Palin's speech was....

[Diana in OR]

Oh, see I don't think so. I think she was utterly nasty. Nasty with a smile is a brand I particularly distrust. I didn't see those as zingers, I saw them as the stuff I'd been so very grateful to Obama for not doing. He extended courtesy to her on Monday when the press started tearing into her over Bristol. You'd think she could disagree without being openly rude.

 

:iagree::iagree: My first thoughts were "condescending" and "rude".

[Erica in PA]

I think I can gather from that generally what your objections might be. And fwiw, I don't think you'll have to worry about Huckabee ever winning the Presidency. He was too conservative for even Hannity, Rush, or Glenn Beck to say one good word about him-- I don't think there's much chance of a majority of Americans electing him president!! :crying: But he'll always have a special place in my heart. :nopity:

 

Erica

[Jenny in Atl]

:iagree::iagree: My first thoughts were "condescending" and "rude".

 

Unfortunately, I think this is one of the reasons McCain picked her. Lowest common denominator politics at it's best. Looks to be an ugly couple of months. I'm more than ready for this whole thing to be over. This has been way too long an election for then end results (no matter who wins).

[Osmosis Mom]

Really not trying to stir the pot, but the difference I see is that the main leaders of these "Islamic terrorists" groups are saying that they are doing these things in the name of Allah. As far as I can tell when an abortion clinic is bombed or some other horrendous activity, no Christian leaders condone it. As a matter of fact many, many, Christian leaders come out with public statements stating they do not agree with those activities.

 

Just my observation.

 

There were no Muslim leaders condoning 9-11. You got that one way wrong. And the Palestinian conflict is a religious conflict where Muslims do gt branded as terrorists and which many leaders do condone, but those acts are not of the same brand or origin.

[Erica in PA]

Kelli, I just read this article and thought of you! It pretty clearly answers the question of whether or not Joe Biden has been reigned in, LOL!! Especially the last few lines. He definitely has decided to scale back, and to try to appear to take the "high road." They must have decided that would be their best approach when it comes to Palin.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/04/Biden.Palin/index.html

[PiCO]

I have to disagree here. I would say the majority of people are apathetic. I can tell by our culture that the majority is NOT trying to follow in Christ's footsteps.

 

I think your statement is correct, but if you ask people what their religion is the majority of people in this country say, "Christian."

 

Reminds me of this Ghandi quote:

 

 

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

Mohandas Gandhi

[Nestof3]

I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

 

Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability.

 

Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

 

Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child or ailing parent.

 

Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect Social Security for future generations.

 

And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength." Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.

Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility - that's the essence of America's promise.

 

Oh my, this speech actually makes me want to throw up. I am not kidding.

 

TAXES

First, to cut that much in taxes and still provide all of the programs democrats love? Am I the only doubtful one?

 

EDUCATION

Education? Sounds like every president's promise. Don't hold your breath on this one. More accountability. For whom -- the teachers? Are they really to blame? I think not. It's the quantity of parents who have children but don't want to be bothered by them first and foremost. A president cannot change that. I would bet, though, that these parents -- if they take the time to vote -- will vote for Obama.

 

HEALTH CARE

And what kind of accountability will there be for this one? Will smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts and such have to pay higher premiums, or will the taxpayers take care of that? With private insurance, a smoker would have to pay a higher premium, but with my Dad's military coverage, the taxpayers take up the bill. With bigger government comes less personal responsibility.

 

PAID SICK DAYS / LEAVE

An employer should not be forced to pay when someone is not working. Again, there's always such a despise among people for employers. Perhaps there should be some appreciation for providing you with a job.

 

BANKRUPTCY

Oh, this is another great one. My dad filed bankruptcy -- around $40,000 worth. He now owns a Mercedes, had a $7,000 window put in his house, and just bought a BMW off Ebay. I guess he just was not capable of paying back that debt. He has military retirement now and is on social security. He works part time, but not too much because "they won't allow him to." [he'll receive less social security if he works too much. He's perfectly capable of working, but Americans have this retirement entitlement mentality.] SO, yes, let's make sure these people's pensions are protected.

 

CRIME

Fall into crime? Oh boy. Let's not use any sort of vocabulary that implies this person is responsible for his choices.

[RebeccaC]

Amen! And, on top of it all, I was disgusted by her blatant use of her son to pander to those of us who have children with special needs (my 7 y.o. has DS), and really, was parading out the 17 year old bf necessary? UGH. I know they are not happy about an unwed pregnant daughter, but a married 17 year old, whose bf is unwilling (see his own myspace page before it was pulled down) is a larger tragedy.

 

Wow as a mom and aunt to sn kids I did not find her pandering at all. I have spent time in Washington lobbying for medical research for sn kids and I thought it would be good to have some one at the highest level of the executive branch with first hand experience raising an sn kid. I really liked the idea of having an sn kid being brought to focus in the nation in a first family. Seems like more is done to keep such kids out of the lime light so folks don't have to really think about it.

 

I also do not see a larger tragedy in Bristol's pregnancy nor did it look as if her bf was there with a shotgun in his back. They had the family on the stage and he is now part of the family. Why exclude him. Maybe he had second thoughts about getting married but who does not? A tragedy is a a disastrous event and I just do not view this as a disaster. A mistake yes but not a tragedy. In my view a tragedy is when a family is killed by a drunk driver.

 

When I was single I took in an unwed mother, helped her get through high school and start college, helped with her baby. The father never wanted the baby and tried to make her abort. When the teen girl graded from our local cc she married a wonderful man who adopted the baby. That baby is now himself a college grad, married, and about to become a father for the first time.

 

I just do not see Bristol's and Levi's situation as a tragedy. Levi might be having second thoughts but just about everyone who gets married has those kind of thoughts. I know I did and I was almost 30. Having second thought is not a larger tragedy. It is normal. Having a baby when you are a teen is not a tragedy and I think Mr. Obama is glad his mother did not view it so.

 

I think it was good that he was on the stage. His is now part of the Palin family and to not have him there would be a form of rejection. I thought it showed acceptance of him. I suppose if we were living in some countries we would publicly stone both Bristol and Levi for their mistake but we don't do that here in America. Now I would view stoning Bristol and Levi as a tragedy, as the ultimate rejection. I think both McCain and Mr. & Mrs. Palin showed a lot of love and acceptance by having him there.

 

I think the liberal press is creating their own version of a Scarlett letter for Bristol and Levi. The reason they are doing so is to me disgusting. To use a teens as political pawns and to heap shame on those teens for political gain is disgusting. I had little respect for Obama until I heard his response to this situation and then he grew in my view as gentleman.

 

This is of course just my 2 cents worth but I thought it was worth posting.

[Ahwahnee]

Traditionally the night the VP speaks at the political convention is the night every speaker attacks the opponents. Gov Palin and Mayor Giuliani did a great job softening the position of their opponents before the Sen McCain accepts the nomination.

 

I still like Gov Ann Richards of Texas comment about Pres George H.W. Bush. "Poor George, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.":lol:

[Nestof3]

I think your statement is correct, but if you ask people what their religion is the majority of people in this country say, "Christian."

 

 

I agree. It's the apathy of the latter days -- neither hot nor cold -- but lukewarm. Be ready for some spitting out.

 

This reminds me of the Our Island Story yesterday when we were listening to how Canute, King of the Danes, became Christian and then all his men did as well. I had to ponder that one for a while. Political perhaps? Did true conviction fall upon all of these men? Or, was Christianity just the convenient, better option?

 

I think that's how people are today. I've met so many Christians who have never even read the Bible for themselves.

