Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 09/16/2008

Palin for Energy Czar!

By Michael Dobbs
Gov. Sarah Palin "knows more about energy than probably anyone in the United States of America." --John McCain, ABC interview, Sept. 11, 2008.
"My job has been to oversee nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of oil and gas." --Gov. Sarah Palin, Campaign event in Golden, Colorado, Sept. 15, 2008.

The woman touted by John McCain as the most knowledgable person in America on energy issues has been having a lot of trouble getting her basic energy statistics straight. Last week, Sarah Palin told Charlie Gibson of ABC News that her state, Alaska, produced "nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." Yesterday, she told a campaign rally in Golden, Colorado, that she had been responsible for overseeing "nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of oil and gas." Both claims are way off.

The Facts

While Alaska is a leading producer of crude oil, it produces relatively little natural gas, hardly any coal, and no nuclear power. Its share of oil production has been declining sharply, and now ranks lower than Texas and Louisiana. As the following table shows, Alaska is the ninth largest energy supplier in the United States, accounting for a modest 3.5 percent share of the nation's total energy production.

State Total production Percent of U.S. Total
Texas 10,829 Trillion Btu 15.6
Wyoming 9,154 13.1
Louisiana 6,760 9.7
West Virginia 4,061 5.8
California 3,198 4.6
Kentucky 3,097 4.5
New Mexico 2,752 3.9
Pennsylvania 2,694 3.8
Alaska 2,417 3.5

SOURCE: Energy Information Administration

After the non-partisan Factcheck.org pointed out Palin's error in her interview with Gibson, the Alaska governor revised her claim somewhat, limiting it to oil and gas. But data compiled by the Energy Information Administration contradict her claim that she oversees "nearly 20 percent" of oil and gas production in the country. According to authoritative EIA data, Alaska accounted for just 7.4 percent of total U.S. oil and gas production in 2005.

It is not even correct for Palin to claim that her state is responsible for "nearly 20 percent" of U.S. oil production. Oil production has fallen sharply in Alaska during her governorship. The state's share of total U.S. oil production fell from 18 percent in 2005 to 13 percent this year, according to the EIA.

The McCain-Palin campaign did not respond to a request for an explanation.

The Pinocchio Test

The Republican vice presidential nominee continues to peddle bogus statistics three days after the original error was pointed out by independent fact-checkers. Four Pinocchios.

(About our rating scale.

By Michael Dobbs  | September 16, 2008; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Candidate Record, Candidate Watch, Economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Confuses his Verb Tenses
Next: Taxing Promises

Comments

SEXIST!!!

Posted by: krazijoe | September 16, 2008 7:47 AM | Report abuse

The truth?
The truth is to Republicans as salt is to slugs. They don't do truth, they only do slurrs.
I'm glad somebody in the mainstream media is finaly noticing that.

Posted by: dijetlo | September 16, 2008 7:58 AM | Report abuse

The four P's are deserved. This is a flat-out lie intended to deceive the voting public with a known-false statistic, there's no equivocating about it.

Posted by: Dave | September 16, 2008 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Palin knows more about energy than anyone in America? Wow. What is it exactly that she knows? Where energy comes from? The oil industry?

How about her explaining about solar, wind, biofuels? What can she tell us about the production and development of those, and what can be done to wean our dependence on oil?

It's getting to the point that every American should be insulted that McCain thinks we're dumb enough to buy this crap. What a joke.

Posted by: ManUnitdFan | September 16, 2008 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Plus, how much does the Governor of a state really have to do with anything? It's not like she's running the companies that produce the stuff. So let's test her -- she should submit to an interview with an impartial expert on energy issues, and let's she if she really knows what she's talking about. Come on, Gov. Palin -- you're not scared, are you?

Posted by: Adam | September 16, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

HOW MUCH LONGER CAN AMERICAN WITHSTAND GOP LIARS?

Posted by: PUSH BACK HARD ON THESE LIARS!! | September 16, 2008 8:19 AM | Report abuse

When is the fourth estate finally going to stand up and start asking tough questions. I am not talking about being harsh, rude or impolite.

What I am talking about is follow up questions when the intial answer fails to address the question.

Fact checker give Palin 4 Pinnochio's to Palin on her claim of being responsible for 20% of the nations oil & gas.

Pure hogwash, 7% at best and it is a declining number under Palin's tenure.

Demmand straight answers from this woman. It isn't sexist to demand straight answers from somenone who wants to be a heartbeat away.

Posted by: Thatsnuts | September 16, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

Better start sharpening those noses, there are likely more lies to come. The republicans have shown time and time again they cannot win an election on an even playing field, so they must lie. MUST.

But events are catching up to them. The economy is not "robust". I heard a republican this morning say how great things are because oil just dropped below $100 a barrel, yet it was nearly half that just 2-3 years ago. $100/bbl is a good sign for the economy?

Just how stupid do republicans think Americans are? Oh yea, they elected Bush twice, even after his lies about WMD were exposed. Maybe republicans are right, Americans are stupid enough to elect a republican again based on the lies they tell. We are now reaping what we sowed in 2000 and 2004. If McCain is elected, America's downfall is assured, and we can only point the finger at ourselves for being so gullible, so stupid, so superficial.

Posted by: Fate | September 16, 2008 8:22 AM | Report abuse

From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/hed-rather-win-election-than-tell-truth.html

Friday, September 12, 2008
He'd Rather Win The Election Than Portray The Truth

John McCain ran an honorable campaign in 2000.

He was beaten due to scurrilous dishonesty.

He's learned the lesson well.

He's hired those who did this to him.

And now, they're doing it again.

McCain has said that he would rather win the war than win the election.

In fact, as we have seen time after time this week, he would apparently rather win the election than convey the truth.

This approach brought us George W. Bush--and the dissembling, the half-truths, and the omissions and distortions to come. And, so, brought us the tragic consequences that have followed for individuals and families across the nation and the world.

As Americans, we often have short memories and powerful impulses. We tend to act on the latter. This is why history can repeat itself.

Remember. Remember how driven by emotion many became last time. By impulse. Without thought. Remember the statements that were made. Remember the realities that followed. Remember.

You can feel what you feel now--anger, aggression, glee, without examination of the underlying truth--for a moment.

You will live with the consequences for years, decades to come--perhaps for the rest of your life.

Remember the thoughts and feelings that preceded these last 8 years.

Remember.

According to the non-partisan FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_mccain.html), McCain has strained the truth about health care. About small business. About education. About taxes. About corporate welfare. About energy independence. About free trade.

We've seen this before.

We were distracted from the truth in just the same way before.

And we've lived the resulting damage--for the past 8 years.

This is the way we need to change the nation: By realizing what is true, rather than realizing what emotes us for the moment.

Think.

Remember.

And act accordingly for your future.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/hed-rather-win-election-than-tell-truth.html

Posted by: Susan D'Addario | September 16, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Finally, another relevant fact check -- and it's a whopper. The nerve of Palin to, even after corrected, continue to lie to the American people. No surprise, however, when you see McCain doing the same thing -- Palin never took earmarks, Obama wants sex ed for kindergartners. Lies -- proven, with empirical evidence, to be false statements -- and they continue to repeat them. The willful ignoring of facts is beyond spin -- it is utter dishonesty. It's a surprise coming from McCain, but not from a woman who denies evolution (Dinosaurs? What dinosaurs?) and global warming. The most important thing to point out is that in continually spouting these lies, McCain-Putin actually believe you will buy it -- that shows the level of respect they have for hard-working Americans, none. But at least the economy is strong, huh? Liars!

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 8:37 AM | Report abuse

"What I am talking about is follow up questions when the intial answer fails to address the question."

Aside from the Charlie Gibson interview, when is the press even allowed to ask questions of Palin? Her statements come from speeches without any chance for rebuttal and it should be interesting to see how these are woven into the debate on October 2nd.

The Republican mantra seems to be say something often enough and loud enough, no matter how ridiculous or untrue, until people believe it to be the truth. It works for Rush Limbaugh, right?

Posted by: More Cowbell | September 16, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Is anyone surprised? I mean seriously, the Republican campaign strategy has been to lie and lie some more. What they seem to fail to understand is this is the information age. We have 24x7 access to the media. We KNOW that you are lying.

It's sad that people aren't smart enough to see that the Republicans are going to say and do anything they possibly can to win this election. And I hope Americans are as offended as I am that they think we are that stupid.

Obama/Biden '08!

Posted by: DinahS | September 16, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Gov. Palin lies repeatedly and she draws throngs to witness her and cheer her lies. McCain may call Obama a Messiah figure but a true Messiah of evil proportions is one who lies, the people know it, and they follow blindly.

Remember Kristallnacht 1938 is soon to be repeated in America.

Posted by: NYC | September 16, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Mr Dobbs, you might want to check your numbers. I did a simple google for "domestic oil production" and the first link was
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_a.htm

In that link there is data accurate up to 2007. The data breaks up everything by PADDs but also make a distinct difference between state offshore numbers. If you assume the state offshore is NOT counted in the PADD numbers, you can get the 18% oil production number that people keep quoting (This means adding the PADD numbers to the state offshore for your totals). Perhaps that's were the "about 20%" number is coming from.

I'm not sure if the state offshore production is included in the PADD totals. I at first assumed they were not and I found no info telling one way or the other, but they seem to make a clear distinction between the two. Perhaps you could clarify this.

Posted by: jfg | September 16, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Maybe Michael Dobbs needs to revisit his Fact-Checker yesterday on the meaning of words. When Sarah Palin said "energy supply", Dobbs and his fellow left-leaning 'fact-checkers' immediately assumed Palin meant "consumption". In the energy community, "supply" frequently refers to what is available for use, not necessarily what is being used.

So, if Michael Dobbs were to do his own homework (not just cut-and-paste what the DNC is feeding to him) and look at what share of U.S. energy supply 'available to be used' is in Alaska, I wonder what number he might find. Maybe something closer to 20%?

Of course, our hope of ever being able to use the vast supply of oil and gas resources in Alaska depends on Democrats in Congress deciding to work for the good of the American people and approve new drilling, but I'm sure the Democrats will continue to just represent their real constituents: tree-hugger environmental special interests and celebrities.

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

It's a sad commentary on the state of the American mainstream press when it's left to everyday citizens to fact-check the Washington Post 'Fact-Checker', who we can no longer rely on to provide, you know, facts.

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Well, she can see an oil well from her state -- that's why she "knows more about energy than probably anyone in the United States of America."

She's scary -- what is even scarier is that millions of Americans are still prepared to vote for her.

Posted by: papa | September 16, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

I don't think Palin can take credit on her resume for a supply that has been coming years before her. As gov she just resumed that final say on ongoing events.

Posted by: natnicnic | September 16, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

To dbw:

Good catch. I got confused myself between "supply" and "production" because I was focusing on Dobbs point of view. You're correct there is a big difference.

Posted by: jfg | September 16, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Mr Dobbs, ignore my post about oil "production." It's totally irrelevant (and probably wrong anyways). Palin specifically said "supply" which renders your whole "production" argument meaningless.

Posted by: jfg | September 16, 2008 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Actually, I think to simply say that the Factchecker is confusing supply and production is wrong. A supply is something that is readily accessible for use, as in "our supply of moosemeat is running low, better go hunt some more." Maybe the word some of the discussants were looking for is "reserves" which refers to potential oil and gas. Governor Palin may be overseeing large amounts of reserves, but that's a little like saying she's overseeing the largest percentage of sunlight hitting the United States.

Posted by: Etch | September 16, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

McCain and Palin are chronic liars.

Period.

They lie and lie and get caught and lie some more.

That's fine for a four-year old child who's learning to understand morality.

Not so much from a 72 year-old politician and a forty-something nobody.

It's disgraceful, dishonest, and unbefitting of a potential President and Vice-President.

And what's truly sad is that they don't get it. They've ruined their credibility. They've thrown their integrity under the bus.

If they act this way now, how on Earth will they behave should they win the election?

Enough is enough.

Posted by: Martin | September 16, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Hey dbw - I see your friend Jake D is weighing in on the side of honesty and logic these days....

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Just as with Bush, the current Republican party has no genuine respect for the voters, the Constitution, the law or the truth.

Posted by: Bullsmith | September 16, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

The scariest thing about this whole controversy is not what Sarah Palin claims (regardless of how much it is discounted), it is what John McCain says about Sarah Palin. John McCain actually believes that Sarah Palin "knows more about energy than probably anyone in the United States of America." Really? Okay. So now we have a definite picture of what we can expect from a McCain/Palin administration ... A doddering old fool who will just sit there mumbling foolishness with no concern whatsoever for honesty or factual accuracy. What sort of people will we find in a McCain administration? A used car salesman as the policy expert on transportation issues? A bank teller as the policy expert on the economy? A security guard as the national security advisor? Look, I don't mean to make too light of this situation. Because, honestly, I am scared stiff thinking about how McCain -- a man who could conceivably become the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet -- goes about making decisions that will affect every American, whether living here in the U.S. or abroad. What we have experienced these last 8 years with President Bush -- a man who knows of no mistake that he has ever made with the possible exception of certain of the people that he has hired -- is such an alarming display of shallow perception that this country is now truly in peril. We absolutely cannot afford another administration who does not concern itself with good government, but instead with imagery, sound bites and photo ops.

Either John McCain is telling us that he really doesn't know that there are people who have devoted their entire education and professional energies to researching, analyzing, developing and advising on energy issues ... or he is telling us that he is not honest enough to admit that his vice presidential pick is window dressing who is not qualified in either foreign affairs or energy.

Posted by: Kay Decker | September 16, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

The comments by McCain / Palin are stretching of the truth at best, and out and out lies, as with the Bridge to No Where. This is what got us in the Iraqi war in the first place. Isnt it? They say we won or are winning the war? We won what? Sure, Cheney, Parsons and Mobil oil reaped record breaking profits, but the American people are paying a toll of $100s of millions of dollars a month. 100s of thousands of innocent iraqi people, men, woman and children have been killed! maimed! tortured, raped, left homeless... these are human beings, and all are creatures of God! The children of Iraq are worse off than ever before, and now their country is riddled with terrorists. Iraq is about to make a deal with China for the oil.

WON WHAT MCCAIN / PALIN? OR SHOULD I SAY WHO WON? I am a small business entrepreneur and my business is doing worse than ever before, and so are a lot of my other colleagues. We need to be honest and above board about our strengths and weaknesses. ENOUGH LIES. If you deny the truth, certainly you cant solve the cause of problems that you in fact dont acknowledge exists.

Its not just about salaries on Wall Street. It is about investing in America's future. Not short term money making schemes. The rebuilding of the economy, i.e., solar and alternative sources of energy take a great infusion of capital. We cannot accomplish this and invest in war that deplete our reserves and make the fat cats fatter! In fact, Bush / McCain / Palin depend on foreigners to fund this war. We will be paying interest for 100s of years. My God. They are weakening America and have the nerve to say they represent the common man!!! Which one of us common people have benefitted from this war? Even the soldiers and their families are not getting the support they need coming out of war. We are all losing jobs!!! Not to mention McCain / Palin are so trigger happy that we have to fear for our children in a war with Iran, Iraq, Afghanastan and Russia. No they wont talk to the enemy. They will respond in a war situation without blinking - like they did in Iraq.

Under McCain / Palin there is NO possibility for America to have in place alternative sources of energy within ten years in order for us to be energy efficient - as called for by Gore and wholeheartedly supported by Obama. Do they think common folk are imbeciles? STOP THE LIES!

We can count on a transparent, open and honest campaign and presidency with Obama and Biden! At least we can have OPEN AND HONEST dialogue as necessary to get to know each other better and work more effectively together in unison toward specific common goals, i.e., alternative energy plan that is doable, not just in theory, but in practice.

Posted by: Harriett | September 16, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

How on Gods Earth can she claim to know more about oil when she believes in "Intelligent Design"? Clearly she has never spoken to an oil geologist!

Posted by: Limey | September 16, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

dbw, does it concern you how technical and specific your defenses of Sen McCain's and Gov Palin's claims have been? Don't you think the proffered basis for these sort of claims ought to be more in line with the typical news consumer's initial interpretation of them? What percentage of the public would you estimate understood Mrs Palin's claim to refer to oil reserves?

Posted by: zukermand | September 16, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

dbw - Are you and the real JakeD responsible for 100% of our supply of B.S. or just the production?

Posted by: Jerry | September 16, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Jfg,
That was an interesting possibility, but the offshore oil is already counted in the "PADD" numbers. You can check this yourself by adding up the PADD totals and comparing them to the total production number at the top.

The off shore numbers are then seen to be merely for additional information. They are not additional oil.

Posted by: Njorl | September 16, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

In this context, "supply" and "production" are essentially synonymous. Palin is either ignorant of the actual percentage or deliberately exaggerating. Either way, though, McCain's claim is ridiculous on its face. Palin is not a bona fide energy expert, let alone the nation's leading expert.

Posted by: Patrick | September 16, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

"The woman touted by John McCain"

Woman? She has a freaking name you sexist POS. Stop the DNC cool-aid and get use to a GOP President come this November.

Posted by: Nobama | September 16, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

So it sounds like Sarah Palin speaks many falsities and half-truths.

Do you think she is a liar or just to lazy to check what she purports as facts to actually be facts before she states them?

I think a little of both.

HOW IS THIS NOT MORE OF THE SAME?

Posted by: Patrick | September 16, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Kay Decker:

Did you really just accuse the Bush administration of mostly using "imagery, sound bites and photo ops"? That's pretty funny! Whoever said you liberals don't have a sense of humor?

Allow me to introduce you to your candidate, one Barack Obama, whose entire career in public service can be adequately summarized by your phrase above.

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

This country is so fd up because the the Clinton's! Go Johnny Go!!!

Posted by: OU812 | September 16, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Even if jfg and dbw's hair splitting explanations held up, is that really the standard we should expect for our political discourse? Should every individual voter have to become a quasi-expert in every technical field discussed to suss out the kernel of basis for every misleading claim, or should these sort of claims rely on our common understanding of issues and their meaning be intuitive?

For example, McCain relies heavily on claiming Obama will "raise taxes", referring to the highest marginal tax rate and capital gains rate, neither of which will actually result in increased taxes for 97% of us, but be offset by other cuts resulting in a net decrease. Why do I have to be a CPA to know McCain is lying to me?

Posted by: zukermand | September 16, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Patrick said: "In this context, "supply" and "production" are essentially synonymous."

So then you must agree that "HAD a relationship" and "HAS a relationship" are essentially synonymous, when talking about Barack Obama's ties to domestic terrorists and racist America-hating preachers?

Keep spinning, Obama followers...it's fun to watch!

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Limey good question. If she believes in creationism where does she think oil and other petroleum products come from?

On which day did God create them?

Posted by: Patrick | September 16, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Wow,WAPO is really digging itself deeper with its biased reporting. I think they need to change their name to "Washington Enquirer."

Obama posters.....why don't you just relax. If she is a fraud, liar, bimbo, etc, don't you think the American people will figure this out? Gosh, you have the MSM on your side. Just take a breath and let them do your dirty work.

Posted by: concerned08 | September 16, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

I thought conservatives were the 'hateful' and 'mean-spirited' ones, while liberals were nothing but loving, peaceful, tolerant folks? You wouldn't know it by reading these boards.

The Obama defenders are by far the quickest to degenerate into belittling name-calling and accusations of stupidity and racism against anyone who dares to find any fault with their Obama.

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

I checked the EIA numbers for 2007. Taking into account offshore as well as onshore production, Alaska produced 18 percent of domestic crude oil in 2007.

Maybe she phrased it poorly, no need to be bitter ...

Posted by: Will | September 16, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

concerned08 said: "Obama posters.....why don't you just relax. If she is a fraud, liar, bimbo, etc, don't you think the American people will figure this out?"

Honestly? No. I've lost all faith in the American people to be able to discern or care about the truth....

