Making Stuff Up
[Guest post by DRJ]
Yesterday in Scranton, Pennsylvania, Barack Obama accused Republicans and the McCain campaign of “making stuff up” to criticize him:
“When [Republicans] say this isn’t about issues it’s about personalities what they’re really saying is ‘we’re going to try to scare people about Barack,’ the Democratic presidential candidate said.
Obama said Republicans are “going to say that you know, ‘maybe he’s got Muslim connections or we’re going to say that, you know, he hangs out with radicals or he’s not patriotic.’ Just making stuff up.”
Complaining that critics are “making stuff up” is a new Obama theme. Last month Obama complained that Jerome Corsi, author of Obama Nation, was “getting a lot of play on Fox News” by “making stuff up.”
The month before Obama aired a radio ad claiming John McCain was “just makin’ stuff up” on Obama’s tax plans.
And in June 2008, Obama told CNN that evangelical leader James Dobson was “making stuff up” when he accused the Illinois senator of distorting the Bible and taking a “fruitcake interpretation” of the U.S. Constitution.
I sense a pattern.
Care to guess what Barack Obama said today in Terre Haute, Indiana, in his first public criticism of Sarah Palin? All together now:
“I know the governor of Alaska has been, you know, saying she is change,” Obama said at a town hall meeting here. “And that is great. She is a skillful politician. But when you [have] been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you are the champion anti-earmark person.
That is not change, come on,” Obama continued. “I mean, words mean something. You can’t just make stuff up. You can’t just make stuff up. We have a choice to make and the choice is clear.”
Candidate Obama needs new talking points. Grade school rhetoric won’t win elections and it certainly won’t intimidate the leaders of Russia, Iran, or North Korea.
— DRJ
Pretty amusing given how often Obama has been “just making stuff up”. He has been caught misrepresenting McCain’s positions, and he’s been caught denying his own.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/6/2008 @ 7:10 pmDid he just set himself up for a round of “Who voted for the earmark that gave my wife a $100,000 a year pay raise”?
Budahmon (b4cf42) — 9/6/2008 @ 7:27 pmObama and his cohorts should realize that it isn’t his dark skin that is going to do him in this coming November, it’s his thin skin.
JVW (d54fc4) — 9/6/2008 @ 7:28 pmMakin’ Stuff Up – http://www.citizenlink.org/Stoplight/A000008026.cfm
Bruce (b2a783) — 9/6/2008 @ 7:29 pmFrom the guy who misrepresents McCain’s energy plan as just drilling… The guy who claims that he will make the US energy independent… The guy who claims that he will pay for every dime of his increased spending…
Obama’s entire campaign is made up.
George (7e3bdc) — 9/6/2008 @ 7:30 pmWhat’s funny, Bruce, is the quotes from Obama himself making the video so real….
reff (b68a4f) — 9/6/2008 @ 7:33 pmI hope McCain/Palin are taking notes. The debates ought to be interesting, very interesting.
What’s really disgusting is watching Americans applauding his giveaway speech like slugs, “Oh, give me some of that free government cheese! Hurray!”
Patricia (ee5c9d) — 9/6/2008 @ 7:34 pmHere is an issue that is good to bring up.
Seriously – these are the types of things that could actually help McCain if the word gets out.
i like america (f4c1e0) — 9/6/2008 @ 7:36 pmGrade school rhetoric won’t win elections
Oh come on, grade-school rhetoric will, and does, win elections. That’s why both sides use it to no end.
and it certainly won’t intimidate the leaders of Russia, Iran, or North Korea.
And it’s rather ironic that you finish that sentence with a bit of grade-school rhetoric yourself. Why don’t you just call them an “axis of Evil”?
Phil (3b1633) — 9/6/2008 @ 7:43 pmThe Left’s rhetoric is largely based on projection.
Obama accuses his opponents of doing what he is in fact doing himself — projecting his own attributes onto Palin.
Evil Pundit (843b74) — 9/6/2008 @ 7:48 pmgrade school rhetoric–that is actually
atmom (56a0a8) — 9/6/2008 @ 7:48 pmsomething the majority of BO’s base can understand. I hope it won’t win any elections.
RACISTS !!!!!
JD (5f0e11) — 9/6/2008 @ 7:52 pmPhil,
I think common sense rhetoric wins elections and if Obama’s critics are really making stuff up, Obama should be able to clearly articulate their mistakes or lies. Given Obama’s education, it’s even more noticeable that he can’t clarify his position and defend himself. (IMO he doesn’t want to “clarify” his position.)
So what’s grade-school about “and it certainly won’t intimidate the leaders of Russia, Iran, or North Korea”?
DRJ (7568a2) — 9/6/2008 @ 7:53 pmAll of Obama’s under the reporting level internet contributions are coming from Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria.
He can very easily refute my “making up stuff” comment by releasing the records. I bet he won’t. Which means I’m right.
nk (21731d) — 9/6/2008 @ 7:57 pmWhat’s really disgusting is watching Americans applauding his giveaway speech like slugs, “Oh, give me some of that free government cheese! Hurray!”
Funny how he brings out the best in people, eh? Heh.
Dana (084de8) — 9/6/2008 @ 8:02 pmYes, let’s hope he changes them.
Jim Treacher (592cb4) — 9/6/2008 @ 8:19 pmDamn scary. This could push the race hustler straight into the Oval Office.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 9/6/2008 @ 8:28 pm“Obama and his cohorts should realize that it isn’t his dark skin that is going to do him in this coming November, it’s his thin skin.”
Why would you eve mention the color of someones skin??Republicans are Racist scumbags!!
JEFF (1a346c) — 9/6/2008 @ 8:29 pmFrom some of the comments, you would never realize that independent observers say that McCain’s plans add about a trillion dollars more to the deficit than Obama’s do. It seems clear that McCain is the irresponsible spender to a greater extent than Obama. The receivers of free government cheese are those who want a free ride, taking advantage of the government while leaving a tab of trillions of dollars tacked on to the deficit.
When there was a budget surplus, I wanted to see it used to reduce the deficit. But Bush said we had plenty of money to reduce the deficit, reduce taxes, and plus have lots left over for a rainy day. Unfortunately, Bush “hit the trifecta” in the form of several rainy days, and he has been hitting one trifecta after another for his entire two-term gauntlet in office. Poor guy.
If he had used the budget surplus to reduce the deficit, he could have come a lot closer to paying for the rainy days that came in squads.
McCain is from the same party as Bush. The traditional remedy for fiasco in government is to throw the bums out. I don’t think the people are prepared to make an exception in this case. I hope not.
Gene Venable (86f20c) — 9/6/2008 @ 8:34 pmPhil:
You must have gone to a really weird grade school.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 9/6/2008 @ 8:39 pmApparently more made up stuff: Palin’s book banning.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/06/the-bogus-sarah-palin-banned-books-list/
Its also at Volokh with an interesting tidbit,
UPDATE: I see that Michelle Malkin spotted the fake list before I did, and she notes that it’s being spread on the Obama Campaign site. The post is by Mark Brickman, who is described as “a member of Obama San Mateo/California 12th Congressional District, a grassroots organization that is dedicated to the election of Barack Obama.”
Dana (084de8) — 9/6/2008 @ 8:41 pmThis isn’t the Oprah thread, but the replay of her ridiculous tears gets more unbelievable each time. One thousand people couldn’t hope to enjoy a portion of her wealth and success. It’s that unattainable. Corporate America helped this woman get where she is. She should shed tears of joy. What injustice does she know, except brought in as a story idea by her producer?
And never mind the foreign school project, built specifically because American kids wouldn’t know how to appreciate the opportunity.
Well, as JD would say …
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 9/6/2008 @ 8:43 pmI spotted the book banning lie immediately as well, and posted angrily about it on Huffington Post within moments after it was posted. It was pretty obvious that many books on the list would never be banned by conservatives.
But I have a question — is the whole story about Palin wanting books banned a lie, or is the problem just that this list is incorrect?
This is the real question, not an obviously bogus list.
Gene Venable (86f20c) — 9/6/2008 @ 8:48 pmDo governors request earmarks? Do these earmarks trace directly back to Palin? Is that what Baracky is saying? Does he have any proof?
Can he really say what he means for a change?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/6/2008 @ 8:52 pmJeff,
“Why would you eve mention the color of someones skin??Republicans are Racist scumbags!!”
I hope you were kidding. Because if you are not then you obviously haven’t been paying much attention. Obama and his acolytes are the only ones mentioning skin color. Google it. Shows up right after Hope! and Change!
Chris (6b9f67) — 9/6/2008 @ 8:58 pm“Do governors request earmarks? Do these earmarks trace directly back to Palin?”
Questions like these and questions about book banning leave one obvious person to be questioned on the subject. What does Palin say about them? I would like to see her current answers on these questions. Does anyone have her comments on these subjects? I guess it’s hard to get comments when the focus of the questions won’t talk to reporters.
Gene Venable (86f20c) — 9/6/2008 @ 8:58 pm#23, from Jim Lindgren @ Volokh,
In 1996, when Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, she asked her town librarian how she would respond to censoring books. According to the librarian at the time, three inquiries had been made by December 1996. Palin also asked for resignation letters from some department heads and high appointments that she inherited from her predecessor (including the librarian), several of which had publicly supported her opponent in the election.
That Palin would ask about censorship suggests, but doesn’t prove, that she was very probably actually contemplating asking the library to censor or remove books.
As if the truth weren’t bad enough, Palin’s opponents are now distributing a long, apparently phony list of books that Palin tried to ban.