[Elaine]

I thought it was good. I enjoyed listening to her.

 

I'm surprised to see her comments taken as catty. Politicians take on their opponents all the time. It's almost the role of the VP candidate to really get tought on the opponent's stance and shoot holes in it. I thought she did a great job. It's like when I'm in a meeting here in our ministry and I have an opinion or something to say that is a strong opinion. I was surprised that our director described me as catty!:001_huh: I felt that it was unfair because when the men on our staff express a strong opinion it is seen as passionate about something or as if they have special insight into a situation or person. But, for a woman, it's catty?

 

This is such a fine line that she will have to walk. It was the same with Hillary Clinton in the primaries. If they come across too strong, it's off-putting. If they come across as softer, they're not up to handling the pressures of the office. It's still a good-ole-boys game apparently! It's tough for a woman to overcome the stereotypes that have been there for centuries. It's good to see 2 strong women in this election who, I feel, have so far conducted themselves well.

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

You said it so well, Dayle!

[Nestof3]

And fwiw, I don't think you'll have to worry about Huckabee ever winning the Presidency. He was too conservative for even Hannity, Rush, or Glenn Beck to say one good word about him-- I don't think there's much chance of a majority of Americans electing him president!! :crying: But he'll always have a special place in my heart.

 

I'd vote for him! :D

[Elaine]

Oh my, this speech actually makes me want to throw up. I am not kidding.

 

TAXES

First, to cut that much in taxes and still provide all of the programs democrats love? Am I the only doubtful one?

 

EDUCATION

Education? Sounds like every president's promise. Don't hold your breath on this one. More accountability. For whom -- the teachers? Are they really to blame? I think not. It's the quantity of parents who have children but don't want to be bothered by them first and foremost. A president cannot change that. I would bet, though, that these parents -- if they take the time to vote -- will vote for Obama.

 

HEALTH CARE

And what kind of accountability will there be for this one? Will smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts and such have to pay higher premiums, or will the taxpayers take care of that? With private insurance, a smoker would have to pay a higher premium, but with my Dad's military coverage, the taxpayers take up the bill. With bigger government comes less personal responsibility.

 

PAID SICK DAYS / LEAVE

An employer should not be forced to pay when someone is not working. Again, there's always such a despise among people for employers. Perhaps there should be some appreciation for providing you with a job.

 

BANKRUPTCY

Oh, this is another great one. My dad files bankruptcy -- around $40,000 worth. He now owns a Mercedes, had a $7,000 window put in his house, and just bought a BMW off Ebay. I guess he just was not capable of paying back that debt. He has military retirement now and is on social security. He works part time, but not too much because "they won't allow him to." [he'll receive less social security if he works too much. He's perfectly capable of working, but Americans have this retirement entitlement mentality.] SO, yes, let's make sure these people's pensions are protected.

 

CRIME

Fall into crime? Oh boy. Let's not use any sort of vocabulary that implies this person is responsible for his choices.

 

:iagree: On all points, even the throwing up one.;)

[TN Mama]

I need to go to bed, but I can't not answer this.

 

I don't think people are dumb enough (and I mean most people - there are always going to be dumb/ignorant people) to believe that ALL Muslims are terrorists.

 

I think some of it depends on where you live and how much contact you have with "true" Muslims. But still, I don't believe that people cannot distinguish between the radical extreme end of Islam and the mainstream population of Islam. The same holds true for any extreme of any religion.

 

I completely agree 100% with the above bolded statement. As for the second statement about it being dependent on having contact with true Muslims, I don't personally know anyone who is Muslim, irl. But I wouldn't begin to lump all people of a faith into one group. Just as I would never make an assumption about all Christians because of one who claims the faith. I don't make assumptions about white people because of the actions of white supremacists. I don't make assumptions about any race based on the actions of a group of said people. I don't make assumptions about all Democrats based on the actions of a few and same goes for any other political party.

 

To me, extremists are scary. Period. It doesn't matter who they are, who they worship, what they believe... when they carry those beliefs over into acting irrationally things most definitely get out of hand.

[LisaNY]

Oh my, this speech actually makes me want to throw up. I am not kidding.

 

 

 

EDUCATION

Education? Sounds like every president's promise. Don't hold your breath on this one. More accountability. For whom -- the teachers? Are they really to blame? I think not.

 

 

 

As long as our public education system is run by our government, (translation: Bureaucratic Monopoly) there will be NO change at all - no matter how much money you throw at it. The only way to have true change is to introduce good old-fashioned *competition*. *Choice* is the operative word here.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

PAID SICK DAYS / LEAVE

An employer should not be forced to pay when someone is not working. Again, there's always such a despise among people for employers. Perhaps there should be some appreciation for providing you with a job.

 

I take it you have never been asked to choose between sitting with your dying father in the hospital and having a job. I have been there, and would not wish that situation on my worst enemy.

[lovemyboys]

LOL, Kelli, have you listened to Joe Biden? It's hard to imagine a more attack dog like persona in modern politics. It does sound different coming from a woman (who ever refers to a man as "catty"?), but it's no different from what candidates normally do at their conventions. I think Palin pulled off her jabs with a hint of humor, that took the edge off just enough.

 

Erica

 

The Presidential candidates advance their policy ideas and vision and the VP candidates jab at the other party's top seat, pointing out flaws, inconsistencies, weak policy or experience. Too bad you've never watched these before, these two look to be pretty interesting to watch -- all four actually.

 

And I have to say, it's interesting to watch the critics, especially about Palin. Beforehand, they say she's inexperienced and a crazy choice, then she delivers a speech like that after the week she'd had. Amazing.

 

We can see why McCain made this choice. So, now some are saying she's too tough, Sen. Maj. leader Reid even called her shrill (similar to catty, no?). If she'd been any softer, they would have said she's not up to the job to help run the country.

 

I liked Guiliani's comment that all these questions about her parenting wouldn't be asked of a man. Some critics said she didn't mention specifics about policy, others said the end of her speech got bogged down in specifics. Even though she can't win with them either way, she sure delivered an awesome speech.

 

Whichever side of the aisle you're on and whatever your view about the role of women in family, you have to be pretty impressed that a woman has come to this point of leadership in our country. She wasn't plucked out of obscurity, she's been quietly (?) advancing through leadership roles for a good part of her adulthood.

 

I grew up in the heyday of the feminist revolution and have since grown more moderate in my thoughts about a lot of things. There's no way I would've been homeschooling kids if I'd had them when I was 22 (kudos to you that do!). It's just a pretty cool thing to see. Did you hear the glass breaking?

[TXMomof4]

What was petty about it? She said so herself. And she WAS a mayor of a small town. And he WAS a community activist.

 

It's not petty, it just... is.

 

??

 

(Am I missing a bit of what you're saying there? I feel like you mean something I'm not getting when you say it was petty that he said that. I will go try to find his statement from Monday, and I'll bet all will be clear. :auto:)

 

I think it's the tone. See, I am a SAHM. Proudly said with a smile on my face. To my working friends, I'm a sahm. Not quite as impressive as what they do. Same words, different tone.

[Melinda in VT]

BANKRUPTCY

Oh, this is another great one. My dad filed bankruptcy -- around $40,000 worth. He now owns a Mercedes, had a $7,000 window put in his house, and just bought a BMW off Ebay. I guess he just was not capable of paying back that debt. He has military retirement now and is on social security. He works part time, but not too much because "they won't allow him to." [he'll receive less social security if he works too much. He's perfectly capable of working, but Americans have this retirement entitlement mentality.] SO, yes, let's make sure these people's pensions are protected.