(Of course, this also means that I don't think that raising a fuss about the lying is going to do much good, either, which is why you haven't seen me contribute elsewhere to this thread)

Posted by: B-W | September 16, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Also, Alaska's gross withdrawal (which includes gas later burned off or pumped back underground because of lack of infrastructure) of natural gas is 13.6 percent of total domestic gross withdrawal for 2006.

Posted by: Will | September 16, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

only one thing... the economy is so messed up because of president Bush and vice president McCain.
and if Palin won the election, the economy will be in peril in world history.

Posted by: thought2 | September 16, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Never let the facts get in the way of a good sound bite. We could have a competition: see what silly things you can get Palin to repeat!

Posted by: steve boyington | September 16, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Since when did truth and honesty have gender or race attached? Everytime a responsible citizen (regardless of occupation) asks legitimate questions, follow up or otherwise, we have to call them sexist or racist? When you read all of this, my question is, why are we all so confused at the state of affairs in this country, much less globally? We have come to a point where if someone is not "physically" reaching into our pockets, we have our heads buried into apathy where our fellow human citizens (and mammals for recent news) are concerned. We simply have stopped caring. We critique and criticize, rather than think and decide. We fear intelligence and have stopped applauding achievement. And what does it say of a society that refuses to take care of its children and care for its elders?

Yes, women can multi task, be great leaders and do some of the most miraculous things...like bringing life into this world. But without truth, empathy, intelligence and honor, they are just another person, like everyone else. We should not elevate one woman because she multi tasks with 5 children, we should recognize the millions that have done that every day for a very long time. John McCain made a choice of strategy, not respect nor wisdom. There simply is no sexist issue here. Just that truth that we all seem to have forgotten to see.

Posted by: Marissa | September 16, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Why don't we ask the McCain campaign how they arrived at the figures. If they don't respond within a reasonable time, then there is no doubt that they are lying.

Posted by: Zakk | September 16, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is Pinnocchio: a wooden puppet and walking lie machine.

Posted by: mnjam | September 16, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Since when is 18% NOT "nearly 20%"?! Michael Dobbs has gone off the deep end, in the tank for Barack Obama.

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

To dbw: No, I did not "just accuse the Bush administration of mostly using 'imagery, sound bites and photo ops'?" I accused the Bush administration of ONLY concerning itself with imagery, sound bites and photo ops. To wit, "Mission Accomplished," telling terrorists to "bring 'em on" when our brave young men and women are overseas dying for their country, Hurricane Katrina, etc., etc., etc. Please do not mistake me for someone who gives the Bush administration one iota of credit for anything except doing an extremely poor job for the last 8 years.

So what good does 26 years in office do for John McCain if he hasn't learned anything during his long tenure in D.C., except how to lie and spin ... which is exactly what his campaign is built on. Something which this fact check is specifically intended to address. Palin as the most knowledgeable person regarding energy in the entire U.S.? Let me introduce you to your candidate: Doddering old fool who's not intelligent or savvy enough to know not to say something so stupdendously stupid.

Posted by: Kay Decker | September 16, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

dbw:

That was a fake JakeD at 8:37 AM.

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

zukermand said: "...McCain relies heavily on claiming Obama will "raise taxes", referring to the highest marginal tax rate and capital gains rate, neither of which will actually result in increased taxes for 97% of us. Why do I have to be a CPA to know McCain is lying to me?"

I almost missed this gem. "Zukermand", I'm not sure you have to be a CPA, but you do have to be able to do math....which admittedly is elusive for most liberals.

This is brain-numbing boring math, but try to follow. If Obama delivers on BOTH his promised tax decreases for "95% of Americans" AND all of his new spending programs, something will have to give. His promised tax cuts to middle class folks like myself will result in, let's say, $250 billion less revenue. Further, estimates of all his promised programs range anywhere from $300 billion to $500 billion per year. Let's split the difference and call it $400 billion.

Still with me? So, if Obama delivers all his promises, he has $650 billion to make up between our tax cuts and his new spending. Oh wait, one more thing....he's promised to eliminate the $400 billion deficit. So let's just round it off at $1 trillion dollars that Obama has promised to add to our federal coffers.

Corporations, small businesses, and those 'greedy rich people' currently fund approximately $1.5 of our $2.5 trillion budget. For Obama to deliver on all his promises, he will have to add another $1 trillion dollars to the tax burden of businesses and the wealthiest Americans, or nearly double what they currently pay.

Now "zukermand", if you were one of the wealthiest Americans, how long do you think it would take you to find somewhere else outside our borders to invest your money if Obama told you he was going to double your tax bill?

The logic is simple....Obama can promise and promise all he wants, and accuse McCain of lying that your taxes will go up. Unfortunately for "Fact-Checkers" everywhere, your total taxes WILL go up under Barack Obama....via higher payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, federal estate taxes (the so-called death tax), etc....because there is no way Obama can shift that much tax burden to American businesses without an economic fallout that would make yesterday's 500 point drop look like chump change.

The sum is, McCain is NOT lying (not that I expect Michael Dobbs to Fact-Check something that would embarass Obama, for once). Your total taxes will go up under Obama, if he delivers everything he promised.

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Zakk:

Did you use the same standard for Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" Clinton?

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

the real JakeD:

No worries. I've learned how to distinguish the two :o)

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

"Where's my lipstick??!! I need my lipstick, now!!!" squeals the pigs of the most dishonest GOP ticket since Watergate, John Sidney McCain and Sarah Palin. These two will say anything and do everything (including lie) to win the election. America, wake up! It is the economy, dimwits!! McCain has no clue as to the state of economic affairs that affect you and me (McCain thinks the economy is "fundamentally sound"; perhaps his personal economy but others, not so much).

The GOPers lie like dogs and squeal like swine. Don't vote for this ticket!!

Posted by: Black and Bitter Like Coffee | September 16, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Kay Decker said: "Please do not mistake me for someone who gives the Bush administration one iota of credit for anything except doing an extremely poor job for the last 8 years."

Kay, I have one question: How many terrorist attacks have come near you and your family since the evil George Bush launched the Iraq War?

Next, please.

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Thank you media! We need you to call these lies as they are -- lies. Too many people have been scared into "reporting both sides" as in: "Sarah said X, Barack said Y, you decide the truth." People just remember there is an issue there, it isn't made clear to them. We need you to play that role!

Posted by: KathyFL | September 16, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Black and Bitter Like Coffee:

That's Sarah LOUISE Palin to you!

KathyFL:

I believe you are mistaken if you think Mr. Dobbs is saying McCain or Palin are "lying".

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

dbw:

There have also been ZERO partial-birth abortions near Kay Decker since he signed that ban into law. So, that's two big accomplishments right there. With Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court, we are slowly moving in the right direction.

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Marissa:

If not "sexist" there's some other type of double-standard going on then with the "Can you be Vice President and raise kids?" question. Did you ever see that SNL skit where they asked Hillary a question first, and when she got the answer wrong, gave the correct answer right before saying: "Senator Obama, same question?"

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Sexist? Accuracy knows no sex.
Methinks I smell desperation and the craziness that goes with it in the GOP.
Check out New York Times on how Palin hired friends and punished enemies as governor. This is getting Nixonesque.
Thank God a few media have grown a pair and stood up to the GOP slime machine with facts.

Posted by: BioWolff | September 16, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

dbw:

President Bush also prevents rabid tiger attacks. We haven't had any since he's been president, right? Therefore, he has prevented rabid tiger attacks... Sheesh, learn about logic and how to use it.

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Q: So, Senator McCain, who would you say knows the most about foreign policy?
A: Oh, that definitely would be Sarah Palin. Who else would have the nerve to say that because they can see Russia from a remote part of their state, they can manage foreign policy? And the way she repeats “all options on the table” when prompted at the right times – it’s obvious she’s the country’s expert on foreign policy. Oh, and she and her husband used to belong to a group that advocates making Alaska an independent country, a group that has ties to Russia, so there’s that too.

Q: And on drug control, Sen. McCain, who would you say knows the most about illegal drugs in the country?
A: Sarah Palin. By far she’s the expert on this topic. She was the mayor of Wasilla, meth capital of Alaska, and by all accounts her teenage daughter and son are heavy users of illegal drugs. Plus, I think she once got a prescription for Percocet. My wife would be a close second, of course, but Sarah’s the nation’s top expert.

Q: And sex education?
A: Come one, give me a tough one. Sarah Palin obviously. She’s had like twenty kids, and her teenage daughter is pregnant. That tells you right there how much she knows about sex. Show me one person who knows more about it than, Sarah Palin, I dare you.

Q: Is there any topic on which Sarah Palin is not considered the foremost expert in the country, ever?
A: No, there is not. She knows about everything. Look at Alaska – the perfectly run state. It has the best education, doesn’t it? And moose – I’ll tell you, she knows everything about a moose, and I mean everything. She even knows how many million-dollar homes I own – I had no clue. And transportation management? The expert, I tell you. I once saw her bring down a dirigible simply by pulling on the tether with her teeth. Tough woman. Nope, there is no one who knows more about anything, anything at all, than Sarah Palin. Plus, she is indeed a woman and an evangelical – please vote for me…. Um, Sarah Palin, um something something, vote for me.

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

A couple fake JakeD posts (what are you guys going to do tomorrow while I'm golfing?!)

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

I think the difference between "supply" and "production" is important. Consider the following the two questions:

1. What is Alaska's oil production?
2. What is Alaska's oil supply?

Production would mean oil pumped out of the ground. Supply would mean any oil stored above or below ground. That's just my opinion of course.

I think that's probably where the "nearly 20%" came from. I figured that number had to come from somewhere. When either campaign puts out a stat, its tied to some truth somewhere. At the very worst, Palin's statement might be misleading, but it does not deserve 4 pinocchios.

Posted by: jfg | September 16, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

dbw, is it really necessary for you to infuse your baseless arguments with insults? Perhaps you consider that a feature, rather than a bug.

If I understand correctly, your argument is the deficit implicit in Obama's tax proposals will result in higher taxes. A suggestion, if you plan to argue economics or politics, "dbw sez" is not evidence.

Posted by: zukermand | September 16, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

fake JakeD:

'Sheesh', my logic works just fine. But perhaps yours needs some tweaking.

George Bush as President is tasked with commanding our national defense. Zero terrorist attacks on our soil since he started the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is a success, no matter how you liberals want to spin it.

As for your nonsensical analogy to rabid tiger attacks? I can't help you there....I can only conclude that you must not be a conservative nor live anywhere near one of our mainstream media outlets, otherwise the danger would be quite real.

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

dbw:

Just ignore the WaPo "Tar Baby" zukermand.

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

To dbw: To answer your question ("How many terrorist attacks have come near you and your family since the evil George Bush launched the Iraq War?"), 100% of the more than 4,000 deaths of U.S. soldiers needlessly killed in the unnecessary Iraq War have come near me and my family. See, unlike you and other unthinking Bush bootlickers, I actually put my country first and care that Bush and Cheney are so glibly wasting the lives of these brave young men and women.

Bush told the terrorists to bring 'em on, and that they did. And there you sat ... in your Barcalounger ... beer in one hand, half-burned Camel in the other ... cheering that dunderhead Bush on!

Posted by: Kay Decker | September 16, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

dbw, you are in fantasy land.
The Iraq war has killed more Americans than 911 and achieved NOTHING...nothing except to promote IRAQ as a recruiting ground for irritated Arabs who want to join the terrorists. Bush has made us less safe and shed an unGodly amount of innocent blood in the process. (Check out those ten commandments.)
As for Palin, she's so hostile to women she brought in a measure to have the women of Wassila pay for police rape test kits. Check out the Washingtoon Post.
Oh, I'm sorry republican paranoids...all media are lying liberals...the elite world is against you...after all a Saturday Night Live skit proves it you say. Just nuts, you right-wingers.
(Time now to start with personal attacks...you know...call me unAmerican and unpatriotic...that always hides the facts for you nicely.

Posted by: BioWolff | September 16, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

"A couple fake JakeD posts (what are you guys going to do tomorrow while I'm golfing?!)"

How does one tell if it's a fake Jake post? Do they actually read intelligently and have something going for them other than "liberal lap dogs," elitist snobs, hatred of liberals, adoration of conservatives, pledges of undying loyalty to Bush and McCain?

Posted by: Kay Decker | September 16, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

As a true liberal, "zukermand" believes government tax policy does not change behavior. In other words, if zukermand's income tax rate is increased 100% of his income, he/she will continue to go to work same as always and gladly turn over every check to Uncle Sam and never think twice.

The point, 'zukermand', is that Obama works with a static model that pretends no one (including corporations or rich people) will change their behavior no matter how high he raises their taxes. You and I would change our behavior if Obama said he was going to double our taxes, wouldn't we? So why won't businesses and rich people change their behavior and lower the tax base Obama plans to apply his new rates to? And if they move investments overseas, guess what....I may have $0 income to apply those new lower tax rates to that Obama is promising me.

That's why John McCain is not lying about how your TOTAL taxes are going up if Obama delivers on all his spending promises, even if Obama can trumpet a meager 'cut' in your income rate.

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

The fact is Congress over decades now has not properly addressed the current energy crisis in this country and both sides are to blame, not just one single administration. On another note, that Bridge to Nowhere, if I am not mistaken, Congress could have, because they took a vote, sent that money to Katrina victims in NOLA, but they voted to send it to Alaska, this includes Obama and Biden. I think if I were them I would be careful casting out those earmark stones. On a final note, Biden himself has lied on Meet the Press. He spoke about the bankruptcy reform he worked on and how it was not a conflict of interest for him to chair the committee even though his son was a lobbyist for bankruptcy reform and his son's company had donated $215k to his campaign chest. That's the first no no. The second was his statement that he made sure his bankruptcy reform took care of mothers and child support issues. WRONG WRONG WRONG. Child support his listed as an "unsecured priority debt" under bankruptcy rules. This means that companies with "secured priority debts" get paid first, like say Friedman's Jewelers or a car loan company, just exactly how did Biden think he was protecting mothers and child support? Case in my point, when my ex filed bankruptcy, his arrearages went up because I was so far down on the list to get paid, in fact I never saw a dime of that bankruptcy money. Biden should max out on the Pinnochios if you ask me. I think he is out of touch with the child support crisis in this country.

Posted by: kalexander1 | September 16, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Kay Decker:

Since I have never posted the words "liberal lap dogs" (before just now), that would indeed be a fake JakeD post. Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

I don't think the supply=reserves argument holds water. Supply by definition, as any economist would tell you, is that which is immediately available for consumption in the market, and not that which may become available at a future date.

Even if the supply=reserves interpretation was valid, wouldn't we need to compare all reserves, including coal, gas, hydro, wind, solar and nuclear, to get an apples-to-apples comparison? Admittedly, the concept of reserves in some of these examples may not make sense (such as our solar reserves), but what about the "supply" of nuclear energy as measured by the amount of untapped Uranium reserves in the country? Sorry, but supply means supply.

If you want energy expertise in Alaska, you talk to the head of Alyeska, not the governor.

Posted by: DC Guy | September 16, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

The Post should stop referring to factcheck.org as "nonpartisan." The Annenberg (yes, THAT Annenberg) funded group is strongly pro-Obama in every way. Take a look at the home page and you'll see that factcheck.org intentionally distorts and deceives.

Posted by: Mike | September 16, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse


She either doesn't know what she is doing, or she doesn't care for right or wrong. Both admirable qualities in a leader. Same with this:

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/sarah-palins-reading-list/

Whatever it is, her cheek or her sheer incompetence it is despicable.

Posted by: European_Elitist | September 16, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

jfg:

Read the link in the above column to factcheck.org. The McCain campaign has answered where the data came from -- data from an Alaskan state agency that is not only dated, but that even if it were current does not support the sweeping claims that Palin and McCain have made. Even their refinement to 20% of oil/gas is simply not true.

As for your musings on production/supply, it is clear from the datasource that McCain/Palin used, that they were talking production as supply. The amount under the ground is only an estimate, and not all can be recovered. Not to mention the fact that if you look at potential reserves as "supply," Alaska would have an even lower percent of domestic oil/gas, if you listen to those who believe the oil/gas reserves off the eastern continental shelf could provide as much as 5% of the world's current production. Nice try, though.

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

kalexander1:

Good points (although the federal government has spent MUCH more on Katrina than ever proposed for the Bridge to Nowhere). As for McCain's energy plan, he is willing to look EVERYWHERE for solutions. Not just drilling for more oil -- which it sounds like the Democrats are going to agree to finally -- but also nuclear, wind, solar, etc.:

http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I have heard so many mis speaks on both sides that I could care less about what statistics were misquoted at this point. It will all come down to who you can trust. Keep in mind that Obama said some nasty things about people in Ohio and PA while he was in California. To treat people with so little respect will not gain their vote. I believe that obama may just lose this election by a landslide. It doesn't seem to matter how much money he gets in donations anymore. It is not buying him peoples votes.

Posted by: Debra | September 16, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Kay Decker:

Another fake JakeD post at 12:54 PM

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

kalexander1: This is typical of Bush apologists. If Bush and Cheney screw up, blame Congress.
Sorry, Cheney held an energy summit as he took power but didn't reveal what goals had been set or who he met with. Bush, the "oil man" has created NO proactive measures to deal with the energy crisis except to invade Iraq. Sadly, the Chinese have been the first to make an oil deal with the Iraqis.
Bush/Cheney: pathetic. McCain? McSame.
Oh yeah, Palin is a real energy expert...see all the windmills and geothermal in Alaska? Just Kidding. I only see Russia from Alaska.

Posted by: BioWolff | September 16, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

to Kay Decker & BioWolff:

Well, you guys have certainly bought into the propoganda of the liberal party line. The Iraq War was a waste, and liberals are desperate to make America a loser in wars.

Don't get me wrong, liberals aren't always against war.....just this war. Or the next one. Or the one after that. Or the one.....

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

dbw:

Saying there is nothing wrong with your logic and proving it are two different things. To make the statement you made valid, you would have to prove that President Bush, directly on his own, single-handedly prevented terrorist attacks from taking place in the homeland. That is patently absurd. So, I guess President Reagan and President Carter, did the same?

Any sensible person knows that there are many, many reasons a major attack has not taken place in the U.S. since 911. Some of that has to do with policy (foreign and domestic, but certainly not the Iraq war), some of it does not.

As for your distinction between attacks here and abroad on U.S. interests (i.e., people), is it better to kill Americans here or overseas? And are Americans only affected when it happens here? When an American solder gets killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq, how is that not a terrorist attack and how does that not affect his family just the same than if it happened here? Now, multiply it -- you get more deaths since 911 than occurred during it. By your logic, that is all on President Bush. Oh wait, a minute -- there I agree with you. President Bush has been on watch as thousands of Americans have been killed by terrorists. Therefore, he is directly responsible for their deaths. Good point, dbw. (Ah, bad logic brings such comfort, doesn't it?)

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

It makes me so sad to watch what McCain-Palin have done to this campaign. I can truly say their genre of politics makes me ashamed to be American. McCain is NO patriot. He would not wish this on this country if he care for America and its citizens - he is a terrible role model for patriotism.

Posted by: AMCNYC | September 16, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

BioWolff:

My, you are such an expert on energy policy. Do tell: what has your party, which controls Congress, done lately to try to address the energy crisis? I mean, other than tell me to inflate my tires?

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

AMCNYC:

Unfortunately, for you, McCain-Palin have pulled to within 5% points in New York (Electoral Landslide, here we come ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Why is it considered sexist to expect a woman running for the second highest position to be honest. No one screamed sexist when people disagreed or pointed out incorrect claims that Hilary made. Can we all remember ducking from gun fire? Geez people if you can't see that Palin is just a "pretty puppet" we are in really big trouble.

Posted by: Christine | September 16, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

dbw, you may be certain, increasing my tax rate to 100% would dramatically affect my decision making. So would doubling my taxes. Of course, these and all of your other hypothetical policies and their effects exist only in your fevered imagination. Which demands the question, do you have a point, or do you simply parrot right wing talking points all day as a form of finger exercise?

