Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

A Warm Welcome for Palin in Alaska


Supporters of Republican vice presidential candidate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin wear toy red lips on September 10, 2008, in Fairbanks, Alaska, to show their support for her in the wake of the "lipstick on a pig" controversy. (John Wagner/Getty Images)

By Anne E. Kornblut
FAIRBANKS, Alaska -- Nearly two weeks after being whisked away as John McCain's surprise running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin stepped off the plane here on Wednesday night to a hero's welcome -- received by hundreds of cheering Alaskans and a massive banner with the words "Welcome Home Sarah!" strung outside the airport hangar.

"What a trip it's been," Palin said, energetically taking the podium here. "I cannot wait until you meet John McCain!" She more than once described McCain as a "friend of Alaska."

An eclectic crowd -- including women wearing large plastic lips, an unmistakable jab at Sen. Barack Obama after his remarks that McCain is trying to put "lipstick on a pig" -- returned the enthusiasm, chanting her name. Outside the event, however, protesters gathered, including one who carried a sign that read, "Palin is an Unqualified Opportunist."

Palin made the journey to Fairbanks on a private campaign plane with "McCain-Palin" emblazoned on the side, landing just before 8 p.m. local time. She is spending the night here in order to attend a deployment ceremony for her eldest son, Track, on Thursday, as he heads to serve in Iraq.

Even on the friendliest imaginable turf, Palin delivered roughly her same stump speech at her first solo campaign rally -- a version of the speech she gave at the convention a week before -- and used both written notes and a teleprompter to do so. She digressed only to note how incredible Alaska's role in national politics has become, and to half-apologize for arriving by such fancy transport.

"Even the state's luxury jet -- it's sold," she said, citing her accomplishments as governor. Then, looking out at her campaign plane, she added, "I say that, hopefully not sounding hypocritical, as you watch me walk off that."

By Web Politics Editor  |  September 11, 2008; 7:42 AM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Sarah Palin  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama on Letterman Talks Lipstick & Pigs
Next: Huckabee Calls on McCain-Palin to Return to Issues-Based Campaigning

Comments

Wow, lots of opinions! And that's just it, they are all opinions! You have the right to say whatever you believe, but that does not mean you are right!

No matter what, this world is corrupt! This country is corrupt! Each state is corrupt in its own!

Live your life for each day, live your life with positive expectations, but really just drop all the political BS and live your life! Complaining about the other parties differences is getting you no where fast!

MY opinion, F the president seats, lets use their income for something more worth while! Lets get people off welfare and off unemployment with it!

Posted by: Fif | September 12, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

NO Kyu Reisch, from Radcliff, Kentucky I do not own the Washington Post. The super wealthy own the Washington Post just like almost all other media outlets.

I keep hearing about the so called "Main Stream Media" (MSM) and how liberal and supportive of the Democratic Party they are, so that made me ask myself some questions. Who mostly owns stock in big corporations that own newspapers, magazines, radio stations, television networks and local television stations across our country and in fact the world, poor people, middle class people, or wealthy people? I think the answer is obviously wealthy people. When wealthy people own the majority of stock in a company they control it. So the wealthy control the media all around the world.
The next question is where do media companies get their income from? The answer is advertising. Who spends the most on advertising? The answer is big corporations. Often, even when a local store advertises it is paid for at least in part with coop advertising money from big corporations, and therefore has to fit into their advertising protocol. So I think I have established that the media is controlled by wealthy people that own stock in major corporations. So why does the Republican Party the party of the wealthy and privileged complain that the media is too liberal? Two reasons, one is because it is a big SMOKE SCREEN to keep average Americans from really knowing how controlled we are by the wealthy and the second reason is ENTITLEMENT. The wealthy know that they have paid for the advertising in the media and in fact the media outlets themselves. So when some unsuspecting reporter attempts to tell the truth about something the wealthy feel cheated because they think they are ENTITLED to have the news stories told the way that they want them since they have paid for the entire process.
The problem with this kind of thinking is that the U.S. Constitution states "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The U.S. Constitution does not state ""We the WEALTHY people of the United States", but when Republicans read it that is what they see, because they believe they own this country and the U.S. Constitution only applies to the wealthy. That is why it is so easy for them to deny justice to average and poor Americans. The wealthy believe they are ENTITLED to the protections of the U.S. Constitution but then they try to use the very same document to deny justice to others. That is why it didn't bother the Republicans to illegally and unconstitutionally wire tap millions of Americans.
As wealthy as the top one percent of America is they don't see any distinction between a "middle class American" and a dirt poor Mexican crossing the boarder. You see when it comes right down to it average and poor people are just units of labor to them or pawns that they can use to fight their wars. When I used the term Republican above I am not referring to the poor misguided souls that they have brainwashed to vote for them. I mean real Republicans, people of wealth, power, and influence, not the pawns they use to get elected. You know the ones I mean, the ones that own seven or more homes, but conveniently forget it when asked by the media.

Posted by: RW | September 12, 2008 6:58 AM | Report abuse

RW, do you own the Washingtonpost?, I am sick and tired with selfish Obama supporters. Party is below of the Country, Obama may be ok for your party, but McCain and Palin are good for our Country. RW, MacCain worked 30 years longer than Obama, 2 years Senator has $8 million house, 30 years later Obama may have 20 houses. RW, you just have same kinds of lips like Obama, only words, no action, that's why I vote for McCain. Democrats 08, I am a huge Hillary supporter, but your comment is a distorted view. Drain You, we didn't know Obama before the Primary election. Anonymous-Obama Junkie, Obama used copy of other's speech, is he dumb?

Posted by: Kyu Reisch, Radcliff, Kentucky | September 12, 2008 5:25 AM | Report abuse

Alaskans Love Sarah!....Why?
Because she has been a transformational governor that puts people first and has made government work and represent the citizens.

America is falling in love with Sarah!...Why?
Because she is a brilliant woman that has refreshing, energetic, dynamic and honest personality and she means what she says. She is a Washington outsider and together with the Maverick John McCain will change the government in the US to begin working for the people.

Country First!
Democrats for McCain/Sarah Palin!

Posted by: Manolete | September 12, 2008 1:26 AM | Report abuse

I am so embarrassed for Sarah Palin after watching her interview with Charlie Gibson. If anyone including even the most partisan republicans still thinks she is ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency I have some beautiful swampland I would like to sell you.

Being a Democrat I have to admit that I was expecting her to be highly coached but I had not idea that she would ramble on when she obviously didn't have a clue about what the answer should be. I had no idea how scary she would be either. If I had a son heading overseas I wouldn't be thumbing my nose at Russia, especially when most of the credible evidence points to their story on what happened being Georgia's fault.

I knew the Republicans were capable of almost anything to stay in power, but I absolutely sincerely pray that George Bush and his cronies had nothing to do with encouraging Georgia to attack Russian peace keepers to effect the U.S presidential elections.

Russia has flexed their muscle a little recently, but nothing like the days of old. This is a Russia that is getting rich on energy sales to Western Europe. So why would they jeopardize such a good thing for so little gain and such bad public relations?

This woman is not only not someone that I don’t want as president, but the idea of her attending State funerals around the world as Vice President with her nonstop blabbing and know it all attitude scares the hell out of me. After hearing her I seriously question if she is even sane. What kind of person is asked to take on such a momentous task that will not only change her life but everyone around hers life and doesn’t even hesitate for even a split second to think it over? Only an insane person with grandiose delusions would act this selfishly. She is acting like someone called up and asked her to help make sand bags for a flood or asked her to go bowling. She doesn’t even have a clue of the vast amount knowledge that is in the heads of the people that are actually qualified for this position. You can’t learn it in a quickie cram session. It takes years to have a firm grasp of these matters.

For those of you that think Joe Biden doesn't when to shut up wait until you hear this woman drone on repeating herself in an attempt to try to avoid the next question.

How could any serious candidate for national office and especially a republican not know what the "Bush Doctrine" is?

Some might find how absolutely naive Sarah Palin is as refreshing but frankly I think it is dangerous and down right scary and an absolute insult by John McCain towards the people of America, Democrats and Republicans alike. How could anyone that claims to love his country betray the American people in this way? He had so many choices most of which I would not have agreed with politically, but at least I could not had said they were absolutely incompetent for the job at hand.

I imagine after tonight most of you Republicans feel the same way even though you dare not breathe a word of it for fear of being ostracized by your party bosses, but I beg of you to stand up and be heard and demand that your party put a qualified person in her position, please for the sake of our country.

Posted by: RW | September 12, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

I am so embarrassed for Sarah Palin after watching her interview with Charlie Gibson. If anyone including even the most partisan republicans still thinks she is ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency I have some beautiful swampland I would like to sell you.

Being a Democrat I have to admit that I was expecting her to be highly coached but I had not idea that she would ramble on when she obviously didn't have a clue about what the answer should be. I had no idea how scary she would be either. If I had a son heading overseas I wouldn't be thumbing my nose at Russia, especially when most of the credible evidence points to their story on what happened being Georgia's.

I knew the republicans were capable of almost anything to stay in power, but I absolutely sincerely pray that George Bush and his cronies had nothing to do with encouraging Georgia to attack Russian peace keepers to effect the U.S presidential elections.

Russia has flexed their muscle a little recently, but nothing the days of old. This is a Russia that is getting rich on energy sales to Western Europe. So why would they jeopardize such a good thing for so little gain and such bad public relations?

This woman is not only not someone that I want as president, but the idea of her attending State funerals around the world with her nonstop blabbing scares the hell out of me.

For those of you that think Joe Biden doesn't when to shut up wait until you hear this woman drone on repeating herself in an attempt to try to avoid the next question.

How could any serious candidate for national office and especially a republican not know what the "Bush Doctrine" is?

Some might find how absolutely naive Sarah Palin is as refreshing but frankly I think it is dangerous and down right scary and an absolute insult by John McCain towards the people of America, Democrats and Republicans alike. How could anyone that claims to love his country betray the American people in this way? He had so many choices most of which I would not have agreed with politically, but at least I could not had said they were absolutely incompetent for the job at hand.

I imagine after tonight most of you Republicans feel the same way even though you dare not breathe a word of it for fear of being ostracized by your party bosses, but I beg of you to stand up and be heard and demand that your party put a qualified person in her position, please for the sake of our country.

Posted by: RW | September 12, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

I am so embarrassed for Sarah Palin after watching her interview with Charlie Gibson. If anyone including even the most partisan republicans still think she is ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency I have some beautiful swampland I would like to sell you.

Being a Democrat I have to admit that I was expecting her to be highly coached but I had not idea that she would ramble on when she obviously didn't have a clue about what the answer should be. I had know idea how scary she would be either. If I had a son heading overseas I wouldn't be thumbing my nose at Russia, especially when most of the credible evidence points to their story on what happened being Georgia's.

I knew the republicans were capable of almost anything to stay in power, but I absolutely sincerely pray that George Bush and his cronies had nothing to do with encouraging Georgia to attack Russian peace keepers to effect the U.S presidential elections.

Russia has flexed their muscle a little recently, but nothing the days of old. This is a Russia that is getting rich on energy sales to Western Europe. So why would they jeopardize such a good thing for so little gain and such bad public relations?

This woman is not only not someone that I want as president, but the idea of her attending State funerals around the world with her nonstop blabbing scares the hell out of me.

For those of you that think Joe Biden doesn't when to shut up wait until you hear this woman drone on repeating herself in an attempt to try to avoid the next question.

How could any serious candidate for national office and especially a republican not know what the "Bush Doctrine" is?

Some might find how absolutely naive Sarah Palin is as refreshing but frankly I think it is dangerous and down right scary and an absolute insult by John McCain towards the people of America, Democrats and Republicans alike. How could anyone that claims to love his country betray the American people in this way? He had so many choices most of which I would not have agreed with politically, but at least I could not had said they were absolutely incompetent for the job at hand.

I imagine after tonight most of you Republicans feel the same way even though you dare not breathe a word of it for fear of being ostracized by your party bosses, but I beg of you to stand up and be heard and demand that your party put a qualified person in her position, please for the sake of our country.

Posted by: RW | September 12, 2008 1:01 AM | Report abuse

Best watch her mouth on Russia. Any sane person would uerstand there are no winners in that type of war. Quite Mam, and don't flex your muscles. We are not talking wolf hunting here.

Posted by: justada55+ | September 12, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

You go girl!! Sara Palin that is!! It's amazing how many men and women are afraid of her!! She leaves many people including Obama speechless. She is brave enough to help run our country and put up with insults from uneducated (or think they are educated) Democrats. I hate the Washington Post and all left wing idiots who run it. Sign me a proud Republican woman who knows how to support the winning ticket McCain & Palin. Wear panty hose and lipstick and raise a family. McCain/Palin.

Posted by: cheryl peel | September 12, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

When Sarah Palin was competing in the 1984 Miss Alaska pageant, she was the fan favorite expected to win easily. Until the finals, where each of the three remaining beauty contestants were asked to answer a question. Sarah was asked "If you could do anything to make the world a better place, what would you do?" Sarah replied "Bomb the hell out of the middle east would be a good start", which put an end to her Miss Alaska dream.

Posted by: John Davies | September 12, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Thank goodness it's so dark in Alaska most times. The people are really freaky.

Posted by: justadad55+ | September 12, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

"Hooray for Our Side", to summarize some of the comments in this venue, is not, technically speaking, an actual argument. An actual argument would include logic, citations, references, etc, and would pertain to an actual issue, i.e. The Economy, The War, Taxes, The Government sticking it's protruding proboscis into your bedroom, gun cabinet, librany selections, etc. The terrorist card has been played out. The lipstick saga, change vs. status quo, support the bridge, oppose the bridge, are all what are known as Red Herrings. We learned that stuff back in grade school....red herrings, and of course the Straw Man--like Poppy Bush back in '88 and '92 with the Flag Burning non-issue. Has anyone out there ever personally witnessed anyone torching Old Glory? Of course not. But by gum, it sure frosted old Poppy's fanny enough to make it a centerpiece of his campaigns. Do not get caught up in these non-issues. It's about the money, and it's about Government existing at the pleasure of the Citizenry, not the other way around.