 

 

I think you're missing Obama's point. He's not talking about making it easier for individuals to declare bankruptcy. He's talking about when corporations declare bankruptcy. He wants to put paying the pensions of their employees above paying the CEO's bonuses.

 

At least, that's how I read this:

 

Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses;

[Heather in Neverland]

I thought it was good. I enjoyed listening to her.

 

I'm surprised to see her comments taken as catty. Politicians take on their opponents all the time. It's almost the role of the VP candidate to really get tought on the opponent's stance and shoot holes in it. I thought she did a great job. It's like when I'm in a meeting here in our ministry and I have an opinion or something to say that is a strong opinion. I was surprised that our director described me as catty!:001_huh: I felt that it was unfair because when the men on our staff express a strong opinion it is seen as passionate about something or as if they have special insight into a situation or person. But, for a woman, it's catty?

 

This is such a fine line that she will have to walk. It was the same with Hillary Clinton in the primaries. If they come across too strong, it's off-putting. If they come across as softer, they're not up to handling the pressures of the office. It's still a good-ole-boys game apparently! It's tough for a woman to overcome the stereotypes that have been there for centuries. It's good to see 2 strong women in this election who, I feel, have so far conducted themselves well.

 

:iagree:

 

I think she has MOXIE!! And I thought the pitbull comment was funny. If she's going to run with the big dogs and all....... GO GET 'EM Sarah-cuda! Show them that women can be pretty AND tough, mothers AND career-women and that a woman can play a "man's" game and win! That's MY kind of feminist!

[Jugglin'5]

I think the "catty" comments need to be put in context. She has been attacked all week by the press, by liberal pundits, Obama's people (though never directly by Obama himself, at least not in a direct way),and by not-so-liberal pundits. The day traders were actually taking bets as to whether she would be dropped from the ticket!

 

She was telling them in no uncertain terms that she WILL not crumple up, that she is not going to be intimidated, and that she knows how to play hardball. She was sending a message. They were testing her mettle this past week, and she just responded in the only way they will respect.

[Soph the vet]

They call themselves Christians. I agree that they do not subscribe to the same flavor of Christianity that I do, or that most people I know do, but according to my faith, it is wrong for me to try to decide who is a Christian and who isn't. So I just go with what they call themselves.

 

Mainstream Muslim leaders do not condone flying planes into buildings either, but no one has a problem calling them Muslim.

I didn't call them Muslims either, I referred to them as Islamofascists. I am deeply involved in the Somali Muslim community here in the Twin Cities. The women and men I work with were appalled at any attack on American soil. They are thankful for the refuge that America is providing for them while the radical factions in their homeland continue to fight one another. The Somalis I work with are peace-loving Muslims. I know the difference.

 

As for "deciding who is a Christian and who isn't" we are told in the Bible that we can know by the fruit that is produced. Will we be the judge of that person....certainly not....but if someone calls themself Christian and acts in an un-Christlike manner we are called to "bring back the erring one" and call them out on their wrong behavior. Certainly the hypocrisy is evident when one who calls themself Christian kills another human for killing other humans (i.e. the abortion clinic bombers). I refuse to defend that person as a brother or sister in Christ, they don't bring glory to God, instead they drag the name of Jesus Christ through the mud...they are no followers of Him as long as they remain unrepentant for their actions.

[TXMomof4]

The pipeline, I see what you're saying. Though I mostly understood her to say that God's will would be done for cooperation between parties she felt needed to cooperate to improve the job market in the state. (ETA: I will listen again to clarify.)

 

But for Iraq, so far she's said "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country; [pray] that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God, that's what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is *God's* plan. So bless them with your prayers, your prayers of protection over our troops."

 

And I don't have a problem with ANY Christian (or anybody else, really) praying that the task actually be one that is from God (with the implication to me, knowing the cadence and rhetoric of the evangelical faith) that they be clearly shown if it is NOT from God. Nor do I have a problem with praying for the military folks who are striving to do what is right for this country -- golly, I hope they strive every day for this, whether the administration royally messes up or not .

 

As to praying that there is a plan? Yeah, I would also pray that there is a plan, if I were not sure there was a plan. In fact, this was a bit on the bold side for me -- it sounds to me like she wonders if there's a plan and is praying and asking them to pray that there PLEASE be a plan to all this that none of us is aware of. Or at least a higher plan that can come of this in spite of ourselves.

 

Ok, off to watch video number 2. :auto: I'm gonna be sorry in the morning.

 

 

I haven't watched the video, but I've read excerpts from this speech and I agree with you. DH and I prayed that if it was his will we would be clearly shown that he join the military. We prayed before he volunteered for his first deployment that God would show us clearly that it was his will. Before he left this time we prayed that God's will would be accomplished, not that he would have a personally successful mission. I pray that the leaders are part of accomplishing God's will in Iraq, not that we succeed according to our own will and plans. That may not seem like a big difference to many, but I pray every day that God directs the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan so that His glory will be revealed, not that America will be made great. If His glory simply involves one persons life being spared, one person's life being made easier, friendships being made that will be beneficial to both parties, a country in the Middle East that doesn't hate America and want to wipe out Israel - there's a broad range of things that I believe will be within God's will. And that doesn't mean converting all Muslims to Christianity - maybe it's just finding common ground so the events of 9/11 are less likely to happen again.

[Kathleen in VA]

Oh my, this speech actually makes me want to throw up. I am not kidding.

 

TAXES

First, to cut that much in taxes and still provide all of the programs democrats love? Am I the only doubtful one?

 

EDUCATION

Education? Sounds like every president's promise. Don't hold your breath on this one. More accountability. For whom -- the teachers? Are they really to blame? I think not. It's the quantity of parents who have children but don't want to be bothered by them first and foremost. A president cannot change that. I would bet, though, that these parents -- if they take the time to vote -- will vote for Obama.

 

HEALTH CARE

And what kind of accountability will there be for this one? Will smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts and such have to pay higher premiums, or will the taxpayers take care of that? With private insurance, a smoker would have to pay a higher premium, but with my Dad's military coverage, the taxpayers take up the bill. With bigger government comes less personal responsibility.

 

PAID SICK DAYS / LEAVE

An employer should not be forced to pay when someone is not working. Again, there's always such a despise among people for employers. Perhaps there should be some appreciation for providing you with a job.

 

BANKRUPTCY

Oh, this is another great one. My dad files bankruptcy -- around $40,000 worth. He now owns a Mercedes, had a $7,000 window put in his house, and just bought a BMW off Ebay. I guess he just was not capable of paying back that debt. He has military retirement now and is on social security. He works part time, but not too much because "they won't allow him to." [he'll receive less social security if he works too much. He's perfectly capable of working, but Americans have this retirement entitlement mentality.] SO, yes, let's make sure these people's pensions are protected.

 

CRIME

Fall into crime? Oh boy. Let's not use any sort of vocabulary that implies this person is responsible for his choices.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree: Federal Government is *not* responsible for taking care of everyone from birth to death. The biggest question that comes to my mind while reading this speech is HOW??? How does he plan to pay for all this??? How does he plan to ensure my child receives a world-class education (whatever that is)?? I do not believe he can cut taxes 95% and pull this agenda off - puh-lease, that is just idealism. When has he ever done anything that gives democrats the slightest inkling that he can actually do any of these things?? Giving inspiring speeches is one thing - actually doing something is quite another. What has he done that gives anyone the impression that he has what it takes to deliver on these promises?