Posted by: zukermand | September 16, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

the fake JakeD said: "To make the statement you made valid, you would have to prove that President Bush, directly on his own, single-handedly prevented terrorist attacks from taking place in the homeland."

Man, do you liberals walk into traps so easily. Thank you, fake JakeD, for pointing out to everyone that, by your own admission, President Bush has nothing to do with the failing economy.

I mean, after all President Bush didn't 'single-handedly' make millions of foolish people ignore all conventional personal-finance wisdom, and sign papers to buy homes that were twice what they could afford with 0% downpayments and interest-rate escalators.

So according to the fake JakeD, President Bush had nothing to do with the mortgage-related economic problems we are facing. Someone should let Obama know.....maybe that Fact-Checker, Dobbs.

Do liberals even know what powers our President has? Have you guys read the constitution? Ever?

You think Bush has nothing to do with foreign policy successes....but domestic economic failure is all his. Yeah, liberal logic makes perfect sense!

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

How do you know McSain/Stalin are lying?

When their lips are moving.

Problem is we'll never be able to wake up the 30 percentile of ignorant fools in this country who only care what's on American Idle next week.

Democrats loose or have this election stolen again and we're finished as a country.

Posted by: dagman | September 16, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Christine:

Is it "sexist" to ask Gov. Palin (and no other MALE candidate): "Can you be Vice President / President and raise kids?"

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

zukermand:

If you missed the point, that's on you. I can't help you anymore. Do you have any facts or numbers to prove me wrong, or just empty rhetoric....much like your candidate?

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

dbw, perhaps you miss the point. It is clear that while you type and type, you offer nothing but baseless speculation, caricature of opposing arguments, and your opinion. What is there to respond to?

Posted by: zukermand | September 16, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

dbw:

Another leap in logic, and this time by putting words in my mouth with your straw man "liberal" -- another good example of a classic foible in logic... If you read my post you would realize several things: 1) I never said Bush was to blame for the mortgage crisis; 2) I said that the reason a major terrorist attack has not occurred in the homeland was for many, many reasons -- to include domestic and foreign policy (under President Bush, obviously, but with Congressional, agency, private industry, and many others involved). There are also reasons outside of President Bush's, or liberals' (which I am not -- I'm independent), or anyone's control, that has contributed to this undoubtedly good situation... And the question still remains of you, though I know you won't answer it as you are simply trying to get out of the corner I backed you into. If you believe President Bush is responsible for saving American lives in the U.S. thanks to his leadership, then you must agree that he is responsible for the deaths of Americans overseas as well -- based on the same logic. I'm sure you'll either deliver another tangential post or crickets to that.

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

To dbw: "Well, you guys have certainly bought into the propoganda of the liberal party line. The Iraq War was a waste, ..."

Yeah, me, BioWolff ... and 2/3 of all Americans. We all bought into the liberal propaganda of what a disaster the Iraq War has been, how it was a mistake to ever start a war in Iraq in the first place, how it wasn't and still isn't worth the costs of waging it, how it hasn't accomplished anything benefical for America, and how it has made America less safe. Darn! Those liberals are even better than even I would have given them credit for!!!! They've managed to sell their party line to a full 2/3 of all Americans.

Posted by: Kay Decker | September 16, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

dbw, thank you for the kind compliment. First of all I don't have a party. I do know that the executive branch has achieved nothing at all despite being oilmen. Congress achieved nothing also during six years of GOP domination. Now under the Dems, you are right, nothing substantial has come out of Washington gridlock...that's why we have an executive branch (or should) to work in a bipartisan way to make things happen...to break gridlock and set goals. Whose future goals you believe in...well you just have to go with America's foremost energy expert who can't get her facts straight on Alaska energy, right?

Posted by: BioWolff | September 16, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

So dbw, your 'clarification' of supply holds as much plausibility as Palin's explanation of her grasp of Russia. She lives in a state atop a large oil field = she can see Russia from Alaskan land. Well, I can see Canada from my house, so can I be the US ambassador to Canada in McCain's administration?

Posted by: mm | September 16, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

The immoral war in Iraq is proof enough of the lying and incompetence of the Republican patsies of the defense industry. We don't need oil statistics. There are 100,000 dead Iraqi men, women and children and 4,200 dead American soldiers who can provide all the statistics we need to vote these bungling idiots out of office.

Posted by: Dan Rains | September 16, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

It's not so much that they're deliberately lying, but they just believe everything they hear from Rush.

That's why John and Sarah think George is the best president we ever, ever had :)

Posted by: Pangloss | September 16, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

I live in West Florida. The Gulf of Mexico is smaller than the Bering Sea. This makes me a Mexican authority. Can I be the ambassador MM?

Posted by: BioWolff | September 16, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Kay Decker:

Please post here the non-partisan opinion poll where 66% of Americans called the Iraq War "a waste".

Or, once again, do you have zero facts to back up your impassioned-yet-misguided rhetoric?

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

alaska in the beginning exported most oil outside of the U.S....
which was changed later...by clinton...
the company is canadian owned...
crude in most goes to canada and U.S....
however they have downed the production to one third of capability/what it was to insure high prices...
supply and demand inverse...
so who gets stuck...we do...the average person
palin knows nothing...as she is really not in charge of anything...
then she talks of drilling...
when we do not have refineries...have out of date refineries closed...and add to that doing worse after the hurricane...

Posted by: jeff London | September 16, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

zukermand: "what is there to respond to"

You could always respond to stuff like, you know, facts and numbers, if you think I'm wrong. Prove how the math of Obama's plan works. Maybe that would be a good start.

I find it interesting that whenever I have called out the mathematical implausibility of Obama's economic "plan", not one Obama defender has even tried, much less succeeded, in showing how Obama's plan can really work as it is laid out in campaign promises.

So I don't intend to be insulting, but if an Obama follower can't defend Obama's economic plan, then I can only assume that either 1) they already know it's a lie, or 2) they can't do math.

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

The truth has a well-known liberal bias and it's now sexist, too! This is why you can't trust the facts!

Facts make people feel stupid. We need a stupid president so that we can feel smarter than them. We need a president who makes us feel good!

What could be more important than feeling good?

Posted by: H | September 16, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

To mm: "Well, I can see Canada from my house, so can I be the US ambassador to Canada in McCain's administration?"

Seems to me, mm, you are a little overqualified to fill the U.S. Ambassador to Canada slot in the McCain administration. I think McCain is looking to fill that slot with, perhaps, a cashier at a 7-Eleven in Alabama who was once given a Canadian quarter by mistake. Good news, however. You are qualified to be Secretary of State due to your proximity to Canada!

Posted by: Kay Decker | September 16, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

There's so much sexism in this campaign, I hardly know where to begin. I mean, just look at how sexist THESE guys are!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card

It's just absurd to see women attacked like that.

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

To be fair, it might well be true that Palin knows more about energy than anyone else in McCain's campaign . . .

Posted by: drossless | September 16, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

The disconnect between the mass-media world we live in and the real world our rear-ends occupy while we're contemplating it grows wider every day. (Pun intended)

That McCain would make a statement about Gov. Palin's expertise on the subject of energy such as he did is incredible, but even more incredible is the number of people who are willing to accept it at face value. Gov. Palin has already revealed her own ignorance of even the most obvious and readily available facts on the subject, but I'm willing to be that McCain's own expertise on the subject is not much better or worse than hers.

But here's the real kicker: we have (and have had for at least 10 years) a technology which makes it possible for anyone with reasonable critical thinking skills to study, investigate and learn about just about any subject imaginable, and it's called the Internet. If you gave me 24 hours notice that you were going to anoint me as "one of the foremost experts on domestic energy" at a press-conference, I could (and would) spend maybe 8 to 12 hours of that time reading up on the subject, and by the time someone asked me a question about it, I'd probably know enough to make at least a modestly credible answer, and avoid answering a question I knew nothing about. But just as I heard John McCain explaining why he doesn't need to use e-mails, he obviously doesn't need to know much about the single most important technology for learning and thinking about and then deciding critical issues facing mankind. Instead, he concentrates on knowing when the cameras are on and when they're off, and as long as voters don't require any more of him than that, he'll be okay.

We get the government we deserve.

Posted by: ted in pdx | September 16, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

fake JakeD at 1:58 PM

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

According to the Energy Information Administration, the total US known oil reserves (as of 12/31/2006) were 20.972 Billion barrels. Alaska reserves were 3.879 Billion barrels, or 18.5% of the US total.

Posted by: Carl | September 16, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Kay Decker and mm:

The guy you want to be PRESIDENT:
- had 1 year of Senate experience before he began campaigning
- 8 years as a part-time state senator before that.
- has never led anything.
- has never even been the chair of a committe in the Senate.
- never ran a company.
- never ran a town, city, county, or state government.

Now, what were you saying about the experience required to serve in a McCain administration?

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Kay Decker and mm:

The guy you want to be PRESIDENT:
- had 1 year of Senate experience before he began campaigning
- 8 years as a part-time state senator before that.
- has never led anything.
- has never even been the chair of a committe in the Senate.
- never ran a company.
- never ran a town, city, county, or state government.

Now, what were you saying about experience requirements in a McCain administration?

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Ah, Palin will get some learnin' at the U.N. according to the right wing Wall St. Journal:

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin will meet with foreign leaders next week at the United Nations, a move to boost her foreign-policy credentials, a Republican strategist said.

Republican candidate John McCain plans to introduce the Alaska governor to heads of state at the opening of the U.N. General Assembly, although specific names weren’t yet firmed up. “The meetings will give her some exposure and experience with foreign leaders,” the strategist said. “It’s a great idea.”

McCain and Palin are expected to visit the U.N. on Tuesday, when President George W. Bush will address the international body.

McCain advisers hope her U.N. visit will show how quickly Palin can make key connections and become well-versed in foreign-policy issues.

Boy oh boy, she must be a quick study!

Posted by: BioWolff | September 16, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

To dbw: Go to http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm to view the recent poll results. One question that was asked was: "All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?" 61% of those polled answered "Not Worth It." 60% of those polled say that the U.S. should set a timetable to get us out of Iraq. 58% say that it was a mistake to send troops in the first place. Are you suggesting that you believe America, as a whole, is still behind the Iraq War? News reports abound with how disheartened the American public is with the Iraq War, and what an abysmal failure they consider it to be. America's desire to get out of Iraq is one of the primary issues driving this election.

It truly is sad ... nay, pathetic ... that everything you cannot understand, refuse to see, are incapable of admitting is something that, in your mind alone, has no basis in fact or is based on some lopsided adherence to liberal ideology or is misguided. Perhaps the world wouldn't be such a big, bad, scary place to you if you would just open your mind.

Posted by: Kay Decker | September 16, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

To dbw: Go to http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm to view the recent poll results. One question that was asked was: "All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?" 61% of those polled answered "Not Worth It." 60% of those polled say that the U.S. should set a timetable to get us out of Iraq. 58% say that it was a mistake to send troops in the first place. Are you suggesting that you believe America, as a whole, is still behind the Iraq War? News reports abound with how disheartened the American public is with the Iraq War, and what an abysmal failure they consider it to be. America's desire to get out of Iraq is one of the primary issues driving this election.

It truly is sad ... nay, pathetic ... that everything you cannot understand, refuse to see, are incapable of admitting is something that, in your mind alone, has no basis in fact or is based on some lopsided adherence to liberal ideology or is misguided. Perhaps the world wouldn't be such a big, bad, scary place to you if you would just open your mind.

Posted by: Kay Decker | September 16, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

can we sell sarah on e-bay?

Posted by: katie | September 16, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

ted in pdx:

As was pointed out, above, using the Internet CONFIRMED that Alaska indeed accounts for "nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of oil and gas." Gov. Palin was CHAIRMAN of that Commission prior to being elected to her current post.

Would you also fault President Bush or President Clinton for not looking up something personally on the Internet? Last time I checked, they had aides like Carl who do that sort of thing ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Sarah is dead wrong on facts most of the time. But.....she can see Russia from her house.

Posted by: rgn1 | September 16, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

No, katie, but there's a local pimp I can put you in touch with.

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

To Kay Decker:

Thanks for proving my point. Nowhere in your link did 66% of Americans call the Iraq War "a waste", as you previously contented.

No one likes war when it's happening. Everyone, including myself, would love for this war to be behind us and over. But only naive persons such as yourself would ever stoop to calling a war "a waste".

Thanks for your effort, though.

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I recall Obama saying the programs that don't work will be dropped. I am guessing that will be quite a few. (Hence the change thing). Someone is going to have to pay the piper for the last 8 years. I am afriad the pot was calling the kettle black with the "Democrats spend all our tax dollars" thinking. The republicans spent, but no one was paying, unless of course you count our grandchildren.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

dbw:

To be fair, the head of Haliburton doesn't want this war over ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

BioWolff: No, you cannot be ambassador to Mexico. You live close to water, which qualifies you to be Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Oh, wait! Maybe it's the guy that lives closest to the airport that is qualified to be NOAA Administrator. Oops! I've lost my secret spy decoder ring for the McCain cabinet qualification cheat sheet!

Posted by: Kay Decker | September 16, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

In a Palin administration, you have to have gone to school with her, or be her BFF...Oh wait. That's Bush's policy too! See, they are the same!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Posting this twice was apparently not enough for those supporting Obama for PRESIDENT:

- had 1 year of Senate experience before he began campaigning
- 8 years as a part-time state senator before that.
- has never led anything.
- has never even been the chair of a committe in the Senate.
- never ran a company.
- never ran a town, city, county, or state government.

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

dbw, just for the record, even Bush claimed repeatedly that war should be the last option...even if he didn't mean it.
You apparently like war.
FWIW I wrote an essay predicting the horrible, bloody and unproductive outcome that we now see in Iraq. See, I don't oppose all wars, just dumb ones (as some smart guy once said).

Posted by: BioWolff | September 16, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

To dbw: Your pathetic attempts to deal in microscopic semantics don't prove anything. The reality is that this country is sick of this war, and the percentage has been as high as 68% at times. Seven percentage points does not a difference make. This country is still as sick and tired of Bush and his failed Iraq War. Try dealing with the realities of this world, instead of sniveling about semantics.

And for your information, all war is wasteful. There has never been a war that wasn't wasteful. Wars waste human life ... the most precious commodity we have.

Posted by: Kay Decker | September 16, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

OK dbw, If you're going to be an insufferable pedant, we can all play that childish game.

You say - "No one likes war when it's happening". Not true. I'm sure there are plenty of professional soldiers that LOVE this war.

You say - "Everyone, including myself, would love for this war to be behind us and over". Again, not true. As has been pointed out, profiteers such as Haliburton don't want any war to EVER be over.

Finally, you say - "But only naive persons such as yourself would ever stoop to calling a war "a waste"". And only mind-numbingly awful pedants such as yourself would claim that there is a difference between declaring that something was "NOt worth it" and that it was "a waste.

Grow up you total DB.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

OK dbw, If you're going to be an insufferable pedant, we can all play that childish game.

You say - "No one likes war when it's happening". Not true. I'm sure there are plenty of professional soldiers that LOVE this war.

You say - "Everyone, including myself, would love for this war to be behind us and over". Again, not true. As has been pointed out, profiteers such as Haliburton don't want any war to EVER be over.

Finally, you say - "But only naive persons such as yourself would ever stoop to calling a war "a waste"". And only mind-numbingly awful pedants such as yourself would claim that there is a difference between declaring that something was "Not worth it" and that it was "a waste".

Grow up you total DB.

Posted by: Jerry | September 16, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Fake JakeD post at 2:37 PM

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Palin is better qualified to be Energy Czar than Dick Cheney was in 2000.

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

dbw:

Still no answer? I'll repeat. If President Bush is responsible for no major terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11, then he is responsible for the thousands of Americans who have been killed overseas in terrorist attacks since 9/11. True or false? Thanks, sweetie.

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Give Dobbs a break. Yesterday all the Repubs were defending him for calling out Obama on a grammer error, now you say he is in the tank for the Demos. It is tough to be a fact checker for McCain/Palin, they lie with such consistency and repeat the lies aggressively even when called out. Every day for Dobbs has to be hard, "which lie do I expose today."

Posted by: bgjd1979 | September 16, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

LOL!!! I didn't hear ANY Republican defending Dobbs for calling out Obama on a grammer [sic] or grammar error. As an Independent, I noted there were much more serious "lies" by Obama and Biden that Dobbs has failed to "Fact Check" yet.

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

"Palin is better qualified to be Energy Czar than Dick Cheney was in 2000."

Good point! That's like saying she is better qualified to be Energy Czar than "Brownie" was to head FEMA. In short, they're both disasters; maybe one disaster is better than another, but they're both disasters nonetheless. Heckuva job, JakeD!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

What I love most about this lie about Palin's energy credentials is that it's a response to a question about Palin's national security credentials. She's so grossly unqualified in the realm of national security, they can't even spin a lie about it and have to start spinning lies about other topics!

Posted by: M.R. in L.A. | September 16, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Fake JakeD post at 2:47 PM

LOL!!

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

to dbw:

There's that fuzzy math repugs have adopted. Maybe we can begin by drilling for oil in your skull. You repugs are responsible for the dire straits and now purport to have the solutions? If we we're daft enough to vote for you pukes again it would be the equivalent of putting out fire with gasoline (pun intended). The only drilling we should be doing is on your teeth. After we finish with your skull of course.

Posted by: ObamaRican | September 16, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Fake JakeD post at 2:54 PM

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

M.R. in L.A.:

If you are unaware of the connection between oil and national security (i.e. "Middle East") please don't vote.

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Fake JakeD post at 3:00 PM

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Keep it up, fake JakeD; I get paid for every post (whether you or I write it ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

The McCain-Palin campaign did not respond to a request for an explanation.....
Now why am I not shock.Let's face it McCain has told Palin not to talk to the media and most likly the more she talks the more bs will come out and it will cost McCain votes.All these people that are smitten by her isn't a bell ringing asking themselves "why is she the only one in years that doesn't sit down and talk to the media".Why is she repeating everything in every State of what she said at the Convention?It's like an entertainment show.

Posted by: Judith | September 16, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

That is, we go to war for oil, so there is a connection. That's why I won't be surprised when Palin, after knocking off McCain, invites a war with Russia. Her mentor (and baby's daddy) Putin will start with Alaska in a Georgia-like move. By the way, I like to educate people on little known facts. Did you know Sarah and Todd Palin were both members of AIM, which wants Alaska to be a separate country and has connections to Russia?

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

How exactly does Gov. Palin "oversee" 20% of the domestic supply of oil and gas. What is her role exactly? She's not running the oil companies. She's not setting energy policy. She DID raise taxes on oil companies - which of course get passed along to us - so that Alaskan residents could get a free ride and a substantail cash kick back. But even though oil taxe mean her residents pay no income or sales tax, she didn't have any problem trying to raid the US Treasury - where the rest of us contribute - with tens of millions of dollars in earmarks for Alaskan projects - resulting in a positive cash flow for Alaska citizens!

So how exactly does she "oversee" all of Alaska's oil and gas - did she mean to say she "sees over" these resources because they lay in the ground beneath her feet? Sort of like gaining foreign policy experience because she can "see Russia" across the Bering Straight? Just goes to show that osmosis really is the great teacher.

On a side note - if you are a creationist and believe the Earth is a few thousand years old, then where do you believe all of these fossil fuels come from? I guess they aren't fossil fuels - maybe "creationist fuels"? Just wondering...

Posted by: shunna13 | September 16, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

What does Delaware produce?

Oh, yeah. Corporate lawyers.