Posted by: Phil | September 11, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

haha thats me... and my buddies!! Im the one waving.. haha this is awesome. that is whats up! yeah!

Posted by: allie | September 11, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Imagine that you have just walked out of a shopping mall or a ballpark and there is a huge parking lot there in front of you. Now imagine that you are looking at the late model cars under seven years old in that parking lot. Who do you think owns these cars? the people in the mall or attending the ballgame? The answer is no or at least not most of them. Most of the people that drove these cars to the mall or the ballpark only hold a small equity stake in these cars and do not legally own them at all. So who owns these cars? Unless the cars are financed through a credit union the answer is for profit lending institutions. Well the next question is who owns for profit lending institutions? or at least owns stock in them? The answer is a small percentage of the stock of these companies is owned by retirement accounts like 401K's and IRA's but the vast majority of the stock in these companies is owned by the wealthiest one percent of the people in the United States and countries around the world. Most of who would easily identify with the Republican Party.

Today "Our" cars are being financed for five six or seven years allowing these financial institutions more interest money than ever. Most of these cars are "purchased" with little or no money down, making them almost impossible to ever pay off. In fact most people just go get another car after two or three years and tack their inequity on their new loan, thus making them a captive of the lending institution. This often goes on a few times until the person has a job loss or medical problem and can't keep up with their payments. You would think that is where this story ends, but unfortunately it is not. Now this poor broke soul has to have transportation so now they enter the world of predatory high interest lending. The so called "special finance" or "by here pay here dealers", that are often owned by the same people that owned the original for profit lending company that they "bought" their car through. At this point they are captured souls destined to pay high interest for everything that they ever try to buy.

The sad thing is that our fathers and grand fathers could afford to pay between twenty five to fifty percent down for their cars and only financed them for two or three years. So who do you think is receiving all of this wealth? If you guessed wealthy Republicans you guessed right. Vote Democrat on November 4th. If you are racist don't do it for Sen. Barack Obama, do it for your self and for your children. After your life improves maybe you will reconsider your racist views and become a better person.

Thank you

Posted by: RW | September 11, 2008 8:14 PM | Report abuse

Imagine that you have just walked out of a shopping mall or a ballpark and there is a huge parking lot there in front of you. Now imagine that you are looking at the late model cars under seven years old in that parking lot. Who do you think owns these cars? the people in the mall or attending the ballgame? The answer is no or at least not most of them. Most of the people that drove these cars to the mall or the ballpark only hold a small equity stake in these cars and do not legally own them at all. So who owns these cars? Unless the cars are financed through a credit union the answer is for profit lending institutions. Well the next question is who owns for profit lending institutions? or at least owns stock in them? The answer is a small percentage of the stock of these companies is owned by retirement accounts like 401K's and IRA's but the vast majority of the stock in these companies is owned by the wealthiest one percent of the people in the United Stated and countries around the world. Most of who would easily identify with the Republican Party.

Today "Our" cars are being financed for five six or seven years allowing these financial institutions more interest money than ever. Most of these cars are "purchased" with little or no money down, making them almost impossible to ever pay off. In fact most people just go get another car after two or three years and tack their inequity on their new loan, thus making them a captive of the lending institution. This often goes on a few times until the person has a job loss or medical problem and can't keep up with their payments. You would think that is where this story ends, but unfortunately it is not. Now this poor broke soul has to have transportation so now they enter the world of predatory high interest lending. The so called "special finance" or "by here pay here dealers", that are often owned by the same people that owned the original for profit lending company that they "bought" their car through. At this point they are captured souls destined to pay high interest for everything that they ever try to buy.

Posted by: RW | September 11, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Q:What do you do with a pit bull?

A: You keep her on a short leash.

As in don't let her talk to a free press without conditions.

Posted by: RW | September 11, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

McCane himself used the lipstick on a pig line a long time ago. So I gotta ask, why does Sarah think it is a reference to her? Does she see herself as porcine? A slow witted fourth grader would have to conclude that the reference was to shovelin' guano and callin' it sugar, not a reference to Sarah being a sow. But apparently, the entire Republican team sees her as porcine. I do not see her as a pig....she, however, does see herself as a "pit bull", and I think that is right on the nose....a pit bull...a rabid, raging pit bull. What do ya do with a rabid pit bull?

Posted by: MikeL | September 11, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Front man for Chicago outfit vs. front man for Phoenix outfit. (See, they hate us cause we're free.) So this is a choice eh? Huey Long put it best...."Oh yeah, a Democrat will hurt ya.....a Republican will skin ya alive!!" I think the corrupt guy who actually does know how many houses he owns will shiv me more gently than the corrupt guy who has no clue how many houses he owns. And I am a Republican who owns guns; I like the First Amendment, and the second, and the fourth.....I like 'em all....the Bill of Rights is not actually an a la carte menu. Nod to Obama by a very thin margin. But help me out here....300 million people, and this is what we got? We are a whole lot more dysfunctional that we know.

Posted by: MikeL | September 11, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Imagine that you have just walked out of a shopping mall or a ballpark and there is a huge parking lot there in front of you. Now imagine that you are looking at the late model cars under seven years old in that parking lot. Who do you think owns these cars? The people in the mall or attending the ballgame? The answer is no or at least not most of them. Most of the people that drove these cars to the mall or the ballpark only hold a small equity stake in these cars and do not legally own them at all. So who owns these cars? Unless the cars are financed through a credit union the answer is for profit lending institutions. Well the next question is who owns for profit lending institutions? or at least owns stock in them? The answer is a small perenctage of the stock of these companies is owned by retirement accounts like 401K's and IRA's but the vast majority of the stock in these companies are owned by the wealthiest one percent of the people in the United Stated and countries around the world. Most of whom would easily identify with the Republican party.

Today "Our" cars are being financed for five six or seven years allowing these financial institutions more interest money than ever. Most of these cars are "purchased" with little or no money down. Making them almost impossible to ever pay off. In fact most people just go get another car after two or three years and tack their inequity on their new loan. Thus making them a captive of the lending institution. This often goes on a few times until the person has a job loss or medical problem and can't keep up with their payments. You would think that is where this story ends, but unfortunately it is not. Now this poor broke soul has to have transportation so now they enter the world of predatory high interest lending. The so called "special finance" or "by here pay here dealers". That are often owned by the same people that owned the original for profit lending company that they "bought" their car through. At this point they are captured souls destined to pay high interest for everything that they ever try to buy.

The sad thing is that our fathers and grand fathers could afford to pay between twenty five to fifty percent down for their cars and only financed them for two or three years. So who do you think is receiving all of this wealth? If you guessed wealthy Republicans you guessed right. Vote Democrat on November 4th. If you are racist don't do it for Sen. Barack Obama, do it for your self and for your children. After your life improves maybe you will reconsider your racist views and become a better person.

Thank you

Posted by: RW | September 11, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

"Outside the event, however, protesters gathered,"
The actual count when I counted was 30 protesters for what it is worth.

Posted by: Ron in Fairbanks | September 11, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

And I quote, “Only in Republican America would a bi-racial black man with a law degree from Harvard, 12 years in politics, four years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and manager of one of the most impressively flawless and forward thinking presidential campaigns ever not be ready for the presidency while a white female evangelical with no experience in national politics and a bachelors in journalism is considered ‘ready on day one’.”

Posted by: BushforObama08 | September 11, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is a horrible person, what a creepy woman. You are no Hillary Clinton, Palin, not even close.

Posted by: Democrats 08 | September 11, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

One thing we can always count on from libs is vitriol. Think of it this way- if Obama should happen to win-what will you do with all that pent up rage?

Where can I find some of those big red plastic lips??? ---they're a hoot!!

Posted by: piic | September 11, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I keep hearing about the so called "Main Stream Media" (MSM) and how liberal and supportive of the Democratic Party they are, so that made me ask myself some questions. Who mostly owns stock in big corporations that own newspapers, magazines, radio stations, television networks and local television stations across our country and in fact the world, poor people, middle class people, or wealthy people? I think the answer is obviously wealthy people. When wealthy people own the majority of stock in a company they control it. So the wealthy control the media all around the world.
The next question is where do media companies get their income from? The answer is advertising. Who spends the most on advertising? The answer is big corporations. Often, even when a local store advertises it is paid for at least in part with coop advertising money from big corporations, and therefore has to fit into their advertising protocol. So I think I have established that the media is controlled by wealthy people that own stock in major corporations. So why does the Republican Party the party of the wealthy and privileged complain that the media is too liberal? Two reasons, one is because it is a big SMOKE SCREEN to keep average Americans from really knowing how controlled we are by the wealthy and the second reason is ENTITLEMENT. The wealthy know that they have paid for the advertising in the media and in fact the media outlets themselves. So when some unsuspecting reporter attempts to tell the truth about something the wealthy feel cheated because they think they are ENTITLED to have the news stories told the way that they want them since they have paid for the entire process.
The problem with this kind of thinking is that the U.S. Constitution states "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The U.S. Constitution does not state ""We the WEALTHY people of the United States", but when Republicans read it that is what they see, because they believe they own this country and the U.S. Constitution only applies to the wealthy. That is why it is so easy for them to deny justice to average and poor Americans. The wealthy believe they are ENTITLED to the protections of the U.S. Constitution but then they try to use the very same document to deny justice to others. That is why it didn't bother the Republicans to illegally and unconstitutionally wire tap millions of Americans.
As wealthy as the top one percent of America is they don't see any distinction between a "middle class American" and a dirt poor Mexican crossing the boarder. You see when it comes right down to it average and poor people are just units of labor to them or pawns that they can use to fight their wars. When I used the term Republican above I am not referring to the poor misguided souls that they had brainwashed to vote for them. I mean real Republicans, people of wealth, power, and influence, not the pawns they use to get elected. You know the ones I mean, the ones that own seven or more homes, but conveniently forget it when asked by the media.

Posted by: RW | September 11, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

I keep hearing about the so called "Main Stream Media" (MSM) and how liberal and supportive of the Democratic party they are. So that made me ask myself some questions. Who mostly owns stock in big corporations that own newspapers, magazines, radio stations, television networks and local television stations across our country and in fact the world poor people, middle class people, or wealthy people? I think the answer is obviously wealthy people. When wealthy people own the majority of stock in a company they control it. So the wealthy control the media all around the world.

The next question is where do media companies get their income from? The answer is advertising. Who spends the most on advertising? The answer is big corporations. Often even when a local store advertises it is paid for at least in part with coop advertising money from big corporations, and therefor has to fit into their advertising protocol. So I think I have established that the media is controlled by wealthy people that own stock in major corporations. So why does the Republican party the party of the wealthy and privileged complain that the media is too liberal? Two reasons, one is because it is a big SMOKE SCREEN to keep average Americans from really know how controlled we are by the wealthy and the second reason is ENTITLEMENT. The wealthy know that they have paid for the advertising in the media and in fact the media outlets them self. So when some unsuspecting reporter attempts to tell the truth about something they feel cheated because they think they are ENTITLED to have the news stories told the way that they want them since they the weal thy have paid for the entire process.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that the U.S. Constitution states "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The U.S. Constitution does not state ""We the WEALTHY people of the United States", but when Republicans read it that is what they see, because they believe they own this country and the U.S. Constitution only applies to the wealthy. That is why it is so easy for them to deny justice to average and poor Americans. The wealthy believe they are ENTITLED to the protections of the U.S. Constitution but then they try to use the very same document to deny justice to others. That is why it didn't bother the Republicans to illegally and unconstitutionally wire tape millions of Americans.

As wealthy as the top one percent of America is they don't see any distinction between a "middle class American" and a dirt poor Mexican crossing the boarder. You see when it comes right down to it average and poor people are just units of labor to them or pawns that they can use to fight their wars.

Posted by: RW | September 11, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

playa:

You said "Knowing Alaska....How many of these porkers with the plastic lips were over 300 lbs? Oink. Oink."

Did you see the picture above? None of those five "pigs" look over 300 pounds to me at least.

Posted by: JakeD | September 11, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Here is some dishonest reporting,


"including women wearing large plastic lips, an unmistakable jab at Sen. Barack Obama after his remarks that McCain is trying to put "lipstick on a pig" "

Obama never said that McCain is trying to put lipstick on a pig. Washington Post should be embarassed to print false reports. That it comes form this reporter is no surprise. She is one of the leaders of the sleazy liberal media.