 

And, yes, when did it become the employer's responsibility to pay for no work? Technically speaking, isn't the role of an employer to provide pay for work? Isn't that the definition of an employer? When did that change??? Why does the employer have to pay for maternity leave, sick days, holidays, personal days, child care?? Isn't that the responsibility of the individual??? Yes, families with sick children or ailing parents do need help, but that should come from extended family, the church, the community - it is NOT the federal government's job. If an employer chooses to provide a paid day off or chooses to allow an employee time off for a sick child or parent, that should be his/her choice - not a mandate by law.

 

I would not want anyone to ever be in the position of having to choose between staying home with a sick child or dying parent and losing their job, but the foundational question is who is ultimately responsible for providing the needed support in a situation like this? I do not think it is the government's responsibility nor do I think an employer should have to be responsible. What is called for is greater compassion and help on a local level - family, friends, churches (or other religious institutions). When the federal government makes laws demanding this care from employers it has overstepped the bounds of the Constitution.

 

The education one really scares me. How does he propose to provide all children with a world-class (very subjective term, btw) education? Why is it a moral obligation of the federal government to provide any education at all? Where is that in the Constitution? It is a moral obligation for parents to provide education, not government. How will he assess whether or not this is being accomplished if not through more regulation and laws and monitoring of families who homeschool? NO THANKS!!!!

 

Why aren't schools just like any other business? Why are they run by the government? If government allowed schools to run themselves and gave the taxpayers the large chunk of cash they allocate to those schools each year, then parents could choose the school that suits them. We expect the government to break up other monopolies, so why are we content to let them control the monopoly on K-12 education?

 

If the government stopped providing all these non-government related services then they truly could lower taxes. That would put more money in the average American's pocket. That would allow for more freedom in choosing what to do with that money instead of having the government steal it and use it for whatever purposes they decide are important.

 

Seems to me like democrats are only pro-choice selectively. They want a woman to have the right to decide what to do with their unborn baby's life, but they want the government to decide everything else. To me that is hypocritical - to demand choice on one issue and allow the government to deny choice on every other issue.

 

The people of this nation are coddled and spoiled by its government. We have lost our way when we expect the feds to provide for every single last need. Yes, we have needs. Yes, we often cannot provide them for ourselves. But providing for these needs is not the job of the government - it is the job of ordinary citizens working together as neighbors, friends, family, churches and other organizations. When government takes over, all these other institutions drop by the wayside - they allow the government to do it because they think it is easier that way. Then they get to the point where they expect it from the government and whine when they do not provide it. That is where we are now. God help us.

 

I think it's high time the federal government got its nose out of our personal lives and went about the business of keeping America safe. Local government, family and private institutions should be dealing with all the rest. JMHO.

[dcjlkplus3]

I'm sorry, but this bothers me. First, I did see minorities present. Not as many as at the DNC, but there were minorities there, cheering just as loudly for the speakers as the others. There were also many, many, many women there! As a 34 year old woman, I find it offensive that you call my party, that I identify so strongly with, a "party of old white men." That's insulting. There's also an implication that the demographics are by design in some way-- which is totally false. Everyone is welcome.

 

Why do you think that Republicans *should* specifically lure more minorities? How do you suggest that be done? The things that the Republican party stands for can appeal to any individual, regardless of race. I think they need to continue getting their message out to everyone, not single out certain demographic groups and try to woo them.

 

Erica

:iagree:

I haven't listened to the speech, we were having a bithday party last night, but it is on the top of my to-do list today. Everything I have heard about Palin has me liking her a lot.

 

I will say that I think we all watch something like this with certain expectations and that those are usually met since we are listening for them.

[HappyatHome]

As long as our public education system is run by our government, (translation: Bureauocratic Monopoly) there will be NO change at all - no matter how much money you throw at it. The only way to have true change is to introduce good old-fashioned *competition*. *Choice* is the operative word here.

 

My ps teacher husband agrees wholeheartedly about this.

[CAMom]

I take it you have never been asked to choose between sitting with your dying father in the hospital and having a job. I have been there, and would not wish that situation on my worst enemy.

 

And I take it you've never been a business owner with an employee who calls in "sick" at least once a month and *always* on a Monday or a Friday?

 

And I take it you've never been a business owner who has been accused of criminal discrimination by an employee with a mental disorder who claims you refused to allow him sick time off?

 

There are two sides to every coin.

[LisaKinVA]

I've been on both sides of this issue -- wrongful termination, with libelous slander (yeah, I have the paperwork behind it), and a small business owner. There aren't easy answers. But the bottom line really is, the work still has to get done -- and the company shouldn't be forced to pay two people indefinitely.

 

I agree, a good company will afford some leeway, some time paid time off, ond some unpaid leave. But, not every company can afford to do this either.

 

I also wish people weren't so "sue-happy" -- many small business owners are afraid to fire people, because they *might* get sued.

[lovemyboys]

I tend to be more moderate so I'm not 100% comfortable with everything that was said but then...no one is ever going to appeal to me completely. I try to find the balance between what I want and what I can live with...I think that has to be what most true moderates are forced to do.

 

I think we're just dealing with a classic election where in the end its going to boil down to ideology. I just don't think there are scads of undecided moderates out there. Some, sure, but not enough to sway it. The important thing is going to be to get your base to the polls to actually vote because I don't think there's going to be a lot of splitting the middle this go-round. People know how they're voting for the most part. Both sides are just trying to get people fired up enough to actually vote.

 

 

!

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

And I take it you've never been a business owner with an employee who calls in "sick" at least once a month and *always* on a Monday or a Friday?

 

And I take it you've never been a business owner who has been accused of criminal discrimination by an employee with a mental disorder who claims you refused to allow him sick time off?

 

There are two sides to every coin.

 

Well, considering I had between 500-1000 employees (everything from executives to assemblers and packers) at any given time, you would not believe some of the excuses I've heard and the things I've seen.

 

And no, I was never accused of criminal discrimination. I have dealt with employees suffering from mental illness and addiction though.

 

One of the best experiences of my life was to talk with these people many want to call "lazy" and a whole host of other things. It is amazing, when you find out their history, and details of their day to day lives, how much it can help you grow as a human being.

[jojomojo]

:iagree::iagree::iagree: Federal Government is *not* responsible for taking care of everyone from birth to death. The biggest question that comes to my mind while reading this speech is HOW??? How does he plan to pay for all this??? How does he plan to ensure my child receives a world-class education (whatever that is)?? I do not believe he can cut taxes 95% and pull this agenda off - puh-lease, that is just idealism. When has he ever done anything that gives democrats the slightest inkling that he can actually do any of these things?? Giving inspiring speeches is one thing - actually doing something is quite another. What has he done that gives anyone the impression that he has what it takes to deliver on these promises?

 

And, yes, when did it become the employer's responsibility to pay for no work? Technically speaking, isn't the role of an employer to provide pay for work? Isn't that the definition of an employer? When did that change??? Why does the employer have to pay for maternity leave, sick days, holidays, personal days, child care?? Isn't that the responsibility of the individual??? Yes, families with sick children or ailing parents do need help, but that should come from extended family, the church, the community - it is NOT the federal government's job. If an employer chooses to provide a paid day off or chooses to allow an employee time off for a sick child or parent, that should be his/her choice - not a mandate by law.

 

I would not want anyone to ever be in the position of having to choose between staying home with a sick child or dying parent and losing their job, but the foundational question is who is ultimately responsible for providing the needed support in a situation like this? I do not think it is the government's responsibility nor do I think an employer should have to be responsible. What is called for is greater compassion and help on a local level - family, friends, churches (or other religious institutions). When the federal government makes laws demanding this care from employers it has overstepped the bounds of the Constitution.