Posted by: Dan Collins | September 16, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Republicans put party before country, that much is obvious. And they work out of their own dictionary. When they say that they will create jobs, that does not mean in the U.S., it means anywhere including China and India. When they say that they will reform, it actually means that they improve the way Republicans favor corporate profits as opposed to personal wealth. They believe up is down and that if lies are repeated enough times, that they turn into facts. Facts are not open for debate. When some one claims that they say, "thanks, but no thanks", it means they turned something down, not that it was already dead and that they still kept the money. Republicans: You have screwed this country up enough, sit down, shut up and let the Democrats drive. You can't argue that the past 8 years were better than 1992-2000.

Posted by: Terry B. | September 16, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Judith (just a few of the "lies" I documented, emailed to, but haven't "received any response from" Dobbs):

Obama re: his vote on the Illinois "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act" and the number of abortions not declining during the Bush Administration. Biden re: the crash that killed his wife.

Don't you think that McCain and Palin are just a little busier than someone who took TWO MONTHS off up through Labor Day? Or, did Obama tell Dobbs not to "Fact Check" anything worse than his present/past tense slips?

Finally, you don't consider Charlie Gibson part of the "media"? You've never heard Obama's stump speech?

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Terry B.:

I am not a Republican, but I can still argue that the past 8 years were, in fact, better for unborn children than 1992-2000.

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

P.S. to Judith -- are these members of the Media?

"Do you think the recent stock market collapse or troubles in the banking system are good news?

Well, according to CNN's Candy Crowley, the Obama campaign does.

On Monday's "Anderson Cooper 360," after CNN senior political analyst David Gergen said "what happened over the weekend with the economy and the bottom falling out of the financial markets...is the opportunity for Obama to seize the momentum back on his side," Crowley actually said, "[J]ust as foreclosures were showing up on B-17, or in the real estate section, along comes this horrific headline out of Wall Street...I mean, this is what they wanted."

http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/cnns-crowley-obama-team-wanted-horrific-wall-street-headlines.html

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Fake JakeD post at 3:03 PM

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Fake JakeD post at 3:14 PM

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

What good does it do for McCain to have 26 years of experience in Congress ... if all it leaves him capable of doing is playing party politics, capable of being more vicious than his opponent, and not caring about this country to the point where he picks someone who even he cannot defend as a good pick?

"Interviewer: What experience does she have in the field of national security?

McCain: She knows more about energy than probably anyone in the United States of America ..."

That is the sort of answer you give when you have nothing good to say about someone in response to the question asked. McCain couldn't even muster any energy to address the question. McCain is proving his dishonesty in trying to tout Sarah Palin as a competent potential VP.

Posted by: Kay Decker | September 16, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Kay,

At least he didn't answer that question by pointing out that he was a POW.

Posted by: Jerry | September 16, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

dbw: "I find it interesting that whenever I have called out the mathematical implausibility of Obama's economic "plan", not one Obama defender has even tried, much less succeeded, in showing how Obama's plan can really work as it is laid out in campaign promises."

Ok dbw, I'm game. What specifically is the "mathmatical implausibility" you're looking for a response to?

I'm not an economic expert but I do know failure when I see it. McCain has pledged to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. The same tax cuts that led to last week's announcement of Bush's record budget deficit.

Let's assume you're correct that there is a "mathmatical implausibility" as you assert. How is it inferior to PROVEN FAILURE?

Can you answer me that? Or any McCain supporter?

Posted by: M.R. in L.A. | September 16, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Michael Dobbs.

Posted by: Switters | September 16, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

More evidence that Palin is a secret Russian agent: Palin. Putin. What letters differ in their last names? A-L-U-T. Alut. The word Aleut -- referring to an Alaskan native -- was coined by Russian explorers in Alaska; it is derived from Alut, the name of a coastal village in Kamchatka, Russia... Be very wary of this woman. She scares me, I just don't trust her.

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Bring me more minority infants! I hunger...

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Fight the real injustice, and allow my nephew and I to express ourselves freely!

http://www.nambla.org/stories.htm

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

End discrimination!

http://www.nambla.org/stories.htm

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Kay Decker:

LOL - thanks for posting the exact Q & A that elicited that feeble response from McCain. It's either senility or obfuscation from him -- neither are good qualities in a Commander-in-Chief...

Q: Senator McCain, you said the economy was strong, but most Americans and economists disagree. Could you explain?
A: Well, for breakfast this morning I had eggs over-easy (like my VP selection - ha ha ha), hash browns, and some OJ. As to which house I was in when I ate this, well, I'm not sure. Does that answer your question? I thought so.

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin lies with such ease... thereby proving she's just another hypocritical, God-spouting conservative trying to shove her ideals down our throats that she herself can't live up to....

use the name of God for your selfish and anti-God ways.... ooohhhhh you're going to be whipped by the Law of Karma....

Posted by: nerakami | September 16, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully these FACTCHECKS are repeated on TV because I would bet that many voters over the age of 50 don't have access to or know how to access the internet for fact checks.

Hopefully the political pundits on TV and in the print media will repeat inaccurate and outright lies during the campaign.

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | September 16, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Just saw Rep Roy Blunt (R) Missouri, pushing Palin's energy creds on MSNBC and repeating the talking point (lie) that "20% of all our oil comes from Alaska..." 9/16

Posted by: HLewis | September 16, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Bad bet, junkie. But I do encourage the media to grow a pair in the face of intimidation by the GOP and administration.

Posted by: BioWolff | September 16, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Next thing you know, someone in the McCain camp will be claiming to have invented the PDA.

Posted by: 2mature2bHornswoggled | September 16, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Can we just skip October and go straight to November? I am getting so tired of McCain's outrageous claims, Sister Sarah's lies and manipulation, and the gall of the GOP.

Old Johnny nearly lost his temper on TV this morning - who is the pitt bull? - and I can't wait to see him lose it in the debates. Priceless.

Posted by: Susan | September 16, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

would someone please contact palin on her mccain invented device and inform her that a town in her state is evacuating due to gas prices.

she will focus on our energy issues/needs? her energy experience in alaska has some serious issues going on right now. she has failed her state miserably.

Exodus from an Alaskan village

"Everyone in Adak is leaving. The village cannot afford to pay its gas bill, and they have been cut off. Their numbers have already been cut in half in recent years, but gas prices will force them all to leave.

info here: http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=18383

Posted by: greta | September 16, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

greta:

What the story doesn't say is that all of the residents have been offered and have accepted Russian citizenship. This is the first town in the Palin-Putin plan to invite a Russian invasion of Alaska, a la Georgia. Did you know that Palin's most recent child was fathered by Putin? Or that she and her husband both belonged to a separatist group that wants Alaska to be an independent country and has ties to Russia.

Watch out for Palin. McCain should be concerned too -- he's the Trojan Horse.

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Can Palin or McCain ever tell the truth? Thank goodness Palins shine is starting to rub off. There are so many lies and distortions the media is having trouble keeping up with them.

Posted by: jim | September 16, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Pinocchio=Palin

New name

Pinocchio Palin
Pinocchio Palin
Pinocchio Palin
Pinocchio Palin
Pinocchio Palin

Please refer to your leader, by her correct name.

Posted by: I'm clever kinda | September 16, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Pinocchio Palin
Pinocchio Palin
Pinocchio Palin
Pinocchio Palin
Pinocchio Palin
Pinocchio Palin
Pinocchio Palin
Pinocchio Palin
Pinocchio Palin
Pinocchio Palin

Dedicate a Fact check just to her it looks like she'll need it. Probably not even a hockey mom.

Who in her family plays hockey??

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

her only kid who played hockey was "track" who did so while in reform school in michigan (no joke)
--if Palin was a hockey mom she only did so when granted weekly visitation at this juvie hall.
She is truly
not the energy czar
not a hockey mom

she is

PINOCCHIO PALIN

Posted by: mike the dem | September 16, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Marissa:

Are you still around? Please see my post to you above. Hillary Clinton’s own pollster has warned about the possible backlash too:

“... the media is on very dangerous ground. I think that when you see them going through every single expense report that Governor Palin ever filed, if they don't do that for all four of the candidates, they're on very dangerous ground. I think the media so far has been the biggest loser in this race. And they continue to have growing credibility problems.... I think that the media is doing the kinds of stories on Palin that they're not doing on the other candidates.”

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

It isn't lie if you don't know the truth in the first place, it is just ignorant.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Judith:

BornAliveTruth.org, an independent expenditure group known as a 527, is hitting airwaves with a 30-second spot that criticizes the Democratic presidential nominee for voting against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act when he was an Illinois state senator.

The new ad features Gianna Jessen, who survived the late-term abortion procedure in 1977. She says in the ad, "If Barack Obama had his way, I wouldn't be here."

"Can you imagine not giving babies their basic human rights, no matter how they entered our world?" Jessen says in the ad. "Four times, Barack Obama voted to oppose a law to protect babies left to die after a failed abortion. Sen. Obama, please support born-alive infant protections. I'm living proof these babies have a right to live."

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

If WcCain truly thinks Palin knows more about energy than any other American he is more batshi# crazy than I thought....

Posted by: Craziness... | September 16, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Mr Dobbs, you might want to check your numbers. I did a simple google for "domestic oil production" and the first link was
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_a.htm

In that link there is data accurate up to 2007. The data breaks up everything by PADDs but also make a distinct difference between state offshore numbers. If you assume the state offshore is NOT counted in the PADD numbers, you can get the 18% oil production number that people keep quoting (This means adding the PADD numbers to the state offshore for your totals). Perhaps that's were the "about 20%" number is coming from.

I'm not sure if the state offshore production is included in the PADD totals. I at first assumed they were not and I found no info telling one way or the other, but they seem to make a clear distinction between the two. Perhaps you could clarify this.

Posted by: jfg | September 16, 2008 9:06 AM

Posted by: Deanna | September 16, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Mr Dobbs, you might want to check your numbers. I did a simple google for "domestic oil production" and the first link was
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_a.htm

In that link there is data accurate up to 2007. The data breaks up everything by PADDs but also make a distinct difference between state offshore numbers. If you assume the state offshore is NOT counted in the PADD numbers, you can get the 18% oil production number that people keep quoting (This means adding the PADD numbers to the state offshore for your totals). Perhaps that's were the "about 20%" number is coming from.

I'm not sure if the state offshore production is included in the PADD totals. I at first assumed they were not and I found no info telling one way or the other, but they seem to make a clear distinction between the two. Perhaps you could clarify this.

Posted by: jfg | September 16, 2008 9:06 AM

Posted by: Deanna | September 16, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

dbw:
You made a really common yet STUPID mistake, assuming that "energy" and "oil" are the same thing.

Check out this DOE link:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=AK
and scroll down to where it says "Reserves and Supply". You clearly see that AK has 18.5% of domestic curde oil reserves. BUT PALIN SAID "ENERGY"! "Energy" includes things like coal, renewables, and nuclear. Total domestic *energy* production is only 3.5%!! It's right there in black and friggin white!!

dbw, before you start getting on a higgh horse and saying the MSM is in the tank for Obama, you should try being a little more careful about checking your own facts. A few mistakes like that might lead to, oh, I don't know, an unnecessary war or two.

Posted by: wark | September 16, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

...get use to a GOP President come this November.

-----

We don't have to get used to it. We've had one for the last 8 years.

We just had to get used to a crashing economy, rip-offs at the gas pump, the dollar losing 60% of its value, and government by and for the oil, insurance, credit and pharmaceutical industries.

Have we been "softened up" enough by the Republicans to accept more of the same? They seem to think so.

Choose Obama - the county, the world, history and the environment will thank you.


Posted by: ArmyBrat68 | September 16, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

20% of the reserves.
Palin served on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
This is very biased
'reporting'

Posted by: usa3 | September 16, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

When it comes to energy policy, the Alaska governor is the most experienced politician on either ticket.
Check your facts;
instead of twisting
headlines into
lies.

Posted by: nobama | September 16, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

wark:

Perhaps you missed that Gov. Palin changed her tune from "energy" to "oil and gas." Unless you believe that Sen. Obama really thinks we have 57 States?

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

First response: The reason their haven't been any attacks on American soil. The terrorists have American troops on their soil. I'm currently in the military and you should look at the number of wounded American troops from Terrorists acts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why don't you go to a VA hospital and visit all of the wounded troops sometimes (I have the privilege of flying Medevacs bringing these wounded soldiers back to the states to receive substandard medical care). Yes, I'm a 26 year vet in the US Air Force.
Next: Whose tax plan will work. Eliminate the Bush tax cuts and end the war in Iraq and you will have a balanced budget. The only time taxes wasn't raised to support a war. It would have been better if Bush had raised taxes and paid for the war while it was being fought. No, he is paying for it on a large CREDIT CARD. Well guess what one day the bill is going to be due and everyone on this list and the next five generations will be paying for this war.
Energy: If the energy policies to move us away from foreign oil had been instituted right after 9/11 we would be half way to the point where oil didn't matter to our economy. Solar, Wind, Geo-thermal, Hydrogen, Nuclear, and Bio Fuels would all be up an running. Once the US starts moving away from oil the price of oil will drop to less than $25.00 a barrel (the middle east, (especially those countries that hate us)would do everything to stop us from moving in that direction).
Russia: Russia is flexing its muscles for two reasons: One: the US is too tied up to stop them. They don't need to worry about us retaliating for their actions. Two: Russia is spending it big time earnings from selling oil to the world (hey, if you have something that everybody wants and needs you can become a big bully and if you can sell it for a large profit you can do whatever you want). So if the US and our Allies moved away from oil we would shutdown Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and some other countries that have agenda's against us. Actually the Clinton/Gore Administration already had started the military to use CNG for our vehicles (that project ended under President Bush). Yes, the military had trucks (Chevy S-10's) that ran on gasoline and could be switched over to CNG.
The Surge: Did the surge work, honestly that wasn't the key part of why Iraq has become peaceful. The tribes in Iraq contacted the military and started working with the military to end the violence. Without that key part the surge wouldn't have worked (trust me, no one is going to tell you that).
Afghanistan: If the President would have sent enough troops to Afghanistan in the first place Osama Bin Laden would have been captured or killed in 2002. There isn't a war on Terror only words to frighten everyone. Iraq was only a money making war for some rich companies. Yes, some companies made a lot of money off this war. Contractors do the same job as the military (sounds like the end of the Roman Empire when they paid for foreigners to fight their wars) and get paid a hell of lot more money and have better equipment. Other companies have contracts to rebuild the country and are making a fortune (The Cheyney and Bush families have a lot of money invested in those companies so don't worry about George and Dick after the war).
So being an independent voter (yeah, I voted for Reagan) I will never vote for another Republican until they change their policies. An if McCain is elected I guess that I had better get ready to fight in Iran. If McCain should get sick or die while in office (he would be the oldest elected president in US history for a first term president, Reagan and Roosevelt were younger during their first terms) I guess that Annie Oakley (Ms. Palin) would have us to fight Russia (I guess that she is tired of seeing them out of her back window from Alaska). So lets see Bush has doubled the deficit during his eight years and McCain is going to double that number in 4 more (lowering taxes for the rich, starting another war, and the price of oil will cross over $200 a barrel). At least everyone will be able to buy a house (if you have a job).

Posted by: Mike W | September 16, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

no big surprise with regards to the truth and factual information. she is a slick talker and when called on the rug for the truth?
people resort to calling the questioner...
"sexist"

come on people...she either gets it right or she is lying. with the facts easily available...she is lying only to hope that nobody actually reads or wants to know the truth.

Posted by: hemnebob | September 16, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin served on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for only 11 months: February 19, 2003 - January 23, 2004

http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ADMIN/ogc/annual/2004/2004_CommissionersStaff.pdf

Posted by: Nancy | September 16, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

ummmmm...you geniuses should re-read the last two paragraphs and explain the differences in those numbers. Which one is it?? 7.4% or 18% and dropping? This whine session tells me a whole lot of nothing. Why dont you tell me something about Barrack? Instead of doing what appears to be idiots math heh...

Posted by: ryan | September 16, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

i think that the gov. should be the one getting the numbers correct, not the bloggers. it is embarassing enough that we have a president who isn't as smart as a 4th grader humiliating us in front of the world, can you imagine her trying to quote something and getting it wrong over and over during a time of crisis???

and then you people spend your time and energy apologizing for her?

come on people...she isn't running for pta president!
and i hear that mccain's team wants them to appear together now because this novel female is pulling in more curiousity seekers than mccain is...

hmmmmmmm...
wonder what that says about mccain?

you people should be real worried.

Posted by: hemnebob | September 16, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Nancy:

She was the CHAIRMAN and that's 11 months more experience than Obama-Biden have had with energy issues (unless you want to count lobbying time by companies like Exelon : )

Mike W:

Better to take the fight to the terrorists in the streets over there than here.

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Actually, in 2007, Alaska accounted for 18% of crude oil production according to the EIA: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_a.htm
That includes onshore AND OFFSHORE production (notice the offshore stats listed separately at the bottom of the stat page). For some reason, the EIA reports only onshore production numbers in its Alaska summary.

Posted by: Exacto | September 16, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

hemnebob:

Of course she is pulling in more "curiousity seekers" than McCain (who has been "known" for quite awhile now).

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

to "M.R. in L.A.":

You'll have to scroll up to see my original undressing of Obama's mythological economic plan. It's too long to re-print here.

But if you think you can make the math work, maybe you should be on Obama's advisory panel instead of those Fannie/Freddie big-wigs who took those big payouts and left you and me as taxpayers holding the bag.

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Kay Decker said:
"And for your information, all war is wasteful. There has never been a war that wasn't wasteful. Wars waste human life ... the most precious commodity we have."

And with that statement, Kay just lost all credibility. If you think war is never necessary, you will never be able to appreciate those who have died to give you the freedom to utter such idiotic statements.

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

dbw:

Kay Decker is a hopeless cause. And, as I told M.R. in L.A., above, he / she should not vote, being completely unaware of the connection between oil and national security ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Dobbs:
Again, you are scooped by the lying, no-good, sexist, wretched, anti-American, commie-bastard, liberal bloggers who checked and reported on these facts a few days ago.

There is not much time before the election...if you don't get on the job, you will be checking and reporting on facts long after the election is done and over.

Posted by: socalgal59 | September 16, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Jake D,

Anytime any US Troops die for the wrong reasons it is wrong. But, just remember those troops fighting so people like you can sleep at night.

And we will remember the bastards like you that we are fighting for.

Posted by: Mike W | September 16, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Mike W:

Do you think that the Korean War was "wrong"? WWII? The Vietnam War?

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

More Cowbell and Judith:

I just heard that Katie Couric will interview Gov. Palin next. After she does Brian Williams too, will THAT be enough for you?

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

I continue to be amazed by those like "Nancy" who insist on deriding Sarah Palin's experience on matters like energy as well as her lack of foreign policy credentials. She's the VICE-Presidential nominee for the Republicans, my friends!

Sarah Palin already has more experience with energy policy and is only a 10 day 'fact-finding' trip around the globe away from having as much foreign policy experience as Barack Obama, the Democrats nominee for PRESIDENT.

Keep up the Palin 'experience' angle, my Democrat friends. You just keep making your candidate for President look that much less qualified for the office HE seeks!

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Probably not, because you Bush haters need more and more to attack ...

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

A quote when asked about Barack Obama's claim to have adequate foreign policy experience to be President:

"That is kind of hard to square with his failure to ever have a single policy hearing on the only responsibility he was ever given, chairing the European and NATO subcommittee the foreign relations committee."

The speaker? Sen. Hillary Clinton

Sen. Barack Obama, whose only responsibility in the Senate was to chair the Europe and NATO subcommittee:
- never held a single hearing
- never visited Afghanistian before his campaign stop....errrrr, I mean "military assessment"....visit in July, even though he chaired the NATO subcommitte, and Afghanistan is a NATO mission!

Now, would you Democrats maybe want to change the subject about Sarah Palin's foreign policy credentials? I thought so :o).

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

A quote when asked about Barack Obama's claim to have adequate foreign policy experience to be President:

"That is kind of hard to square with his failure to ever have a single policy hearing on the only responsibility he was ever given, chairing the European and NATO subcommittee the foreign relations committee."