Posted by: Brian | September 11, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

In recent weeks, John McCain and the Republican Party have blatantly and without any shame adopted the Democratic campaign theme of “change”. It should be evident to an objective observer that Bush 43 and now McCain and Pailin are mere puppets to the true Republican national party leaders who control their strings. Cheney is one of the few of that inner cabal that have been calling the shots since the Nixon administration. They are in fact a continuation of the Nixon and Ford presidencies with only a disruption during the Carter and Clinton years. Bush 41( Head of the RNC during Nixon, former head of the CIA,VP to Reagan, and president is probably the real leader of this political Cosa Nostra if not a equal partner of this power sharing musical chairs game. His right and left hands have been Dick Cheney(former Sec.of Defense of Bush 41, former White House Chief of staff for Ford) and the other is Donald Rumsfeld(former Sec. of Defense for Ford and Bush 43,former special envoy to the Middle East during Reagan). Another member of this group, more likely a captain if not a full blown boss himself is James Baker (former C.O.S of Reagan, former Under Sec. of Commerce for Ford, former C.O.S and Sec of State for Bush 41, former Sec. of Treasury for Reagan, former chief legal advisor to Bush 43). Another captain or free lance enforcer is Karl Rove a college drop out and campaign manager for both Bush 41 and 43, also for Phil Gram who is McCain’s economic advisor.
Lets look at McCain’s staff of change.
On July 2, 2008, Steve Schmidt was given "full operational control" of McCain's campaign. Steve Schmidt prior to this was a top aide to Dick Cheney and a protégé to Karl Rove. Another advisor is Charles R. Black worked for Ronald Reagan's two Presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980 and he was a senior political adviser to the 1992 re-election campaign of George H.W. Bush. Another advisor is Randy Scheunemann. He was project director for the Project for the New American Century. A neo-conservative think tank founded by non other than Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Bill Kristol and others in 1996. Other signatories to this group reads like a who’s who of the last 8 years of the republican administration.
These people have never cared about small town america or “values” All they care about is war profiteering. Many of the signatories have never served in the military. Cheney and Rove both dodged the draft. Look at the statement of principles by the PNAC. Rumsfeld was a good friend of Saddam Huessin in the 80’s Cheney didn’t want Nelson Mandela free. These are the real puppet masters, they throw out the talking points about the left of being elitist and not caring about middle america and these same guys other than Rove have advanced degrees and are worth no less than 10 million dollars. People who support them need to extricate their heads out of Limbaugh and Hannity’s asses and see what is really happening to them. McCain is not his own man he confuses stories of his real life with a book he read “The Gulag Archipelago", in which a fellow prisoner - not a guard - silently drew a cross in the dirt with a stick.” An ironic twist to all this is Eliot A. Cohen, a signatory to the PNAC "Statement of Principles", responded in The Washington Post: "There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2581086/John-McCain-accused-of-plagiarising-Wikipedia-for-speeches.html. Even if you don’t like Obama there is no-way a sane person can want this continued blatant fleecing of our Nation.
Thes are all verifiable facts and can be found just with a google search. AIPAC and PNAC are the military industrial complex.
Other than the ultra affluent, how can anyone support the Republican Party? When will small town America realize that they are being duped into supporting the ultra-affluent agenda? The talking points of the right are so hypocritical that it becomes laughable. The red meat of the right is the so called Main stream Media as if Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. are not part of it. They demean celebrity status, however they tout one of their greatest presidents(Reagan) was an actor. They say they are the party of patriotism, yet many of the upper echelon of the party have never served, i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker, Reagan. They say that they care about "Main Street" USA but only bail out the Whales of Wall Street. Yet small town America eat this tripe every year. They don't care about religion unless it can be used to stir up the base, nor science or technology unless there is a buck to be made. Small town America takes pride on its freedom but yet don't realize that over time we are becoming less free, ie wire tapping and other forms of domestic surveillance. They demean people of intelligence because they know many people of small town America don't have degrees and use it at a fake issue and call people who spent time in academia as elitist when many on the right serve on university boards and have part-time professorships. They say they are against affirmitive action but yet celebrate mediocrity, Bush43 and McCain graduating at the bottom of their classes. Who both came from already well established families and had all the opportunities and connections to excel. Why does small town America believes this is the party for them? Christian conservatives seem to the be the first ones who want to go to war and bomb someone before any diplomacy is tried. Why can't small town America and Christian conservatives realize they are being used as pawns just as much the Islamic fundamentalist are. Islamic fundamentalist come from small town Middle East and given the same kind of talking points as the evangelicals. They want prayer in school, no choice available to women, and believe to the core that their ideas about worship and country are the best. Wake up small town America you are being duped.Talking about who is more patriotic, symbols, lipstick and wearing pins are nothing more than distractions to the real issue of how a few select group of people have held power almost continuously for over 30 years. Yes the left has their own political power groups but none have been so effective at pushing forward an agenda that is fundamentally bad for the U.S. and in a larger view the entire world. I stress again the now defunct PNAC and the AIPAC have been slowly pushing us closer to another World War. Bush41 and et al have been doing this and no one calls them on it. Every Republican administration has basically the same people recycled since Nixon. Just do a little research and you will see that these people are just pushing this agenda of some kind of Pax Americana and not taking into account that maybe other nations of the world might not like that and if not bomb them.Many people who support the Republican party, really need to read "1984" by George Orwell and see how we as nation have been inching closer to that type of society. People think this story is about a communist society, but it is more about how a society is kept in a constant state of fear in order for the ruling class to stay in control. Doublespeak, patriotism to the point of frenzy, censorship, erosion of civil liberties (not respecting the Constitution) is happening right in front of us. The consolidation of government (the executive branch has never been more powerful than ever, gridlocked legislature with only two parties for representation, a judiciary that just kowtows to the executive branch). No real independent journalism. Cameras placed on every street corner. This may sound like delusional conspiracy stuff, but I implore people to research for themselves to really see what is happening to them. People think this could never happen here in the U.S. but all this has already happening, slowly, incrementally all under the guise of "keeping America safe"


Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 2:38 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

In recent weeks, John McCain and the Republican Party have blatantly and without any shame adopted the Democratic campaign theme of “change”. It should be evident to an objective observer that Bush 43 and now McCain and Pailin are mere puppets to the true Republican national party leaders who control their strings. Cheney is one of the few of that inner cabal that have been calling the shots since the Nixon administration. They are in fact a continuation of the Nixon and Ford presidencies with only a disruption during the Carter and Clinton years. Bush 41( Head of the RNC during Nixon, former head of the CIA,VP to Reagan, and president is probably the real leader of this political Cosa Nostra if not a equal partner of this power sharing musical chairs game. His right and left hands have been Dick Cheney(former Sec.of Defense of Bush 41, former White House Chief of staff for Ford) and the other is Donald Rumsfeld(former Sec. of Defense for Ford and Bush 43,former special envoy to the Middle East during Reagan). Another member of this group, more likely a captain if not a full blown boss himself is James Baker (former C.O.S of Reagan, former Under Sec. of Commerce for Ford, former C.O.S and Sec of State for Bush 41, former Sec. of Treasury for Reagan, former chief legal advisor to Bush 43). Another captain or free lance enforcer is Karl Rove a college drop out and campaign manager for both Bush 41 and 43, also for Phil Gram who is McCain’s economic advisor.
Lets look at McCain’s staff of change.
On July 2, 2008, Steve Schmidt was given "full operational control" of McCain's campaign. Steve Schmidt prior to this was a top aide to Dick Cheney and a protégé to Karl Rove. Another advisor is Charles R. Black worked for Ronald Reagan's two Presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980 and he was a senior political adviser to the 1992 re-election campaign of George H.W. Bush. Another advisor is Randy Scheunemann. He was project director for the Project for the New American Century. A neo-conservative think tank founded by non other than Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Bill Kristol and others in 1996. Other signatories to this group reads like a who’s who of the last 8 years of the republican administration.
These people have never cared about small town america or “values” All they care about is war profiteering. Many of the signatories have never served in the military. Cheney and Rove both dodged the draft. Look at the statement of principles by the PNAC. Rumsfeld was a good friend of Saddam Huessin in the 80’s Cheney didn’t want Nelson Mandela free. These are the real puppet masters, they throw out the talking points about the left of being elitist and not caring about middle america and these same guys other than Rove have advanced degrees and are worth no less than 10 million dollars. People who support them need to extricate their heads out of Limbaugh and Hannity’s asses and see what is really happening to them. McCain is not his own man he confuses stories of his real life with a book he read “The Gulag Archipelago", in which a fellow prisoner - not a guard - silently drew a cross in the dirt with a stick.” An ironic twist to all this is Eliot A. Cohen, a signatory to the PNAC "Statement of Principles", responded in The Washington Post: "There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2581086/John-McCain-accused-of-plagiarising-Wikipedia-for-speeches.html. Even if you don’t like Obama there is no-way a sane person can want this continued blatant fleecing of our Nation.
Thes are all verifiable facts and can be found just with a google search. AIPAC and PNAC are the military industrial complex.
Other than the ultra affluent, how can anyone support the Republican Party? When will small town America realize that they are being duped into supporting the ultra-affluent agenda? The talking points of the right are so hypocritical that it becomes laughable. The red meat of the right is the so called Main stream Media as if Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. are not part of it. They demean celebrity status, however they tout one of their greatest presidents(Reagan) was an actor. They say they are the party of patriotism, yet many of the upper echelon of the party have never served, i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker, Reagan. They say that they care about "Main Street" USA but only bail out the Whales of Wall Street. Yet small town America eat this tripe every year. They don't care about religion unless it can be used to stir up the base, nor science or technology unless there is a buck to be made. Small town America takes pride on its freedom but yet don't realize that over time we are becoming less free, ie wire tapping and other forms of domestic surveillance. They demean people of intelligence because they know many people of small town America don't have degrees and use it at a fake issue and call people who spent time in academia as elitist when many on the right serve on university boards and have part-time professorships. They say they are against affirmitive action but yet celebrate mediocrity, Bush43 and McCain graduating at the bottom of their classes. Who both came from already well established families and had all the opportunities and connections to excel. Why does small town America believes this is the party for them? Christian conservatives seem to the be the first ones who want to go to war and bomb someone before any diplomacy is tried. Why can't small town America and Christian conservatives realize they are being used as pawns just as much the Islamic fundamentalist are. Islamic fundamentalist come from small town Middle East and given the same kind of talking points as the evangelicals. They want prayer in school, no choice available to women, and believe to the core that their ideas about worship and country are the best. Wake up small town America you are being duped.Talking about who is more patriotic, symbols, lipstick and wearing pins are nothing more than distractions to the real issue of how a few select group of people have held power almost continuously for over 30 years. Yes the left has their own political power groups but none have been so effective at pushing forward an agenda that is fundamentally bad for the U.S. and in a larger view the entire world. I stress again the now defunct PNAC and the AIPAC have been slowly pushing us closer to another World War. Bush41 and et al have been doing this and no one calls them on it. Every Republican administration has basically the same people recycled since Nixon. Just do a little research and you will see that these people are just pushing this agenda of some kind of Pax Americana and not taking into account that maybe other nations of the world might not like that and if not bomb them.Many people who support the Republican party, really need to read "1984" by George Orwell and see how we as nation have been inching closer to that type of society. People think this story is about a communist society, but it is more about how a society is kept in a constant state of fear in order for the ruling class to stay in control. Doublespeak, patriotism to the point of frenzy, censorship, erosion of civil liberties (not respecting the Constitution) is happening right in front of us. The consolidation of government (the executive branch has never been more powerful than ever, gridlocked legislature with only two parties for representation, a judiciary that just kowtows to the executive branch). No real independent journalism. Cameras placed on every street corner. This may sound like delusional conspiracy stuff, but I implore people to research for themselves to really see what is happening to them. People think this could never happen here in the U.S. but all this has already happening, slowly, incrementally all under the guise of "keeping America safe"


Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 2:38 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

HEY MCCAIN:


THANKS FOR FIRING UP THE DEM BASE WITH YOUR STUPID LIPSTICK PIG, FAKE OUTRAGE!

YOU'RE DUMBER THAN A BAG OF ROCKS, YOU OLD FOSSIL!
.
http://s144.photobucket.com/albums/r163/InsultComicDog/?action=view¤t=McCainPalin.jpg
.

Posted by: ZappoDave | September 11, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

the lipstick industry is booming time to invest in it!!!!!!!! make some money lol

Posted by: boruch yona loriner | September 11, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

While I have never agreed with Senator McCain's political views, I have always assumed that he would at least some degree of character and honesty if he ever got in the position of being the leader of his party. In fact I thought maybe for the first time in years this election might be about honest differences of opinion between the two candidates and the two parties they represent, but John McCain has chosen to go down the same old Republican trail of lies and deceit. Just check out this article that ran in today's New York Times.

McCain Ad on Sex Education Distorts Obama Policy (Head Line of article)

Escalating its efforts to portray Senator Barack Obama as a candidate whose values fall outside the mainstream, the campaign of Senator John McCain on Tuesday unveiled a new television advertisement claiming that Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee, favors “comprehensive sex education” for kindergarten students.

“Learning about sex before learning to read?” the narrator asks in the 30-second advertisement, which the campaign says will be shown in battleground states and on national cable. The commercial also asserts that a sex-education bill introduced in Illinois, which Mr. Obama did not sponsor and which never became law, is his “one accomplishment” in the field of education.

Both sets of accusations, however, seriously distort the record.

The original controversy dates to 2003, when a bill to modify the teaching of sex education in Illinois was introduced in the Legislature. The proposal was supported by a coalition of education and public health organizations, including the Illinois Parent Teacher Association, the Illinois State Medical Society, the Illinois Public Health Association and the Illinois Education Association.

Mr. Obama voted for the bill in committee, where it passed, but it never came to a full and final vote. The proposal called for “age and developmentally appropriate” sex education and also allowed parents the option of withdrawing their children from such classroom instruction if they felt that it clashed with their beliefs or values.

In referring to the sex-education bill, the McCain campaign is largely recycling old and discredited accusations made against Mr. Obama by Alan Keyes in their 2004 Senate race. At that time, Mr. Obama stated that he understood the main objective of the legislation, as it pertained to kindergarteners, to be to teach them how to defend themselves against sexual predators.

“I have a 6-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean,” Mr. Obama said in 2004. “And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age.”

It is a misstatement of the bill’s purpose, therefore, to maintain, as the McCain campaign advertisement does, that Mr. Obama favored conventional sex education as a policy for 5-year-olds. Under the Illinois proposal, “medically accurate” education about more complicated topics, including intercourse, contraception and homosexuality, would have been reserved for older students in higher grades.

The advertisement, then, also misrepresents what the bill meant by “comprehensive.” The instruction the bill required was comprehensive in that it called for a curriculum that went from kindergarten and through high school, not in the sense that kindergarteners would have been fully exposed to the entire gamut of sex-related issues.

In another part of the advertisement, Mr. McCain maintains that Mr. Obama’s sole achievement in education was the sex-education bill. In reality, Mr. Obama not only helped administer a $49 million education project in Chicago in the 1990s, but also sponsored or co-sponsored measures that increased the number of charter schools in Illinois, and expanded federal grants to summer school programs and to historically black colleges.

As support for its contention that Mr. Obama is “wrong on education,” Mr. McCain’s advertisement cited criticism by Education Week, a trade publication. Mr. Obama “hasn’t made a significant mark on education” in his years in the Senate in Illinois and Washington, the advertisement asserts.

Education Week did indeed make that assessment in an article published last year. But in the same paragraph, the magazine also said that Mr. Obama “did promote early-childhood initiatives that advocates considered “innovative and progressive,” and also noted that “his biggest accomplishment in the field was the creation of a state board to oversee the expansion of early-childhood education in the state.”

