Palin, Obama plan campaign stops in Colorado Monday
By David Montero, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published September 10, 2008 at 5:58 p.m.
Updated September 12, 2008 at 9:56 a.m.
Photo by Associated Press
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama gives his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention at Invesco Field at Mile High.
Photo by Getty Images
Republican U.S vice presidential nominee Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin acknowledges the crowd on Day 4 of the Republican National Convention at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, Minn.
Sarah Palin and Barack Obama will be in Colorado on Monday, but like their political views, they will be miles apart.
Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, will be at the Jefferson County Fairgrounds on Monday morning to host a pancake breakfast, her campaign said Thursday.
The stop by the Alaska governor - her second in Colorado since receiving the nomination - also will be a solo appearance. Before this, most of her campaign appearances have been with John McCain, the Arizona senator who is at the top of the Republican ticket.
Obama will appear in Grand Junction and Pueblo, his first stops in Colorado since he secured the Democratic Party's nomination and delivered his acceptance speech at Invesco Field at Mile High on Aug. 28.
Details about Obama's stops - time, location and ticketing - have not been released.
Palin's stop at the fairgrounds is a free event, but tickets must be acquired through the McCain campaign office in Centennial. The campaign didn't know Thursday how many people will be able to attend, though it is believed to be more than 1,000.
Palin, who last appeared in the state a week ago with McCain, drew 10,000 people at a Colorado Springs rally, and she has been helping to pull in large crowds at stops in battleground states.
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer isn't scheduled to appear with Palin, but his campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, said that could change by Monday. Schaffer has a scheduling conflict with fundraisers out of state.
"We would love to be there," Wadhams said. "She's turned the campaign on fire. I've got to work on logistics to see if we can make it happen."
Campaign officials for Democratic Senate hopeful Mark Udall said he wasn't likely to be able to appear with Obama because of commitments in Washington, D.C.
The Obama campaign said Thursday that it is opening another nine offices in Colorado - bringing its total to 26. McCain officials said they plan to open more offices as well, and currently have nine in Colorado.
Sarah Palin's 9 a.m. pancake event Monday at Jefferson County Fairgrounds
* Tickets: Call 303-952-4670 or visit the McCain campaign office at 6334 S. Racine Circle, Suite 200, in Centennial. Tickets are free and are first-come, first-served.
Barack Obama's events in Grand Junction and Pueblo on Monday. His campaign had not released details Thursday on how people can attend.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
September 10, 2008
7:46 p.m.
lucy1379 writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
September 10, 2008
8:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
easy writes:
McCain has been here more than Obama. Um.... wow.
Quality > Quantity in this case.
September 10, 2008
8:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
Biden is getting ready to drop out. His approval numbers are out of sight. He's making noise like he's going to turn it over to Hillary.
Dig_D, are you calling Sarah Palin a pig?
September 10, 2008
8:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
lucy1379 writes:
Charles_B, I'm a fraud just like all those polls showing Obama dropping like a rock. If Hillary had been treated with the respect she deserved, Palin would be nothing right now. And that's fact, which you can ignore at your own peril.
September 10, 2008
8:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
PonchoVia writes:
Charles_B, Big_D, and easy I'm right behind you. Love your comments!
September 10, 2008
8:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
mcsame_failin writes:
The Nation -- According to a recent Gallup poll, fifty-three percent of Americans expect their federal income taxes to increase if Barack Obama is elected president.
The truth: The Democratic candidate's plan would cut taxes for roughly 95 percent of American families, reports the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. How much would Obama save you? Check out ObamaTaxCut.com, a project of AlchemyToday.com, to use a nifty new tool that lets you calculate exactly what the Obama tax-cut would be worth to you.
September 10, 2008
8:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
PonchoVia writes:
This is a cool site that appears to aggregate all the different polling data. It shows Obama clearly ahead at this point and the trend lines show Obama increasing his lead since January, 2008
(you can grab the scroller below the US and scroll from January to now):
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics...
September 10, 2008
8:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
mcsame_failin writes:
From the Tax Policy Center, A Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Executive Summary - August 28, 2008:
"Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years, according to a newly updated analysis by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. Compared to current law, TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.9 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion. Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers. In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households."
McCain's tax cut will be for the wealthy. Obama's will be for the rest of us.
DON'T BE FOOLED BY REPUBLICAN RHETORIC!
September 10, 2008
8:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
PonchoVia writes:
mcsame_failin, thanks for the comments. The truth needs to be told.
September 10, 2008
8:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
Charles_B---What would you do with the child?
September 10, 2008
8:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
So the left believes Sarah Palin compared to a pig is an insult to the pig. Obama accomplished the purpose of his comment.
September 10, 2008
8:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
deriko2282 writes:
I'm glad to see people are actually speaking the truth about Obama lowering taxes for the majority of us hard working citizens. The rich have become richer under the Bush version of Reganomics. Now its our time to level that playing field.