On the list are the first four Harry Potter books, all published first from mid-1997 through 2000 [in the UK, and from 1998 through 2000 in
the US]
(bold mine) This is Lindgren’s take on the matter. Perhaps she had other reasons…who knows… No doubt whoever you’re rooting for will determine what one assumes – either that she was indeed going to ban books or that she had other motives for asking. Either way, its an unknown factor.
Dana (084de8) — 9/6/2008 @ 9:00 pmAn example of “making things up” was the whole thing about the arena that Obama spoke in. It certainly sounded made up to me. What does the arena Obama spoke in one day have to do with the eoonomic crisis the US faces? How about the military problems?
I have no objection to talking about, say, the surge, but the arena where Obama spoke? Give me a break.
Gene Venable (86f20c) — 9/6/2008 @ 9:02 pmQuestions like these and questions about book banning leave one obvious person to be questioned on the subject.
Gene you dolt, questions like those obligate the one making the accusation to show that an earmark request originated from the individual he is making the accusation from. Daying Alaska gets the highest earmarks per capita in the country is a meaningless accusation with respect to the governor.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/6/2008 @ 9:05 pmGV, what exactly was “made up” about the arena that Obama spoke in? Are you trying to claim that there wasn’t actually an arena, that the stage was a Republican fabrication?
Evil Pundit (843b74) — 9/6/2008 @ 9:06 pm23
No, it isn’t. The question is just as bogus as the list.
And a laundry list of other bogus claims as well. Which, to quote a Presidential candidate, were “just made up.”
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 9/6/2008 @ 9:08 pmGene is a nice talking points regurgitator.
JD (5f0e11) — 9/6/2008 @ 9:12 pmGene Venable wrote:
Is he? Why don’t you guys mention that every so often?
L.N. Smithee (025bfa) — 9/6/2008 @ 9:16 pm#27 Dana:
As usual, Beldar is on top of things: and I think his analysis quite likely.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 9/6/2008 @ 9:17 pmSpeaking of ‘making stuff up’, Senator Obama, today in Terre Haute, IN, you told a whopper your own self:
Obama makes Freudian slip, tells crowd he’s already President.
Hat tip: LGF
Chuckg (6d0332) — 9/6/2008 @ 9:18 pmEvil – I thought the temple thingy wasn’t real. I mean it was constructed just for the event, but I’m pretty sure yhe stadium was real. I’ve seen football games played in there. OK, on TV, but I’m pretty sure they weren’t faking it.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/6/2008 @ 9:19 pmThere was no budget surplus, in the real sense. It was a mirage produced by the dot-com bubble and corporate cheating. Once the overvalued Internet frauds hit the fan, the Enrons and the WorldComs got rolled up by the Justice Department, then that surplus already evaporated.
George (7e3bdc) — 9/6/2008 @ 9:21 pmI’m sure he is president – in his mind.
George (7e3bdc) — 9/6/2008 @ 9:23 pmI almost took my daughter to see Baracky today.
JD (5f0e11) — 9/6/2008 @ 9:32 pmYou thought???
Racist…
You didn’t take her???
Racist and misogynist!!!
reff (b68a4f) — 9/6/2008 @ 9:37 pmAs one of our commenters pointed out via the National Review, Obama recently made stuff up himself. He lied that the GOP convention speakers had not said even one word about how the Republicans would deal with the economy. I had some fun disproving that blatant lie.
Obama had better beware getting hoisted on his own petard.
Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407) — 9/6/2008 @ 9:40 pmBarack Hussein Obama is a liar and a hypocrite
He has yet to come clean on his relation with Rezko, a corrupt slum lord and a influence peddlar who has provide $250,000 to Obama’s three campaign. Through his stint as a community organizer and a state senator, he never reproached or goes against or reprimanded Rezko for the housing violations in the 11 housing projects in Obama’s constituency.
Obama also was helped in buying his $1.65 million dollar house by the price being reduced by $300,000 thru Rezko buying the land lot next door without any use for it.
OBAMA IS A HYPOCRITE AND A CORRUPT POLITICIAN
Tim Pure (7d0f11) — 9/6/2008 @ 9:40 pmGood post, Bradley.
JD – Did you go see Obama? If so, we need a report.
DRJ (7568a2) — 9/6/2008 @ 9:52 pmI’m sure he is president – in his mind.
Into his fourth term, just like FDR.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 9/6/2008 @ 10:05 pmCareful, Bradley. You realize that most of the opposition are going to have to run for the dictionary to find out what you just said? /grin
There’s an old Texas _legend_ that says a young politician by the name of Lyndon Johnson was looking for an edge in his campaign. Johnson suggested to his campaign manager that they start a rumor that his opponent enjoyed sexual congress with pigs. His campaign manager reacted in shock: “Lyndon you know that’s not true.”
“Sure,” Lyndon is alleged to have replied, “I just want to watch him deny it.”
Isn’t this just more of the same?
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 9/6/2008 @ 10:48 pmAll these people are so desperate to know more about someone they’re never going to vote for.
Jim Treacher (592cb4) — 9/6/2008 @ 10:49 pmWhat was “made up” about the arena “issue”?
According to this article in the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/us/politics/07schmidt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
there is a specific guy in the McCain organization whose JOB it is to “make up” such things.
By the way, when McCain is picked on for something irrelevant, I react THE SAME WAY, with indignation. For example, when people complained that McCain seemed nervous at his nomination acceptance speech, I responded that (a) it seemed like a GREAT speech to me, and (b) there were disruptive protesters at the speech, and (c) he didn’t seem that nervous to me. And, I added, I agreed with him that the American people are tired of people shouting at each other, or words to that effect.
Now, those of you who accuse me of regurgitating talking points, is defending McCain in that way part of the Democratic talking points? Where can I read about that strategy?
Gene Venable (86f20c) — 9/6/2008 @ 10:57 pmThose of you who jumped on the (pretty irrelevant) misspeaking of Obama on being President — just out of curiosity, aren’t you the same people who jumped on him for calling Biden the President in another speech?
So I guess you must think that Obama in his own mind is President and he also thinks Biden is?
I think he just makes slips from time to time, as we all doooo.
Gene Venable (86f20c) — 9/6/2008 @ 11:02 pmLet me give another example of what is NOT irrelevant:
“He has yet to come clean on his relation with Rezko, a corrupt slum lord and a influence peddlar who has provide $250,000 to Obama’s three campaign.”
This is a perfectly legitimate point. It is not total BS, like the arena talk or the slip of the tongue by Obama.
Gene Venable (86f20c) — 9/6/2008 @ 11:11 pmPhil –
[Re: Russia, Iran, North Korea] Why don’t you just call them an “axis of Evil”?
— Would you prefer “axis of the misunderstood”?
Icy Truth (9cedd0) — 9/6/2008 @ 11:34 pmIt is not total BS, like the arena talk or the slip of the tongue by Obama.
So are you willing to take back, on behalf of all lefties, the attacks on Bush’s intelligence because of “slips of the tongue?”
Paul (ac3cf3) — 9/6/2008 @ 11:36 pm@Paul
I have a 365 day calendar of Bush gaffes. I’ll forgive Bush gaffes in a 10:1 ratio to Obama gaffes and we’ll hardly make it to March.
Here’s an illustration of how successful your argument was right now
i like america (f4c1e0) — 9/6/2008 @ 11:44 pmI have a 365 day calendar of Bush gaffes. I’ll forgive Bush gaffes in a 10:1 ratio to Obama gaffes and we’ll hardly make it to March.
Oh, so you’re declaring victory over here also?
A 365-day calendar? Really? Care to reveal your source for such a calendar?
Here’s an illustration of how successful your argument was right now
You just lost the argument for Gene Venable by legitimizing the Obama gaffes, since his point was that they are BS.
Paul (ac3cf3) — 9/6/2008 @ 11:53 pm@Paul
I got the calendar at Barnes & Noble, ca 2004.
As for the other part, that would be a reading comprehension fail on your part there little buddy. Re-read the post.
And try to keep it down while grown ups are talking
i like america (f4c1e0) — 9/6/2008 @ 11:58 pmGene Venable –
From some of the comments, you would never realize that independent observers say that McCain’s plans add about a trillion dollars more to the deficit than Obama’s do.
— Probably because it isn’t true.
It seems clear that McCain is the irresponsible spender to a greater extent than Obama.
— You might want to spit-shine those goggles.
The receivers of free government cheese are those who want a free ride, taking advantage of the government while leaving a tab of trillions of dollars tacked on to the deficit.
— Good job! You’ve described Obama’s spending plan in one sentence.
When there was a budget surplus, I wanted to see it used to reduce the deficit.
— “I saw her today at the re-cep-tion,
A glass of wine in her ha-and.”
But Bush said we had plenty of money to reduce the deficit, reduce taxes, and plus have lots left over for a rainy day.
— I don’t recall that speech.
Unfortunately, Bush “hit the trifecta” in the form of several rainy days, and he has been hitting one trifecta after another for his entire two-term gauntlet in office. Poor guy.
— And yet, fiscal irresponsibility is one of the best reasons to keep the Commiecrats out of power.
If he had used the budget surplus to reduce the deficit, he could have come a lot closer to paying for the rainy days that came in squads.
— And instead he used it to pay for the rainy days, which makes your point . . . rather . . . well, pointless.
McCain is from the same party as Bush.
— Very good!
The traditional remedy for fiasco in government is to throw the bums out. I don’t think the people are prepared to make an exception in this case. I hope not.
— You’re absolutely right. The majority in control of the 9% approval-rating Congress needs to be shit-canned.
I think he just makes slips from time to time, as we all doooo.