The speaker? Sen. Hillary Clinton

Sen. Barack Obama, whose only responsibility in the Senate was to chair the Europe and NATO subcommittee:
- never held a single hearing
- never visited Afghanistian before his campaign stop....errrrr, I mean "military assessment"....visit in July, even though he chaired the NATO subcommitte, and Afghanistan is a NATO mission!

Now, would you Democrats maybe want to change the subject about Sarah Palin's foreign policy credentials? I thought so :o).

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

dbw,

Obama's economic plan is essentially the same as Clinton's. That said I'm pretty sure that after 8 years of that plan we had a budget surplus of 3 Trillion $ and were enjoying the largest economic expansion in a generation.

So, what exactly is McSain's economic plan? Do you know?

Posted by: dagman | September 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

dbw,

Obama's economic plan is essentially the same as Clinton's. That said I'm pretty sure that after 8 years of that plan we had a budget surplus of 3 Trillion $ and were enjoying the largest economic expansion in a generation.

So, what exactly is McSain's economic plan? Do you know?

Posted by: dagman | September 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

@JakeD,
she was chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for 11 months and Gov. for 20 months, and yet she appears to have taken little insight from that experience or have an accurate assessment of her own state's oil production or its relation to other state in our union. I believe this would demonstrate that at best she is out of touch, at worst professional incompetency. It was not a case of off by a little, but by a country mile. There are nine states that produce more energy than Alaska, and the one she is "running" did not even crack 4%.

She misstated the facts and when given the opportunity to correct herself she stubbornly clung to the falsehood and tried to nuance her answer when caught in the inaccuracy. We have seen what eight years of ignoring the facts and failing to acknowledge mistakes can do. This is not change, and it certainly isn't demonstrating anything we should trust to be different.

Posted by: Wray | September 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

@JakeD,
she was chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for 11 months and Gov. for 20 months, and yet she appears to have taken little insight from that experience or have an accurate assessment of her own state's oil production or its relation to other states in our union. I believe this would demonstrate that at best she is out of touch, at worst professional incompetency. It was not a case of off by a little, but by a country mile. There are nine states that produce more energy than Alaska, and the one she is "running" did not even crack 4%.

She misstated the facts and when given the opportunity to correct herself she stubbornly clung to the falsehood and tried to nuance her answer when caught in the inaccuracy. We have seen what eight years of ignoring the facts and failing to acknowledge mistakes can do. This is not change, and it certainly isn't demonstrating anything we should trust to be different.

Posted by: Wray | September 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

How do you know McSain/Stalin are lying?

When their lips are moving.

Problem is we'll never be able to wake up the 30 percentile of ignorant fools in this country who only care what's on American Idle next week.

Democrats loose or have this election stolen again and we're finished as a country.

Posted by: dagman | September 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

dbw,

Obama's economic plan is essentially the same as Clinton's. That said I'm pretty sure that after 8 years of that plan we had a budget surplus of 3 Trillion $ and were enjoying the largest economic expansion in a generation.

So, what exactly is McSain's economic plan? Do you know?

Posted by: dagman | September 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

dbw,

Obama's economic plan is essentially the same as Clinton's. That said I'm pretty sure that after 8 years of that plan we had a budget surplus of 3 Trillion $ and were enjoying the largest economic expansion in a generation.

So, what exactly is McSain's economic plan? Do you know?

Posted by: dagman | September 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

To those trying to spin Palin's completely and absurdly incorrect claims as somehow being true and "the media" as having some bias... COME ON!

The only way the 20% figure could even remotely make sense is if you look only at past (i.e. pre-Palin) contribution to the US domestic-only OIL supply ONLY. That was around 20%; under Palin, it's fallen to 13% this year.

But she said "energy supply," not "domestic oil supply." Even if you use the Republican-colored-glasses spin, it's simply insane to construe her words in that way. No amount of, "But she means potential supply (i.e. reserves) of just oil," can excuse that LIE on the part of McCain and Palin.

And why the focus only on domestic oil supply when we get most of our oil from Canada and other nations? And when oil represents only a fraction of the total energy supply and consumption and reserves in the US? Even WV and KY have more energy "supply" than Alaska.

Posted by: John | September 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Some of these women on this comment board appear to be just sexist or racist. What else could it be? Wait a minute I forgot ignorant. Why in the world would you ever consider this woman for VP. She won't even deal with the media. That tells me that she is hiding plenty. Those of you that mention Clinton are just as ignorant. Get over it. You probably don't believe in global warming after half of Texas was blown away either. Right? Right. God help us all if the American people vote for a McCain/Palin ticket. We will see many attacks that so many of you are bragging about not seeing in 8 years. That's because most intelligent people regardless of what Nationality realized Bush was a very dangerous man, and yes also very ignorant. No foriegn nation is going to take a chance of a total nuclear war with this warmonger, and others in his Cabinet. There waiting on someone dumber. Well folks? If McCain/Palin win the election (God forbid). That will probably happen after this great Country falls even further down the toliet. Whoever said lack of education is the major problem with these two? You forgot about lacking in plain old common sense. I sure do not see that in these two Mavericks. I'm ashamed of the women who would vote for Palin. You give all women a bad reputation for not having any sense. I want a woman for President one day. Just not this woman. She is trouble with a Capital T. Our Nation is in real trouble again this year folks, and will destroy what's left of the little respect we have. I did not realize we had so many morons voting for these two. I hope you noticed I did not say Republicans. All Republicans are not bad, nor as dumb McCain/Palin but we sure messed up getting the wrong ones in there. It's a sick world we live in when you still have so many sick individuals believing the lies over the Truth. What about what's best for your children, and Country. Shameful,and pathetic individuals who can't take the truth, nor identify the truth from lies. Pathetic, and you call yourselves patriotic or good Americans. You're the ugly Americans in my opinion, and could care less about the people, Country, or the World.

Posted by: fran | September 16, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

yes sexist! Fact checking is a well known sexist activity!!! you would think folks would know better... Wait a second, maybe its ageist! yes, that's it! Fact checking is a well known ageist activity!!!

or maybe at least 20% of the time. no wait, make that 3.5% of the time. no, no, I mean 13% of the time.

Posted by: mtg | September 16, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Google McCain's advisors: Meg Whitman, her policies ruined eBay; Fiorina - her policies ruined HP; Phil Gramm - his repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act allowed the mortgage crisis and commodities futures speculation (energy price gouging as in the Enron Loophole which his wife created). Gramm's economic policies, in other words, were key in people losing their homes, jobs, high gas prices, and much more. McCain wanted to put him in as his Treasury Secretary until he made his infamous "Americans are whiners" remark, referring to those same people losing their homes, jobs. But he's been allowed to stay in McCain's campaign.
McCain is FOR NAFTA, the main cause of the outsourcing of jobs. (Obama is against NAFTA.)
He supported the military super tanker contract to be sent overseas!
McCain does not support veterans benefits, and Obama does. Iraq and Afghanistan vets are donating six to one to Obama over McCain. They don't want McCain and especially, Palin to be their Commander in Chief.

Posted by: connect the dots | September 16, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

To those trying to spin Palin's completely and absurdly incorrect claims as somehow being true and "the media" as having some bias... COME ON!

The only way the 20% figure could even remotely make sense is if you look only at past (i.e. pre-Palin) contribution to the US domestic-only OIL supply ONLY. That was around 20%; under Palin, it's fallen to 13% this year.

But she said "energy supply," not "domestic oil supply." Even if you use the Republican-colored-glasses spin, it's simply insane to construe her words in that way. No amount of, "But she means potential supply (i.e. reserves) of just oil," can excuse that LIE on the part of McCain and Palin.

And why the focus only on domestic oil supply when we get most of our oil from Canada and other nations? And when oil represents only a fraction of the total energy supply and consumption and reserves in the US? Even WV and KY have more energy "supply" than Alaska.

Posted by: John | September 16, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

You need to understand how it works with Sarah Palin and her new mentor, John McCain: they simply DO NOT CARE about the truth. If something makes them look good (or Obama look bad), it is, by definition, okay.

The theory is, if you repeat a lie often enough, a number of stupid people eventually will believe it - probably enough of them that you'll win the election.

And that is all that matters to John McCain: "McCain First, Country Last."

McCain isn't just Bush warmed over: he's Bush to the Nth degree, superBush.

Super LIAR.

Posted by: Dennis Berry | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

You need to understand how it works with Sarah Palin and her new mentor, John McCain: they simply DO NOT CARE about the truth. If something makes them look good (or Obama look bad), it is, by definition, okay.

The theory is, if you repeat a lie often enough, a number of stupid people eventually will believe it - probably enough of them that you'll win the election.

And that is all that matters to John McCain: "McCain First, Country Last."

McCain isn't just Bush warmed over: he's Bush to the Nth degree, superBush.

Super LIAR.

Posted by: Dennis Berry | September 16, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Mike W: thanks for providing some primary source material. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, but, for benefit of the Republicans are always right crowd (and since I am a Republican, I must also be right):

-- The surge strategy was proposed in 2005, and only after the opposition to the war reached a fever pitch at home was Col. Sean MacFarland authorized to implement a new strategy in cooperation with Sunni leaders, during which they effectively removed Al Qaeda from it's defacto headquarters in Ramadi. That strategy was referred to on the ground as the 'non-Fallujah' strategy, aka: the non-GWBush strategy, after Bush insisted on a scorched earth retaliation against an entire city because of the actions of a small ad-hoc mob that killed 4 US contractors in 2004. An unintended consequence of Bush meddling in battlefield tactics was to strengthen the insurgency, leading to more US casualties.

-- we have a tradition in this country of sharing the burden in a national emergency. But apparently Bush & McCain don't feel the burden for fighting and dying in Iraq should be shared, hence the obscene abuse of a handful of military personnel and their families. When Jim Webb's new GI Bill was proposed, Bush and McCain both opposed it, and McCain explained exactly why: he said it would reduce our retention rates for our volunteer army if we made it too easy for our volunteers to opt into the major selling point that got them to enlist, that being a college education. You see, if you don't fund the benefit sufficiently for the soldiers to take advantage of it, what they are left with is a choice between re-enlisting, and coming home and trying to find a job, because the one they had when they were initially deployed is long gone.

So to all my flag-in-the-lapel fellow Republicans who proudly "support our troops" and support the imbecile President who picked the unnecessary fight, instead of making sure we won the legitimate action in Afghanistan, why don't you go on down to the recruiting office and sign up with your national guard, so perhaps a few of the soldiers you are so proud of can spend a few months with their families?

No? I guess you're not quite that proud, eh?

Like I said Mike, if I got any of this wrong, please correct me.

Posted by: ted in pdx | September 16, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

You need to understand how it works with Sarah Palin and her new mentor, John McCain: they simply DO NOT CARE about the truth. If something makes them look good (or Obama look bad), it is, by definition, okay.

The theory is, if you repeat a lie often enough, a number of stupid people eventually will believe it - probably enough of them that you'll win the election.

And that is all that matters to John McCain: "McCain First, Country Last."

McCain isn't just Bush warmed over: he's Bush to the Nth degree, superBush.

Super LIAR.

Posted by: Dennis Berry | September 16, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

My butt is responsible for 20 percent of the US energy output!

Posted by: fartman | September 16, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Dennis Berry:

So, why haven't McCain-Palin mentioned Larry Sinclair yet?

Posted by: JakeD | September 16, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

To Ted and Mike - I agree.
Regarding the abortion issue. Speaking from a Constitutional rather than religious viewpoint, would someone please tell me when a pregnancy is NOT a risk to the life of the mother? Maternal deaths most often occur at the time of birth, or even after the birth. Not a particularly good time to have a safe abortion. If a 14-year-old girl is made pregnant by a male relative, then forced by the government to go through with the pregnancy, and then dies in childbirth, what happened to HER right to life. When does the mother lose her right to life?
On the other hand, if the fetus is viable and alive after birth, it then has just as much right to life as anyone else, since its existence does not threaten the health or life of another.
People who impose their own religious views on other people are scary. Also, the idea of censoring books is even scarier.
Let's stick to our Constitution, bring back habeas corpus, stop allowing secret prison camps and torture and unprovoked wars on other countries.

Posted by: connect the dots | September 16, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

I’m a thermal physicist and I have been studying the fundamentals of every kind of energy and energy production at an advanced level for many years. I’d like to think I know a little about energy.

If governing a state which produces energy by privately owned companies and deciding how to tax them makes Palin an ‘expert’, then surely I’m also qualified to run for high state office too… right???

No, pretty sure I’m not.

Posted by: Kylie | September 16, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Washington Post and the liberal media are so twisted that people thought they heard the truth when they actually heard all the lies.

The ugly Americans should be ashamed of attacking one of their own. She is all American, and every day American, what did she do other than being chosen as a presidential candidate to deserve all the personal attack?

Do unto others as you would want others to do unto you.

Posted by: Ugly and Ignorant | September 16, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

dbw: You're right, Obama's experience is very thin running for President, and you're also correct about not having been over there until recently. However, in spite of his lack of experience, he not only opposed the invasion of Iraq right out of the gate, he emphasized the need to focus on winning in Afghanistan, where the actual front-line on the WOT was, and where the greatest threat to the security of the US was all along (and still is). And there isn't anyone who matters who doesn't wish we had done what Obama advocated back then (in spite of his inexperience).

You see the most significant threat to our country is that Al Qaeda and the Taliban will succeed in destabilizing the government of Pakistan, and take control of that country. If that happens (and it is at this moment a very real possibility), we will be facing a nuclear-equipped terrorist state situated in the very center of the most volatile and strategically important region on this planet as far as US interests are concerned. Instead we went after WMD that didn't even exist in Iraq, and the rest of the time we've spent saber rattling at Iran, while Afghanistan was left to 30,000 US Troops and 30,000 from NATO.

And by the way, as the situation in Afghanistan started deteriorating more rapidly this spring, commanders on the ground asked for reinforcements, and guess what? The Cowboy-in-Chief couldn't find any to send. In other words, the US is militarily tapped out, and everybody knows it, including Vladimir Putin.

So, speaking as a Republican, I'm thinking: how much worse could our Republican national security experts have done protecting our strategic position, our capital resources, our military capabilities, and our economy (without which, we have no security) over these last eight years? And where has "Maverick" been all this time? In lock step with the Cowboy-in-Chief.

And by the way, speaking of experience and qualifications to be President. The last time the nominee of a major party for President had less experience than Barack Obama, was 148 years ago, and he was a Republican. His name: Abraham Lincoln.

Posted by: ted in pdx | September 16, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

"I checked the EIA numbers for 2007. Taking into account offshore as well as onshore production, Alaska produced 18 percent of domestic crude oil in 2007."

Bravo!

Posted by: Hanna T | September 16, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: "M.R. in L.A.:
If you are unaware of the connection between oil and national security (i.e. "Middle East") please don't vote."

Fair Enough - there is a connection but...

A) It's a tangential lie to a direct question.

B) If you refer back to the original article you'll note that, "oil production has fallen sharply in Alaska during her governorship." So, if you want to talk about oil in terms of national security where hostile foreign oil make us less secure and domestic oil makes us more secure, Palin has made us less secure.

Posted by: M.R. in L.A. | September 16, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

you guys are morons 20% OF THE US SUPPLY does not mean 20% of what we are currently using.

IT MEANS WE SHOULD BE TAPPING THAT STATE FOR ALL ITS WORTH BECAUSE IT HAS MORE OIL THAN SAUDI ARABIA!

factchecker, you get 8 Pinocchio's for this egregious miscarriage of fact.


SOMEONE NEEDS TO START AN ACTUAL NON PARTISAN FACTCHECKER THAT CHECKS THE FACT CHECKERS.

Posted by: dale | September 16, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

I'm very fearful that the fact checker is going to run out of Pinocchios before the election is over.

MS. Liar McLyington

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

"what did she do other than being chosen as a presidential candidate to deserve all the personal attack?"
Ugly and Ignorant

-----

These are not personal attacks, they are just calling her on her blatant lies, or, do you not know the difference?

I would think you would be more offended about being lied to, insulting your intelligence for political means because she is a phoney-baloney-small town politician with no world view, so, she LIES to make up for it and create a false impression of herself.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Since when did the McCain campaign give a thought to the importance of running on the truth.

The McCain-Palin team has 2 central themes:
1) Character assassination of Obama
2) Lying about their own record and pretend they are not a part of the problem.

The Rovian tactic eployed by Bush, of repeating a lie that they know to be untrue, has found new roots in the McCaign campaign.

http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com

Posted by: scootmandubious | September 16, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Hanna T: I think you're right and the Fact Checker missed on the crude oil variation of the question. (Albeit, that's not the statement she made, it was just something he threw into the soup.)

Consider this: I saw John McCain standing up in front of a crowd and he was crowing about Gov. Palin, and here is exactly what he said:

"She sold the state's private jet on Ebay..." (applause, shouting) "...and she even made a profit!"

In fact, she tried to sell the jet on EBay, but that didn't work. Later, she did succeed in selling the jet, but the state of Alaska lost money on the transaction.

Does the discrepancy matter? Not really, but it diminishes the quality of the debate, and leads me to wonder what else of substance comes out of John McCain's mouth that isn't quite true either?

Frankly, after raising the issue of actually doing some investigation before taking a position (earlier in this forum), I found it quite gratifying that so many people (like you) actually did go out and dig into the subject, rather than just pontificating about what they thought they knew at the outset. There are two valuable concepts here that would improve the quality of our democracy. First, take advantage of this incredibly powerful tool we have to find information and investigate these subjects ourselves, and second, if someone makes a case based on reasonably qualified sources, have the guts to at least consider their position before rejecting it out of hand.

The most cynical and corrupt people in our government and various other positions of authority count on us not to go to the trouble to find out what they're up to, and that's exactly why we need to be relentless in questioning the things we hear (in my humble opinion).

Posted by: ted in pdx | September 16, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Dale: maybe you could provide a link or two substantiating your assertion that Alaska has more oil than Saudi Arabia?

Posted by: ted in pdx | September 16, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

About the only "energy" issues she has any idea about would be what her husband knows, which aint much.
OH, and the seldom heard about " PIPELINE TO SOMEWHERE" deluge she has been trying to push since getting into office.And she has completely planned on using Earmanrk Money to build a line from Alaska, all the way down to the southern 48,with a hefty price tag, but also with plans to try and corner the Oil producing company's in Alaska to only using Alaskas pipeline, or pay penalties. Doesnt sound like fair and impartial Governing, but heck, her high school B-Ball team seems pretty adept at running things for her while shes gone

Posted by: Truth hurts | September 16, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse


NEWSWEEK, Palin goes from most popular to least popular in three days. It looks like the novelty is waring off already. This may be one of the fastest "Flash in the pans in history"
Move over Taylor Hicks.

The polls reflected the early success of her strategy. In the three days after Palin joined Team McCain--Aug. 29-31--32 percent of voters told the pollsters at Diageo/Hotline that they had a favorable opinion of her; most (48 percent) didn't know enough to say. By Sept. 4, however, 43 percent of Diageo/Hotline respondents approved of Palin with only 25 percent disapproving--an 18-point split. Apparently, voters were liking what they were hearing. Four days later, Palin's approval rating had climbed to 47 percent (+17), and by Sept. 13 it had hit 52 percent. The gap at that point between her favorable and unfavorable numbers--22 percent--was larger than either McCain's (+20) or Obama's (+13).

But then a funny thing happened: Palin lost some of her luster. Since Sept. 13, Palin's unfavorables have climbed from 30 percent to 36 percent. Meanwhile, her favorables have slipped from 52 percent to 48 percent. That's a three-day net swing of -10 points, and it leaves her in the Sept. 15 Diageo/Hotline tracking poll tied for the smallest favorability split (+12) of any of the Final Four. Over the course of a single weekend, in other words, Palin went from being the most popular White House hopeful to the least.