The same publication has also criticized Mr. McCain, in language that was perhaps even stronger. Early this year, in an article titled “John McCain Where Art Thou?” it complained that he offered “a laundry list of fairly vague answers” on how to improve schools and did not make education a priority.

“McCain is a campaign-finance, foreign-relations, anti-abortion, tax-cut candidate,” the magazine said. “Education is not his thing. Depending on your perspective, McCain’s relative silence on education may be a good thing. If you think the federal government has grossly overreached into the state business of education, then he may be your guy.”

The Obama campaign expressed outrage over the commercial, with Bill Burton, a spokesman, describing it as “shameful and downright perverse.”

But Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, said, “the Obama campaign did not and cannot dispute a shred of the content in the ad.”

A version of this article by Larry Rother appeared in print on September 11, 2008, in the New York Times

Posted by: RW | September 11, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

In recent weeks, John McCain and the Republican Party have blatantly and without any shame adopted the Democratic campaign theme of “change”. It should be evident to an objective observer that Bush 43 and now McCain and Pailin are mere puppets to the true Republican national party leaders who control their strings. Cheney is one of the few of that inner cabal that have been calling the shots since the Nixon administration. They are in fact a continuation of the Nixon and Ford presidencies with only a disruption during the Carter and Clinton years. Bush 41( Head of the RNC during Nixon, former head of the CIA,VP to Reagan, and president is probably the real leader of this political Cosa Nostra if not a equal partner of this power sharing musical chairs game. His right and left hands have been Dick Cheney(former Sec.of Defense of Bush 41, former White House Chief of staff for Ford) and the other is Donald Rumsfeld(former Sec. of Defense for Ford and Bush 43,former special envoy to the Middle East during Reagan). Another member of this group, more likely a captain if not a full blown boss himself is James Baker (former C.O.S of Reagan, former Under Sec. of Commerce for Ford, former C.O.S and Sec of State for Bush 41, former Sec. of Treasury for Reagan, former chief legal advisor to Bush 43). Another captain or free lance enforcer is Karl Rove a college drop out and campaign manager for both Bush 41 and 43, also for Phil Gram who is McCain’s economic advisor.
Lets look at McCain’s staff of change.
On July 2, 2008, Steve Schmidt was given "full operational control" of McCain's campaign. Steve Schmidt prior to this was a top aide to Dick Cheney and a protégé to Karl Rove. Another advisor is Charles R. Black worked for Ronald Reagan's two Presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980 and he was a senior political adviser to the 1992 re-election campaign of George H.W. Bush. Another advisor is Randy Scheunemann. He was project director for the Project for the New American Century. A neo-conservative think tank founded by non other than Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Bill Kristol and others in 1996. Other signatories to this group reads like a who’s who of the last 8 years of the republican administration.
These people have never cared about small town america or “values” All they care about is war profiteering. Many of the signatories have never served in the military. Cheney and Rove both dodged the draft. Look at the statement of principles by the PNAC. Rumsfeld was a good friend of Saddam Huessin in the 80’s Cheney didn’t want Nelson Mandela free. These are the real puppet masters, they throw out the talking points about the left of being elitist and not caring about middle america and these same guys other than Rove have advanced degrees and are worth no less than 10 million dollars. People who support them need to extricate their heads out of Limbaugh and Hannity’s asses and see what is really happening to them. McCain is not his own man he confuses stories of his real life with a book he read “The Gulag Archipelago", in which a fellow prisoner - not a guard - silently drew a cross in the dirt with a stick.” An ironic twist to all this is Eliot A. Cohen, a signatory to the PNAC "Statement of Principles", responded in The Washington Post: "There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians. George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/johnmccain/2581086/John-McCain-accused-of-plagiarising-Wikipedia-for-speeches.html. Even if you don’t like Obama there is no-way a sane person can want this continued blatant fleecing of our Nation.
Thes are all verifiable facts and can be found just with a google search. AIPAC and PNAC are the military industrial complex.
Other than the ultra affluent, how can anyone support the Republican Party? When will small town America realize that they are being duped into supporting the ultra-affluent agenda? The talking points of the right are so hypocritical that it becomes laughable. The red meat of the right is the so called Main stream Media as if Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. are not part of it. They demean celebrity status, however they tout one of their greatest presidents(Reagan) was an actor. They say they are the party of patriotism, yet many of the upper echelon of the party have never served, i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker, Reagan. They say that they care about "Main Street" USA but only bail out the Whales of Wall Street. Yet small town America eat this tripe every year. They don't care about religion unless it can be used to stir up the base, nor science or technology unless there is a buck to be made. Small town America takes pride on its freedom but yet don't realize that over time we are becoming less free, ie wire tapping and other forms of domestic surveillance. They demean people of intelligence because they know many people of small town America don't have degrees and use it at a fake issue and call people who spent time in academia as elitist when many on the right serve on university boards and have part-time professorships. They say they are against affirmitive action but yet celebrate mediocrity, Bush43 and McCain graduating at the bottom of their classes. Who both came from already well established families and had all the opportunities and connections to excel. Why does small town America believes this is the party for them? Christian conservatives seem to the be the first ones who want to go to war and bomb someone before any diplomacy is tried. Why can't small town America and Christian conservatives realize they are being used as pawns just as much the Islamic fundamentalist are. Islamic fundamentalist come from small town Middle East and given the same kind of talking points as the evangelicals. They want prayer in school, no choice available to women, and believe to the core that their ideas about worship and country are the best. Wake up small town America you are being duped.Talking about who is more patriotic, symbols, lipstick and wearing pins are nothing more than distractions to the real issue of how a few select group of people have held power almost continuously for over 30 years. Yes the left has their own political power groups but none have been so effective at pushing forward an agenda that is fundamentally bad for the U.S. and in a larger view the entire world. I stress again the now defunct PNAC and the AIPAC have been slowly pushing us closer to another World War. Bush41 and et al have been doing this and no one calls them on it. Every Republican administration has basically the same people recycled since Nixon. Just do a little research and you will see that these people are just pushing this agenda of some kind of Pax Americana and not taking into account that maybe other nations of the world might not like that and if not bomb them.Many people who support the Republican party, really need to read "1984" by George Orwell and see how we as nation have been inching closer to that type of society. People think this story is about a communist society, but it is more about how a society is kept in a constant state of fear in order for the ruling class to stay in control. Doublespeak, patriotism to the point of frenzy, censorship, erosion of civil liberties (not respecting the Constitution) is happening right in front of us. The consolidation of government (the executive branch has never been more powerful than ever, gridlocked legislature with only two parties for representation, a judiciary that just kowtows to the executive branch). No real independent journalism. Cameras placed on every street corner. This may sound like delusional conspiracy stuff, but I implore people to research for themselves to really see what is happening to them. People think this could never happen here in the U.S. but all this has already happening, slowly, incrementally all under the guise of "keeping America safe"

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Whats with the pigs in lipstick picture on this story?!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Questions for our "foreign policy expert" knuckledragging Wingnuts?
-----------------------------------

When he was warned in the August 6, 2001 PDB, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In US", why did the president do nothing except tell the guy who delivered it to him, "All right, you've covered your arse, now"?


Why did Rudy Giuliani put the anti-terrorism command center in the World Trade Center against the advice of experts who knew better?


Why did the president sit in that Florida classroom for several minutes after being told "America is under attack"?


Could there be any greater examples of heroism than the passengers who fought back on Flight 93, the rescue teams at the Pentagon, or the NYPD and NYFD responders who ran into the towers without hesitation?


Father Mychal Judge: Saint...or Supersaint?


Why did NY firefighters have faulty radios instead of dependable ones, Mr. Giuliani?


Was it really necessary for the president to tell us to go shopping?


Why were rescue workers at Ground Zero told by the EPA director that the air was safe to breathe when it wasn't?


When rescue workers got horribly sick from breathing contaminated air, why were so many given perfunctory treatment and then left to fend for themselves?


Why did Rudy Giuliani say he "was at the site as often, if not more, than most of the workers," when he only visited the site for 29 hours over a span of 41 visits and spent more time in that span at NY Yankee's games?


When Glenn Beck---one of the most respected figures in the Republican party---said, "When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up!' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining," why wasn't he banished into obscurity?


When the president stressed the importance of safeguarding our ports and vital infrastructure, why did he take so long actually safeguarding them? Are they much safer today?


When the president called for greater security at airports, why was there such a lopsided focus on passengers and very little on cargo until recently?


When we found out that most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, why did the president continue holding hands with their leaders?


Why were habeas corpus rights suspended years after the attacks of 9/11, when the country wasn't in a state of rebellion or invasion?


When Congress found out the president had broken the law before 9/11 by snooping on American citizens without warrants, why did they patch up the law to make his---and the phone companies'---illegal activities retroactively legal?


The president nominated Bernard Kerik to be the head of Homeland Security...and he wasn't joking???


When Ann Coulter---one of the most respected figures in the Republican party---said, "These broads (9/11 widows) are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," why wasn't she banished into obscurity?


When Bush had bin Laden in his sights at Tora Bora, why didn’t he take the shot?


Why were we told repeatedly that Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for the attacks when he had nothing to do with them?


When we needed more troops to vanquish the Taliban in Afghanistan, why did we invade Iraq?


If we're winning the "War on terror," why hasn't the color-coded terror alert level changed from Yellow to Green or Blue in 2,382 days?


How unspeakably crude was it for the Republican party to exploit the 9/11 attacks in a promotional video during their convention in St. Paul?
Why hasn't the president caught Osama bin Laden?


When Jerry Falwell---one of the most respected figures in the Republican party---got on TV and said, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped 9/11 happen'," why wasn't he defrocked and sent to work in soup kitchens for the rest of his life?


Why is there still a giant hole in the ground in Lower Manhattan?
-
Are terrorists punks, or what?
-
Are Republican politicians (McCain, Giuiliani) who use fear to scare citizens into submission, thugs or what?

Posted by: McCain = Bush's third term | September 11, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

In case we have forgotten what this election is about, here is a sobering reminder...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnyUPktNIP0

Posted by: 1truepatriot | September 11, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I am sickened by John McCains shameless exploitation of his military record. He has failed our veterans—past, present and future. McCain doesnt mind starting more wars, or having the Iraq Occupation last another 100 years but he does mind helping those vets when they return to the US. John McBush is typical of the I got mine but you cant have yours philosophy of the Republican Party.


Inside the senile mind of John McBush probabaly looks something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2kyXN4ZVQg

Posted by: Load up on guns, bring your friends, it's fun to lose and to pretend | September 11, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Since when does constantly confusing the Sunni's, Shiites and Al-Qaeda in Iraq, singing "bomb bomb Iran" and blabbering about staying in Iraq for 100 years or more, like McCain has done the last six months, make you a "foreign policy expert"?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nqtL-P8kzo

Posted by: McCain - sane, insane or just senile? | September 11, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

McCain's good for nothing but mindlessly killing people, and the senile old man will be lucky if he even lives through his first term if he happened to get elected. That would leave us with Caribou Barbie the pathological serial liar as our president. Nobody (other than the Alaska state trooper she had fired for personal revenge) even knew her 2 weeks ago.


Say What?!?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

Posted by: DrainYou | September 11, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Knowing Alaska....How many of these porkers with the plastic lips were over 300 lbs? Oink. Oink.

Posted by: playa | September 11, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

BearCreekMan:

Did you see the picture above?

Posted by: JakeD | September 11, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Today's Map: PA Moves from "Leaning Democrat" to "Too Close to Call"
Posted Sep 11, 2008 at 9:46 AM | by Maurice Berger

With three new polls all showing the race in Pennsylvania drawing down to a statistical tie--Obama now leads by an average of just over 2%--PollTrack moves the state on Today's Map from "Leaning Democrat" to "Too Close to Call." It is quite possible that the RNC and Palin are helping McCain in the more conservative middle section of the state--an area rich in small towns, Evangelical and Christian conservative voters, and gun owners. In many ways, the state's population is closely divided, with more liberal cities such as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh anchoring its Democratic base and small cities and towns in the middle trending Republican. Often, it comes town to turnout in these areas as well as how the vote breaks down in the suburbs of the larger cities, a demographic that has been somewhat fluid in previous elections. Read more...

Posted by: Scott | September 11, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Jeff- Did you say, "MORALLY BANKRUPT"? I'm sure you did, so please raed below from toda's Real Clear Politics-


"Mr. Obama's opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which states if an abortion is botched and a live birth results, the baby is entitled to medical care. The federal version of this law unanimously passed the U.S. Senate.

However, when a version of this bill came to the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama opposed it. When confronted last month with the fact that the federal version of this bill had been supported by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, Mr. Obama said the he would have supported the federal version. Those suggesting otherwise were lying, he said. Then it was revealed that a second bill was introduced in the Illinois Senate, and this one was identical to the federal version. Mr. Obama opposed that bill as well. He has yet to come up with an explanation on that one."
----------

Obama lies-lies-lies...AND tries to claim the moral high ground!

Posted by: Scott | September 11, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Jeff- Did you say, "MORALLY BANKRUPT"? I'm sure you did, so please raed below from toda's Real Clear Politics-


"Mr. Obama's opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which states if an abortion is botched and a live birth results, the baby is entitled to medical care. The federal version of this law unanimously passed the U.S. Senate.

However, when a version of this bill came to the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama opposed it. When confronted last month with the fact that the federal version of this bill had been supported by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, Mr. Obama said the he would have supported the federal version. Those suggesting otherwise were lying, he said. Then it was revealed that a second bill was introduced in the Illinois Senate, and this one was identical to the federal version. Mr. Obama opposed that bill as well. He has yet to come up with an explanation on that one."
----------

Obama lies-lies-lies...AND trys to claim the moral high ground!

Posted by: Scott | September 11, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Real Clear Politics today-

September 11, 2008
Words Obama Will Regret
By Ken Blackwell

On Monday, Senator Obama uttered one sentence that could haunt him until Election Day. He said of Senator McCain and Governor Palin telling voters they would bring change, "they must think you're stupid." Given his stances on the surge, social issues, and his past, Mr. Obama will regret those words.