Icy Truth (9cedd0) — 9/7/2008 @ 12:02 am— Yours may have resulted in a concussion. Better get checked out.
As for the other part, that would be a reading comprehension fail on your part there little buddy.
Oh really?
Care to explain what part I misunderstood?
And try to keep it down while grown ups are talking
That leaves you out.
Paul (ac3cf3) — 9/7/2008 @ 12:03 amHere’s an illustration of how successful your argument was right now
— And here’s an illustration of how successful your illustration was: ..!..
Icy Truth (9cedd0) — 9/7/2008 @ 12:05 amIcy, that’s not as funny as when you used it on Kim.
Paul (ac3cf3) — 9/7/2008 @ 12:08 amSarah Palin is a game changer. The best move now is for Obama to throw Talkin’ Joe under the bus and put Hillary on the ticket, no matter what concessions Bill and Hill wring out of his sorry hide. The sooner, the better. Nothing else will do, and even that might not win the day.
It’s bitter medicine, but take it he must, or else he goes down so hard, he takes the undercard down with him. It’ll be like McGovern, plus 1994, an epic loss, broad, deep, and wide.
Ropelight (49e412) — 9/7/2008 @ 12:17 amSorry, Paul. They can’t all be wieners.
Icy Truth (aea3ff) — 9/7/2008 @ 12:20 amInteresting that nowhere in this moronic blog does anyone refute the fact that Republicans ARE making up this stuff about the Republican ticket being against earmarks. Palin and McCain have consistently made certain that their states benefit as much from earmarks as any states (in Palin’s case $300 per person). And McCain has two of the most prominant lobbyists in Washington, RUNNING his campaign. Doesn’t sound like change to me.
R. Bigelow (8659b6) — 9/7/2008 @ 12:52 amR. NotBigDownBelow –
— Interesting. John McCain, who has NEVER requested an earmark during his 26 years in Congress, is somehow funneling money here anyway? How so? Is he getting one of our Democrat Representatives to do it for him?
Icy Truth (9cedd0) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:35 amicy – – You’re absolutely right. The majority in control of the 9% approval-rating Congress needs to be shit-canned.
lol in that logic, so should the party that is in charge of the current Executive branch (you know the one that Cheney is not part of). As far as ‘making stuff up’ how about the notion of “supporting the troops” that is the most made up thing I have heard in my 6 years of being voting age.
I am a former soldier that was offended 4 years ago when Republicans were making fun of a soldier’s war record so imagine how surprised I was in this election it is almost like the only thing a president needs. And to tell the truth neither party has ever really helped us, we (soldiers) overcame our own adversities and gotten every mission done that has been put in front of us and still working so bickering people can bicker some more; more than what I can say congress or the current administration has done
How about we as the voters hold each and every one of those crooks in our government accountable for what they have done to us (the citizens of America)…does any body remember the day when American ideals were more based on ‘we will not be intimidated’…no… well I guess that is another American value lost in all this childish fighting with each other and intimidation cause by our own government using the same terror tactics as our enemy. ‘vote for me or else’ —whatever…
chris j (2227d1) — 9/7/2008 @ 5:13 amChrisj – it is just made up that Sen McCain supports the troops?
Bam Bam Bigelow is another drive-by, which seem to be increasingly prevalent.
JD (5f0e11) — 9/7/2008 @ 5:38 am“I am a former soldier that was offended 4 years ago when Republicans were making fun of a soldier’s war record so imagine how surprised I was in this election it is almost like the only thing a president needs.”
Chris – question,
Were you offended when that soldier said that his follow soldiers “raped pillaged and murdered in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan”…because I think they were.
Anon (03ab2e) — 9/7/2008 @ 5:38 am“Interesting that nowhere in this moronic blog does anyone refute the fact that Republicans ARE making up this stuff about the Republican ticket being against earmarks.”
Um, since when is it our duty to prove a negate – if you have an accusation, feel free to offer evidence for it.
Anon (03ab2e) — 9/7/2008 @ 5:44 am64. chris j.:
Not sure what the heck Cheney has to do with anything at this point, it would be difficult to find a lamer duck than a lame duck VP (even though my daughter did used to have a Muscovy that had trouble staying upright). And yes, throwing the bums out is precisely why McCain won the primaries~because he has a long record of NOT being a bum. (I might add that Obama suffers from the perception of just being more of the same “its all about me” kind of politician that the Clintons are, so McCain is also a “change” there as well.)
Not positive, but I’m guessing that you are referring to John “I never missed a chance to stab my fellow servicemen in the back after I came home” Kerry? If so, let me point out that your voting age would make you a little less than half my age: its not Kerry’s record on the battlefield that was under fire from those of us who did not serve with him, but what he did after he got home. The folks that did serve with him had some other issues with him as well, none of which can be construed as “making fun of his war record.”
Welcome to life in the slow lane. After serving in the relatively sane world of the military, where decisions are made in a timely fashion because there is a well defined executive structure, the way civilians do it can seem pretty … disorganized, at best.
But, that is the way things happen in a democratic republic: and the more orderly alternatives have proven not to be very workable in terms of human rights. So, while there are some rough edges, what we have works pretty good. And while throwing the bums out is also a pretty good practice, you do want to make sure you aren’t throwing the baby out with the bath water.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 9/7/2008 @ 5:49 am#65 Anon: I would appreciate it if you could find the time to drop me an email at the highlighted address. Thanks.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 9/7/2008 @ 5:54 amEW1(SG) —
I value anonymity – if it’s about earlier, I was an a–hole and I regret it.
Anon (03ab2e) — 9/7/2008 @ 6:00 amChrisj – But you were alright with Kerry flat out lying about his fellow soldiers?
JD (5f0e11) — 9/7/2008 @ 6:01 am69 Anon~just wanted to point out that I like your style, and wanted to make sure that if in future I riff off on one of your posts that you know we are on the same team.
(Besides, its the Internet…nothing to regret about a miscommunication.)
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 9/7/2008 @ 6:12 amThe problem is – McCain and Palin have been making stuff up. Palin has been taking earmarks, and McCain does have an extensive network of lobbyist support.
Jack Teasdale (df8ae4) — 9/7/2008 @ 6:14 am72~ Jack, Jack, ya got jack.
Nobody has ever said Palin didn’t take earmarks, as incoming Governor in Alaska, there would have been funds earmarked by the Good Ol’ Boys long before she arrived on the scene. (Stevens has been rather influential in his own right, even before Palin showed up.) However, as Beldar explains, Palin’s history shows ever-growing opposition to earmarks.
And in DC, lobbyists are like fleas, you get ’em whether you want ’em or not. So even honest politicians end up with some who support them, because believe it or not, not all lobbyists are bad!
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 9/7/2008 @ 6:25 amJack – Baracky O’Biden is lobbyist free? I guess federal jack for Michelle’s hospital are fine.
JD (5f0e11) — 9/7/2008 @ 11:54 amJack Teasdale – Can you trace the earmarks the state of Alaska has gotten since the beginning of 2007 directly to Sarah Palin’s requests to give your point a little validity please. Otherwise it just sounds like you are throwing shit at the wall. Other trolls have already covered that wall in shit before you. Do you have anything new on this point or is it just the same old SHIT?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/7/2008 @ 11:54 am2006
—–
JAR (08f6d2) — 9/7/2008 @ 12:27 pm2008 Palin’s earmark requests: more per person than any other state
Palin has a good though short record as a reformist governor, and IMO is better qualified to be president than Obama. (Obama’s disturbing chumminess with the likes of unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers should be disqualifying in itself).
However, Palin should not use that “thanks, but no thanks” line about refusing federal money for the bridge, because it simply isn’t true. Palin admitted when she killed the project that the needed federal money wasn’t likely to materialize. Refusing money you’re not going to get anyway is not a refusal. And in practical political terms, it’s a mistake because this claim hands a gift to her opponents. Why give them an unneeded opening?
Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407) — 9/7/2008 @ 12:57 pmUnbelievable! JAR actually produces something related to the discussion.
From Palin’s March 2008 Newsletter:
Q: Earmarks have been in the news lately, will you explain how earmarks work?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/7/2008 @ 12:58 pmThe term “earmark” means different things to different people. We use this term to connote a sum of money for a specific project or program that is added to an appropriations bill by a member of Congress, often to benefit that member’s constituents. This year, President Bush and the Congressional leadership have said that the total dollar amount and number of earmarks must be reduced significantly. Recognizing the Constitutional authority of Congress to formulate the federal budget, Governor Palin has responded to this direction by reducing the total number of State earmark requests from 54 last year to 31 and from $550 million to less than $200 million.
On other older (non-Palin) lies
And Palin lied again today
JAR (08f6d2) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:03 pmFrom my earlier link
JAR (08f6d2) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:07 pmBradley – You seem stuck on this. Is it incorrect to say that because the $440 million allocation of funds was not earmarked for any specific purpose, Alaska could spend the finds as it say fit, Palin is entirely correct in saying thanks but not thanks, I’m not going to spend any of this money on the bridge. We can spend it on higher priorities elsewhere in the state.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:08 pm“She said she “championed reform of earmark spending by Congress, and I told the Congress thanks but no thanks on that ‘Bridge to Nowhere’”, she said, ommiting (sic) mention that she’d campaigned for governor supporting the bridge.”
JAR – What parts of her statements are a lie? Please explain.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:11 pmFixed. Unless you can show something that actually got done with Obama’s name as a primary mover.