What happened? I'd argue that Palin's considerable novelty is starting to wear off. In part it's the result of a steady stream of unhelpful stories: her unfamiliarity with the Bush Doctrine during last Thursday's interview with Charles Gibson (video above); her refusal to cooperate with the Troopergate investigation; her repeated stretching of the truth on everything from earmarks to the Bridge to Nowhere to the amount of energy her state produces. That stuff has a way of inspiring disapproval and eroding one's support. (Interestingly, Palin's preparedness numbers--about 50 percent yes, 45 percent no--haven't budged.) But mostly it's the start of an inevitable process. Between now and Nov. 4, voters will stop seeing Palin as a fascinating story and starting taking her measure as an actual candidate for office. Some will approve; some won't. It remains to be seen whether Palin's recent slide will continue, or hurt John McCain in the polls. But it's hard to argue that the journey from intriguing new superstar to earthbound politician--a necessary part of the process--doesn't involve a loss of altitude.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

From factcheck.org

"Palin would have been correct to say that Alaska produces just over 14 percent of all the oil produced in the U.S., leaving out imports and leaving out other forms of power. According to the federal government's Energy Information Administration, Alaskan wells produced 263.6 million barrels of oil in 2007, or 14.3 percent of the total U.S. production of 1.8 billion barrels."

The issue of supply versus production has already been dealt with, and even if Palin meant production (which, to be honest she probably did and it was just an honest slip-up) she was wrong. Slightly over 14.3% cannot be rounded to 20%. Furthermore, Alaska produces under 5% of the natural gas produced in the States so that would bring down the average even further.

Posted by: lbk | September 16, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Why we all know that Sarah Palin can do anything. She even shot a moose! So why should we question her lies about energy? Shucks, if she says Alaska produces 20% of our nation's energy and that is not true, then, Gee Whiz Americans, she can probably shoot a hole in the Arctic Ice and hit oil, just like Jed Clampett did on the Beverly Hillbillies. And we don't have to worry about the Russians anymore either. She can see them from Wasilla. I'll bet she can take her trusty weapon and pick them off one by one as they try to come across the Bering Strait. This would be funny if it was not so sad.

Posted by: old woman | September 16, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

Here's how Palin's "nearly 20 percent" is derived.

First, she's talking about energy resource extraction in the US, not the actually irrelevant EIA reduction of all energy to BTU. What's the difference? Well, look at the table that WaPo links to: Note that it includes "Nuclear Electric Power" and "Renewable Energy." So how do you mine nuclear electric power and renewable energy? You don't. These numbers represent BTUs produced by nuclear plants, not BTUs extracted in the form of uranium, and BTUs consumed from renewable sources, not BTUs of, say, all the wind generated in the country--while the fossil fuel figures represent BTU value of coal, natural gas, and oil extracted. (Which is why, on the same EIA web page from which this doc is linked, there is another document which includes only coal, natural gas and oil.) The numbers are useful for EIA's purposes---but they are not actually useful for FactCheck's and WaPo's. They are demonstrating their own illiteracy about the subject here by using the wrong data.

Suppose that, instead of going to a table that reduces all energy resource extraction and nuclear/renewable electricity generation to BTUs, we actually look at energy resource production in volume, which is how most people think of production of mineral resources that have to be extracted from the earth. (No one thinks of production as a combination of the BTUs of energy resources extracted and nuclear/renewable power generated. This should have been a clue to FactCheck.org and WaPo that they were barking up the wrong tree to figure out how Palin could have used that number. The first thing that FactCheck should have done is ask, "Okay, so how could Palin be right? Is there any set of data for anything like what she said that actually do show Alaska producing nearly 20%?" The data they use to refute her are simply not usable for such a purpose.

As it happens, there are data that one can find leading to such a statement on Palin's part.

If you check out that kind of number, say at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbbl_a.htm , you will find that Alaska in 2007 produced over 18.1% of US oil in barrels. (Remember to add land and offshore oil production, the latter being near the bottom of the chart.)

Now let's look at natural gas production. In 2007 Alaska's "marketed production of natural gas," in cubic feet of production, was 2.2% of the US total. You can see this here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/natural_gas_monthly/current/pdf/table_05.pdf

Now, what are the extracted energy resources produced in the US? Coal, natural gas, oil, and uranium. (Alaska produced only .12% of US coal production in 2006. The US mines only 5% of the uranium used in US nuclear plants, Alaska negligible.)

There is no way to combine coal, gas, and oil volumes; they are counted in incommensurate units (short tons, cubic feet, barrels). That's why the EIA converts all extracted energy resources and nuclear and renewable energy produced/consumed into BTUs for the purpose of calculating a total of all the energy produced yearly in the US. But that is not a usable number for figuring out what proportion of energy resources are extracted, which is what most people think of as the energy supply, by the nation or any subunit of the nation.

So Palin has a colorable claim if one is looking at oil. 18.1% is "nearly 20 percent."

But it's not 20% of all US extracted energy resources. So how does one make sense of her nearly 20% number? The way the WaPo, FactCheck, and Talking Points Memo, knees jerking all the way, choose to go is to immediately assume ignorance or a lie, and not bother trying to figure out why she would utter such a mammoth and easily checkable lie or ignorance.

So how can we make sense of it? There is another possibility: Palin made (or was given by an aide--I mean, let's be serious, it's not likely that Palin's duties as governor include calculating percentages of mineral resource production) a math blunder: She added together Alaska's percentages of US oil production and natural gas production. What do 18.1 and 2.2 total? 20.3. Isn't that "nearly 20"? The error is in adding together percentages of incommensurate quantities.

The only alternative is to conclude that Palin purposely used a number that would easily be found to be false out of either ignorance--and I know that the media want to find Palin stupid, as they reflexively (that's a knee-jerk reference) attribute stupidity to all Republicans who aren't liberal enough to pass as Democrats--or out of dishonesty. Granted, the WaPo, TPM, and (I would argue) even FactCheck.org dependably lean toward assumptions of honesty and intelligence on the part of Democrats, and so dependably ask for or even generate themselves a charitable explanation for errors for Democrats, and the opposite for Republicans. Yes, those are liberals' knees jerking, and that is contemptible but dependable today.

But I'm just not going to accept that. There is a much better explanation for Palin's use of the "nearly 20%" figure than dishonesty or stupidity. Is this a mistake YOU would have avoided, either doing your own math or receiving data from staff? It's a mistake, but not an inexplicable one, like assuming gross ignorance or dishonesty.

Posted by: David Stewart | September 16, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Want to read the thoughts of a true "energy expert"? Try Amory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Institute. He should be sitting in the head chair at ANY energy policy discussions. Read here:

http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E06-08_GettingOffOil_World2007.pdf

And here:
www.rmi.org/WTOE

Posted by: R Harper | September 16, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Wow. I didn't notice this piece of genius: 'If you refer back to the original article you'll note that, "oil production has fallen sharply in Alaska during her governorship." So, if you want to talk about oil in terms of national security where hostile foreign oil make us less secure and domestic oil makes us more secure, Palin has made us less secure.'

I didn't know that Palin ever claimed to produce oil herself. But, genius, maybe you should not trust everything right on the face of it. Alaska's oil production has been falling since 1988. It has had sharper year-on-year declines under other governors. I'm pretty sure that the governors don't produce the oil, though. You can check the data for oil extracted on land at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrfpak1a.htm and offshore at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/m_epc0_fpf_aksf_1a.htm
You may need to do some math, but you'll see that oil production decline is not something that began under, let alone is blamable on, Palin. Geezus.


Posted by: David Stewart | September 16, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Seems as though Sister Sarah confuses many facts. The deeper one digs, the more she is confused.

She was for the bridge, then against the bridge, but now is building the bridge.

She never fired the law enforcement official, but now the brief says she fired him (their word).

Her teleprompter failed and she was up there just wingin' it, and ain't she great! Yeeeee Hawwwww.

We are going to need many more puppets ASAP to keep up with this cascade of statements that contradict each other.

Posted by: Susan | September 16, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Reporter: "So, senator, tell us specifically about Gov. Palin's healthcare initiatives."

McCain: "Energy."

Reporter: "And what about education?"

McCain: "Energy. She knows more than anybody in America."

Reporter: "Foreign policy?"

McCain: "Er...energy. Oh, and she can see Russia from her house. I couldn't have chosen a better running mate."

Wake up, America.

Posted by: Sharon | September 16, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

To David Stewart's excellent apologetic attempt above:

"You will find that Alaska in 2007 produced over 18.1% of US oil in barrels. (Remember to add land and offshore oil production, the latter being near the bottom of the chart.)"

Here's what a quick look at factcheck.org wrought:

"So we asked an EIA analyst, who said that the offshore barrels were included in the state totals." - wire.factcheck.org

Sorry my friend, offshore barrels are included and even if we allow your twisted math analogy, we would have to assume that Palin, the GOVERNOR of Alaska, made 3 mistakes about her home state which she governs, She:

1) Added up random percentages without looking up what they meant.

2) Didn't bother to check whether State Production numbers included offshore drilling production numbers.

3) Accidentally used the word "energy" instead of "barrels of oil and natural gas (added up without using their respective weights mind you).


Now you may think that she or her campaign made 3 honest mistakes - but I refuse to believe it.

I am not saying Obama campaign doesn't stretch the truth; but this is ridiculous.

Posted by: Sasidhar | September 16, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

look all of these comments about republican lies are accurate as far as they go .this is the way they govern and McCain is worse than dick chenny ,if that is possible (even karl rove told McCain to tone down the blatant lies!). They govern by manipulating the fears and prejudices of americans in a way that is evocative of a combination of the "matrix" and Orwell's "1984 " . This election is much more important than bush 2004 . so in addition to commenting here etc go out and help barack's campaign . there is much to do against a shameless opponent . visualize what a palin presidency would be like and maybe that will motivate you.

Posted by: jon | September 16, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Sharon:

Could you go ahead and lay out Barack Obama's qualifications when it comes to energy and foreign policy? Then, could you compare those to Sarah Palin's?

Hint: Palin is already ahead of Obama on anything energy related, and is only a 7-day globe-trotting fact-finding trip from equaling Obama's foreign policy credentials.

I keep telling you guys...going after Palin, the VICE-Presidential nominee, on 'experience' only proves how shallow the resume is for your nominee for PRESIDENT.

Posted by: dbw | September 16, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Well she's dumb and clueless enough to replace "W", but it would be an even trade!

Posted by: Donny | September 16, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama is already on board with the T. Boone Pickens Plan, it seems or some major elements of it regarding renewables.

I just don't see where any intelligent American voters will be led around by the now to chants of "Drill, baby, drill". Was there a more sad and pathetic scene at the GOP convention than that?

Posted by: Donny | September 16, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

david stewart: I like your analysis of the question. The discussion proves Mark Twain's observation: there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

In fact, zeroing in on a statistic like this one misses the point entirely. I happen to like Sarah Palin for a lot of reasons, although I tend to disagree with her on some details. My problem is really with John McCain for selecting her, and with (my) Republican party for going along with his new set of clothes. He has gone to such extremes to try and perfect his image as the scrupulously honest, devoutly patriotic, perfectly qualified candidate to lead this nation, and yet in his first and most important decision in that capacity, he makes a whimsical and impulsive choice which meets exactly none of the criteria he himself articulated with such 'presidential gravitas' back in January, when the question was asked of him during the debates.

I would be the first to acknowledge Gov. Palin's talents, and many admirable characteristics. But to suggest that she is qualified to step in to the Presidency of this nation at what is arguably the most critical point in it's history in the last 148 years, is not only wrong, it's reckless. So much so that it raises an even more troubling question: is McCain himself really as fit for the job as most of us have assumed, given his formidable resume?

The irony of this selection is intense: before he selected Palin, the issue McCain was getting the most traction on was questioning Obama's experience and fitness for office. Now that issue is off the table.

Even more ironic, McCain's most high-profile attack ad (pre-palin) was the one which suggested that Obama was nothing more than a media phenom, a celebrity like Paris Hilton. Now, the only energy keeping the McCain campaign afloat in the media is the celebrity appeal of Gov. Palin. Originally, pundits were speculating as to whether she would have problems when campaigning solo, given her limited political experience. Now, it's become readily apparent that she won't be doing much solo campaigning. Why? Because without her in tow, McCain can't seem to fill a high-school gymnasium at his campaign stops. Even when she's there, when she's done introducing McCain, the audiences start to leave.

All of this raises disturbing questions about the McCain candidacy, and about the American electorate. Do we really prefer camera appeal over substance in choosing our leaders? When I read the comments posted on these news forums, my sense is that 80-90% of the readers have already made up their minds as to who they prefer, and they simply aren't interested in any kind of objective discussion of the issues.

I have a blog on the Obama website, and it's the same there. Most Obama supporters, it seems, are blind to any of the particulars of his positions on any issue. As I see it, since the two finalists were established, there has been no real exchange of ideas on any issue. The campaigns are entirely focused on impressions, the prevailing goal being ownership of the "Change" moniker.

In the end, one or the other will be elected, and our fate as a nation will depend heavily on the success of that administration.

Posted by: ted in pdx | September 16, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

as a coralary to my last post think about this :THERE IS NO ENERGY CRISIS ! this is another GOP manipulation aided by the media dupes. I drive about 3 times as much as the average american (36 k a yr ). about 2 and half months ago when gas went over $4 one of the things that seemed to make sense to me was to conserve mpgs by slowing down ( there is a verifiable correlation between reducing your speed from say 75 to 65 or 60 mph).so i did and immediately saw savings . to my great dismay i saw my fellow drivers who were in the throws of this "great crisis" (one that according to the GOP necessitated drilling in every environmentally sensitive area of our country )fail to reduce their speed at all! (maybe 3% do ).so wake up .. this is another invention by big oil to get control of as many land leases as they can aided and abetted by their republican lackeys .

Posted by: jon | September 16, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Why should I believe you. The WP is part of the biased liberal media. Pro Obama and Anti McCain.

If this is a fair analysis you have tainted it by all the other trash you publish.

Investigate Obama - Hillary and now the Republicans both agree he has been given a free ride.

Posted by: Hal in Florida | September 16, 2008 11:33 PM | Report abuse

If McCain/Palin win in '08, it will be the biggest sham ever orchestrated in American politics.

Everygoddamnthing that comes out of this pair, their surrogates, is a lie or an exaggeration. They will say whatever they have to without regard to validity in order to win. That should show you how much they really love this country.

If you think Bush was a disaster, put McCain and Palin in office. McCain should be put in charge of keeping people off of his lawn in AZ and Palin should go back to being a Governor that is way over her head, not a VP and potential Commander in Chief of the US.

talk about hell in a handbasket


Posted by: Mike L | September 17, 2008 12:00 AM | Report abuse

I cannot imagine that Evangelicals stand for the Lies that McCain and Palin have used to advance themselves poliltically. This is total hyprocracy and against all religious values. How can this be that they do not see this. If they do see this and still vote on values, then I would say they have no true faith themselves and believe in a different God than I do. Today I read that Palin told Ohio people that Obama would raise their taxes. This is a lie if they were ordinary Middle class people. Obama will give them more tax relief than McCain. They can check out any tax advisors on this. Either Palin agrees to lie or she is inadequately able to research facts herself. Either way it is scary because not only are they promoting values and not practicing what they preach but worse cannot do the math for our economy.

Posted by: Pat from Michigan | September 17, 2008 12:46 AM | Report abuse

If McCain is calling Senator Obama the One and the Messiah what does that make him he's telling so many lies, he can't keep track now his VP is constantly telling lies after being called out on them.

Isn't Satan the father of lies as the bible states isn't it a sin to tell lies and not repent now isn't sarah palin a religious person she knows what the bible says.

Obama/Biden

Posted by: jacie California | September 17, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

PIGS! With or without lipstick, how DARE you attack the veracity of this MOTHER! The economy is STRONG--my retirement fund only lost $10,000 yesterday! I expected to lose a whole lot more. See, it could be so much worse. My only complaint with our economy, because I work for a school district, is why don't they pay me per diem when I am at home?

Posted by: RJ Kruger | September 17, 2008 2:50 AM | Report abuse

McCain use to be a honorable man but he must have sold his soul to the devil to win this election.

I've never seen a the amount of lies and half truths from his advertisements. Even when every major news organizations have come out and say that he's untruthful, his advertisement still repeat these lies.

If McCain is elected, I'll pays he doesn't die in office. Palin scares the xxx out of me. I bet if she were President, she'll surround herself with the same neocons who just love to use military force.. Very scary.

Posted by: Mkenyon | September 17, 2008 2:57 AM | Report abuse

According to your source, EIA, in 2006 Alaska had 18.5% of the US crude oil supply. I think that qualifies as "nearly 20%". The figure is probably even higher for 2007. In addition, it cites the following about Alaska:

Excluding Federal offshore production, Alaska ranks second in the Nation in crude oil production.

Prudhoe Bay on Alaska’s North Slope is the highest yielding oil field in the United States, typically producing approximately 400,000 barrels per day.

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline can pump up to 2.1 million barrels of crude oil per day, more than any other crude oil pipeline in the United States.

Alaska has six oil refineries.

Substantial coal deposits are found in Alaska’s bituminous, sub-bituminous, and lignite coal basins.

Alaska’s numerous rivers offer some of the highest hydroelectric power potential in the country, and large swaths of the Alaskan coastline offer wind and geothermal energy potential.

The fact is: There aren't many states with such diverse energy sources. Governor Palin oversees this state's vast resources. This is valuable knowledge that she brings. Our economic future depends on reducing our dependence on foreign oil. How much energy experience/expertise do the Senator from Deleware and the junior Senator from Illinois bring? Answer = ZERO

Posted by: More Facts | September 17, 2008 4:32 AM | Report abuse

This column is like the Fix and Dan Balz's blogs - an in the tank product of embedded Obama supporters. It merits no comment more than this: the Washington Post has become the National Enquirer of political reporting. Outside of Howard Kurtz its staff is blatantly biased and, day by day, losing its grip on even the appearance of journalistic objectivity. Sad, sad, sad.

Posted by: Republican Fact Checker | September 17, 2008 5:19 AM | Report abuse

PDX,

You hit the nail on the head.

Posted by: Mike W | September 17, 2008 7:35 AM | Report abuse

'ted in pdx' said:
"But to suggest that she is qualified to step in to the Presidency of this nation at what is arguably the most critical point in it's history in the last 148 years, is not only wrong, it's reckless."

So, it's 'reckless' to put Sarah Palin a step away from the Presidency, yet not reckless to put Obama right into the Presidency?

The experience debate has been done, and Obama loses every time. Obama cannot claim any significant experience advantages over Palin, and in some areas he's even less experienced than she is.

So once again, this argument that Palin somehow isn't 'experienced' enough to be VICE-President just doesn't wash when you consider how inexperienced the Democrat nominee for PRESIDENT is.

Posted by: dbw | September 17, 2008 8:32 AM | Report abuse

Pat in Michigan said:
"Today I read that Palin told Ohio people that Obama would raise their taxes. This is a lie if they were ordinary Middle class people."

No, it's not a lie. Read my long post on this page from earlier yesterday. Obama is promising INCOME TAX cuts for you and I, but to pay for all his promised programs he will be forced to raise our payroll taxes, capital gains taxes (which apply to you and me, too), the federal death tax, etc. All of these apply to even ordinary middle class folks like ourselves, not just the 'greedy rich'.

Obama is the one getting away with the lying. The mainstream press keeps repeating his mantra that Obama will lower your taxes. No, he won't. Not your TOTAL taxes. Not if he's to accomplish everything else he's promised.

Get your calculator, review all of Obama's promises, and show me how it adds up and the middle class ends up with a lower TOTAL tax bill. It doesn't.

Posted by: dbw | September 17, 2008 8:40 AM | Report abuse

Palin said "oil & gas supply!" And she is correct. She oversees more than 20% of the U.S. share of oil & gas supply: RESERVES & PRODUCTION!

Can people no longer read actual words!