Let's start with social issues like Second Amendment freedoms. Mr. Obama denies that he's ever supported banning handguns, right after the landmark Heller case where the Supreme Court struck down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban.

When a 1996 questionnaire surfaced that had asked if Mr. Obama supported banning all handguns, his one-word written answer was "yes." He said an unnamed staffer must have filled it out without his knowledge. Then another copy surfaced -- this one with his handwriting on it. He says he must not have read that particular question. Sure.

On the hot-button issue of abortion, last month saw a growing concern over Mr. Obama's opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which states if an abortion is botched and a live birth results, the baby is entitled to medical care. The federal version of this law unanimously passed the U.S. Senate.

However, when a version of this bill came to the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama opposed it. When confronted last month with the fact that the federal version of this bill had been supported by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, Mr. Obama said the he would have supported the federal version. Those suggesting otherwise were lying, he said. Then it was revealed that a second bill was introduced in the Illinois Senate, and this one was identical to the federal version. Mr. Obama opposed that bill as well. He has yet to come up with an explanation on that one.


Posted by: Scott | September 11, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Many of you in the lower forty eight wonder why do you want to live up there in the snow , the ice, and the freezing wind. Well I have a news flash for you. We don't come up here for the snow , the ice, and the freezing wind. We come up here because you are not up here.

Posted by: Karen Wasilla, AK | September 11, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

I was raised Republican. Most of my relatives are Republican. Not surprisingly, they're also angry, racist, and afraid of the ever-changing world. I spend a lot of time trying to make sense of how these people I love can continue to support politicians who are morally bankrupt. I think it's largely tribal. I think that partisan identity combined with fear causes many good-hearted people to become mired in cynicism. They don't really believe in McCain (or Bush, whoever they're being steered towards) but they seem to find some solace in being part of a tribe--even when their tribe operates on lies, cynicism, and destruction.

Posted by: Jeff | September 11, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

A WARM WELCOME FOR PALIN ON THE ELECTORAL MAP-

POLLTRACK 9/11/08

270 Needed to Win.

Toss Up
Total 94
Too close to call 94

Barack Obama (Democrat)
Total 217
Safe 153
Leaning 64

John McCain (Republican)
Total 227
Safe 154
Leaning 73

*********
I've got Georgia on my mind- just moved safe Republican

Posted by: Scott | September 11, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

McCain finds it tough without Palin
Post a comment (273)
Posted by: Jason Szep
Tags: Tales from the Trail: 2008, Barack Obama, John McCain, Pennsylvania, Sarah Palin
PHILADELPHIA - Republican presidential candidate John McCain cut short his first public appearance without running-mate Sarah Palin after chanting supporters of Democratic rival Barack Obama interrupted his speech.

After lunching with a roundtable of women at Philadelphia’s Down Home Diner, McCain shook hands with supporters and strode up to a podium to deliver a statement. But as he spoke, chants of “Obama, Obama, Obama” filled the room.

Reporters craned forward trying to hear the Arizona senator. Unfortunately for McCain — and possibly overlooked by aides who planned the event — a section of the diner opened up to a market where a crowd had gathered behind a cordon.

A large contingent of Obama supporters showed up, mixed with some who had bumper stickers reading “Democrats for McCain”.

“It’s time to leave the talk behind and start shaking up Washington and fixing our economy, taking care of the problems facing our families. We’re going to give a tax cut to every family with a child,” he said.

His words were barely audible.

McCain’s supporters shouted “John McCain”, “John McCain,” “John McCain”. The duelling chants nearly drowned out the presidential hopeful’s voice.

“Pennsylvania is a battleground state as we can tell,” McCain said.

Meanwhile Palin, the Alaska governor, was on a flight back to her state.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

"An eclectic crowd -- including women wearing large plastic lips ..."

This is just wrong on so many levels.

Posted by: BearCreekMan | September 11, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse


JOHN MCCAIN LEADER OR MADMAN
YOU BE THE JUDGE.

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain arrived late at his Senate office on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just after the first plane hit the World Trade Center. “This is war,” he murmured to his aides. The sound of scrambling fighter planes rattled the windows, sending a tremor of panic through the room.


Erik Jacobs for The New York Times
John McCain said he had consulted Henry A. Kissinger on foreign policy before and after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Within hours, Mr. McCain, the Vietnam War hero and famed straight talker of the 2000 Republican primary, had taken on a new role: the leading advocate of taking the American retaliation against Al Qaeda far beyond Afghanistan. In a marathon of television and radio appearances, Mr. McCain recited a short list of other countries said to support terrorism, invariably including Iraq, Iran and Syria.

“There is a system out there or network, and that network is going to have to be attacked,” Mr. McCain said the next morning on ABC News. “It isn’t just Afghanistan,” he added, on MSNBC. “I don’t think if you got bin Laden tomorrow that the threat has disappeared,” he said on CBS, pointing toward other countries in the Middle East.

Within a month he made clear his priority. “Very obviously Iraq is the first country,” he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: “Next up, Baghdad!”

Now, as Mr. McCain prepares to accept the Republican presidential nomination, his response to the attacks of Sept. 11 opens a window onto how he might approach the gravest responsibilities of a potential commander in chief. Like many, he immediately recalibrated his assessment of the unseen risks to America’s security. But he also began to suggest that he saw a new “opportunity” to deter other potential foes by punishing not only Al Qaeda but also Iraq.

“Just as Sept. 11 revolutionized our resolve to defeat our enemies, so has it brought into focus the opportunities we now have to secure and expand our freedom,” Mr. McCain told a NATO conference in Munich in early 2002, urging the Europeans to join what he portrayed as an all but certain assault on Saddam Hussein. “A better world is already emerging from the rubble.”

To his admirers, Mr. McCain’s tough response to Sept. 11 is at the heart of his appeal. They argue that he displayed the same decisiveness again last week in his swift calls to penalize Russia for its incursion into Georgia, in part by sending peacekeepers to police its border.

His critics charge that the emotion of Sept. 11 overwhelmed his former cool-eyed caution about deploying American troops without a clear national interest and a well-defined exit, turning him into a tool of the Bush administration in its push for a war to transform the region.

“He has the personality of a fighter pilot: when somebody stings you, you want to strike out,” said retired Gen. John H. Johns, a former friend and supporter of Mr. McCain who turned against him over the Iraq war. “Just like the American people, his reaction was: show me somebody to hit.”

Whether through ideology or instinct, though, Mr. McCain began making his case for invading Iraq to the public more than six months before the White House began to do the same. He drew on principles he learned growing up in a military family and on conclusions he formed as a prisoner in North Vietnam. He also returned to a conviction about “the common identity” of dangerous autocracies as far-flung as Serbia and North Korea that he had developed consulting with hawkish foreign policy thinkers to help sharpen the themes of his 2000 presidential campaign.

While pushing to take on Saddam Hussein, Mr. McCain also made arguments and statements that he may no longer wish to recall. He lauded the war planners he would later criticize, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. (Mr. McCain even volunteered that he would have given the same job to Mr. Cheney.) He urged support for the later-discredited Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi’s opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, and echoed some of its suspect accusations in the national media. And he advanced misleading assertions not only about Mr. Hussein’s supposed weapons programs but also about his possible ties to international terrorists, Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Five years after the invasion of Iraq, Mr. McCain’s supporters note that he became an early critic of the administration’s execution of the occupation, and they credit him with pushing the troop “surge” that helped bring stability. Mr. McCain, though, stands by his support for the war and expresses no regrets about his advocacy.

In written answers to questions, he blamed “Iraq’s opacity under Saddam” for any misleading remarks he made about the peril it posed.

The Sept. 11 attacks “demonstrated the grave threat posed by a hostile regime, possessing weapons of mass destruction, and with reported ties to terrorists,” Mr. McCain wrote in an e-mail message on Friday. Given Mr. Hussein’s history of pursuing illegal weapons and his avowed hostility to the United States, “his regime posed a threat we had to take seriously.” The attacks were still a reminder, Mr. McCain added, of the importance of international action “to prevent outlaw states — like Iran today — from developing weapons of mass destruction.”

Formative Years

Mr. McCain has been debating questions about the use of military force far longer than most. He grew up in a family that had sent a son to every American war since 1776, and international relations were a staple of the McCain family dinner table. Mr. McCain grew up listening to his father, Adm. John S. McCain Jr., deliver lectures on “The Four Ocean Navy and the Soviet Threat,” closing with a slide of an image he considered the ultimate factor in the balance of power: a soldier marching through a rice paddy with a rifle at his shoulder.

“To quote Sherman, war is all hell and we need to fight it out and get it over with and that is when the killing stops,” recalled Joe McCain, Senator McCain’s younger brother.

Vietnam, for Senator McCain, reinforced those lessons. He has often said he blamed the Johnson administration’s pause in bombing for prolonging the war, and he credited President Richard M. Nixon’s renewed attacks with securing his release from a North Vietnamese prison. He has made the principle that the exercise of military power sets the bargaining table for international relations a consistent theme of his career ever since, and in his 2002 memoir he wrote that one of his lifelong convictions was “the imperative that American power never retreat in response to an inferior adversary’s provocation.”


But Mr. McCain also took away from Vietnam a second, restraining lesson: the necessity for broad domestic support for any military action. For years he opposed a string of interventions — in Lebanon, Haiti, Somalia, and, for a time, the Balkans — on the grounds that the public would balk at the loss of life without clear national interests. “The Vietnam thing,” he recently said.

In the late 1990s, however, while he was beginning to consider his 2000 presidential race, he started rebalancing his view of the needs to project American strength and to sustain public support. The 1995 massacre of 5,000 unarmed Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica under NATO’s watch struck at his conscience, he has said, and in addition to America’s strategic national interests — in that case, the future and credibility of NATO — Mr. McCain began to speak more expansively about America’s moral obligations as the only remaining superpower.

His aides say he later described the American air strikes in Bosnia in 1996 and in Kosovo in 1999 as a parable of political leadership: Mr. McCain, Senator Bob Dole and others had rallied Congressional support for the strikes despite widespread public opposition, then watched approval soar after the intervention helped to bring peace.

“Americans elect their leaders to make these kinds of judgments,” Mr. McCain said in the e-mail message.

It was during the Balkan wars that Mr. McCain and his advisers read a 1997 article on the Wall Street Journal editorial page by William Kristol and David Brooks of The Weekly Standard — both now Op-Ed page columnists at The New York Times — promoting the idea of “national greatness” conservatism, defined by a more activist agenda at home and a more muscular role in the world.

“I wouldn’t call it a ‘eureka’ moment, but there was a sense that this is where we are headed and this is what we are trying to articulate and they have already done a lot of the work,” said John Weaver, a former McCain political adviser. “And, quite frankly, from a crass political point of view, we were in the making-friends business. The Weekly Standard represented a part of the primary electorate that we could get.”

Soon Mr. McCain and his aides were consulting regularly with the circle of hawkish foreign policy thinkers sometimes referred to as neoconservatives — including Mr. Kristol, Robert Kagan and Randy Scheunemann, a former aide to Mr. Dole who became a McCain campaign adviser — to develop the senator’s foreign policy ideas and instincts into the broad themes of a presidential campaign. (In his e-mail message, Mr. McCain noted that he had also consulted with friends like Henry A. Kissinger, known for a narrower view of American interests.)

One result was a series of speeches in which Mr. McCain called for “rogue state rollback.” He argued that disparate regional troublemakers, including Iraq, North Korea and Serbia, bore a common stamp: they were all autocracies. And as such, he contended, they were more likely to export terrorism, spread dangerous weapons, or start ethnic conflicts. In an early outline of what would become his initial response to the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. McCain argued that “swift and sure” retribution against any one of the rogue states was an essential deterrent to any of the others. But Mr. McCain’s advisers and aides say his “rogue state” speeches stopped short of the most sweeping international agenda put forth by Mr. Kristol, Mr. Kagan and their allies. Mr. McCain explicitly disavowed direct military action merely to advance American values, foreswearing any “global crusade” of interventions in favor of relying on covert and financial support for internal opposition groups.

As an example, he could point to his 1998 sponsorship of the Iraqi Liberation Act, which sought to direct nearly $100 million to Iraqis who hoped to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The bill, signed by President Bill Clinton, also endorsed the ouster of Mr. Hussein.

Mr. McCain said then that he doubted the United States could muster the political will to use ground troops to remove the Iraqi dictator any time soon. “It was much easier when Saddam Hussein was occupying Kuwait and threatening Saudi Arabia,” the senator told Fox News in November 1998. “We’d have to convince the American people that it’s worth again the sacrifice of American lives, because that would also be part of the price.”

Hard Calls

Mr. McCain spent the afternoon of Sept. 11 in a young aide’s studio apartment near the Capitol. There was no cable television, nothing but water in the kitchen, and the hallway reminded him of an old boxing gym. Evacuated from his office but stranded by traffic, he could not resist imagining himself at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. “There are not enough Secret Service agents in the world to keep me away from Washington and New York at a time like this,” Mr. McCain told an adviser.


Over the next days and weeks, however, Mr. McCain became almost as visible as he would have been as president. Broadcasters rushed to him as a patriotic icon and reassuring voice, and for weeks he was ubiquitous on the morning news programs, Sunday talk shows, cable news networks, and even late-night comedy shows.

In the spotlight, he pushed rogue state rollback one step further, arguing that the United States should go on the offensive as a warning to any other country that might condone such an attack. “These networks are well-embedded in some of these countries,” Mr. McCain said on Sept. 12, listing Iraq, Iran and Syria as potential targets of United States pressure. “We’re going to have to prove to them that we are very serious, and the price that they will pay will not only be for punishment but also deterrence.”