She also omitted mention of who won the first three Superbowls, the fact that Hugo Chavez is a thug, and that she pretty consistently has an 80+% approval rating after changing her position on the bridge when circumstances surrounding it changed. Since she did say, “Thanks, but no thanks.”… how did she lie again?
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:14 pmJAR’s comments are exactly what I mean by handing Palin opponents an unneeded issue.
It is true to say that Palin as governor has reduced earmark requests. Palin could also truthfully say she killed the bridge because she realized that earmarks were increasingly unpopular, and told Alaskans they had to accept that unpleasant reality.
Suggested soundbite for Palin: “I told the truth to Alaskans — that our state’s dependence on earmarks had given us a bad name, that the bridge was not going to happen, and we had to find other ways to get things done. And the public appreciated hearing the truth from their governor.”
Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:19 pm“… changing her position on the bridge when circumstances surrounding it changed…”
As John Maynard Keynes said (paraphrase):
Another Drew (b60e19) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:19 pmWhen the circumstances change, I change my opinion. What do you do?
The One is lobbyist free? How about the pointman, smear merchant and lobbyist who OWNS The One? And is a Weather Underground attorney. Not likely we’ll see him thrown under the bus. (h/t Bob Owens)
jeff (082949) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:22 pmJAR – On that Brownback stuff. You really have to learn to take that TPM propaganda with a grain of salt.
On the Iran sanctions bill:
“Brownback, a Kansas Republican, send out a press release this afternoon to announce that he and Obama have “introduced the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, legislation that would increase economic pressure on the Iranian regime.”
Indeed, S. 1430 — the bill — is officially listed as being “sponsored” by Obama and “co-sponsored” by Brownback.
Obama’s office, though, didn’t mention Brownback when it announced the bill’s introduction on Wednesday. The senator’s fellow Democrats on the House side — Reps. Barney Frank and Tom Lantos — got the mentions”
On the Darfur and Sudan bills, how many co-sponsors were there? TPM doesn’t say? BTW, WTF is an “official” co-sponsor?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:24 pmBradley – Palin could also truthfully say she killed the bridge because it was a waste of taxpayer money when she had higher priority projects and thought she could find more cost efficient solutions than the bridge.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:28 pmAnd here’s something that you should be offended by (but you won’t be I’m sure)
Deference!?
And this from someone we the people are interviewing for a job.
God save the Queen!
But that didn’t last long. She’s speaking to Charlie Gibson. As Benem says
“I expected them to drag this out a lot more, but a focus group probably told the McCain campaign it didn’t look good to hide the vice presidential candidate”
yeah.
JAR (08f6d2) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:28 pmJAR,
You are absolutely correct. It doesn’t bother me at all.
DRJ (7568a2) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:30 pmDaleyrocks,
Palin never refused money from Congress for the bridge. So the “thanks but no thanks” line is false. Palin could not have refused something Alaska was not offered and by her own admission was not likely to get. Palin accepted a fait accompli.
You said: Palin is entirely correct in saying thanks but not thanks, I’m not going to spend any of this money on the bridge. We can spend it on higher priorities elsewhere in the state.
But that is not what she said.
I refer you again to Palin’s press release announcing the bridge was killed, which by now I assume you’re read. There is nothing there remotely like, “thanks but no thanks” or that we need to fund higher priorities. See if you can find anything like that in the press release.
Instead, Palin said there was a $329 million funding gap for the bridge, and Congress was not likely to make up the gap. She also said public perceptions of Alaskan bridge projects were based on inaccurate portrayals.
Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:34 pmIf Gov. Palin sits for an interview with Gibson/ABC and it co-incides with the landfall of “Ike”,
Another Drew (b60e19) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:35 pmjust how much air-time will that interview get?
Bradley,
According to the Anchorage Daily News, that’s exactly what Palin has been telling Alaskans since at least February 2008, and probably longer than that:
H/T Beldar.
DRJ (7568a2) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:35 pmI love how we’re arguing over “political hyperbole”.
Another Drew (b60e19) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:38 pmIn more adult times, everyone would just stand back and say “Who Cares?”, and then vote for the ticket that was not connected to convicted terrorists, convicted influence peddlers, and the Chicago
Crime SyndicateCity Hall.Daleyrocks,
Palin could also truthfully say she killed the bridge because it was a waste of taxpayer money when she had higher priority projects and thought she could find more cost efficient solutions than the bridge.
Palin didn’t say that to Alaskans when she killed the project. Maybe she thought it, but that’s not what she said in her press release:
“Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Governor Palin added. “Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.”
Tell me, how do you get from there to “thanks, but no thanks”?
Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:39 pmGood work, DRJ.
Now if only Palin would stick to that truthful claim, she’d be on solid ground.
Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:43 pmJAR – Do you ever tire of puking out lies, or as the title of the post says, making shit up?
JD (5f0e11) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:45 pm” On that Brownback stuff. You really have to learn to take that TPM propaganda with a grain of salt.”
Well I think the links you quote from-that I supplied- are enough.
“On the Darfur and Sudan bills, how many co-sponsors were there? TPM doesn’t say? ”
But the links do:
JAR (08f6d2) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:45 pmThe Congo Bill- Obama, Brownback, Durbin, and DeWine
On the Sudan the link is to an interview with Obama and Brownback of the News Hour w. Jim Lehrer. But you know that already because you read everything, right? But you’re assuming others won’t and will just rely on your condescending blather.
“Do you ever tire of puking out lies”
Do you ever tire of refusing to back up anything you say with facts.
JAR (08f6d2) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:47 pmAnd do you ever tire of responding to criticism with insult?
And by the way -and for what it’s worth- I disagree with Obama on Iran and Darfur, and a lot of other things.
But I don’t pretend to worship the people I vote for. And I will never defer to politicians, any more than I would to Hollywood actors. No one I know and respect ever would, or would ever even pretend.
JAR (08f6d2) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:51 pm“Palin never refused money from Congress for the bridge.”
Bradley – If you remember that 2005 article I posted from the NY Times, it said the $440 million was granted with no strings attached. The bridge project climbed in cost from an original $200 million to more than $400 million. Palin is on record as having second thoughts before becoming governor. I find it ludicrous that you are arguing because you cannot find a “thanks but no thanks” quote in her 2007 press release formally killing the project it means she has no business saying that.
As was demonstrated on yesterday’s thread, you have got a problem with this issue and this lady.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:53 pmJAR…
Another Drew (b60e19) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:54 pmWhat about Pakistan?
JAR, enlighten me please. How many of those bills actually passed and were signed?
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:54 pmDRJ @93 – That was essentially the message from her state of the state address earlier this year.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:56 pmMore importantly (#103), how many, if any, of the bills that BHO has “co-sponsored” have ever passed both houses of Congress, and been signed into law by the President?
Another Drew (b60e19) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:56 pmJAR – You have proven to be worth nothing more than scorn and mocking.
JD (5f0e11) — 9/7/2008 @ 1:59 pmAD, huh? Isn’t that what I said? It’s certainly what I meant, so if it wasn’t clear, thank you for making it so. 🙂
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 9/7/2008 @ 2:00 pmJust read the links. I’m not your babysitter.
on Pakistan? The Democratic position is marginally better than the Republican. We back corrupt manipulators and strongmen against democratic reform until the point that reformers get undermined by radicals and we end up losing what position we had. it’s happened countless times over the last 50 years.
Pakistan scares me more than Iran, by a long shot.
JAR (08f6d2) — 9/7/2008 @ 2:02 pmSaudi Arabia scares me too.
On the middle east Obama sucks. Biden sucks.
But McCain is worse.
Now, Obama Suddenly Remembers: He Almost Joined the Military, along with the associated inconsistencies.
Uh-huh.
jeff (082949) — 9/7/2008 @ 2:11 pmHow is McCain worse if he wishes to help the Iraqi’s to establish a secure, representative government?
How would he be worse if he advocates that the Saudi’s liberalize their society to negate the pressure of the IslamoFascists?
Pakistan’s problem is not the radicals, it is the re-assumption of governance by the corrupt land-owner class through Bhutto’s widower, Zardari. Just as in her two terms as leader of Pakistan, he will be overthrown by the Army because of his corruption: past, present, and future.
Another Drew (b60e19) — 9/7/2008 @ 2:14 pm#109…
Another Drew (b60e19) — 9/7/2008 @ 2:16 pmAnd I, Barack Hussein Obama, promise to stop lying about my life just as soon as you stop listening.
And I’m not your child. I looked at your link and it doesn’t say. I’m not going to surf from your links to research a point you made. If your links are so illuminating you shouldn’t have a problem quoting the relevant information. Since you won’t (or can’t without proving that all Obama can do is talk), you just confirm JD’s point that all you’re good for is scorn and mocking.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 9/7/2008 @ 2:17 pmJAR wrote: Do you ever tire of refusing to back up anything you say with facts.
Yo! I have a lot to say about backing up what I say with facts. In case you missed it, I eviserated the crapola you posted on another thread about Palin “slash[ing] funds to teen moms”. Talk about “making stuff up.”
Unless you can show that my analysis is faulty, I accept your apology.
L.N. Smithee (025bfa) — 9/7/2008 @ 2:22 pmAD: “Pakistan’s problem is not the radicals, it is the re-assumption of governance by the corrupt land-owner class through Bhutto’s widower, Zardari.”
Who is unpopular- never win a straight election- but who supports US policies unequivocally.
Stalag13: “I’m not going to surf from your links to research a point you made.”
It’s not a point I made, or tried to make.
JAR (08f6d2) — 9/7/2008 @ 2:35 pmObama stands accused, by Lieberman, Limbaugh, McCain and others, of refusing to work alongside Republicans in the senate. That claim is a lie. That was and is my point.