 

The education one really scares me. How does he propose to provide all children with a world-class (very subjective term, btw) education? Why is it a moral obligation of the federal government to provide any education at all? Where is that in the Constitution? It is a moral obligation for parents to provide education, not government. How will he assess whether or not this is being accomplished if not through more regulation and laws and monitoring of families who homeschool? NO THANKS!!!!

 

Why aren't schools just like any other business? Why are they run by the government? If government allowed schools to run themselves and gave the taxpayers the large chunk of cash they allocate to those schools each year, then parents could choose the school that suits them. We expect the government to break up other monopolies, so why are we content to let them control the monopoly on K-12 education?

 

If the government stopped providing all these non-government related services then they truly could lower taxes. That would put more money in the average American's pocket. That would allow for more freedom in choosing what to do with that money instead of having the government steal it and use it for whatever purposes they decide are important.

 

Seems to me like democrats are only pro-choice selectively. They want a woman to have the right to decide what to do with their unborn baby's life, but they want the government to decide everything else. To me that is hypocritical - to demand choice on one issue and allow the government to deny choice on every other issue.

 

The people of this nation are coddled and spoiled by its government. We have lost our way when we expect the feds to provide for every single last need. Yes, we have needs. Yes, we often cannot provide them for ourselves. But providing for these needs is not the job of the government - it is the job of ordinary citizens working together as neighbors, friends, family, churches and other organizations. When government takes over, all these other institutions drop by the wayside - they allow the government to do it because they think it is easier that way. Then they get to the point where they expect it from the government and whine when they do not provide it. That is where we are now. God help us.

 

I think it's high time the federal government got it's nose out of our personal lives and went about the business of keeping America safe. Local government, family and private institutions should be dealing with all the rest. JMHO.

 

I concur! :D That deserved some rep!

[GreenKitty]

AWESOME!!! :party:

 

Now back to your regularly scheduled posting.....:D

 

Ditto!

[LisaKinVA]

Well, considering I had between 500-1000 employees (everything from executives to assemblers and packers) at any given time, you would not believe some of the excuses I've heard and the things I've seen.

 

:lol: Oh, I would... there's a man in dh office that has a really bad rep. He's the running joke there. At one point there was an informal pool regarding what he'd call in with the "massive migrane" the "freakin' flu" are just two of them -- and making it all better, one time, he forgot to use his cell phone to call, and Caller ID had him in Massachusetts, not at home in VA... 'course, this is a federal employee too (they aren't all this way, but the few that ARE, well...)

[LizzyBee]

I think you're missing Obama's point. He's not talking about making it easier for individuals to declare bankruptcy. He's talking about when corporations declare bankruptcy. He wants to put paying the pensions of their employees above paying the CEO's bonuses.

 

At least, that's how I read this:

 

Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses;

 

Interesting; pensions are already ranked ahead of salaries under current BR law. :confused:

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

:lol: Oh, I would... there's a man in dh office that has a really bad rep. He's the running joke there. At one point there was an informal pool regarding what he'd call in with the "massive migrane" the "freakin' flu" are just two of them -- and making it all better, one time, he forgot to use his cell phone to call, and Caller ID had him in Massachusetts, not at home in VA... 'course, this is a federal employee too (they aren't all this way, but the few that ARE, well...)

 

 

I had a woman call in once because she started her period and had to go to the store to get tampons. Apparently, this was an all day thing.

 

I had a MAN call in once to say he couldn't come to work because his GIRLFRIEND had her period and really bad cramps.

 

I went to a plant once to pick up a guy who had been drinking on the job. I offered to take him home. He asked me on the way if I would stop by a store so he could get some beer.

 

I once had a guy who claimed on the job injury because he zipped it up in his pants in the bathroom.

[LisaNY]

I think the "catty" comments need to be put in context. She has been attacked all week by the press' date=' by liberal pundits, Obama's people (though never directly by Obama himself, at least not in a direct way),and by not-so-liberal pundits. The day traders were actually taking bets as to whether she would be dropped from the ticket!

 

She was telling them in no uncertain terms that she WILL not crumple up, that she is not going to be intimidated, and that she knows how to play hardball. She was sending a message. They were testing her mettle this past week, and she just responded in the only way they will respect.[/quote']

 

Yes. She fought back. Good for her.

[CAMom]

Well, considering I had between 500-1000 employees (everything from executives to assemblers and packers) at any given time, you would not believe some of the excuses I've heard and the things I've seen.

 

And no, I was never accused of criminal discrimination. I have dealt with employees suffering from mental illness and addiction though.

 

One of the best experiences of my life was to talk with these people many want to call "lazy" and a whole host of other things. It is amazing, when you find out their history, and details of their day to day lives, how much it can help you grow as a human being.

 

Sorry for making assumptions.:blush5:

 

Yes, you're right, such interactions can help you grow as a human being.

 

Unfortunately, there is also the potential for someone to destroy your entire business due to unfounded claims; a business you built on a reputation of integrity and honesty.:(

 

Again, I'm sorry for making assumptions. I'm also sorry for taking the OP further off topic. This particular side trail is just way too close to home for me right now.

[6packofun]

I thought she did *great*! Here's my hope, though: some of her speech, particularly her personal info (which I hope doesn't need to be repeated much more after this), was almost word-for-word the same as her first acceptance speech. I want her speech writer--and her--to mix it up a bit! After a while it might sound like she's only capable of "sound bites" if you know what I mean.

 

I thought her delivery was excellent and the content solid. Now, she needs to sit down with McCain and really study the plans and actions they intend to take so that she can answer just as well off the cuff. Like she did with the hockey mom wearing lipstick comment! LOL Woohoo!

 

I was voting for McCain regardless, BUT now I'm also interested in Palin's future political career.

 

I don't think I'll ever stop laughing at how Obama, the pres. candidate, has to defend his experience against hers, a VP. LOL ;)

[MomofSeven]

I loved her speech. I loved her enthusiasm, her fiestiness, her drive, her humor and her amazing ability to rally that crowd (and the unseen crowd too).

 

But, I just have to say, because it was so darn cute and dh and I couldn't stop laughing at the innocence of it, we loved watching her youngest daughter (Piper?) licking her palm to smooth down her baby brother's hair! So, so precious! LOL!! Did anyone else see that? We were watching the CBS network.

 

While I still don't care for John McCain (or Obama), I am thoroughly impressed with Sarah. Can't we just skip the men and elect her for President?

 

When I met Sarah last week at a rally I spoke directly to her little girl. I told her to be a good girl for her mommy and daddy and a big helper to her baby brother. She just smiled at me with that sweet little face. Meanwhile Sarah was gushing over my little infant. We were like two moms meeting at the park, talking about our kids. I loved that moment.

[Michelle T]

:iagree::iagree: My first thoughts were "condescending" and "rude".

 

 

The words that came to my mind were a lot less fit for posting on a family board than yours, but I guess they mean the same thing!

 

Michelle T

[mommaduck]

I want to rep you so bad...but apparently I have to spread some around first :glare: :001_smile:

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree: Federal Government is *not* responsible for taking care of everyone from birth to death. The biggest question that comes to my mind while reading this speech is HOW??? How does he plan to pay for all this??? How does he plan to ensure my child receives a world-class education (whatever that is)?? I do not believe he can cut taxes 95% and pull this agenda off - puh-lease, that is just idealism. When has he ever done anything that gives democrats the slightest inkling that he can actually do any of these things?? Giving inspiring speeches is one thing - actually doing something is quite another. What has he done that gives anyone the impression that he has what it takes to deliver on these promises?