"My job has been to oversee nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of oil and gas." --Gov. Sarah Palin

Posted by: FrankG | September 17, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Remember Bagdad Bob?
Something sounds familiar.

Posted by: Sara Chase | September 17, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Remember Baghdad Bob?
Something sounds familiar.

Posted by: Sara Chase | September 17, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

To Frank G.

"Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy," quote from ABC interview.

Produces is not reserves, but you will believe what you want to believe. Don't confuse me with the truth.

Posted by: Ron M. | September 17, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Gov. Sarah Palin "knows more about energy than probably anyone in the United States of America." --John McCain, ABC interview, Sept. 11, 2008.

Doesn't say much for Samuel Bodman -

B.S. in chemical engineering from Cornell University
Sc.D. in chemical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT
Secretary of the Department of Energy, with a budget in excess of $23 billion and over 100,000 federal and contractor employees.

Posted by: gianni | September 17, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Palin is less a liar than just plain stupid.

Posted by: massimo | September 17, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Republican Fact Checker:

You obviously don't read The Fact Checker very often if you think that Micheal Dobbs is "in the tank" for Obama.

Yesterday Dobbs gave Obama 3 Pinocchios for misusing his verb tenses.

Get over yourself. Your candidate and his runningmate were called on a lie, and continued to spread it. Mistakes can be made, but when you are found to have made one the public expects you to learn and amend - not rinse and repeat.

Posted by: Trident420 | September 17, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

I am losing track of all the lies. Can we have a scoreboard posted, please?

Posted by: AZrebel | September 17, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Wash Post - please follow this story up..
How come everyone is missing this great story except the UK?

this is a MUST READ....!

This should be a major news story!
Please read this and do not embarass yourselves by supporting McCain Palin.

Seems Sarah had a little help in run for governor. A Kenyan witch doctor came to her church and laid hands on her! She is a religious whacko.. Here is the link to the story and a bit of it..!

http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008/09/palin-linked-el.html

Palin linked electoral success to prayer of Kenyan witchhunter The pastor whose prayer Sarah Palin says helped her to become governor of Alaska founded his ministry with a witchhunt against a Kenyan woman who he accused of causing car accidents through demonic spells. At a speech at the Wasilla Assembly of God on June 8 this year, Mrs Palin described how Thomas Muthee had laid his hands on her when he visited the church as a guest preacher in late 2005, prior to her successful gubernatorial bid. In video footage of the speech, she is seen saying: I was mayor and Pastor Muthee was here and he was praying over me.

Thx, Snoop2

Posted by: Snoop2 | September 17, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

Carly Fiorina said that Palin and McCain did not have executive experience. Then said Obama and Biden did not either.Because none of them were CEO's. She has apparently been asked to cancel future presentations in public.

Posted by: Robert | September 17, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Why, if this article is pointing out that Sarah Palin has lied, or at least exaggerated her claims, does it have a headline POSITIVE for Palin; i.e. "Palin for Energy Czar!" This is ludicrous. Both sides are claiming media bias; this seems to me to be evidence in favor of bias toward McCain/Palin.

Posted by: Annie | September 17, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Dear dbw, why just yesterday America was attacked by suicide bombs. The attack took place at the USA embassy in Yemen.......and before you bloviate back how that is in the mid east let me remind you that a U.S. Embassy, any U.S. Embassy is AMERICAN SOIL.

Thanks Bushy for watching out so well, before during and after 9/11.

Posted by: Thatsnuts | September 17, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Production and reserves are different words that have specific meanings that seems to escape the McBush/Pal-cheney defenders. Only one relates to "supply". Not only does it remain that Palin lied(or simply has no knowledge of what is produced in Alaska) but it is further ignored that very little of the dwindling Alaska sources oil even goes to the US mainland. Most is sent to Asia.

Posted by: Stan | September 17, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Look, you know they are just pulling tur_s out of their collective holes when their "Revised" statement after being confronted as a lie, is also a lie.

Its incredible.

Posted by: FormerRepub | September 17, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

A VISION TO NOWHERE:

I fear that our republican politicians may have been influence too much by "Reality Game Shows". Although John McCain has a long and solid record in the Senate his judgments on both domestic and foreign issues in the last four years have been anything but sound and more akin to the Bush doctrines. More recently his choice of a running mate has further confirmed his departure from reality. The glitter and fanfare following the nomination of Gov. Palin will continue to fade over the next 3-4 weeks as we learn more about her inability to address the complexities of national & international issues. Although McCain's VP selection has given him some badly needed traction, his choice reflects a disconnect with the American people and further confirms his willingness to provide the kind of leadership we have endured the last eight years. The 2008 Presidential election is far too critical an event for us to be deceived into thinking that a showbiz approach to the selection of our potential leaders for the next four years will do the trick. This is not a reality show but a defining moment in our history when we need a strong and reliable vision toward a better place.

Posted by: Nadarajen A. Vydelingum | September 17, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Howz about Gov Palin takin a crack at explainin the 'energy crises' we had out here in CA around 2000/2001 ? Remember that one ?

Posted by: remembering CA | September 17, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Howz about Gov Palin takin a crack at explainin the 'energy crises' we had out here in CA around 2000/2001 ? Remember that one ?

Posted by: remembering CA | September 17, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Wow, I had some time on my hands and got about a third of the way down the blog. I had to tap after that and scroll to the comments box. I am an American; a recently retired soldier and a registered Republican. I consider myself American and not tied to one party if I see reason to change registration. What I don't understand is how grown ppl here can behave like kids (maybe I assume too much) on this site. There is so much information out there that anybody can spin it to make a pretty picture and take credit for it. They're Politicians for crying out loud and they have 30 minutes to make you feel good about them and downplay the attacks on their credibility from the other side. With that said, what have you accomplished on here by yelling back and forth across the aisle? We are all Americans; red, white, black, yellow, etc. Regardless of our different views, we are in this together and it's time to remember that. It's a little naive to think that one party has all the answers and are the good guys and the other is totally evil; not to mention all or nothing thinking. I could point out good on both sides and we could start discussing things from there. Take your best shot when you vote, and go with the one you believe to be more in line with your beliefs; however you do that. Stop criticizing the Intelligent-design whackos or the Darwinites; We've had both in the White House and the sky hasn't fallen yet. And for goodness sakes, please don't say those boys and girls died in vain in Iraq and Afghanistan; that's the worse thing you can do to a service member. They believe they are fighting for their country and you believe differently, but they are over there in the fight and they don't need to hear that. One last question: Does anybody here know for an absolute fact, things would be worse, better, or about the same if Gore or Kerry had been elected? because I don't.

Posted by: MadMoto375 | September 17, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Please, let us not pend any more time on Ms. Sarah unless we connect her directly to her champion, McCain. After all, it was he who ultimately chose her, exaggeraed her abilities and he directly benefits from all of us spending more time giving her Pinocchios than concentrating on his waffling to and fro on major issues like regulation or deregulation,healthcare plans that do or do not eliminate people from participating, the war in Iraq and now in Pakistan, a free market education system, etc.

Posted by: Jill . Levy | September 17, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

From the Huffington Post earlier this summer:
Is there one credible economist or energy analyst who actually believes that offshore drilling could have a short-term impact on the market dynamics?

The Huffington Post took on the task of finding an expert who thought that Americans would, within the next decade, receive relief at the pump from McCain's plan. Querying the entire scope of the ideological spectrum -- and putting aside the debate over whether or not offshore drilling was sensible policy -- the consensus seemed to be that if the presumptive GOP nominee was persuading voters that he could help decrease their gas bill, he was either living in a political fantasy or being disingenuous.

We started out with the conservative crowd, the one seemingly most predisposed to the idea of drilling.

"There is no question it would take quiet a bit of time for this to come to the market," said Max Schulz, an energy analyst for the Manhattan Institute. "But it was the same argument that was used any time over the past ten years, that it would take too much time for this stuff to have an effect... Having a couple million extra barrels on the world market would eventually help ease those markets."

Other expressed similar, qualified skepticism about the short-term benefits of McCain's plan.

"Would starting to drill now do anything for consumers in the near future?" asked Ken Green, an energy analyst with the American Enterprise Institute. "The answer to this one, again in my opinion, is probably not, since it'll take so long for new oil or gas to come to market. There is some small chance it would have immediate benefits if the current price of oil is fueled by spectators convinced that supply will continue to remain stagnant in the face of growth. They could take a commitment to drill as evidence that supply constraints will loosen, resulting in lower prices (or slower increases), making oil futures a weaker investment that would trade for less."

Added Jerry Taylor, a fellow at the Cato Institute, "I think it would have an effect, just not a major effect. The odds are you couldn't get any significant amounts of crude from coastal areas within the next decade. Offshore rigs, if you want to go get one, tough luck. They are all leased out. Even if the infrastructure is there, it would be hard, but the infrastructure isn't there... But markets react to future developments and even if the crude is not flowing, the project itself could have an impact on markets."

But the assertion that offshore drilling could have an impact on oil prices by placating oil speculators is itself a contested proposition. And some analysts insist that it is wishful thinking that the market would suddenly perk up because of the prospect of more supply.

"There are a number of problems with that argument," said Rob Shapiro, formerly undersecretary of commerce under President Clinton, and co-founder and chairman of Sonecon, LLC. "First of all I don't think anyone thinks that within the time period of futures trading, that there would be enough additional supply to affect global future prices. Second of all, the market will look at this not only in terms of, 'there is more supply,' but also, 'there is more supply at substantial greater costs to recover than current supply, and with substantial new liabilities' -- the communities that are going to sue them when they destroy their beaches."

Indeed, as Taylor pointed out and as a number of independent studies have emphasized, there are a host of loopholes, costs, delays and uncertainties that make offshore drilling far from a sure oil market boom. There is a five-year waiting period just to lease land for drilling, and even more time on top of that to get a contract for the oil rigs. The American Petroleum Institute recently acknowledged that there is a dearth of equipment to drill on the land and coasts that are already accessible. And depending on the size of the station being built, and the possibility that oil may not be found immediately, it could be upwards of ten years before crude is even brought to the surface.

The Energy Information Administration estimated that oil from these sites would hit the market around 2017 and peak around 2027. Rushing the process would likely only result in less supply. "The faster we try to drain the less efficient the drainage," said Dr. Ralph Byrns, Professor of Economics at UNC-Chapel Hill. "If we drain it dry and still get 14 billion barrels of oil [the President has suggested 18 billion], that itself would still take 20 years."

Which brings us to the other side of the ideological spectrum, where analysts and experts not only see offshore drilling as a relatively fruitless enterprise, but precisely the wrong type of solution to achieve energy independence.

"Oil companies make more money on oil they own as long as the price stays high," said Marc Cooper, Director of Research for the Consumer Federation of America. "So the primary effect of drilling offshore will be increasing the profit of the oil companies. Today when they make a deal to drill in Saudi Arabia, they deal with the local government who takes all the rent. When they own their own oil, when they go to the outer-continental shelf, they don't have to pay OPEC."

A Democratic analyst, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, had a more nefarious explanation for McCain and President Bush's support for the offshore exploration: "If you wanted to go into Iraq, you saw 9/11 as a way to do that. And if you want to do offshore drilling, you see $4.00 a gallon gas as a way to do that."

To be fair, McCain and his aides have publicly stated that in this battle, as well during his press for a temporary gas tax holiday, the Senator was not casting his lot with the economists. And in a moment of sincerity, a senior adviser to the Arizona Republican,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, acknowledged that new offshore drilling wouldn't have an immediate effect on gas prices. In fact, three weeks before he came out in support of drilling, the Senator himself acknowledged that offshore resources "would take years to develop."

And yet McCain has been arguing that he is taking proactive steps to relieve the burden consumers are feeling at the pump, even declaring that offshore drilling "would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis." It is, some say, the antithesis of straight-talk politics.

"Obviously McCain's people know this is kind of a joke," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "But they have the media frame that they want. They have Obama sitting there whining about the environment and he is there doing something about five-dollar gas, when in essence there is nothing his plan does for short term relief."

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Fact checker is not enough since the tv news media continue to fail to discuss just how deceptive the Repugnant ticket is. The news media if doing it's work would summarize the lies perpetuated by McCain and Palin on the fundamentals (not even the lies related to Sen Obama), but the media is too pro-McCain to even do that. They let the lies slide and don't even contest them when the liars are in their immediate presence (of course Palin being the exception, since she is in no one's immediate presence except her handlers, as she is always buffered from anyone who could ask her something beyond the script).

Moreover, where are the stories on Republican caging activity aimed at stealing the right to vote from American citizens who have fallen on hard times?

What a joke the news media is!


Posted by: Vgirl1 | September 17, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Palin is as qualified to be energy czar as Brownie was to be head of FEMA! lighten up nervous nellies! Americans don't just whine about the economy, we whine about resumes too!

Posted by: J Lauber | September 17, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Palin has no place on the national stage. She works fine for most Alaskans, but seeing that Alaska has as many people in it as 1/4 of Brooklyn, I dispute that her popularity in that state should be any yardstick.
She is out of touch with issues outside of her state (and even some local ones, it seems)as any witness to her speeches or interview show.

Privately, she is pretty scary to a lot of Republicans out there, although, publicly, few seem to want to admit that.

Read what brave David Brooks had to say about her. Brooks, one of the lonely conservatives at the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html

Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Hey, WaPo factcheckers, fact check these issues and quit piddling around with one mis-spoken word ...

1) Our current economic problem is not all that diverse as to the reasons. Most correctly point out that it is due to unwise loan policies handing out risky loans known as sub-prime and or interest only loans.

2) Obama (Pelosi, all the other idiot dems) falsely accuses republicans for this current problem. They point to a Phil Gramm bill (circa 1999) that they claim made this thing happen.

3) Obama claims McCain is in deep with these financial institutions

4) Gramm bill in question was during Clinton. It was passed in order to allow more competition with US banks against foreign banks. The past "regulation" disallowed banks to diversify. This "regulation" was unwise, unjustified and anti-capitalism. Most likely why some dems love regulations.

5) The Gramm bill had bipartisan support.

6) Bill Clinton had the option to veto the bill but chose not to. Some Obama claim he did not veto because his veto would be over-ridden. That turns out to be blatantly false when checking the actual numbers. Clinton in fact threatened to veto the bill (obviously showing that he could kill it if he wanted) but only under one condition.

7) Clintons condition for a possible veto of this rep bill was only if the reps included their desired section on making loan policies tighter (doing away with risky loans). Clinton was adamant that tight loan policies would hurt minorities that, as usual, dems love to pander to.

8) Clinton, Dodd, Kerry, Hillary, Franks and Obama (DEMOCRATS) all are on record supporting sub-prime loans (loose lending policies) primarily for the false assumption that it would help minorities. Them losing their homes is hardly help but heck, as long as it sounds warm and fuzzy then do it.

9) Bush (oh how evil) stated in the past that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are in dire need of tightening their loan policies. Obama, Chris Dodd and other blowhard democrats resisted. Obama and Chris Dodd resisted for one primary reason. They were on the number 1 and number 2 slots of receiving lobbying money from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. We know what happened next. Sub-prime loans caused several banks to crash and burn. Bush was right. Freddy Mac and Fanny may had to be bailed out by the government. Obama was wrong. Dodd was wrong. Hillary, Kerry and Bill were all wrong to force loose lending policies. Pelosi, in answer to whether dems were involved stated with all the force of an idiot blowhard, "no, not us."

10) The cause of our current problem can be traced truthfully and accurately not to deregulation but to democrat politicians insisting that minorities be given to buy homes that they could no, in reality, afford to buy. This caused the current economic mess. Now dems are more than happy to hope that Americans are misinformed. Of course, dems are correct. Look at all the idiot Obama supporters. However, we must get the word out to the true Americans about the sham that the dems are hoping to pull off yet again.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 17, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Since McClain is one or two banana pells from the grave, Palin as VP is very, very scary. She is Richard Nixon in drag...vendictive,deceitful and narrow minded. Look at her interference and stonewalling in the Trooper Case. Hints of Tricky Dick. The country would be in big,big trouble with her as Pres.

Posted by: Flyonthewall | September 17, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

"Maybe Michael Dobbs needs to revisit his Fact-Checker yesterday on the meaning of words. When Sarah Palin said "energy supply"..."supply" frequently refers to what is available for use, not necessarily what is being used...by: dbw"

Shame on you, dbw. I couldn't imagine any spin that would get them out of this lie, but you have made a heroic (although untruthful) effort. Check ANY economics book: "supply" has a very specific meaning, and it definitely does NOT mean oil in the ground. In any market, the supply is the amount available FOR SALE at various prices. I just walked back from my economics class, in which I told my students that they would fail the course if they can't make that simple distinction. You refer to "left-leaning commentators". I guess that includes the ENTIRE (market-oriented) economics profession. If we are too far left for you, that puts you to the right of just about anyone on the planet. I don't know whether you are just ignorant or misleading spreading untruths. Either way, it's depressing. Sigh.

Posted by: BobH | September 17, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

FACTCHECKING THE WAPO FACT-CHECKERS.

It took me very little research to discover the facts of this issue.

1) I double checked what Sarah's actual statements are on energy and oil. Her belief is that Alaska provides aprx 20 percent of the OIL to the USA. Correct answer varies, depending on the year and who is counting. They supply between 14-20% of the oil. If you also, however, include untapped oil reserves then the numbers are substantially higher. Sarah is on record of tapping those untapped sources of oil, which is a wise thing to do.

2) All of this hubbub is not about Sarahs common statements on energy and oil but rather based on her obviously mispeaking what she meant. She was discussing both oil and energy and got mixed up on terms. Sort of like Obama saying that there were 57 states and or Obama referring to his own muslim religion.

3) Where are the WaPo fact-checkers discussing how Obama does not even known how many states there are. He said 57. Oh they say, that was just him mis-speaking.

4) Where are the WaPo fact-checkers on discussing Obama saying that he was "muslim". Oh they say, he just mis-spoke.

5) Ok, back to Sarah. She is on record as saying that Alaska supplies roughly 20% of OIL. She simply mispoke.

6) So what do the idiot leftists do? They take an obvious mis-spoken number and assume Sarah meant it. They belittle her for it, they break out the charts to prove her wrong, yada yada yada.

7) Surely those idiot fact-checkers can break out a map of the USA and prove to Obama that there are indeed far less than 57 states (plus the two he said that he did not visit ... 47 + 2 equals 50?)

8) WaPo are not fact checkers. They are just consumate liars and deceivers. They take a simple mis-spoken saying and run with it. But only if it was a republican that did the mis-speaking.

Posted by: KMichaels | September 17, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Palin obviously equates "energy" with oil. Pretty scary she says energy will be one of her responsibilities as VP.

Posted by: EarthlingAngst | September 17, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

"you guys are morons 20% OF THE US SUPPLY does not mean 20% of what we are currently using. factchecker, you get 8 Pinocchio's for this egregious miscarriage of fact...by: dale"

Dale, I've already answered another respondent who didn't understand "supply," but your comments were so venomous I couldn't resist. Read an economics book: "supply" refers to the quantity that is on the market, NOT whatever may (or may not) be in the ground. So perhaps your "morons" have taken an economics course. Lies are still lies, no matter how much spin you put them.

Posted by: BobH | September 17, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Picking Palin as his VP was a very cynical move on McCain's part.

McCain had degenerated to be one of the sleeziest politicians ever. The guy has always been a jerk, bellicose and making rash decisions. Now he has also sold his honor to the highest bidder.

Honor & McCain - they dont know each other any more.

Posted by: Lawrence | September 17, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

John McCain and Sarah Palin have both said that Sarah Palin knows a lot about energy because Alaska produces a lot of oil.

Sarah Palin said at a campaign rally in Golden, Colorado, that she had been responsible for overseeing, "nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of oil and gas.”

John McCain said in a September 3rd interview with Charles Gibson, that she was “in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply.”