And I’m not going to alter my point to meet your needs.
Daleyrocks,
I find it ludicrous that you are arguing because you cannot find a “thanks but no thanks” quote in her 2007 press release formally killing the project it means she has no business saying that.
What I’m arguing is there is no record that Palin said anything of the sort at the time – indeed, what we do have says the opposite.
Such a statement as you claim Palin said doesn’t have to be literally “thanks but no thanks,” but it should have that general meaning. She may have thought it, but she didn’t say so to her constituents, or to Congress, at the time.
If you have a contemporary statement by Palin backing up her claim, let me see it. I’ll apologize profusely for being wrong. And I’ll be relieved as well.
Yes, I read that Palin had second thoughts on the bridge project. But that is not the same as rejecting Congressional money for the bridge. Indeed, during the campaign Palin made it clear she was looking for help from the Alaskan congressional delegation to get that money.
I respect Patterico’s blog because it is committed to facts, no matter which way they cut. I am sorry that you’re not facing up to this particular fact.
Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407) — 9/7/2008 @ 2:42 pmJAR, your point included:
I asked you to show where that was a lie as you assert. What action can you point to? What, besides talk, has Obama actually accomplished? There is nothing in your link to indicate this. Both of the “lies” you pointed to were in fact the truth. You’ve been proven wrong on both already.
The only alteration of your points has come from you. This is not the point you made because I quoted your point above. Now, since you’ve Godwin’d yourself by inferring I’m a Nazi (Stalag13? Please… even love2008 did better than that), had both your points proven wrong and dishonest, and continually move the goalposts after being proven wrong, you should probably learn the first rule of holes.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 9/7/2008 @ 2:55 pmHi folks:
You know, I just had a dinner party last night where two of the guests decided to play “trash the Republicans” during the meal. I just moved on and changed the subject. I would feel the same way if it was “trash the Democrats” during the meal, since no one is sure of anyone else’s politics.
Not very classy.
Anyway, I thought about posting that experience to an amusing site. And here it is….
Given all the fun with Our Mr. Sullivan, I recommend that EVERYONE visit this site, and let the Atlantic people know about issues where you would like their advice:
http://www.theatlantic.com/a/advice.mhtml
Like what to do…hmmm., let me see…. about hypocritical coworkers who damage the reputation and honesty of one’s own company.
Right?
Eric Blair (36c1a9) — 9/7/2008 @ 3:02 pmEric,
Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407) — 9/7/2008 @ 3:06 pmMy idea for leveling the playing field: Make it a game. People have to trash their own side, using the most effective arguments they can think of. Those who pull their punches will automatically lose. You could even add a nice prize for the winner.
JAR @ #114…
Another Drew (b60e19) — 9/7/2008 @ 3:11 pmYes, Mr. Zardari is unpopular, except within the legislature that just elevated him to the position of President of Pakistan.
As I said, he will be overthrown (again, if you count the two times his late wife was overthrown) by the Army.
I give him six-months!
That reminds me of the old kid’s game, Bradley.
Kid #1: Okay, want to bet?
Kid #2: Sounds good. What’s the bet?
Kid #1: Whoever hits the other guy the lightest wins. You can go first.
Kid #2: Okay (delivering a feather light punch).
Kid #1: (Smacking Kid #2 into next week) You win!
Just remember how the MSM is handling things.
Eric Blair (36c1a9) — 9/7/2008 @ 3:12 pmHey Eric, did you get my e-mail?
qdpsteve (dc65ab) — 9/7/2008 @ 3:13 pm“There is nothing in your link to indicate this. Both of the “lies” you pointed to were in fact the truth. You’ve been proven wrong on both already.”
JF Christ!
Coburn Obama President Bush Signs Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act
“In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor.”
This is so boring. Can’t any of you make one argument not overloaded with hackery and bullshit?
JAR (08f6d2) — 9/7/2008 @ 3:20 pmAD
JAR (08f6d2) — 9/7/2008 @ 3:23 pmAnd this won’t help
Except, numb-nuts, he was elected President yesterday!
Another Drew (b60e19) — 9/7/2008 @ 3:27 pm“I respect Patterico’s blog because it is committed to facts, no matter which way they cut. I am sorry that you’re not facing up to this particular fact.”
Bradley – I agree with your first sentence but not your second. A couple of questions.
A. Did Alaska receive no strings attached federal grants in the amounts equivalent to those required to build the bridge to nowhere and the other bridge requested by its congressional delegation?
B. Did Sarah Palin in the press release you are so fond of quoting effectively kill the bridge project?
If your answer is affirmative to both A&B above, why is she not entitled to claim she said thanks but no thanks to the feds.
Tg your answer is no to A above, please explain.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/7/2008 @ 3:33 pm“Except, numb-nuts, he was elected President yesterday!”
It won’t help US, you idiot.
JAR (08f6d2) — 9/7/2008 @ 3:34 pmIt won’t help anything!
Actually, it will “help” us, if that is the only criteria. All of the opposition candidates are much more radical; and, with the almost certain intervention by the Army (again), rational players will come to the fore.
Another Drew (b60e19) — 9/7/2008 @ 3:39 pmThe Army now has the responsibility of getting itself back on our good side, or they can sit back and see U.S. support to India become even greater than it is now (which is the Army’s greatest nightmare).
“The Army now has the responsibility of getting itself back on our good side, or they can sit back and see U.S. support to India become even greater than it is now (which is the Army’s greatest nightmare).”
“More gas for the fire?”
Yet another reason I do not want republicans in charge of foreign policy anymore. They make democrats seem like international statesmen.
In truth we have none, but we can hope Obama ends up at least an approximation.
out
JAR (08f6d2) — 9/7/2008 @ 3:49 pmHey, Jar-Jar Binks! When are you going to own up to falling for and furthering the OSM (Obama Suck-up Media) lie about Palin “slashing funds for teen moms?” As you like to say, READ THE LINK!
L.N. Smithee (025bfa) — 9/7/2008 @ 3:53 pmJARgon –
I don’t pretend to worship the people I vote for.
— Who does? Who pretends to worship the people they vote for? Is that what the Obamatrons that say “I’m voting for him because he stands for ‘change'” are doing? pretending to worship him? Why would they pretend? What do they gain by doing that?
Saudi Arabia scares me too.
— Interesting. What do they think they are going to do?
Can’t any of you make one argument not overloaded with hackery and bullshit?
Icy Truth (74e75e) — 9/7/2008 @ 3:53 pm— It’s tough when the market has already been cornered.
Btadley – This is from the 11/17/05 Carl Hulse article in the NY Times that I linked previously.
“Straining to show new dedication to lower spending, House and Senate negotiators took the rare step of eliminating a requirement that $442 million be spent to build the two bridges, spans that became cemented in the national consciousness as “bridges to nowhere” because of the remote territory and small populations involved.
The change will not save the federal government any money. Instead, the $442 million will be turned over to the state with no strings attached, allowing lawmakers and the governor there to parcel it out for transportation projects as they see fit, including the bridges should they so choose.”
I believe Alaska got the federal portion of the money it desired, but for optics purposes it was not earmarked for the bridges. Do you have a different interpretation?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/7/2008 @ 3:58 pmDaleyrocks,
Good questions. Both of your points are true. But they don’t back up Palin’s statement.
In order to say “thanks but no thanks” to an offer, it logically follows there has to be an offer in the first place. But it was the lack of an offer of that $329 million for the bridge that Palin cited as the reason for killing it. Palin didn’t turn down any money from Congress, but accepted a fait accompli.
Yes, Palin could have built the bridge, but she’d have had to cut back nearly everything else funded by the feds. That’s because the $329 million in bridge funding anticipated from Congress was not forthcoming. Palin told her constituents she had to re-prioritize based on that reality of reduced funding imposed by Congress. Nowhere did she say or even hint at refusing money from Congress.
Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407) — 9/7/2008 @ 4:09 pmBradley – I can’t pretend to know how Palin came up with her shortfall figure, but I stongly believe it is part of that $442 million grant which magically corresponds to the amounts requested by the congressional delegation to build the two bridges under consideration. It kind of slaps you right in the face if you look at it objectively. Sorry you can’t see it.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/7/2008 @ 4:14 pmDaleyrocks,
BTW, I now see where we differ. What I think you have overlooked is that Palin wanted more money for the bridge than had been appropriated — $329 million more.
Your link, btw, is to a 2005 NYT article. Palin’s press release on killing the project was released last September. So I wonder if the numbers had changed in the interim two years.
Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407) — 9/7/2008 @ 4:18 pmDaleyrocks,
Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407) — 9/7/2008 @ 4:19 pmThank you, btw, for your links and explanations. I’m going to dig deeper into this.
135 Bradley J. Fikes:
Its a question of perception.
Here’s the deal:
Congress tells Alaska that they are going to send Alaska the money to build some (specific) bridges. But, when it comes time to mail the check, Congress says “Sorry, we’re only gonna pay for half the bridge, you have to spend your own money on the rest of the bridge.”
Alaska, now in the person of Governor Palin, says “Thanks, but no thanks, we have more important things to do with our money than spend it on this particular bridge.”
Congress then says, “Uh, well okay. But here is the money anyway~go ahead and use it on the things that you need right now instead of that bridge.”
So Governor Palin can rightfully claim that she said “No thank you to the bridge to nowhere, and that she did cut earmark spending by telling Alaskans that they weren’t giong to rely on Congressional funding for a project that, rightly or wrongly, was seen in the Lower 48 as a porcine boondoggle.