Although he had campaigned for President Bush during the 2000 general election, he was still largely frozen out of the White House because of animosities left over from the Republican primary. But after Mr. Bush declared he would hold responsible any country condoning terrorism, Mr. McCain called his leadership “magnificent” and his national security team the strongest “that has ever been assembled.” A few weeks later, Larry King of CNN asked whether he would have named Mr. Rumsfeld and Colin L. Powell to a McCain cabinet. “Oh, yes, and Cheney,” Mr. McCain answered, saying he, too, would have offered Mr. Cheney the vice presidency.

Even during the heat of the war in Afghanistan, Mr. McCain kept an eye on Iraq. To Jay Leno in mid-September, Mr. McCain said he believed “some other countries” had assisted Osama bin Laden, going on to suggest Iraq, Syria and Iran as potential suspects. In October 2001, when an Op-Ed page column in The New York Times speculated that Iraq, Russia or some other country might bear responsibility for that month’s anthrax mailings, Mr. McCain interrupted a question about Afghanistan from David Letterman on that night’s “Late Show.” “The second phase is Iraq,” Mr. McCain said, adding, “Some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have come from Iraq.” (The Federal Bureau of Investigation says it came from a federal government laboratory in Maryland.) By October, United States and foreign intelligence agencies had said publicly that they doubted any cooperation between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda, noting Al Qaeda’s opposition to such secular nationalists. American intelligence officials soon declared that Mr. Hussein had not supported international terrorism for nearly a decade.

But when the Czech government said that before the attacks, one of the 9/11 hijackers had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence official, Mr. McCain seized the report as something close to a smoking gun. “The evidence is very clear,” he said three days later, in an Oct. 29 television interview. (Intelligence agencies quickly cast doubt on the meeting.)

Frustrated by the dearth of American intelligence about Iraq, Mr. McCain’s aides say, he had long sought to learn as much as he could from Iraqi opposition figures in exile, including Mr. Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. Over the years, Mr. McCain often urged support for the group, saying it had “significant support, in my view, inside Iraq.”

After Sept. 11, Mr. Chalabi’s group said an Iraqi emissary had once met with Osama bin Laden, and brought forward two Iraqi defectors who described terrorist training camps and biological weapons efforts. At times, Mr. McCain seemed to echo their accusations, citing the “two defectors” in a television interview and attesting to “credible reports of involvement between Iraqi administration officials, Iraqi officials and the terrorists.”

Growing Impatient

But United States intelligence officials had doubts about Mr. Chalabi at the time and have since discredited his group. In 2006, Mr. McCain acknowledged to The New Republic that he had been “too enamored with the I.N.C.” In his e-mail message, though, he said he never relied on the group for information about Iraq’s weapons program.

At a European security conference in February 2002, when the Bush administration still publicly maintained that it had made no decision about moving against Iraq, Mr. McCain described an invasion as all but certain. “A terrorist resides in Baghdad,” he said, adding, “A day of reckoning is approaching.”

Regime change in Iraq in addition to Afghanistan, he argued, would compel other sponsors of terrorism to mend their ways, “accomplishing by example what we would otherwise have to pursue through force of arms.”

Finally, as American troops massed in the Persian Gulf in early 2003, Mr. McCain grew impatient, his aides say, concerned that the White House was failing to act as the hot desert summer neared. Waiting, he warned in a speech in Washington, risked squandering the public and international support aroused by Sept. 11. “Does anyone really believe that the world’s will to contain Saddam won’t eventually collapse as utterly as it did in the 1990s?” Mr. McCain asked.

In retrospect, some of Mr. McCain’s critics now accuse him of looking for a pretext to justify the war. “McCain was hell-bent for leather: ‘Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, we have got to teach him, let’s send a message to the other people in the Middle East,’ ” said Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts.

But Mr. McCain, in his e-mail message, said the reason he had supported the war was the evolving threat from Mr. Hussein.

“I believe voters elect their leaders based on their experience and judgment — their ability to make hard calls, for instance, on matters of war and peace,” he wrote. “It’s important to get them right.”


-----------
Today is a day to remember those who have served our country, those who have provided a lifetime of service to our way of life, those who have children serving in our Armed Forces, and most of all those who have paid the ultimate price for our freedom.

Today is also a day to remember that some have worshiped in a church that preaches and wants us to believe that America deserved the attacks of 9/11. Also remember that a particular presidential candidate holds a close friendship to this pastor (for 20 years).

Candidates and Pastors alike should never bestow evil upon our great nation.

We shall never forget.

Posted by: Vance | September 11, 2008 9:28 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

She is a total stooge.

--------
Palin is using the same stump speech with teleprompters in Alaska?

Either she has to be dumb or the McCain campaign has got an overly tight control on her!

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | September 11, 2008 10:54 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 11:36 AM | Report abuse

"Slackers"?! Which one is it then, I post too little or too much?

Posted by: JakeD | September 11, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

Many of you in the lower forty eight wonder why do you want to live up there in the snow , the ice, and the freezing wind. Well I have a news flash for you. We don't come up here for the snow , the ice, and the freezing wind. We come up here because you are not up here.

Posted by: Karen Wasilla, AK | September 11, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

JAKE-D and 2 Many Posts:

I'm retired with plenty of time to waste here (especially since Michael Dobbs is "in the tank" for Obama over on the alleged "Fact Checker" ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 11, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Wow..this is an audio version of comments...let me turn my speakers up...and no, i don't have anything AGAINST Freedom of Speech...I do however, don't like slackers!
-----------------
Post:

You've got something aganst Freedom of Speech?

Posted by: JakeD | September 11, 2008 10:55 AM

Posted by: Post | September 11, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Of course the rethuglicans are lining up behind Palin. They would mindlessly cheer a bag of rocks if John McCain and Karl Rove told them it opposed flag burning. ROCKS! ROCKS! ROCKS! Fortunately, it looks like, after 2 terms of Bush the wonder dog, there are enough intelligent people who are fed up with the corruption and crime of the modern Republican party. And if you think today's Democrats are even remotely as corrupt, you are just being willfully ignorant. Look how many Rethug politicians are in jail right now. Where are all the Democrats? Trying to do what's right for the country, against great criminal odds and robotic chanters. If you love your Republican party more than your country, just at least be honest about it. The founding fathers would be appalled at the Republicans of today. So all of you who mindlessly supported Palin before you even knew anything honest about her -- the Nazi fascists called, and they want their time-traveling clones back. God help our democracy.

Posted by: bluegrasser | September 11, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Post:

You've got something aganst Freedom of Speech?

Posted by: JakeD | September 11, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Palin is using the same stump speech with teleprompters in Alaska?

Either she has to be dumb or the McCain campaign has got an overly tight control on her!

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | September 11, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

"alex and jakeD" stop bickering, get back to work, or go out on a date!

Posted by: 2 Many Posts | September 11, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Why would I want to "smear" someone that I intend to vote for? I am one of Sarah's biggest supporters and have been for a long time. She is the real deal. The only issue that I have ever had with her is that I think she should stand up for her right to say who and what she really is. She shouldn't have to hide being bisexual and having an open marriage. I guess maybe she has to to make it politics, but my point is she shouldn't have to. I love who she really is and I am sure most of America would to if she felt that she could open up and not get torn apart for it.

Posted by: Karen Wasilla, AK | September 11, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

JAKE-D I have seen you post on just about every article...are you supposed to be working? let me guess, "telecommuting for a company" this is why our country is in deep water!
------------


Marie Stewart:

Of course there have been Vice Presidential candidates who didn't talk to the press. You are aware that America has survived periods with NO sitting Vice President, right?

Posted by: JakeD | September 11, 2008 10:01 AM

Posted by: JAKE-D | September 11, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

If the Washington Post doesn't write a story abou this and get it on the front of google news in 10 minutes they've got some problems.

Posted by: alex | September 11, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Please stop allowing people to leave comments!

Posted by: Post | September 11, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Wall Street Journal
Ethics Adviser Warned Palin About Trooper Issue Letter Described Situation as 'Grave,' Called for Apology
By JIM CARLTON
September 11, 2008; Page A8

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- An informal adviser who has counseled Gov. Sarah Palin on ethics issues urged her in July to apologize for her handling of the dismissal of the state's public safety commissioner and warned that the matter could snowball into a bigger scandal.


Associated Press
Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten (right) answers questions about the 'Troopergate' investigation on Tuesday.
He also said, in a letter reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, that she should fire any aides who had raised concerns with the chief over a state trooper who was involved in a bitter divorce with the governor's sister.

In the letter, written before Sen. John McCain picked the Alaska governor as his running mate, former U.S. Attorney Wevley Shea warned Gov. Palin that "the situation is now grave" and recommended that she and her husband, Todd Palin, apologize for "overreaching or perceived overreaching" for using her position to try to get Trooper Mike Wooten fired from the force.

Mr. Shea was acting on his own in writing the letter, with no official capacity. In late 2006, Gov. Palin asked him to co-write an ethics report for Gov. Palin with then-House Democratic leader Ethan Berkowitz that recommended new financial-disclosure rules for elected and appointed officials in the statehouse. That report served as a key document for the ethics bill she later signed into law.

MORE


Read the letters from Wevley Shea to Gov. Palin and her aides.After his initial letter in July, Mr. Shea followed up with another letter, dated Aug. 4, in which he told Gov. Palin that she probably couldn't legally shun a legislative investigation into the firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan.

Gov. Palin has taken the opposite tack, hiring a private attorney to advise in a matter that has become known as "Troopergate." Seven Palin administration employees have refused to meet with the independent investigator. The McCain-Palin campaign has argued that the state legislature has no right to look into the matter. Palin spokesmen say the state personnel board is the appropriate investigative body, setting up a showdown between the state's legislative and executive branches.


Associated Press
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in Juneau, Alaska, on Sept. 5, 2007.
The McCain-Palin campaign referred comment on the letters to the governor's office, which confirmed receipt of them. "While we can't always act on every idea, Gov. Palin thanks Mr. Shea for his counsel," Sharon Leighow, the governor's deputy press secretary, said in a statement.

Members of the House and Judiciary committees overseeing the probe -- which lawmakers want wrapped up by early October -- meet Friday to consider issuing subpoenas to the governor's staff.

Mr. Shea, in his Aug. 4 letter, warned Gov. Palin against taking her current approach. "My feeling is this is not a personnel matter. It doesn't have anything to do with the governing of the state of Alaska," he said in an interview this week.

The governor has denied any wrongdoing in the matter and said the commissioner was removed over an unrelated budget dispute. After bipartisan committees of the state legislature in late July approved $100,000 to hire an independent investigator to see if any laws were broken, Gov. Palin pledged the full cooperation of herself and her staff.


Posted by: alex | September 11, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

(CNN) Judge warned Palin in 2005 to back off brother-in-law's job -- An Alaska judge warned Gov. Sarah Palin's family against trying to get her then-brother-in-law fired, according to court records.


Investigators want to know if Sarah Palin tried to use her position improperly to get her former brother-in-law fired.

That warning came long before the controversy over her dismissal of the brother-in-law's boss, the state's public safety commissioner, records show.

Palin, the Republican nominee for vice president, is battling allegations she and her advisers pressured Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan to fire her sister's husband, State Trooper Mike Wooten.

Palin's sister, Molly McCann, and Wooten were in the process of getting a divorce when the judge hearing the couple's case said McCann's family appeared to be putting Wooten's job at risk at a time when he would be required to pay child support.

"It appears for the world that Ms. McCann and her family have decided to take after the guy's livelihood, that whatever who did what to whom has overridden good judgment," Superior Court Judge John Suddock said during an October 2005 hearing. "Aesop told us not to slay the goose that lays the golden egg. For whatever reason, people are trying to slay the goose here, and it tends to diminish his earning capacity."

Don't Miss
Fact check: McCain earmark claims examined
Palin backed 'bridge to nowhere,' then opposed it
Palin's budget choices praised, criticized
Palin trooper probe moved up three weeks
At the time, Palin was a private citizen and would not become governor until 2006. In complaints filed with the state police, she and other relatives had accused Wooten of threatening her family during the divorce.

Suddock was in the process of settling the couple's property and child-support arrangements in the 2005 hearing. The judge said his decision might have been different had Wooten's continued employment with the state police been more certain.

"The plaintiff's table has created a situation where that is a very fragile outcome," he said.

Wooten's union representative testified that the trooper was the subject of a "constant stream" of complaints from his ex-wife's family. "If things don't change, Mike's career is in jeopardy," the union rep said.

"My advice to Mike was to find another job," said John Cyr, now executive director of the Public Safety Employees Association. "I think he needs, career-wise, to look for work elsewhere."

CNN obtained audio recordings of the hearing from the court clerk's office in Anchorage, Alaska. Roberta Erwin, the attorney who represented McCann, declined comment on the case Wednesday, and other representatives of the governor did not immediately return phone calls.

Wooten was suspended for five days in March 2006, after state police commanders determined he had used a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson "in a training capacity," drove his patrol car while drinking beer and illegally shot a moose using his wife's hunting permit.

In a February 2008 hearing over new custody issues, Wooten briefly complained that "disparagement" by his ex-wife's family was continuing.

Complaints about Wooten from Palin and her family have been under scrutiny since Gov. Palin's July firing of Monegan, whose duties included management of the state police force. After his dismissal, Monegan said he was fired because he refused to succumb to pressure from the governor's office to fire Wooten, and his allegations have led to an investigation by the state Legislature.

Palin has denied any wrongdoing, saying the commissioner was removed because of disagreements over budget issues. Her attorneys have called Wooten a "rogue trooper" and said no one in the governor's family knew of his suspension until after Monegan's dismissal.

Spokesmen for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign have said the legislative probe has become a "political circus" since McCain tapped Palin as his running mate in August.

Palin originally pledged to cooperate with the investigation and disclosed that members of her administration had contacted state police officials nearly two dozen times to discuss Wooten. But last week, she asked the state personnel board to conduct its own probe, and a string of witnesses has failed to show up at scheduled depositions with the investigator hired by the Legislature.

Last week, Cyr's union filed its own complaint against Palin and top aides, accusing them of improperly attempting to use confidential information from Wooten's personnel files against him. The McCain campaign says Wooten agreed to release his files during the divorce proceedings, and the information was in the public domain.