 

And, yes, when did it become the employer's responsibility to pay for no work? Technically speaking, isn't the role of an employer to provide pay for work? Isn't that the definition of an employer? When did that change??? Why does the employer have to pay for maternity leave, sick days, holidays, personal days, child care?? Isn't that the responsibility of the individual??? Yes, families with sick children or ailing parents do need help, but that should come from extended family, the church, the community - it is NOT the federal government's job. If an employer chooses to provide a paid day off or chooses to allow an employee time off for a sick child or parent, that should be his/her choice - not a mandate by law.

 

I would not want anyone to ever be in the position of having to choose between staying home with a sick child or dying parent and losing their job, but the foundational question is who is ultimately responsible for providing the needed support in a situation like this? I do not think it is the government's responsibility nor do I think an employer should have to be responsible. What is called for is greater compassion and help on a local level - family, friends, churches (or other religious institutions). When the federal government makes laws demanding this care from employers it has overstepped the bounds of the Constitution.

 

The education one really scares me. How does he propose to provide all children with a world-class (very subjective term, btw) education? Why is it a moral obligation of the federal government to provide any education at all? Where is that in the Constitution? It is a moral obligation for parents to provide education, not government. How will he assess whether or not this is being accomplished if not through more regulation and laws and monitoring of families who homeschool? NO THANKS!!!!

 

Why aren't schools just like any other business? Why are they run by the government? If government allowed schools to run themselves and gave the taxpayers the large chunk of cash they allocate to those schools each year, then parents could choose the school that suits them. We expect the government to break up other monopolies, so why are we content to let them control the monopoly on K-12 education?

 

If the government stopped providing all these non-government related services then they truly could lower taxes. That would put more money in the average American's pocket. That would allow for more freedom in choosing what to do with that money instead of having the government steal it and use it for whatever purposes they decide are important.

 

Seems to me like democrats are only pro-choice selectively. They want a woman to have the right to decide what to do with their unborn baby's life, but they want the government to decide everything else. To me that is hypocritical - to demand choice on one issue and allow the government to deny choice on every other issue.

 

The people of this nation are coddled and spoiled by its government. We have lost our way when we expect the feds to provide for every single last need. Yes, we have needs. Yes, we often cannot provide them for ourselves. But providing for these needs is not the job of the government - it is the job of ordinary citizens working together as neighbors, friends, family, churches and other organizations. When government takes over, all these other institutions drop by the wayside - they allow the government to do it because they think it is easier that way. Then they get to the point where they expect it from the government and whine when they do not provide it. That is where we are now. God help us.

 

I think it's high time the federal government got it's nose out of our personal lives and went about the business of keeping America safe. Local government, family and private institutions should be dealing with all the rest. JMHO.

[Free Indeed]

Oh my, this speech actually makes me want to throw up. I am not kidding.

 

TAXES

First, to cut that much in taxes and still provide all of the programs democrats love? Am I the only doubtful one?

 

EDUCATION

Education? Sounds like every president's promise. Don't hold your breath on this one. More accountability. For whom -- the teachers? Are they really to blame? I think not. It's the quantity of parents who have children but don't want to be bothered by them first and foremost. A president cannot change that. I would bet, though, that these parents -- if they take the time to vote -- will vote for Obama.

 

HEALTH CARE

And what kind of accountability will there be for this one? Will smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts and such have to pay higher premiums, or will the taxpayers take care of that? With private insurance, a smoker would have to pay a higher premium, but with my Dad's military coverage, the taxpayers take up the bill. With bigger government comes less personal responsibility.

 

PAID SICK DAYS / LEAVE

An employer should not be forced to pay when someone is not working. Again, there's always such a despise among people for employers. Perhaps there should be some appreciation for providing you with a job.

 

BANKRUPTCY

Oh, this is another great one. My dad filed bankruptcy -- around $40,000 worth. He now owns a Mercedes, had a $7,000 window put in his house, and just bought a BMW off Ebay. I guess he just was not capable of paying back that debt. He has military retirement now and is on social security. He works part time, but not too much because "they won't allow him to." [he'll receive less social security if he works too much. He's perfectly capable of working, but Americans have this retirement entitlement mentality.] SO, yes, let's make sure these people's pensions are protected.

 

CRIME

Fall into crime? Oh boy. Let's not use any sort of vocabulary that implies this person is responsible for his choices.

 

I do not post often, I am hardly even on the general board. However, I popped over today, saw this, and just have to say....AMEN!! I so absolutely agree with this! :D

[6packofun]

Ugh, sorry, this ended up in the wrong place. LOL nt

[Jenny in Atl]

Then why did she not follow her own spiel? I would love less government, but all in all the republicans have not shrunk the government, they have grown it just as much if not more than the Dems. Remember the Dems only gained control of Congress in 2007. No one likes all the pork, unless it's for their own pet projects. The Republicans have spent huge amounts fighting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan... far more than any tiny special ed programs, etc. Not all families are as large or supportive as the Palin's. I don't think it's as easy as you think to just toss folks out and say, "Grow-up and take care of yourself." I think a lot of good would come of it, but a lot of chaos as well. More localized government will lead to states with very different laws and overall living standards. We will become an even more polarized nation, spilt by faith, class, and world views. I just don't think this is near as black and white as you wish it to be.

 

Palin's Alaska Town Secured Big Fed $$$

ST. PAUL, Minn., Sept. 2, 2008

(Washingtonpost.com) Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, according to an analysis by an independent government watchdog group.

 

There was $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project -- all intended to benefit Palin's town, Wasilla, located about 45 miles north of Anchorage.

 

In introducing Palin as his running mate on Friday, Sen. John McCain cast her as a compatriot in his battle against wasteful federal spending. McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, hailed Palin as a politician "with an outstanding reputation for standing up to special interests and entrenched bureaucracies -- someone who has fought against corruption and the failed policies of the past, someone who's stopped government from wasting taxpayers' money."

 

McCain's crusade against earmarks -- federal spending sought by members of Congress to benefit specific projects -- has been a hallmark of his campaign. He has said earmarks are wasteful and are often inserted into bills with little oversight, sometimes by a single powerful lawmaker.

 

Palin has also railed against earmarks, touting her opposition to a $223 million bridge in the state as a prime credential for the vice presidential nomination. "As governor, I've stood up to the old politics-as-usual, to the special interests, to the lobbyists, the big oil companies, and the good-ol'-boy network," she said Friday.

 

As mayor of Wasilla, however, Palin oversaw the hiring of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, an Anchorage-based law firm with close ties to Alaska's most senior Republicans: Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens, who was indicted in July on charges of accepting illegal gifts. The Wasilla account was handled by the former chief of staff to Stevens, Steven W. Silver, who is a partner in the firm.

 

Palin was elected mayor of Wasilla in 1996 on a campaign theme of "a time for change." According to a review of congressional spending by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington, Wasilla did not receive any federal earmarks in the first few years of Palin's tenure.

 

Senate records show that Silver's firm began working for Palin in early 2000, just as federal money began flowing.

 

In fiscal 2000, Wasilla received a $1 million earmark, tucked into a transportation appropriations bill, for a rail and bus project in the town. And in the winter of 2000, Palin appeared before congressional appropriations committees to seek earmarks, according to a report in the Anchorage Daily News.

 

Palin and the Wasilla City Council increased Silver's fee from $24,000 to $36,000 a year by 2001, Senate records show.

 

Soon after, the city benefited from additional earmarks: $500,000 for a mental health center, $500,000 for the purchase of federal land and $450,000 to rehabilitate an agricultural processing facility. Then there was the $15 million rail project, intended to connect Wasilla with the town of Girdwood, where Stevens has a house.

 

The Washington trip is now an annual event for Wasilla officials.