Hope that helps.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 9/7/2008 @ 4:57 pmEW1(SG)’s explanation is my understanding, too, although I couldn’t have said it as well.
DRJ (7568a2) — 9/7/2008 @ 5:04 pm“Congress tells Alaska that they are going to send Alaska the money to build some (specific) bridges”
EW – My point is that congress doesn’t want the PR nightmare of sending them the money for the bridge but the other senators don’t want to piss off the guys from Alaska who they know will vote for any pork under the sun. So they decide they’ll send the money to Alaska anyway, but just won’t say it’s for the bridge. PR problem solved. Nobody’s pissed off. All backs get scratched. Palin then decides, fuck no, we ain’t spending the money on those stinking bridges, I allocated it elsewhere. I got no allocations for the bridges, I got a freaking shortfall even though I got the actual money we were expecting.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/7/2008 @ 5:08 pmEW1(SG)’s version sounds about right to me, too.
The problem is that purists will make this statement of Governor Palin’s equivalent to the amazing hit parade of nonsense from Senator Obama.
And the MSM does have, oh, a bit of a preference here.
This is why I think that there needs to be a Prevarication Quotient sheet on Governor Palin versus Senator Obama (since their experience levels are, year wise, similar). Ditto for Senator McCain and Senator Biden, for the same reason.
But my guess is that some animals are more equal than others, as the saying goes.
Eric Blair (36c1a9) — 9/7/2008 @ 5:13 pmDaleyrocks and EW1(SG),
So they decide they’ll send the money to Alaska anyway, but just won’t say it’s for the bridge. PR problem solved. Nobody’s pissed off. All backs get scratched. Palin then decides, fuck no, we ain’t spending the money on those stinking bridges, I allocated it elsewhere. I got no allocations for the bridges, I got a freaking shortfall even though I got the actual money we were expecting.
That’s an interesting interpretation. What did Palin say that’s your source for this?
And yes, we agree that Palin said there was a shortfall. But where did Palin say anything to the effect that she “got the actual money we were expecting”?
Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407) — 9/7/2008 @ 6:51 pm#137 DRJ:
DRJ, my momma raised me hoping that I would turn out to have some gentlemanly traits, so I won’t call you a liar but that’s coming pretty darn close.
#138 daleyrocks: Exactly so. Unfortunately I dropped a couple of words that add some more to the context:
recognizing that if they wanted the bridge, they would be better off without the strings that would come with committing to the Congressional funding.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 9/7/2008 @ 6:52 pmJAR’s ignorance of the many foreign policy successes of the Bush administration is of course no surprise ( and is probably intentional like so many of his misrepresentations ). Obama’s clumsiness in discussing things like his intention to invade a nominal ally with nuclear weapons shows that he is not ready for prime time.
That the Democrats think that adding “Slow Joe” to the ticket adds gravitas to their foriegn policy credentials only adds to the joke.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/7/2008 @ 7:01 pm#140 Bradley J Fikes: As a USCG veteran who spent a fair amount of time in the fisheries patrol up there, I kind of tend “listen with one ear” as it were to the goings on.
These particular bridge project proposals have been dragging on for years, long before Gov Palin arrived on the the scene; which is why I used the wording “now in the person of,” because their genesis goes way back before her time…so it wasn’t anything that she said that led to my understanding of the events up there.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 9/7/2008 @ 7:01 pmEW1(SG
Okay, I guess we’ve reached the point of let’s agree to (amicably, I hope) disagree on this subject. Thank you and Daleyrocks and DRJ, etc. for hearing me out. Reasonable minds will not agree on everything.
I’m sure there’s plenty we agree on, such as Obama’s non-answer answer about his chumminess with Bill Ayers.
Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407) — 9/7/2008 @ 7:11 pm#144 Bradley J. Fikes:
No worries.
I’ll try to find time to dig up some of the background this week, but the project I’m working on consumes a lot of time. OTOH, they are paying me …
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 9/7/2008 @ 7:34 pmBradley,
I’ll keep looking, too, and maybe Beldar will see this and add his insight. It’s not good if the McCain-Palin campaign overstated its case for a soundbite but, to me, the bottom line is that Palin is and has been distancing herself from earmarks when very few politicians are willing to do that.
DRJ (7568a2) — 9/7/2008 @ 7:41 pmThanks, DRJ
I am sorry for taking up so much space with this, but McCain is needlessly risking his credibility. It really is that important. I’m sure McCain believes what he’s saying, but that doesn’t make it true.
Here’s McCain:
“Yes, the pork barrel project, a $233 million bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it,” McCain said. “She, as governor, stood up and said, we don’t need it, and if we need it, we’ll pay for it ourselves. Now, that’s guts. I saw that, and I said, this, this is what we need in Washington.”
And Palin:
“Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Governor Palin added. “Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.”
Note Palin’s line about “inaccurate portrayals” of Alaska projects. Who was doing that?
Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407) — 9/7/2008 @ 7:56 pmBradley – In spite of Gravina Island’s small population, wasn’t the projected daily traffic on the bridge very substantial. I would say that would make terming it a bridge to nowhere an inaccurate portrayal. The people publicizing earmark excesses presumably would have been the ones describing it that way.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/7/2008 @ 8:06 pmDaleyrocks,
Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407) — 9/7/2008 @ 8:20 pmPalin used the plural — “Alaska bridges” and “projects.” So she couldn’t have been referring just to the Gravina Island bridge.
The more that Palin talks the more she provides material that will be used to kick her in the teeth later. The excitement is good, the crowd is cheering. The danger is that it puts you in a position where you will need to say something, even if it’s not accurate, just to please the crowd. She is having that experience now and no one seems to question some of the things she claims because they are hoping she is as real as she claims. Soon the excitement will wear off. Then she will have to give account of her words. It happened to Hillary. The Bosnia lie was the result of that excitement and need to impress the fawning crowd. It happened to Obama and he has made a lot of misstatements. John McCain too has made up stuff of his own. The problem with Palin is she doesn’t have enough time to recover from any major gaffes she makes. And the Democrats will be merciless in using them against her. It will start this week in her first interview this week.
love2008 (1b037c) — 9/7/2008 @ 8:24 pmlove2008, really? Then why hasn’t the fact that Obama has already been caught in such lies troubled you?
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/7/2008 @ 8:26 pmBradley – From Factcheck.org:
The transportation bill did include a total of $223 million (not $233 million, as the ad says) earmarked for the Gravina bridge – $100 million for construction, plus $18.75 million a year for four years, and an additional $48 million to build an access road. McCain tried, unsuccessfully, to add a “sense of the Senate” amendment to the bill, stating a general objection to earmarks; in the end he voted against the legislation. Several months later, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) tried to divert the Gravina funds to a bridge in need of repair over Lake Pontchartrain near New Orleans. McCain was not present to vote on Coburn’s amendment proposing this change, which did not pass. Instead, Congress removed Gravina’s earmarks, tossing that money into Alaska’s general transportation pot to be used however the state chose. McCain wasn’t there for that vote, either.
In light of the furor over the “bridge to nowhere,” Alaska’s governor opted to use the money for other pursuits. The bridge was never built, but McCain has been using it as his prime pork example since 2005, even blaming it for the Minneapolis bridge collapse in August 2007. (He cited it as an example of a pet project that diverted money from necessary highway maintenance.)
_________________
My sense of Palin’s shortfall number is that it includes higher cost estimates, Alaska’s funding portion, plus the Federal portion. Since we she doesn’t explain, we can’t tell.
Let us know the results of your further research.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/7/2008 @ 8:27 pm147 Bradley J. Fikes:
Uh, have you been keeping track of how much space some of the moonbats around here take up?
Last question first:
Fer starters: Tongass Conservation, among others.
Now, to background~ The online library from the Alaska DOT site for the Gravina Island Access project dates back to 1999 (AK DOT GIA Document Library), but I am pretty sure I was hearing about it by at LEAST as early as 1996, when I moved from the Seattle area to the Chesapeake Bay area.
Final environmental impact statement was recorded in 2004, which was required before any Congressional funding could be released. Now remember, this project has been kicking around for years already, and its been promised that the funding for it will be from federal coffers…which is where groups like the ones linked above come in~they start grousing about how the environment is being ripped asunder and whatnot and pretty soon manage to catch the sympathetic ear of some appropriately green and politically correct news outlets, and by the by, you have a bridge to nowhere.
So, after more than a decade of being promised the funding for the expansion project, Congress finally says (remember, they’re catching flack now for pork, and what is more bacony than a road that goes nowhere?) sorry, we promised to foot the bill, and we are back to the situation that I described above.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 9/7/2008 @ 8:30 pm150
So what, exactly, is it that drives your need to keep saying somethings that are “not accurate?”
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 9/7/2008 @ 8:35 pmBradley – Looking at articles in 2005, USA Today for example, the 2005 Transportation Bill contained earmarks for several Alaskan bridges which were derisively called bridges to nowhere. Google it.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 9/7/2008 @ 8:38 pm#149 Bradley J. Fikes:
No, she wasn’t, although I do not remember off the top of my head what the other project that involved federal funds was. IIRC, there were two that were tied together (for congressional funding purposes), Gravina Island being the most expensive and therefore the most visible on the radar in the Lower 48.
I’d love to be able to provide a more detailed timeline for you, but its going to take some digging so it might be a bit.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 9/7/2008 @ 8:41 pm#151
love2008 (1b037c) — 9/7/2008 @ 8:42 pmObama has not done much of “making up stuff” about himself. None that I know of. As for his gaffes, he has had time to recover from some of them. Palin only has 8 weeks and she is already surrounded by controversies and discrepancies. Who knows what the Dems are working on. Who knows what may unfold in the coming weeks. The fact remains that while picking Palin was a smart thing for McCain to do, it could also turn out to be a terrible gamble.