Posted by: alex | September 11, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Obama just does not get it. DNC liberals just do not get it. It is not about lipstick on pig. It is about the following

=========================================
In “The Hunt for Sarah October,” the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund writes about a 30-lawyer S.W.A.T. team of Obama Democrats descending on Alaska in search of dirt related to “Palin’s troopergate.” They found nothing that hasn’t already aired about Palin’s alcoholic ex-brother-in-law who tasered his stepson.
=========================================

No doubt most Americans want to see change.

Have you seen tiny bit of change by Chicago political poker players?

But People do breathe some fresh air from Alaska and they hope more.

And now Obama and DNC liberals are trying to kill the fresh source.

It is time and an opportunity to push real change in this country.

Do not just sit in church. Come out and join the force.

Posted by: jy2008 | September 11, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

RUBY2,

Excuse me for a typo. I absolutely do not believe in abortion. You don't know me and you don't know Alaska. Life is tough here, but we stay for the beauty and the freedom that people like Sarah fight for. I don't expect you to understand our way of life. People in Alaska keep themselves alive, we don't expect the government to do it for us.

Each year we prepare for longer and colder winters than any of you living in the lower forty eight could even imagine. If we don't cut enough wood or buy enough heating oil we die because much of the winter there is no way to get to our homes. Sarah gets this and she wants the rest of you to feel this kind of independence. You will be exhilarated the first time survive on your own with no government to bail you out.

Posted by: Karen Wasilla, AK | September 11, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Obama just does not get it. DNC liberals just do not get it. It is not about lipstick on pig. It is about the following

=========================================
In “The Hunt for Sarah October,” the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund writes about a 30-lawyer S.W.A.T. team of Obama Democrats descending on Alaska in search of dirt related to “Palin’s troopergate.” They found nothing that hasn’t already aired about Palin’s alcoholic ex-brother-in-law who tasered his stepson.
=========================================

No doubt most Americans want to see change.

Have you seen tiny bit of change by Chicago political poker players?

But People do breathe some fresh air from Alaska and they hope more.

And now Obama and DNC liberals are trying to kill the fresh source.

It is time and an opportunity to push real change in this country.

Do not just sit in church. Come out and join the force.

Posted by: jy2008 | September 11, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

As silence falls of the Post's blog, the charade is coming to and end

Posted by: alex | September 11, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

JakeD, tell me that the judges were part of the liberal media you clown.

Posted by: alex | September 11, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Suck on that, she has been blatantly lying to everyone of our faces about everything, it is documented! She was warned by judges and attorneys to back off her brother in law and that it was completely inappropriate and she could get in trouble for it. Then she fired his boss, the man who would not fire her brother in law, when she was elected governor! How interesting! Though she say she never tried to get her bro fired, SHE DID. There are documents and warnings and recordings to prove it.

"Hold firmly, never wavering, to the hope that we confess." -Barack Obama

Posted by: Alex | September 11, 2008 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Karen:

We don't believe you.

Posted by: JakeD | September 11, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

MORE REAL NEWS!

(CNN) Judge warned Palin in 2005 to back off brother-in-law's job -- An Alaska judge warned Gov. Sarah Palin's family against trying to get her then-brother-in-law fired, according to court records.


Investigators want to know if Sarah Palin tried to use her position improperly to get her former brother-in-law fired.

That warning came long before the controversy over her dismissal of the brother-in-law's boss, the state's public safety commissioner, records show.

Palin, the Republican nominee for vice president, is battling allegations she and her advisers pressured Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan to fire her sister's husband, State Trooper Mike Wooten.

Palin's sister, Molly McCann, and Wooten were in the process of getting a divorce when the judge hearing the couple's case said McCann's family appeared to be putting Wooten's job at risk at a time when he would be required to pay child support.

"It appears for the world that Ms. McCann and her family have decided to take after the guy's livelihood, that whatever who did what to whom has overridden good judgment," Superior Court Judge John Suddock said during an October 2005 hearing. "Aesop told us not to slay the goose that lays the golden egg. For whatever reason, people are trying to slay the goose here, and it tends to diminish his earning capacity."

Don't Miss
Fact check: McCain earmark claims examined
Palin backed 'bridge to nowhere,' then opposed it
Palin's budget choices praised, criticized
Palin trooper probe moved up three weeks
At the time, Palin was a private citizen and would not become governor until 2006. In complaints filed with the state police, she and other relatives had accused Wooten of threatening her family during the divorce.

Suddock was in the process of settling the couple's property and child-support arrangements in the 2005 hearing. The judge said his decision might have been different had Wooten's continued employment with the state police been more certain.

"The plaintiff's table has created a situation where that is a very fragile outcome," he said.

Wooten's union representative testified that the trooper was the subject of a "constant stream" of complaints from his ex-wife's family. "If things don't change, Mike's career is in jeopardy," the union rep said.

"My advice to Mike was to find another job," said John Cyr, now executive director of the Public Safety Employees Association. "I think he needs, career-wise, to look for work elsewhere."

CNN obtained audio recordings of the hearing from the court clerk's office in Anchorage, Alaska. Roberta Erwin, the attorney who represented McCann, declined comment on the case Wednesday, and other representatives of the governor did not immediately return phone calls.

Wooten was suspended for five days in March 2006, after state police commanders determined he had used a Taser on his 10-year-old stepson "in a training capacity," drove his patrol car while drinking beer and illegally shot a moose using his wife's hunting permit.

In a February 2008 hearing over new custody issues, Wooten briefly complained that "disparagement" by his ex-wife's family was continuing.

Complaints about Wooten from Palin and her family have been under scrutiny since Gov. Palin's July firing of Monegan, whose duties included management of the state police force. After his dismissal, Monegan said he was fired because he refused to succumb to pressure from the governor's office to fire Wooten, and his allegations have led to an investigation by the state Legislature.

Palin has denied any wrongdoing, saying the commissioner was removed because of disagreements over budget issues. Her attorneys have called Wooten a "rogue trooper" and said no one in the governor's family knew of his suspension until after Monegan's dismissal.

Spokesmen for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign have said the legislative probe has become a "political circus" since McCain tapped Palin as his running mate in August.

Palin originally pledged to cooperate with the investigation and disclosed that members of her administration had contacted state police officials nearly two dozen times to discuss Wooten. But last week, she asked the state personnel board to conduct its own probe, and a string of witnesses has failed to show up at scheduled depositions with the investigator hired by the Legislature.

Last week, Cyr's union filed its own complaint against Palin and top aides, accusing them of improperly attempting to use confidential information from Wooten's personnel files against him. The McCain campaign says Wooten agreed to release his files during the divorce proceedings, and the information was in the public domain.

Posted by: alex | September 11, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

A few years after the Vietnam War ended, senior Carter administration officials decided the Soviet Union could be weakened by getting bogged down in similar foreign conflicts, so they secretly encouraged the Afgans to provoke Russia. Russia invaded and began slaughtering Afgan viilagers. The Carter administration acted surprised.
Charlie Wilson convinced the Reagan administration to support the Afgan Mujahadeen rebels to the sum of $500,000 to fight the Russians and, thereby, help both themselves and America. The Afgan Mujahadeen won the war and began the demise of the Soviet Empire but their country was left in shambles.
The Reagan administration refused to donate 1/500th of the war funding to build schools, so the Afgans formed and educational system called the Taliban which took the whole country into hostile primitive fundamantalism. This set the stage for Osama.
Jesus said,"If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword." Wow! It was even our own sword.

Strength through peace.


Posted by: Charles | September 11, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Marie Stewart:

Of course there have been Vice Presidential candidates who didn't talk to the press. You are aware that America has survived periods with NO sitting Vice President, right?

Posted by: JakeD | September 11, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

REAL NEWS!

Wall Street Journal
Ethics Adviser Warned Palin About Trooper Issue Letter Described Situation as 'Grave,' Called for Apology
By JIM CARLTON
September 11, 2008; Page A8

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- An informal adviser who has counseled Gov. Sarah Palin on ethics issues urged her in July to apologize for her handling of the dismissal of the state's public safety commissioner and warned that the matter could snowball into a bigger scandal.


Associated Press
Alaska State Trooper Mike Wooten (right) answers questions about the 'Troopergate' investigation on Tuesday.
He also said, in a letter reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, that she should fire any aides who had raised concerns with the chief over a state trooper who was involved in a bitter divorce with the governor's sister.

In the letter, written before Sen. John McCain picked the Alaska governor as his running mate, former U.S. Attorney Wevley Shea warned Gov. Palin that "the situation is now grave" and recommended that she and her husband, Todd Palin, apologize for "overreaching or perceived overreaching" for using her position to try to get Trooper Mike Wooten fired from the force.

Mr. Shea was acting on his own in writing the letter, with no official capacity. In late 2006, Gov. Palin asked him to co-write an ethics report for Gov. Palin with then-House Democratic leader Ethan Berkowitz that recommended new financial-disclosure rules for elected and appointed officials in the statehouse. That report served as a key document for the ethics bill she later signed into law.

MORE


Read the letters from Wevley Shea to Gov. Palin and her aides.After his initial letter in July, Mr. Shea followed up with another letter, dated Aug. 4, in which he told Gov. Palin that she probably couldn't legally shun a legislative investigation into the firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan.

Gov. Palin has taken the opposite tack, hiring a private attorney to advise in a matter that has become known as "Troopergate." Seven Palin administration employees have refused to meet with the independent investigator. The McCain-Palin campaign has argued that the state legislature has no right to look into the matter. Palin spokesmen say the state personnel board is the appropriate investigative body, setting up a showdown between the state's legislative and executive branches.


Associated Press
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in Juneau, Alaska, on Sept. 5, 2007.
The McCain-Palin campaign referred comment on the letters to the governor's office, which confirmed receipt of them. "While we can't always act on every idea, Gov. Palin thanks Mr. Shea for his counsel," Sharon Leighow, the governor's deputy press secretary, said in a statement.

Members of the House and Judiciary committees overseeing the probe -- which lawmakers want wrapped up by early October -- meet Friday to consider issuing subpoenas to the governor's staff.

Mr. Shea, in his Aug. 4 letter, warned Gov. Palin against taking her current approach. "My feeling is this is not a personnel matter. It doesn't have anything to do with the governing of the state of Alaska," he said in an interview this week.

The governor has denied any wrongdoing in the matter and said the commissioner was removed over an unrelated budget dispute. After bipartisan committees of the state legislature in late July approved $100,000 to hire an independent investigator to see if any laws were broken, Gov. Palin pledged the full cooperation of herself and her staff.

Posted by: alex | September 11, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

I don't know if Sarah Palin is a racist or not. We don't have hardly any black people up here for her to have learned to hate, and we don't have the problems up here that the rest of the country has in its inner cities. So why would she be racist? In fact alot of us moved up here to get away from bad areas like that. I don't know what a "heterofascist" is, but I do know that Sarah Palin is bisexual so why would she be a "heterofascist"? Also how can you call her a "warmonger" when she has never been involved in any Federal Government decisions? When is the last time you heard of a governor of any state declaring war on anyone?

Sarah stands up for Alaskans to be able to live free and not be pushed around by the U.S. government. Our sex lives are none of the government's business. Sarah gets this, why don't the rest of you?

Posted by: Karen, Wasila, AK | September 11, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

RCPOLITICS 9/11-"...Mr. Obama's opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which states if an abortion is botched and a live birth results, the baby is entitled to medical care. The federal version of this law unanimously passed the U.S. Senate.

However, when a version of this bill came to the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama opposed it. When confronted last month with the fact that the federal version of this bill had been supported by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, Mr. Obama said the he would have supported the federal version. Those suggesting otherwise were lying, he said. Then it was revealed that a second bill was introduced in the Illinois Senate, and this one was identical to the federal version. Mr. Obama opposed that bill as well. He has yet to come up with an explanation on that one."
***
HELLO? Enough said on truthfulness and morals?

Posted by: scott | September 11, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Karen, Wasiila,AK:

If you're going to try to start a smear, Karen, at least learn to spell the name of your supposed home town. Radical-left so-called feminists like you (and I have no doubt your are bisexual) should try to purge your anger through something more productive. Maybe you could volunteer at your local abortion clinic.

Posted by: RUBY2 | September 11, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Would Washington Post please expose the truth about Obama's mother?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/mother.asp

Snopes seems to lack the courage to deny the report. C'mon, WP, let's hear it.

Posted by: Dan Dempsey | September 11, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

When will Governor Palin talk about things that really matter?


What's her vision of how to deal with health care and the long term funding of medicare?
What's her vision of how to deal with the economy and the housing crisis?
How would she handle the funding of social security?
How would she improve education and help make the US more competitive?
What will she do about global warming?
What's her thoughts about giving business away to China?
What's her vision of how to deal with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? We're still spending $10 billion a month in Iraq and there's no end in sight.
Does Governor Palin believe we should have fought the war in Iraq in the first place?

This is the hard work that we're electing her to deal with and it's not particularly glamorous. We're not picking her becuase she happens to be engaging at pep rallies. There are serious issues that face our next President. It's time to get real here. I'm still waiting for answers to judge whether to vote for her ticket or not and I'm getting tired of it.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Putting emphasis on the fact that she lied about her support for the bridge to nowhere is a mistake when the real bridge to nowhere is her support for the lie that myth is truth. Maybe her support for the lie that myth is truth makes her ill equipped to deal with fraud and extortion operations based on the lie that myth is truth nested within a shakedown of epic proportions some call the global war on terror. Why does Sarah Palin seem to think that behaving like a racist, heterofascist, warmonger is funny? If her run for the office of the Vice Presidency does not work out and the people of Alaska make her unemployed, then does she hope to start a career on Saturday Night Live as the next Tina Fey?