Both statements are misleading as Alaska production accounts over 14 percent of all the oil produced in the U.S and 4.8 percent of all the crude oil and petroleum products supplied to the U.S. in 2007, and only 3.5 percent of the country's domestic energy production. (FactCheck.org).

But Alaska does supply a lot of crude oil to the United States, we know that to be true.

So, If:
Alaska supplying crude oil to the United States gives Palin the credential to be an energy expert- according to McCain, “Gov. Sarah Palin "knows more about energy than probably anyone in the United States of America." –(-John McCain, ABC interview, Sept. 11, 2008.)”

And:

Texas supplies more crude oil to the US than Alaska, (according to The Fact Checker; based on Palin and McCain’s reasoning, does that mean that George W. Bush, having been the Governor of Texas knows more about energy than Palin? So we would have a potential Vice-President who knows less about energy than the current president. What does that imply about future our energy policies if McCain/Palin get elected?

Posted by: Kate | September 17, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

It just seems that when Sarah Palin says something about 20% of the Americas energy supply, production, gas, oil, whatever, we should ask her, in what respect Charlie?

Posted by: J Lauber | September 17, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

"All of this hubbub is not about Sarahs common statements on energy but rather ...mispeaking what she meant. She was discussing both oil and energy and got mixed up on terms. Sort of like Obama saying that there were 57 states and or Obama referring to his own muslim religion.by: KMichaels"

This is unbelievable. I won't keep responding to this kind of nonsense, but here's just one more. Palin did far more than get mixed up on these substantive policy issues. She either keeps revising them (still wrong), or as in other cases like the bridge), continues to tell untruths, even after being corrected. It's idiotic to compare that with a REAL misstatement (or deliberate misinterpretation by right-wing bloggers), like the "57 states" or "my muslim" religion. No sane person could put any credence in the notion that a brilliant ex-professor at U of Chicago and former editor of the Harvard Law Review doesn't know the number of states. What a waste of electrons to write (and publish) such nonsense. Surely you don't think that your comments will actually convince anyone who didn't already have his/her mind made up. And please don't insult my intelligence by arguing that this was your point: that Palin/McCain's deliberate distortions in the face of objective counter-evidence are comparable to a casual reference to 57 states. This is garbage. You win--I'm out of here!

Posted by: BobH | September 17, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Helloo!? Freaking 9/11 happened on Bush's watch! For 9 months he willfully ignored all indications that an Al-Qaida attack was coming, and there were quite a few. Nothing's happened since then because we sent thousands of targets right into their backyard. Why waste plane fare when you can kill over 4000 Americans without leaving the region? Afghanistan was a reasonable war, although we messed even that up when we went into Iraq. Iraq was a waste - launched on lies and then waged stupidly. We've spilled blood and treasure there and accomplished nothing except the bungled execution of one of a score of dictators around the world. Seven years later, and Bin Laden is still free - and probably a very happy man. In his wildest dreams he couldn't have done more to us than we have done to ourselves.

Posted by: msk | September 17, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

To dbw: We are talking about production, not consumption. You are obfuscating because no one except you said anything about consumption. When one refers to "energy supply," it means production and does not include reserves.

Posted by: nancytropoli | September 17, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Sexist H---. I am a 78 year old feminist and have prayed that women would get due recognition for all the work that they have done to make this country great. I can; however, tell you that this lying, big mouth, woman is not the one. I can only pray that she will shut up, and go back to Alaska. There is more to being a woman than running your mouth and dressing out a moose.

Posted by: BettB | September 17, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

1)The statistics in FACTCHECKER are nonpartison--stop desperately blaming the "liberal media bias" for everything--so very weak.

2)If McCain/Palin can't handle questioning, they should not be running for office.

3)Stunning that some out there actually still cling to the notion that Bush has somehow prevented terrorism by invading Iraq. And, by the way, 9/11 happened on BUSH's watch.

Posted by: astounded | September 17, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin knows Russia stuff, she can see it. Sarah Palin knows oil stuff, her state has it. Sarah palin knows baby stuff, she has made some. She knows Mayor stuff and Governor stuff. She knows huntin' stuff (even though there aint much sport to moose huntin') She even knows stuff besides Alaska stuff. I'm sure she does. Dosen't she?

Posted by: J Lauber | September 17, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

John Mccain has become such a pathetic looking man.Just look at what happens when a man looses his dignity, and honor. Some of his people in his campaign should tell him. It is so sad what his people has done to him.I feel for Cindy Mccain, I really do.Can you imagine how she must fells when she sees him in an interview looking like this.

Posted by: TYGIRL | September 17, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Fear, smear, and lie -- the new Republican mantra.

McCain and his sidekick Palin have outdone Bush in one respect, at least. They are now running the dirtiest, sleaziest, most dishonest, and most dishonorable national campaign in U.S. history.

I can't believe the American people will be suckered once again.

Posted by: WTP | September 17, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Did you ever hear the saying "if you tell a lie, and keep telling people the same lie eventually they will believe it." That is what the Republican ticket is about. Lies.

Posted by: NoMcCain | September 17, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

The number one reason residents give when asked why they are not evacuating, when a significant hurricane is imminent, is their faith that God will take care of them, ( like wind and rising water don't matter). Palin supports teaching intelligent design along side with the scientific theory of evolution in schools. How confusing for young minds. We have students believing that God created people in his own image when the undeniable truth is that we evolved from apes. The older generation may have been hoodwinked into believing the unproven fantasy of creationism, but today's generation can find out the truth in 20 minutes of solid research on the internet. It's time for religious leaders to give up the hoax and tell the truth and stop corrupting
the next generation. It is frightening to think that someone (Palin), who does not make a distinction between fantasy and reality, could be elected to any position in our government. Wake up, America!

Posted by: don r | September 17, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

While I can't claim to know everything there is to know about oil and natural gas, I do know that the reference chart is misleading. Natural gas is normally measured in cubic feet units while oil is measured in barrels. The reference to BTU's as the measure would indicate that the fact checker deserves a few Pinocchio's himself.

Posted by: ozlow | September 17, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Q :Well you say she has the experience, what experience does she have in the field of National Security?

A: Energy. She knows more about energy then probally anyone else in the...

What happened to the answer for national security...oh wait she can see Russia from her house. ;)

Posted by: kellywicks | September 17, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

How can someone who calls herself a reformer deliberately LIE? I worry that thinking Americans are concerned about the outright lying going on in order for Republicans to win the White House, but the public at large isn't reading the Washington Post and other news outlets that are fact-checking. The RNC is running the show. Look behind the curtain and find Karl Rove.

Posted by: Angry Voter | September 17, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

To JakeD

Who raised you and your kids? Most likely your mother and your wife! I am speaking to the majority of the child raising that happens in this country. Statistically the women does the bulk of the work. I don't have a problem with working women as I am one, along with being a football, basketball, lacrosse mom, with a masters degree in engineering and yet I am the one who goes home EVERY night to care for my kids. My spouse, like Palin's is busy running a company. While I probably understand energy and alternative energy better than Palin, not only would I have blinked, I would have run in the opposite direction!

Sarah louise Palin is a frightening person, John McCain is worse.

OBAMA/BIDEN 08

Posted by: meb | September 17, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

your blog "smells".................

Posted by: patsiejane | September 17, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

When a significant hurricane is imminent, the number one reason residents give when asked why they are not evacuating is their faith that God will take care of them (like wind and rising water don't matter). Palin supports teaching intelligent design alongside the scientific theory of evolution in schools. How confusing for young minds! We have students believing that God created people in his own image when all the evidence points to our evolving from apes. The older generation may have been hoodwinked into believing the unproven fantasy of creationism, but today's generation can find out the truth in 20 minutes (by properly researching on the internet). It's time for religious leaders to give up the hoax and to stop corrupting the next generation. It is frightening to think that someone (Palin), who does not make a distinction between fantasy and reality, could be elected to any position in our government. Wake up, America!

Posted by: don r | September 17, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

It is becoming increasingly self-evident with every passing day that this empress has no clothes.

Posted by: andre | September 17, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

How much oil production has Obama supervised?

Posted by: Roger Sablow | September 17, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

Two movies I really enjoyed were The "Stepford Wives" and "Groundhog Day". Watching Sarah Palin is like watching these movies all over again at the same time.

Posted by: Murphys Grandfather | September 17, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

I'm a solar energy expert 'cause I can see the sun from my house. :) -- Sarah Palin 2008

Posted by: Rob in VA | September 17, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

The Bush house of cards with its shrill bunch of supporters in Congress and right wing Conservatives are imploding. The scary thing is that it is dragging the rest of America, Europe and the rest of the world with it. Armageddon!!

Legacy of the House of Bush:
Think subprime; huge debts rolling over to the next generation; think financial collapse (Lehman, AIG, Fannie May, Freddie Mack...); think corrupt financial and political system; think Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeldt, Karl Rove, the list goes on....

You want more?? OK,
think Iraq, Halliburton, Afganistan, Guantanamo Bay, waterboarding torture, aftermath of Katrina, alienation of world opinion..

Question: You want more of the same??
Your choice.

McCain agrees with Bush 90% of the time. He is not even computer literate. Can't fault him on that though. My 80 year old grandmother didn't either.

In case his health fails, not to worry. You can depend on his VP choice; gun-toting, antichoice, moose hunting, hockey mum, WITH LIPSTICK!!


Posted by: Patriot | September 17, 2008 10:29 PM | Report abuse

Please - just as every word said in opposition of Barack Obama is not "racist" neither is every word said about Gov. Palin "sexist". What a lame statement

Posted by: lorene1 | September 17, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Vote for Obama and you will have DESTROYED Hilary's chance at becoming President!!

Consider this:
If you elect Obama for 2008 , Hillary CAN'T RUN IN 2012!! The incumbent always runs for their party in reelection.

Hillary will then be 69 when she gets a chance to run as democrat. Then people will call her old(like they do McCain who is 72) and she will NEVER become President.

Reagan was 69 when he got elected but he wasn't trying to break the glass ceiling at the same time.

So if you care at all about Hillary, you will VOTE AGAINST Obama this time around. Plus, you will break the glass ceiling and Hillary WILL BE THERE in 2012!!

Think about it!! It makes sense!!

If you support Hillary, YOU MUST VOTE AGAINST OBAMA!!!

Posted by: Eric | September 17, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

What is the McCain/Palin's solution to all this economic mess generated by their cronies?

"Drill, baby, drill"!!!!

If they are voted in, God help us all, including the polar bears, seals and other wildlife, not to mention the poor old moose.


Posted by: Patriot | September 18, 2008 12:37 AM | Report abuse

Just as I predicted. Many new jobs. They have opened up twelve new pinnochio factories next to the washington Post to make enough pinnochios for Palin and McCain.

Posted by: majorteddy | September 18, 2008 1:58 AM | Report abuse

The solutions that McCain/Palin offer to solve this incredible destruction by their cronies are absurd and non-starters. These solutions are like "selling Alaska back to the oil-rich Russians". The latter solution might work better, if one can include Palin, all her right wing conservative cronies and "trooper-gate affairs" in that deal. That would get rid of some of the economic and political woes in one massive deal.

Posted by: Patriot | September 18, 2008 2:39 AM | Report abuse

She is one of us is a laugh. I did not get a $125,000 lulu job that gave me an assistant to do the work I was unqualified for. My spouse was not part of any Independence party movement. Too bad at the town hall someone was not smart enough to ask her if she is for transparency , then why is she and the Republicans not answering the search for truth in the Monegan investigation? The non-partisian state committee voted 12-0 to investigate, putting to rest the lie about witchhunts.

Posted by: Jimbo | September 18, 2008 3:20 AM | Report abuse

McCain kool aid drinkers are out in force. This hero will not protect us as shown by his recent judgements, Voted against Powell on Somalia, against Shinseki on Iraq, got Fallon fired for his Iran position, did not follow the joints chiefs on Iraq withdrawal and Aghan buildup. They were against the surge and our theater in Afghanistan has paid the price. The safe haven from the military now is in Afghanistan as Pakistan is making a strong push against the Taliban. Al Qaeda in Iran, the Iraq/Pakistan border, backed Cheney over Rice on Georgia and no our troops will be attacked by the Mahdi army in Iraq, so why no retraction on 100 years.

Posted by: Jimbo | September 18, 2008 3:27 AM | Report abuse

"Figures don't lie, but liars figure," goes the old saw. The difficulty in debunking some propositions is that the proposition at issue isn't precise. For example, FactChecker's stats aren't right, either, if one considers that, absent the sun, our planet's base temperature would be only slightly above absolute zero. How many BTUs does the sun contribute to our TOTAL energy consumption, and did FactChecker factor that contribution in when it assigned Texas first slot?

Bottom line: for an answer to be true or false, the question and the answer must allow no possibility of alternative construction. In the case of Gibson's question to Gov. Palin, many constructions are possible, both in regard to the question and in regard to the answer. As far as true or false are concerned, then, no evaluation of Gov. Palin's answer is possible, and this whole discussion is fully equivalent to arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Posted by: Enoch Wisner | September 18, 2008 6:52 AM | Report abuse

Imagine a chance commuter train meeting between Palin and T Boone Pickens, and imagine the conversation getting to the American energy crisis (which it is). John McCain is the only person in the whole damn world who thinks that Pickens could learn even one single thing on the subject from Palin.
Fox News would say that he did, but they would know better. That's a different statement.

Posted by: winger1 | September 18, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Remember, people, that this dark-haired "Blond Joke" could be a "heartbeat away from the Presidency". That SCARES me, and I'm usually a "R". Not THIS election!

Posted by: Odysseus | September 18, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: Heather | September 18, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I just love it. I mean, seeing you guys ripping each other apart about a bunch of politicos. Keep your cool, and think about it (kudos to Susan D'Addario for pointing out that people don't vote with their brains - which is probably true around the world, not only in the USA).

GW Bush did the job he was elected for - restarting the war machine that stopped at the end of the cold war & making Iraqi oil available. No more, no less. No blame on him for that - if blame there is, then we should blame ourselves.

McCain & Obama are doing the best they can to win the election (surprise !). So of course McCain must try to appeal to the usual republican voters, and in the mean-time, not lose to much of the "maverick" image he had up to something like last year. Obama's got to keep his own base in the dream-mode, and still appear serious & tough enough for the top job to convince the undecided.

Remeber - In the end, we'll get the president we deserve.

Posted by: Kalann | September 18, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

One thing that I've failed to understand--when a Republican lies, it's no big deal. Everyone does it. Don't worry about it.

When a Democrat lies, it explodes in his or her face and makes the candidate radioactive.

To wit--John McCain claims he is a maverick because he has opposed the GOP on abortion, immigration reform, and tax cuts.

Yet he now favors limiting abortion, has admitted he would vote against his own immigration bill, and wants to continue the Bush tax cuts which he once said would devastate the budget.

Umm...how does caving in to the GOP base make a Republican a maverick? Joe Lieberman is more of a maverick.

So, McCaniacs---is he a maverick or not?

Posted by: Chris Friede | September 18, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Sarah was so great at her 125 grand energy post, her assistant drew up policy and did all the administrative work with a push from Republican energy concerns that seem to be based in Canada. She can skin a moose, but she can't count.

Posted by: Jimbo | September 18, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Those who think Obama's plans for our country are mathematically implausible are just as bad at math as Sarah Palin.

Posted by: MathTeacher | September 19, 2008 12:10 AM | Report abuse

MCCAIN BRAGS ABOUT PALINS CREDENTIALS SO MUCH BUT WHEN PALIN IS ASKED ABOUT HER FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE OR ENERGY EXPERIENCE IT SOUNDS NOTHING LIKE THE BOAST OF MCCAIN. I THINK MCCAIN MADE A BIG MISTAKE CHOSING PALIN AND IF HE LOSES IT WOULD BE MOSTLY BECAUSE OF PALIN. AFTER THAT TOWNHALL MEETING THE OTHER DAY. THERES NO WAY ANYBODY WOULD BELIEVE SHE IS READY TO BE COMMANDER AND CHIEF. SHE NEEDS TO FIRST LEARN HOW TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

Posted by: JASS | September 19, 2008 2:21 AM | Report abuse

Angry Voter, Chris Friede, etc.:

Gov. Palin has not "lied" about anything. Just ask Mr. Dobbs.

meb:

Yes, my mother raised me, and my wife raised our kids. That being said, I am glad you are not running for Vice President too.

Posted by: JakeD | September 19, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Get "facts" straight before you do a "fact check".

PALIN: "My job has been to oversee nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of oil and gas."

FACTCHECK: "It is not even correct for Palin to claim that her state is responsible for "nearly 20 percent" of U.S. oil production."

She said supply, not production. There is a big difference between the supply of oil and gas and the production of that asset. So, get the "facts" straight before you do a "fact check".

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Another Four Pinocchio lie by the Washington Post, which lies about the difference between "supply" and "production".

We are all witnessing the self-destruction of a once-great newspaper. Are you still wondering why your circulation is plummeting?

Posted by: GEAH | September 19, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Hi,

I wanted to draw your attention to this important petition that I recently signed:

"Impeach Senator Barack Obama"
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/obamaimpeachment?e ...

I really think this is an important cause, and I'd like to encourage you to add your signature, too. It's free and takes less than a minute of your time.

Thanks!............

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/obamaimpeachment?e

Posted by: Anonymous | September 19, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Wow. This is one sick sad little world that just wants to blow itself up and support hipocracy.

Obama/Biden 08
Vote, or find a bomb shelter.

Posted by: J | September 19, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

After seeing the blatant sexism and ageism demonstrated on a daily basis by democrats everywhere, there's just no way I could vote for Obama in good conscience. I just don't hate women or old people enough.

Posted by: Thirdrail1 | September 20, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Third
Are you kidding me? If you're GOP you hate women no doubt about that. McCain puts Palin in thinking that all women are so stupid it doesn't matter who she is or what she thinks (if she does). No insult there. Whatever you may think about Obama, he's not a lying hypocrite. You want another 4 years? Good-you deserve it. You're one of the idiots who brought us the last eight.

Posted by: kpk | September 20, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

I have never been this sad. McCain has been one of me heroes since viet nam and college. His suffering was horrible. His story and the call to end torture and promote humane treatment for all soldiers was a call that went out around the world. Who knew that he would put his ambition to be President to turn his back on every one of his principles to preach Bush doctrine and demean women by slapping in the face all of the hard working, highly educated, long suffering Republican women who have steadfastedly stood by this sexist party. Quietly serving their party their country their husbands their families and their chruch. I am ashamed to be a republican

Posted by: Preacher2332 | September 20, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

If Palin is such a qualified expert on so many matters, why isn't the McCain campaign sending her off on interviews and letting her field unvetted questions from audiences that aren't preselected to throw softballs. I'm sorry, but I haven't heard Palin say much of anything but politicized rhetoric. She doesn't appear to know much about much. And, no, I'm not sexist - I've just examined her resume and available transcripts and videos. McCain picked Palin to dupe dumb women, and I'm not falling for it.

Posted by: EricaJC | September 21, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

I'm one of those "undecideds" -- reading through this, however, has led me to lean the Obama/Biden way,because honestly -- you McCain/Palin folks -- your logic sounds very flawed and almost desperate.

Posted by: WhatIf? | September 22, 2008 4:05 AM | Report abuse

Vote for Obama and you will have DESTROYED Hilary's chance at becoming
President!!

Consider this:
If you elect Obama for 2008 , Hillary CAN'T RUN IN 2012!! The
incumbent always runs for their party in reelection.

Hillary will then be 69 when she gets a chance to run as democrat.
Then people will call her old(like they do McCain who is 72) and she
will NEVER become President.

Reagan was 69 when he got elected but he wasn't trying to break the
glass ceiling at the same time.

So if you care at all about Hillary, you will VOTE AGAINST Obama this
time around. Plus, you will break the glass ceiling and Hillary WILL
BE THERE in 2012!!

Think about it!! It makes sense!!

If you support Hillary, YOU MUST VOTE AGAINST OBAMA!!!

Posted by: Eric | September 22, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company