#154
love2008 (1b037c) — 9/7/2008 @ 9:16 pmPressure, man. Pressure. The need to perform for an adoring fan base can lead one to make up stuffs. It happens. For e.g., why did she say she put that plane on ebay, giving impression it was sold on ebay, when in fact it was not? While McCain, under the pressure to please the crowd, said about Palin, that she sold the plane on ebay for a profit. It was not sold on ebay neither was it sold for a profit. That is called “making stuff up”. She could have said the other part, how it could not be sold on ebay and how it was later sold at a loss. But that would have ruined the excitement of the moment. Then there was also the issue of the “Bridge to Nowhere”. You would notice a pattern of willful spicing of the story to suit the moment, even if the story may not be completely accurate. Perhaps this is why she is averse to talking to the press, one on one.
#157
Baloney. Your ‘oh, so innocent’ act jumped the shark in more ways than one around the end of April.
Your continued duplicity and fabrications have almost reached the level of annoyance, mostly because its a pain have to scroll past all your crap.
EW1(SG) (84e813) — 9/7/2008 @ 9:25 pm#159
love2008 (1b037c) — 9/7/2008 @ 9:38 pmJust take a pain killer and have someone read you a bedtime story and go to bed. It helps with the “pain”.
Bridges To Nowhere:
The Gravina Island Bridge was to access the International Airport that is located on that island which provides air access to Ketchikan. The number of residents on the island was always immaterial to the project.
The other bridge was the Knik Arm Bridge, which would have more directly linked Anchorage to the Matanuska Valley towns of Willow, Big Lake, Palmer, and Wasilla.
Having driven the highway from Anchorage to Palmer 45-years ago (I am sure it is a lot nicer now), I can assure you that even at that time, one wanted complete confidence in the condition of your vehicle. As I remember it, there were no service facilities for the entire trip, and even before leaving Anchorage City Limits, you were in wilderness. I could not imagine attempting to make that trip, at that time, at any time of year except Summer.
Another Drew (b60e19) — 9/7/2008 @ 9:44 pmSelling a plane on eBay…
Another Drew (b60e19) — 9/7/2008 @ 9:49 pmGov. Palin said that she put the plane up for sale on eBay. I don’t recall her saying that the plane was sold through that listing. I would imagine that the listing was made to make a point, but that the plane was most likely disposed of through one of the many used-aircraft brokers.
Sounds like good, political hyperbole; or, perhaps,
Boob Bait for Bubba’s!
#162
love2008 (1b037c) — 9/7/2008 @ 10:08 pmDon’t you think she should have been more forth right in the way she said it? The impression she gave was that it was sold on ebay. These other details that came later only serve to make her look ….not so….straight-shooting.
What you infer is your problem.
Another Drew (b60e19) — 9/7/2008 @ 10:14 pmShe said she listed the plane on eBay.
That means she listed the plane on eBay.
I list things on eBay occassionally, it doesn’t mean that I sell those items there.
If you have a vision problem, you should consult your Optometrist.
As to shooting straight, I’ve got a hunch that Sara “Barracuda” Palin hits what she aims at.
Daleyrocks
My sense of Palin’s shortfall number is that it includes higher cost estimates, Alaska’s funding portion, plus the Federal portion. Since we she doesn’t explain, we can’t tell.
That seems about right. And the cost estimates certainly went up with time. That’s probably what led Congress to put its foot down and say no mas. Palin then realized the time had come to pull the plug.
Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407) — 9/7/2008 @ 10:31 pmlove2008 wrote: Don’t you think she should have been more forth right in the way she said it? The impression she gave was that it was sold on ebay. These other details that came later only serve to make her look ….not so….straight-shooting.
What Sarah said in her speech was the truth. She said, “I put it on eBay.” She did NOT say “I sold it on eBay.” And in the end, the plane WAS sold because, as she said, she thought it was “over the top.” That’s the point of telling the story. Anyone who whines, “She lied about it being SOLD on eBay!” is probably too gullible to resist Obama.
A guy who chose as his VP a confessed plagiarist who can be seen on YouTube embellishing his academic accomplishments should not be picking nits.
L.N. Smithee (d0119d) — 9/8/2008 @ 1:33 amSpeaking of gullible, Palin’s eBay story fooled Mona Charen over at National Review.
Who can resist a governor who comes into office on a promise to clean house and promptly sells the luxury jet her predecessor had bought on eBay?
Even McCain was fooled:
“You know what I enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold it on eBay — and made a profit!”
Wrong on both counts.
According to PolitiFact, the plane, bought by her Republican predecessor whom she beat in 2006, was listed for sale three times on the San Jose internet auction giant. But no one ever met the minimum bid. The plane was listed with an asking price of $2.5 million in 2007. The state had paid just under $2.7 million for it in 2005.
Finally, the state turned to an aircraft broker, who sold the jet to an Alaskan businessman for $2.1 million.
Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407) — 9/8/2008 @ 7:18 amI think the proper context for this “story” is to compare Palin to other governors who have purchased planes for travel, Maintain a fleet of planes at state expense, and have raised taxes to maintain personal perks of office.
PCD (5c49b0) — 9/8/2008 @ 7:46 amI don’t believe Palin ever claim to have sold the plane on eBay, or to have made a profit. She said she put it on eBay, which is true.
Xrlq (b71926) — 9/8/2008 @ 8:18 amBJF @ #167…
Another Drew (e0c2ef) — 9/8/2008 @ 8:24 amThanks for confirming my #162…
#169
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/8/2008 @ 8:37 amI don’t believe Palin ever claim to have sold the plane on eBay, or to have made a profit. She said she put it on eBay, which is true
Atleast McCain thought so.
“You know what I enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold it on eBay — and made a profit!”
John McCain.
love2008…
Please reread my # 162…
Boob Bait, Baby!
Another Drew (e0c2ef) — 9/8/2008 @ 8:50 amBoob Bait!
(or, as you sophisticates would say: Political Hyperbole).
love2008 – Did Gov. Palin say that, or Sen. McCain?
That aside, do that effect the fundamental point to it, that she dispensed with the trapping of the office, plane, chef, and overall was good with the money.
JD (75f5c3) — 9/8/2008 @ 8:51 amLove2008: hate to burst your bubble, but John McCain is not Sarah Palin, and putting something on eBay is not the same thing as selling it there. But go ahead, knock yourself out with a new “Sarah Lied, eBay cried” campaign. Whatever floats your boat.
Xrlq (b71926) — 9/8/2008 @ 8:53 amWe can compare it to Biden’s Syracuse is Ivy League and bottom of the class being top of the class. But we shouldn’t. The Left is right in one respect — let’s compare Palin to Obama. We have two presidential-caliber candidates on the ticket.
And they have none.
nk (21731d) — 9/8/2008 @ 8:56 amAbsolutely Spot On, nk!
And, the worst part of it is (for the Dems),
Another Drew (e0c2ef) — 9/8/2008 @ 9:01 amThey Know It!
I will ask you guys one question. Did McCain know about the plane story before she said it in the convention and if he did, why would he make up stuff in his own account of it? Honest answers will do.
love2008 (1b037c) — 9/8/2008 @ 9:12 amThis is what she should have said.
But in fact, the jet did not sell on eBay. It was sold to a businessman from Valdez named Larry Reynolds, who paid $2.1 million for the jet, shy of the original $2.7 million purchase price, according to contemporaneous news reports, including a story in the New York Times.
Dan Spencer, the director of administrative services for Alaska’s Public Safety Department, said that the Republican speaker of the Alaska House, John L. Harris, brokered the deal. Reynolds made campaign contributions to both Palin and Harris in 2006 and 2007.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/8/2008 @ 9:22 amBut I guess it wouldn’t have seemed right for the moment. The crowd cheering. People fainting, the excitement. You can’t ruin all that with one inconvenient truth as that the plane was later sold to a campaign contributor. It was sold below the actual value to a sponsor. A campaign contributor. How does she really say that with all those people feeding on her every word? Sometimes truth can really be a pain in the neck.
Did Obama know about Jeremiah Wright’s anti-Americanism over twenty years; Tony Rezko’s corruption when he let him buy his home; Bill Ayers’s past when he helped kick-start Obama’s political career; The wart on Mayor Daley’s behind?
Honest answers will do.
nk (21731d) — 9/8/2008 @ 9:26 amDidn’t Bradley in his #167, say that the plane was sold through an aircraft broker?
Is John L. Harris an aircraft broker?
Since, like most state legislatures, AK legislature is a part-time endeavor, do you insist that legislators stop doing what they do best?
A sale of a piece of property of this magnitude is a deal that has a great deal of transperancy. Where is the impropriety?
Do you think he kicked-back the commission?
If the plane wouldn’t sell on eBay, how is it improper to sell it through a broker known to the State?
Was it placed through his firm by the Governor, or by whatever passes for a GSA in AK?
There is no there, there, love.
If you think there is, do some research and come up with the facts. Then, you could forward them to one of Gov. Palin’s enemies in the legislature, who would be more than happy to open a new
Another Drew (e0c2ef) — 9/8/2008 @ 9:42 amslime-festethics investigation.#179
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/8/2008 @ 9:51 amYes he did. And he has acknowledged that much. He has also taken the heat for staying in that church for all those years. About Rezko, he has acknowedged his “bone headed” error of carrying on with the transaction, knowing what he knew about Rezko. That he had some problems with the law. Now back to the question. Why are you bringing up past issues that we know about and have talked about? Why not answer the simple question. No? Because telling the truth is not one of your strong points. So you have turn it around and make it about Obama. Why do you people cringe over any attempt to scrutinize your candidate? It is suspicious. If someone misrepresents the truth, the least he or she can do is to own up to it. Not to divert attention to an entirely different matter.