Posted by: Friendly Homotolerant Peacemaker | September 11, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Anyone else think it's insensitive that Palin scheduled her big interview with Gibson for the 9/11 anniversary?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: mp | September 11, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Putting emphasis on the fact that she lied about her support for the bridge to nowhere is a mistake when the real bridge is her support for the lie that myth is truth. Maybe her support for the lie that myth is truth makes her ill equipped to deal with fraud and extortion operations based on the lie that myth is truth nested within a shakedown of epic proportions some call the global war on terror. Why does Sarah Palin seem to think that behaving like a racist, heterofascist, warmonger is funny? If her run for the office of the Vice Presidency does not work out and the people of Alaska make her unemployed, then does she hope to start a career on Saturday Night Live as the next Tina Fey?

Posted by: Friendly Homotolerant Peacemaker | September 11, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Today is a day to remember those who have served our country, those who have provided a lifetime of service to our way of life, those who have children serving in our Armed Forces, and most of all those who have paid the ultimate price for our freedom.

Today is also a day to remember that some have worshiped in a church that preaches and wants us to believe that America deserved the attacks of 9/11. Also remember that a particular presidential candidate holds a close friendship to this pastor (for 20 years).

Candidates and Pastors alike should never bestow evil upon our great nation.

We shall never forget.

Posted by: Vance | September 11, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

RCPOLITICS 9/11-"...Mr. Obama's opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which states if an abortion is botched and a live birth results, the baby is entitled to medical care. The federal version of this law unanimously passed the U.S. Senate.

However, when a version of this bill came to the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama opposed it. When confronted last month with the fact that the federal version of this bill had been supported by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, Mr. Obama said the he would have supported the federal version. Those suggesting otherwise were lying, he said. Then it was revealed that a second bill was introduced in the Illinois Senate, and this one was identical to the federal version. Mr. Obama opposed that bill as well. He has yet to come up with an explanation on that one."
***
HELLO? Enough said on truthfulness and morals?


Posted by: Scott | September 11, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Laura, the world wants Obama? They can have him. If he's elected, we'll take our place among the world's socialist countries and relinquish our supremacy. But you libs would like that wouldn't you? Bring everyone DOWN to one level. No thanks. I pulled myself up by my bootstraps more than once and you can do it too, if you try.

Posted by: Jaycee | September 11, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

If you believe what has been read and said about Palin, she is, for sure, the hand maiden of the devil. Years ago when I read about Monica's, Clinton stained DNA dress, I thought the right had gone too far. Who would have ever thought that would be true? My point is, if the allegations regarding Palin are true, the truth will come out - just as it did with Monica's dress. At this point, it does little good for you Palin opponents to rehash every negative tid bit that comes from the internet chattering class. Palin has an 80% popularity rating with the people of Alaska. I think many of you assume, because of her popularity, that the electorate in Alaska is composed of all Republicans. More likely you assume that those among the 80% that supports Palin are stupid. Both assumptions are wrong. My advise to those who hope for a Palin defeat is to chill. Do you really think anything she has done compares with Clinton's extra-marital affair in the White House and his lying under oath to a federal judge? I think not. Now take a deep breath, shut your eyes and meditate saying "McCain-Palin" administration. If you start now, meditating over the phrase, you will not bust a gut when the ticket is declared the winner.

Posted by: Jeff in Orlando | September 11, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is the breath of fresh air that we need. The same old Washington (either Dem or Rep) is what needs to be fixed. Call it a gimmick- Palin will prove that you don't have to be a East Coast, Ivy League millionaire professional politican to be a success leader. The Dem's are wild with envy! There "promise child" has no experience and I will love to hear him rip her- since he will be tearing himself down.

By the way, where is "Scranton Joe"- I think he is lost or stuck on Amtrack.

What a great two months we have to look forward to!

Posted by: Doug Hickory NC | September 11, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

THE WORLD IS IN DEEP TROUBLE IF OBAMA WIN'S
THE STARS WHO ARE SUPPORTING HIM WILL DISAPAIR WHEN THIS COUNTRY IS IN TROUBLE, THEY THINK HE WILL NOT TAX THEM, WITH ALL THE MONEY THEY MAKE.

ONE FOR JONN McCAIN AND SARH PALIN
OBAMA STAY CLEAR OF OUR NEXT VP SARN

Posted by: JANE MORTON | September 11, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

"Vote for ACTION. Vote for a RECORD OF PROVEN SERVICE, a lifetime's worth. Vote for people who go AGAINST THEIR OWN PARTY to erase corruption. Vote to BREAK THE GLASS CEILING - YES, YOU HAVE ENOUGH GUTS TO DO IT AMERICA!!"

Whats your point? McCain is the immaculate lamb and Obama the ferocious Lion? Good exactly what we need a lion not a lamb.At 72 years old that lamb will soon need more than his lip-shtick girl to stand up for a fight.

Posted by: rob | September 11, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Remember, some say chickens came home to roost
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5ixmT83JE

Posted by: Carly | September 11, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Michelle | September 11, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Need a break from Schmit/Rove/McCain/Bush?

Springsteen - Born in the USA - Acoustic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7XLeYMUZY4&feature=related

Obama/Biden '08

Posted by: Yeil Raven | September 11, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

John McCain is a sell-out and exposed he is just a typical Republican politician by picking Palin. He picked her to appease his base, poach Hillary votes and stoke a class divide. Palin wasn’t the best or most qualified, it’s because he knew she would be a draw to small town America whom they are duping (Sara Palin ain’t like you, folks).
How is this being a "maverick"? How is it ‘Country First”? How is this “I rather win a war than loose an election”? I’ll say it again, John McCain is a sell-out. Obama said it pretty accurately too - Lipstick on a pig, is still a pig.

The most important metric for picking a VP is they are ready to step in from day one. His judgment is reckless and he gambled at our expense. The mere fact Palin is being educated on foreign policy and is avoiding the press indicates she wasn’t prepared on day one. She is running for the second highest office, but can’t answer questions from the press or public? This doesn’t alarm anyone?

I lost all my respect for John McCain. He's not the hero today he was 35 years ago. McCain is nothing without Palin.

What does it say about a campaign that has to "mimic" what and who Obama is, not to mention hijack Obamas core message of Change from day one just to poach votes? Is that all they view Obama as, a "product" a "formula", a “personality”? It makes McCain look weak and more importantly, the American people stupid if they fall for it.

Now all these puppets are willing to just get behind her without even knowing anything about her and try to convince the American public she is prepared to be VP or President? Not even uncertain objectiveness, caution, pause or question just because she has an "R" in front of her name? How can anyone make a honest, clear determination reasonably in less than 60 days?

Bravo America! We look like complete idiots once again while the world watches. I am truly embarrassed of my country. I guess all isn’t lost, at least many will have Palin’s eye glass frames while our country crumbles economically. We are such tools.

British Prime Minister Backs Obama
http://waugh.standard.co.uk/2008/09/brown-backs-oba.html

World wants Obama
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/09/2360240.htm?section=world

Posted by: Laura | September 11, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Why is everyone making such a big deal about Sarah Palin being bisexual? Haven't we gotten past this in our society? It is a well known fact that Alaska has much different views on sex than the lower forty eight has. Many of us moved up here so we could express our sexuality without having to live the way those in the rest of the country want us to.

The winters are long and cold here and who you make love to is your own business. So Sarah likes women, that's a real big shock, most of the women in Alaska are bisexual. Its just not a big deal here like it is in the lower forty eight.

Plus native Alaskans have been sharing their partners as long as any of us can remember, its just part of our heritage and culture. We don't think of it as racy like those of you down south. We just think of open sexuality and sharing each other as part of who we are.

So leave Sarah alone. You just don't understand Alaskans, and frankly Alaskans don't under stand the way you live in the lower forty eight.

Posted by: Karen, Wasiila,AK | September 11, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Here's some REAL hypocrisy:
-Running for president all your life but not putting in the public service, like joining the military.
-Saying that you're helping the community but then voting to help your friend Tony Rezko PROFIT from trimming the SLUMS of Chicago, and then having him help you buy a house at discount price.
-Saying on camera that you "WON'T" wear a flag pin, and then wearing it anyway because people are picking on you for it.
-Saying you are different than a racist/bigot pastor AFTER you have been AT HIS CHURCH FOR 20 YEARS.
-Saying you don't want endorsement from Farrakan but knowing that your church thinks he's the greatest guy in the world.
-Saying Mayor Kilpatrick is a great guy and giving him a stand-up endorsement but then telling him to "stay away" from your speech at the DNC because HE'S ANOTHER crook friend and will be GOING TO JAIL LIKE YOUR OTHER FRIEND SOON.
-Saying that you WILL ACCEPT PUBLIC FUNDING and then CHANGING YOUR MIND and not taking public funding(Show me the money baby!!), and then almost going broke AFTER you've made 500 MILLION DOLLARS.

And Finally (drum roll please):

Saying you are a CHANGER, and a Different Kind of Politician but then NOT HAVING ENOUGH COURAGE TO ACTUALLY BREAK THE GLASS CEILING, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY CHOOSING THE BEST VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN THIS CONTEST HILLARY CLINTON, and then choosing an old scape goat Biden, who is the SYMBOL of same-ole politics in Washington - just because he is more experienced than you(and Biden also says VP should be Hillary).

That's Hypocrisy. Strike three, you're out buddy.

Vote for ACTION. Vote for a RECORD OF PROVEN SERVICE, a lifetime's worth. Vote for people who go AGAINST THEIR OWN PARTY to erase corruption. Vote to BREAK THE GLASS CEILING - YES, YOU HAVE ENOUGH GUTS TO DO IT AMERICA!!

Vote McCain / Palin 2008!

Posted by: Kate | September 11, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

we can only hope she stays there....

Posted by: rob | September 11, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Here's some REAL hypocrisy:
-Running for president all your life but not putting in the public service, like joining the military.
-Saying that you're helping the community but then voting to help your friend Tony Rezko PROFIT from trimming the SLUMS of Chicago, and then having him help you buy a house at discount price.
-Saying on camera that you "WON'T" wear a flag pin, and then wearing it anyway because people are picking on you for it.
-Saying you are different than a racist/bigot pastor AFTER you have been AT HIS CHURCH FOR 20 YEARS.
-Saying you don't want endorsement from Farrakan but knowing that your church thinks he's the greatest guy in the world.
-Saying Mayor Kilpatrick is a great guy and giving him a stand-up endorsement but then telling him to "stay away" from your speech at the DNC because HE'S ANOTHER crook friend and will be GOING TO JAIL LIKE YOUR OTHER FRIEND SOON.
-Saying that you WILL ACCEPT PUBLIC FUNDING and then CHANGING YOUR MIND and not taking public funding(Show me the money baby!!), and then almost going broke AFTER you've made 500 MILLION DOLLARS.

And Finally (drum roll please):

Saying you are a CHANGER, and a Different Kind of Politician but then NOT HAVING ENOUGH COURAGE TO ACTUALLY BREAK THE GLASS CEILING, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY CHOOSING THE BEST VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN THIS CONTEST HILLARY CLINTON, and then choosing an old scape goat Biden, who is the SYMBOL of same-ole politics in Washington - just because he is more experienced than you(and Biden also says VP should be Hillary).

That's Hypocrisy. Strike three, you're out buddy.

Vote for ACTION. Vote for a RECORD OF PROVEN SERVICE, a lifetime's worth. Vote for people who go AGAINST THEIR OWN PARTY to erase corruption. Vote to BREAK THE GLASS CEILING - YES, YOU HAVE ENOUGH GUTS TO DO IT AMERICA!!

Vote McCain / Palin 2008!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

we can only hope she stays there....

Posted by: bob | September 11, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

WELCOME HOME SARHA! Just ignore the people with BIG lips. You will be the next VP. Guaranted.
Vote wisely, vote For the real change, not pocket change like the bro is promising.

Posted by: Democrat | September 11, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Sounds hypociritical? She IS hypocritical. Troopergate, no plane sale on Ebay, overstates (read lies about) gas pipeline and on and on and on. We've been had.

Posted by: Shut Up Sarah | September 11, 2008 8:33 AM | Report abuse

Real Clear Politics today-

September 11, 2008
Words Obama Will Regret
By Ken Blackwell

On Monday, Senator Obama uttered one sentence that could haunt him until Election Day. He said of Senator McCain and Governor Palin telling voters they would bring change, "they must think you're stupid." Given his stances on the surge, social issues, and his past, Mr. Obama will regret those words.

Let's start with social issues like Second Amendment freedoms. Mr. Obama denies that he's ever supported banning handguns, right after the landmark Heller case where the Supreme Court struck down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban.

When a 1996 questionnaire surfaced that had asked if Mr. Obama supported banning all handguns, his one-word written answer was "yes." He said an unnamed staffer must have filled it out without his knowledge. Then another copy surfaced -- this one with his handwriting on it. He says he must not have read that particular question. Sure.

On the hot-button issue of abortion, last month saw a growing concern over Mr. Obama's opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which states if an abortion is botched and a live birth results, the baby is entitled to medical care. The federal version of this law unanimously passed the U.S. Senate.

However, when a version of this bill came to the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama opposed it. When confronted last month with the fact that the federal version of this bill had been supported by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, Mr. Obama said the he would have supported the federal version. Those suggesting otherwise were lying, he said. Then it was revealed that a second bill was introduced in the Illinois Senate, and this one was identical to the federal version. Mr. Obama opposed that bill as well. He has yet to come up with an explanation on that one.

Posted by: Scott | September 11, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

From:
Head of State
http://tinyurl.com/6qr95o

Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Truth

Mark Halperin, on Anderson Cooper 360, September 9, from Talking Points Memo:

"AC: Mark, has there ever been a vice presidential candidate who has yet to talk to the press at this point in the race?

MH: No. And it's another thing I get that I'm embarrassed about our profession for. She should be held more accountable for that. The "bridge to nowhere" thing is outrageous. And if you press them on that, they falter because they know they can't defend what they're saying. They're saying it on the stump, as a core part of their message. It's in their advertising. I'm not saying the press should be out to get John McCain and Sarah Palin. But if a core part of their message is something that every journalist...journalism organization in the country has looked at and says it's demonstrably false, again, we're not doing our jobs if we just treat this as one of many things that's happening."

Cite:
Head of State
http://tinyurl.com/6qr95o

Posted by: Marie Stewart | September 11, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company