 

In fiscal year 2002, Wasilla took in $6.1 million in earmarks -- about $1,000 in federal money for every resident. By contrast, Boise, Idaho -- which has more than 190,000 residents -- received $6.9 million in earmarks in fiscal 2008.

 

All told, Wasilla benefited from $26.9 million in earmarks in Palin's final four years in office.

 

"She certainly wasn't shy about putting the old-boy network to use to bring home millions of dollars," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "She's a little more savvy to the ways of Washington than she's let on."

 

Silver, reached by phone at his Vienna home, declined to comment. Wasilla's town offices were closed Monday for the Labor Day holiday.

 

Maria Comella, Palin's campaign spokeswoman, said Palin sought the Wasilla earmarks because she was "working in the best interests of Alaska, working within the confines of the current system."

 

Palin became a staunch reform advocate after her 2003 appointment to the state's Oil and Gas Commission. She accused another commissioner -- Alaska Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich -- of raising campaign contributions from industries he was regulating. "She realized that the environment around her was no longer what it once was, and elected officials were abusing their power," Comella said.

 

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, used to secure earmarks for public nonprofits in Illinois, but he announced last year that he would no longer seek earmarks for any entity. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), Obama's running mate, co-sponsored $85.6 million in earmarks for 2008, according to one study.

 

The Palin earmarks came when Stevens was chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Young was a senior member of the House transportation committee.

 

In hiring Silver, Wasilla found someone who was a member of each lawmaker's inner circle. Silver has donated at least $11,400 to Stevens's political committees and $10,000 to Young's reelection committee in the past decade, according to Federal Election Commission records.

 

Sliver's firm employed Stevens's son, Ben Stevens, in the late 1990s as a federal lobbyist, according to multiple media accounts. Ben Stevens was not listed on lobbying disclosure forms as having worked on Wasilla earmarks.

 

The firm became ensnared in the wide-ranging federal investigation of corruption by Alaska Republican officials. Federal agents reviewed records about its other municipal clients, as well as fishing companies represented by Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh that were close to Ben Stevens.

 

The investigation has increasingly focused on Veco, a now-defunct energy services company whose chief executive, Bill Allen Jr., pleaded guilty in May 2007 to bribing Alaska officials.

 

Ted Stevens is awaiting trial on charges that he accepted more than $250,000 in unreported gifts from Allen. Ben Stevens, who has not been charged, has been identified in court documents as having accepted more than $240,000 in consulting payments in exchange for legislative favors while he served in the state Senate.

 

A Veco executive testified last year in a criminal trial that Allen had ordered him to arrange annual fundraisers for Young. The congressman has not been charged with any crimes.

 

After becoming governor, Palin became a critic of Young and the Stevenses. She endorsed Young's opponent in a Republican primary last week that is still too close to call, and last year she demanded Ben Stevens's resignation as Alaska's member of the Republican National Committee. She has also criticized Ted Stevens.

 

In addition, Palin has reversed course on at least one major earmark: After initially supporting the $223 million bridge, which was to connect the town of Ketchikan with a remote island, she reversed course last year and canceled the project because of cost overruns. Critics have dubbed the project the "Bridge to Nowhere."

 

But her administration remains eager for many other earmarks.

 

In February, Palin's office sent Sen. Stevens a 70-page memo outlining almost $200 million worth of new funding requests for Alaska.

 

 

 

By Paul Kane

© 2008 The Washington Post Company

Feedback Terms of Service Privacy Statement

[Mrs Mungo]

Is the title of the thread supposed to be a fill-in-the-blank? Because I thought her speech was nothing more than one long attack ad with zero substance.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check

 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/maverick_misleads.html

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I would love less government, but all in all the republicans have not shrunk the government, they have grown it just as much if not more than the Dems.

 

I said to my husband just last night, "When the Democrats make better Republicans than the Republicans, something is not right with the world."

[Mom to Aly]

Oh, see I don't think so. I think she was utterly nasty. Nasty with a smile is a brand I particularly distrust. I didn't see those as zingers, I saw them as the stuff I'd been so very grateful to Obama for not doing. He extended courtesy to her on Monday when the press started tearing into her over Bristol. You'd think she could disagree without being openly rude.

:iagree: Perfectly put!

[Mom to Aly]

Oh my, this speech actually makes me want to throw up. I am not kidding.

 

TAXES

First, to cut that much in taxes and still provide all of the programs democrats love? Am I the only doubtful one?

 

EDUCATION

Education? Sounds like every president's promise. Don't hold your breath on this one. More accountability. For whom -- the teachers? Are they really to blame? I think not. It's the quantity of parents who have children but don't want to be bothered by them first and foremost. A president cannot change that. I would bet, though, that these parents -- if they take the time to vote -- will vote for Obama.

 

HEALTH CARE

And what kind of accountability will there be for this one? Will smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts and such have to pay higher premiums, or will the taxpayers take care of that? With private insurance, a smoker would have to pay a higher premium, but with my Dad's military coverage, the taxpayers take up the bill. With bigger government comes less personal responsibility.

 

PAID SICK DAYS / LEAVE

An employer should not be forced to pay when someone is not working. Again, there's always such a despise among people for employers. Perhaps there should be some appreciation for providing you with a job.

 

BANKRUPTCY

Oh, this is another great one. My dad filed bankruptcy -- around $40,000 worth. He now owns a Mercedes, had a $7,000 window put in his house, and just bought a BMW off Ebay. I guess he just was not capable of paying back that debt. He has military retirement now and is on social security. He works part time, but not too much because "they won't allow him to." [he'll receive less social security if he works too much. He's perfectly capable of working, but Americans have this retirement entitlement mentality.] SO, yes, let's make sure these people's pensions are protected.

 

CRIME

Fall into crime? Oh boy. Let's not use any sort of vocabulary that implies this person is responsible for his choices.

 

 

First, cutting taxes for the middle and poorer classes is possible, if the tax breaks and unfair tax amounts paid by the very rich in this country, and certain companies were corrected. The amount that 5% gets away with not paying is enormous! Correct that, and some overspending, and a tax break for the rest would work.

 

Education needs work, and, yes, many presidents have promised it, but maybe this one knows what he is talking about, and instead of employing a program that doesn't work, he can correct the one already in place, or replace it with one that makes sense. And his does make sense--paying teachers more, instead of making them go looking for other jobs that will pay more, and leaving such an important task behind. And, as the salary increases, yes, they already do work a ton (my sister is a teacher, my mom just retired from teaching), but a bumped up salary could make up for even more work. Although, I do think it won't come down to the teachers, or not only--first they need to do away with some of the government-mandated programs, or correct them, for anything to work.

 

Health care is on everyone's agenda, and some kind of plan is coming, hopefully--people are in trouble while the insurance companies are making fortunes. And his point is, they are making fortunes off the people who are not sick, and charging so much for the people who are, they can't afford ins. They have to make it fair, so that everyone can have ins, and the extra from those that are not sick pays for the ones that are.

 

Paid sick days/leave. Small employers may have trouble with this, but big ones have had this forever. It is a standard benefit. And his point is that you should be able to keep your job and care for a loved one who is ill, not have to choose between them.

 

Bankruptcy--Not everyone is like your dad. He is one of the ones that got away with abusing the system. My xh left me with not a single penny, and more than $80,000 in debt. I mean, seriously, not enough to buy groceries, and that debt. I didn't even have enough to FILE bankruptcy, had to borrow that. It is the only way I got to keep my house, which had a really low mortgage, and no equity, which saved me, because it is much lower than renting a studio apartment near me, which I could not afford.