The plane was sold.
It was sold in an open and lawful manner.
It is only in your fervid, smarmy little clump of diseased, calcified brain synapses that this transaction, and the political hyperbole accompanying it, has become an issue.
Your riding a loser here, lovey.
Another Drew (e0c2ef) — 9/8/2008 @ 9:58 amTime to find a new horse.
“You’re”, not “your”.
Another Drew (e0c2ef) — 9/8/2008 @ 9:59 amOK, Brad, I’m with you on the Bridge to Nowhere biz and how the “thanks but no thanks” line contradicts what Palin said in her contemporaneous press release. But frankly, you look ridiculous suggesting there is something untoward about not giving all the fine print and footnotes about the final sale of Murkowski’s jet.
The method by which the jet was at last sold is secondary to the fact that Palin sold it because she thought it was “over the top.” She could have just said, “I sold it.” But that doesn’t sound as good as simply “I put it on eBay,” which is the truth. OTOH, McCain’s inaccurate statement should be corrected, because it’s not true it was sold at a profit. (It would be interesting if someone could research what the value of the jet was at the time of the sale, but that’s a job American journalists just won’t do.) In the end, the state got $2.1 mil that it wouldn’t have gotten if Palin hadn’t sold it.
Palin’s not perfect, and nobody should expect her to be — after all, she is a politician. But unless you have information that blunts her narrative of her motives for the sale of the jet, the fact that it was indeed sold, and that the proceeds were returned to the citizens of Alaska, you’re (ice) fishing for something to bash her about.
Personally, I’m wondering why.
L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 9/8/2008 @ 10:04 amI posted this elsewhere but I may as well do it again
JAR (ab000b) — 9/8/2008 @ 10:04 amSo What?
Another Drew (e0c2ef) — 9/8/2008 @ 10:06 am#180
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/8/2008 @ 10:06 amAD, you seem like a reasonable fellow. I enjoy reading your posts. Most of them. But tell me, did John McCain know the whole story about the plane before the convention and if he did, why did he make stuff up in his own account of it?
And secondly, what is the point of mentioning the ebay side of the story when she knew that that was not how the story ended. What was the point mentioning “I put it on ebay..” when she did not sell it through that means, except to score some popularity points? And why did she omit the fact about who she eventually sold it to, a campaign contributor? At a loss. Don’t you see that it calls into question the issue of integrity? I mean honestly. How would you have judged her if she was say, a Democrat?
#184
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 9/8/2008 @ 10:21 amLN, you are the first person to say something that seems to agrees with my point here. Nobody is perfect but we must stop trying to cover up and confuse ourselves with more untruths. By not knowing how the plane was sold, McCain is telling us that he is either a liar (which I know he ain’t) or he is not well informed about his VP. Bringing again the issue of vetting to the center. Palin did not need to say “I put it on ebay..” since in her mind she knew it was not necessary seeing that was not how it was sold. I know she is your golden candidate that can do no wrong, but don’t try to cover up something that is obvious. It just ain’t right.
because it’s not true it was sold at a profit
That’s not for sure. For two reasons. All properties depreciate. Some depreciate violently. (My brand new car was suddenly worth $3,000.00 less the minute I drove it out of the dealership.) Second, who knows how much the corrupt previous administration had overpaid a crony for the plane?
nk (21731d) — 9/8/2008 @ 10:29 amWhat did John McCain know, and when did he know it?
I haven’t the faintest idea, and neither do you.
The point of mentioning eBay, was that the plane was not a neccessary tool for the proper governance of AK, and that putting it on eBay was a visible symbol of cost cutting (see: political hyperbole). And, yes, politicians are in the business of increasing their popularity to ensure they acquire enough votes to stay in office.
Surprise, surprise!
If she was a Democrat and had done the above, she would be applauded as bringing a breath of new, fresh air into a party controlled by hacks, and those addicted to OPM!
Another Drew (e0c2ef) — 9/8/2008 @ 10:46 amJAR-JAR Binks, you have NO credibility whatsoever until you address how you either were so thoroughly fooled by the bogus MSM meme about Palin “slashing funds to teen moms” after demanding that everyone read and swallow it without question.
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 9/8/2008 @ 11:18 amlove2008 wrote:
Hey, there’s another untruth now: I don’t agree with your point.
He had a misunderstanding of all the details of the sale of the plane. The essential facts that she sold it because it was excessively luxurious and was a symbol of the bloat she was combatting remain uncontradicted.
WODR, you’re full of it. There’s no reason NOT to say “I put it on eBay” if she put it on eBay. She put it on eBay. Nuf said.
Nice to meet you, “Pot.”
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 9/8/2008 @ 11:28 amHere we go again:
“Line item veto cutting funding (or increases of funding if you want) for housing and support for teenage mothers.”
There’s the link, to my first comment on the subject. Can you read the words inside the parentheses?
The question concerned her priorities, and it still does.
JAR (ab000b) — 9/8/2008 @ 11:39 am#184 L.N. Smithee:
The problem is that the press release wasn’t contemporaneous, even though it appears so through the lenses of hindsight.
There was some haggling back and forth between Alaska and Congress (actually, they’ve been haggling over this for over a decade). The project was A Big Deal® up there, which is why Gov Palin supported its going through as she ran for Governor. However, when Congress backed off on the funding they promised, she did make the decision to decline the appropriated funds for the bridge project.
I having a hard time understanding what is so difficult about this. She did exactly as she says she did.
EW1(SG) (da07da) — 9/8/2008 @ 11:41 am#190
love2008 (1b037c) — 9/8/2008 @ 11:41 amFair enough. But I am going to hold you to these words of yours.
And, yes, politicians are in the business of increasing their popularity to ensure they acquire enough votes to stay in office.
Surprise, surprise!
After all, she is nothing but another politician who needs to say whatever it takes to win more votes; even if it is not the complete truth. I get it.
Jar, what is wrong with not increasing funding for teenage/unwed mothers???
I await your searing reasoning….
reff (959425) — 9/8/2008 @ 11:44 amJARamouche JARamouche will you do the fandango –
The question concerned her priorities, and it still does.
— By all means, keep asking that question. Do it while you’re playing handball in the closet with the light turned off.
Icy Truth (8ecfb1) — 9/8/2008 @ 11:46 amlove…
“…say whatever it takes to win more votes…”
I didn’t say that, you did.
Another Drew (b82034) — 9/8/2008 @ 2:07 pmI don’t believe the ends justify the means, that is a meme of the Left.
You’re projecting again!
“Jar, what is wrong with not increasing funding for teenage/unwed mothers???”
Palin is a member of Feminists for Life.
Cutting funding for housing for teenage mothers: not a good way to advocate for women. Let’s just just call it un-compassionate conservatism.
JAR (ab000b) — 9/8/2008 @ 2:16 pmSay it with me, dunce…
“A $3.9 million dollar budget increase is not a cut in funding.”
One of these days, you’ll learn to actually understand the written word.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 9/8/2008 @ 2:24 pmJAR-JAR Binks wrote:
I didn’t read your first reference to it. But now that I have, that even makes you more of a liar, because you knew that the Post story — titled “Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms” — was bull and you still linked it as if it wasn’t.
Nowhere in that story does it say that Palin almost TRIPLED the funding of Covenant House Alaska over FY 2007! Nowhere in the story does it say that the amount Palin authorized was still greater than the organization’s total expenses for 2007! Why not? Because the Post writer Paul Kane (or his editors) would reveal their anti-Palin mania if they gave the full context and said “She only nearly tripled funding for teen moms instead of nearly quadrupling it!”
As I wrote yesterday, I didn’t even touch the second half of the com-Post story, which implied the reason why Palin “slashed” funding for Passage House — a service of Covenant House, a Christian-centered center for runaway youth, NOT only pregnant girls — was because of her objection to funding “explicit sex-ed programs.” Passage House has NOTHING to do with sex-ed, explicit or otherwise! McCain was slimed even worse; Kane wrote that he “opposed funding to prevent teen pregnancies” period! A decent high school newspaper editor wouldn’t let that slide by without elaboration!
This is the epitome of “making stuff up,” JAR. Take an increase in funding, and find a way to make people think it’s a decrease. Give the false impression that the non-existent “decrease” is due to her stance on “explicit sex-ed.” Print without explanation or context that John McCain “opposed funding to prevent teen pregnancies.” And don’t contact the actual person who runs Covenant House Alaska (or report that anybody else did), who said for the record to a New York Times reporter that Governor Palin DIDN’T, DIDN’T, DIDN’T cut the state’s funding to the agency.
And you think that saying “or increases of funding if you want” gives you a mulligan when you know good and well your intent in linking the report was to further a lie? What a WEASEL you are!
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 9/8/2008 @ 5:17 pmThe facts are this: The legislature sent her a bill to sign, reject, or alter. She used her line item veto and lowered the amount of money the legislature had chosen to give.
I wrote: “Line item veto cutting funding (or increases of funding if you want) for housing and support for teenage mothers.”
If you want to argue with the language of the Washington Post feel free. You’re yelling at me because I’m not yelling at them.
JAR (ab000b) — 9/9/2008 @ 9:04 amBut I don’t spend all my time yelling at FOX. I’d rather discuss the issues.
I’m done with this one.