressive trolls notwithstanding). Our founding fathers never wanted all citizens to vote. They wanted people who bothered to find out about the issues to vote. That's why we still have the EC instead of general elections. Those electors don't have to vote the way the people in their state do. They almost always do, but are not required to by law.

So go back to your democrat-only groupthink, and leave those of us who vote election-by-election to ourselves.

I'm flopping again. But it hardly matters. I'm so disgusted by my options I let the date for registering to vote pass and won't be for the first time in 25 years.

Still, I usually vote Democratic or third party and have voted for a Republican or two in my time (when I liked what they stood for). Obama's weak stance on defense had me flip-flopping to McCain but McCain's gotten so nutty since he picked up Palin -- not to mention what that says about his judgment -- that I am now back to hoping to hell Obama wins (since it's unlikely a third party will).

so momof3 and flynne stand in the fringe-hysterical category.

Heh. I reprint a parody of a possible speech that points out certain flaws in the way some people think, and I'm "fringe-hysterical". Nice. You have no idea what I really think about this whole debacle of an election, but I'm "hysterical". Good thing I'm not really, or I'd come over there AND KICK YOUR ASS!! (I just got back from a company meeting in New York today at the Roosevelt Hotel [nice buffet] where I learned that our company will be going strong for at least the next 2 years, based on our platforms and funding. Huzzah! I hope others are as lucky, except for farker! (Kidding, really. I really do hope everyone manages to make it through these tough times.)

Part of me wants the forest to burn to the ground in hopes that the land would be ripe for the sapplings of limited government and economic freedoms to grow and prosper.

I feel the same way, buddy. And I really think there is less chance of that happening with Obama in office than with McCain, but we'll see...