 

Most people who file bankruptcy are at the end of their rope, as I was. There was no way I could have even tried to live with that debt. I had a friend who had a business he and his wife ran. It did well until he fell ill and could not work for 5 months; in that amount of time, they lost everything, including their house. They had to declare bankruptcy, and start over, or they would never have caught up. Those are the majority of people who declare bankruptcy, and that is what it is there for. The people who abuse the system are the acception.

 

And there are people who "fall into crime". Bad situation, limited choices, etc. In a different environment, with different choices, they could have had a very different life. They are still responsible for their crimes, I am sure Obama wouldn't say differently. But, having been around people like that, having worked around those situations (and I have volunteered in the Bronx, at a homeless shelter, and have a good idea what he is talking about), he knows that exists, and it is heartbreaking to see someone you know could have been a completely different person, given the opportunity.

[Jean too]

She was AWESOME! She hit it out of the park. McCain/Palin 2008.

[Mom to Aly]

Then why did she not follow her own spiel? I would love less government, but all in all the republicans have not shrunk the government, they have grown it just as much if not more than the Dems. Remember the Dems only gained control of Congress in 2007. No one likes all the pork, unless it's for their own pet projects. The Republicans have spent huge amounts fighting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan... far more than any tiny special ed programs, etc. Not all families are as large or supportive as the Palin's. I don't think it's as easy as you think to just toss folks out and say, "Grow-up and take care of yourself." I think a lot of good would come of it, but a lot of chaos as well. More localized government will lead to states with very different laws and overall living standards. We will become an even more polarized nation, spilt by faith, class, and world views. I just don't think this is near as black and white as you wish it to be.

 

Palin's Alaska Town Secured Big Fed $$$

ST. PAUL, Minn., Sept. 2, 2008

(Washingtonpost.com) Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, according to an analysis by an independent government watchdog group.

 

There was $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project -- all intended to benefit Palin's town, Wasilla, located about 45 miles north of Anchorage.

 

In introducing Palin as his running mate on Friday, Sen. John McCain cast her as a compatriot in his battle against wasteful federal spending. McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, hailed Palin as a politician "with an outstanding reputation for standing up to special interests and entrenched bureaucracies -- someone who has fought against corruption and the failed policies of the past, someone who's stopped government from wasting taxpayers' money."

 

McCain's crusade against earmarks -- federal spending sought by members of Congress to benefit specific projects -- has been a hallmark of his campaign. He has said earmarks are wasteful and are often inserted into bills with little oversight, sometimes by a single powerful lawmaker.

 

Palin has also railed against earmarks, touting her opposition to a $223 million bridge in the state as a prime credential for the vice presidential nomination. "As governor, I've stood up to the old politics-as-usual, to the special interests, to the lobbyists, the big oil companies, and the good-ol'-boy network," she said Friday.

 

As mayor of Wasilla, however, Palin oversaw the hiring of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, an Anchorage-based law firm with close ties to Alaska's most senior Republicans: Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens, who was indicted in July on charges of accepting illegal gifts. The Wasilla account was handled by the former chief of staff to Stevens, Steven W. Silver, who is a partner in the firm.

 

Palin was elected mayor of Wasilla in 1996 on a campaign theme of "a time for change." According to a review of congressional spending by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington, Wasilla did not receive any federal earmarks in the first few years of Palin's tenure.

 

Senate records show that Silver's firm began working for Palin in early 2000, just as federal money began flowing.

 

In fiscal 2000, Wasilla received a $1 million earmark, tucked into a transportation appropriations bill, for a rail and bus project in the town. And in the winter of 2000, Palin appeared before congressional appropriations committees to seek earmarks, according to a report in the Anchorage Daily News.

 

Palin and the Wasilla City Council increased Silver's fee from $24,000 to $36,000 a year by 2001, Senate records show.

 

Soon after, the city benefited from additional earmarks: $500,000 for a mental health center, $500,000 for the purchase of federal land and $450,000 to rehabilitate an agricultural processing facility. Then there was the $15 million rail project, intended to connect Wasilla with the town of Girdwood, where Stevens has a house.

 

The Washington trip is now an annual event for Wasilla officials.

 

In fiscal year 2002, Wasilla took in $6.1 million in earmarks -- about $1,000 in federal money for every resident. By contrast, Boise, Idaho -- which has more than 190,000 residents -- received $6.9 million in earmarks in fiscal 2008.

 

All told, Wasilla benefited from $26.9 million in earmarks in Palin's final four years in office.

 

"She certainly wasn't shy about putting the old-boy network to use to bring home millions of dollars," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "She's a little more savvy to the ways of Washington than she's let on."

 

Silver, reached by phone at his Vienna home, declined to comment. Wasilla's town offices were closed Monday for the Labor Day holiday.

 

Maria Comella, Palin's campaign spokeswoman, said Palin sought the Wasilla earmarks because she was "working in the best interests of Alaska, working within the confines of the current system."

 

Palin became a staunch reform advocate after her 2003 appointment to the state's Oil and Gas Commission. She accused another commissioner -- Alaska Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich -- of raising campaign contributions from industries he was regulating. "She realized that the environment around her was no longer what it once was, and elected officials were abusing their power," Comella said.

 

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, used to secure earmarks for public nonprofits in Illinois, but he announced last year that he would no longer seek earmarks for any entity. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), Obama's running mate, co-sponsored $85.6 million in earmarks for 2008, according to one study.

 

The Palin earmarks came when Stevens was chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Young was a senior member of the House transportation committee.

 

In hiring Silver, Wasilla found someone who was a member of each lawmaker's inner circle. Silver has donated at least $11,400 to Stevens's political committees and $10,000 to Young's reelection committee in the past decade, according to Federal Election Commission records.

 

Sliver's firm employed Stevens's son, Ben Stevens, in the late 1990s as a federal lobbyist, according to multiple media accounts. Ben Stevens was not listed on lobbying disclosure forms as having worked on Wasilla earmarks.

 

The firm became ensnared in the wide-ranging federal investigation of corruption by Alaska Republican officials. Federal agents reviewed records about its other municipal clients, as well as fishing companies represented by Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh that were close to Ben Stevens.

 

The investigation has increasingly focused on Veco, a now-defunct energy services company whose chief executive, Bill Allen Jr., pleaded guilty in May 2007 to bribing Alaska officials.

 

Ted Stevens is awaiting trial on charges that he accepted more than $250,000 in unreported gifts from Allen. Ben Stevens, who has not been charged, has been identified in court documents as having accepted more than $240,000 in consulting payments in exchange for legislative favors while he served in the state Senate.

 

A Veco executive testified last year in a criminal trial that Allen had ordered him to arrange annual fundraisers for Young. The congressman has not been charged with any crimes.

 

After becoming governor, Palin became a critic of Young and the Stevenses. She endorsed Young's opponent in a Republican primary last week that is still too close to call, and last year she demanded Ben Stevens's resignation as Alaska's member of the Republican National Committee. She has also criticized Ted Stevens.

 

In addition, Palin has reversed course on at least one major earmark: After initially supporting the $223 million bridge, which was to connect the town of Ketchikan with a remote island, she reversed course last year and canceled the project because of cost overruns. Critics have dubbed the project the "Bridge to Nowhere."

 

But her administration remains eager for many other earmarks.

 

In February, Palin's office sent Sen. Stevens a 70-page memo outlining almost $200 million worth of new funding requests for Alaska.

 

 

 

By Paul Kane

© 2008 The Washington Post Company

Feedback Terms of Service Privacy Statement

 

 

Thanks for all this info, Jenny! Makes for interesting reading!