September 10, 2008
9:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
rage_against_the_stupid writes:
Obama concerns himself with pigs because, according to his faith, they are the most vile animals on earth. He can not hide who he is. I do not care about his religion. I do care that he will destroy the middle class, which can not exist in a socialist state, as his first priority if elected. Wake Up!
September 10, 2008
9:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
PonchoVia writes:
rage_against_the_stupid, fortunately most Americans are not as uninformed as you.
Obama '08
September 10, 2008
9:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
PonchoVia writes:
Here are some clips of Palin campaigning FOR congressional funds for the bridge to nowhere:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieuA7n...
Don't believe Palin's lies!
September 10, 2008
9:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
chris33 writes:
Unless you are blind, you can see the dark intentions of Rovian publicity, of double speak, of playing out the clock, of distracting voters from the fact that eight years of republican leadership took this country down the tubes and Mr. McBush is more of the same.
Your income shrinks as living expenses mushroom, the unemployment rate is at a new high, the war-to-nowhere rages without a plan that works, youth continue to be born then fed to the war monster, US education ranks 25th internationally, our infrastructure is collapsing, systems inadequately respond to national disasters, and we keep getting fed the republican double talk about how they are the answer. If this is progress, save us from failure!
Free yourself so you can see.
No Third Term For Bush/McCain.
September 10, 2008
9:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
rage_against_the_stupid writes:
titancain writes:
Palin = Lying Pig.
Isn't it easy to attack leaders who were actually adult enough to make decisions. This is what you "emotional" types have been doing to Bush from day one. Barack Obama, an "emotional" type, does not have the intestinal fortitude to put himself in a position of being challenged. That is why he has absolutely no record or friends. Wake Up!
September 10, 2008
9:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
So what would you liberals do with that child in the example above?
And of course we all know choice is not choice, it's encouragement.
Abortion is genocide and should be illegal in all circumstances.
September 10, 2008
9:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
Indian genocide: Winchesters, alcohol, drugs and abortion.
September 10, 2008
9:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
robertzimmerman writes:
rage_of_the_stupid:
"Obama concerns himself with pigs because, according to his faith, they are the most vile animals on earth."
Interesting. I didn't know that Christians believed that. Apparently, I need to do some studying
September 10, 2008
10:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
you_are_full_of_spin writes:
Read Atonement Child, amazing story about a girl who was raped, had the baby, healed herself and a few others along the way including an abortion clinic doctor. I want the leaders of my country to believe in making something positive from something negative. Go McCain/Palin!
September 10, 2008
10:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
lucy1379 writes:
The problem is that we don't know where Obama stands on important issues. On balancing the tax load, he recently said he wasn't sure what he would do as President, including maybe not raising taxes on those hedge fund operators after all. He also tried to curry favor with the Fox News crowd by telling Bill O'Reilly that the Iraq surge was a great success. It's no wonder voters are confused about his positions! Then, there's the issue of his judgment in picking friends, like his pastor of 20 years who blamed the U.S. for 9/11 and said AIDS was a conspiracy perpetuated by the U.S. government. No wonder voters aren't comfortable with his judgment! The best Obama can do at this point to lay these concerns to rest is focusing on the issues and not personalities. What's really annoying though is that we had a better choice in the primaries.
September 10, 2008
10:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
jaybyrd writes:
Panic time on the left! And why not? You are only down in the polls and admitting you will fall short of fundraising goals. I feel certain your name-calling of soon-to-be-VP Palin is not reaching its subject. But if name-calling provides you lefties with the relief that your bodily functions no longer provide, have at it.
September 10, 2008
10:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
mcsame_failin writes:
McCain and Palin appear to be opposed to using tax dollars to pay for forensic evidence in rape cases. With Palin as mayor, Wasilla was making rape victims pay for their own exams. The city has not yet release public records to the press on this matter. It will be interesting what comes out of those records, if Palin does not declare executive privilege to have them restricted from the press. When US congress passed a law requiring states to pay for these tests, McCain did not support it.
Read about it here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics...
Anyone who supported Hillary for the issues, especially women's issues, will not vote for this pair if they have any integrity.
Obama is actually very articulate about where he stands on the issues, if you do not know where he stands then you just need to read more, such as the tax report I posted earlier, you can read it here: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/public.... McCain is the candidate that is sketchy on this issue.
September 10, 2008
11:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
musicgrinder writes:
I think we'll go but I'm tempted to bring a 'sorry you're feeling so picked on Sarah.... you're not a pig... really' sign.
Bunch of whiney babies.
September 11, 2008
6:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Palin agreed with the Bridge to Nowhere until she become Governor and saw how much money was being wasted on it. Thats a lot better than Obama earmarking stupid stuff for $900 million+
September 11, 2008
7:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Charles B-
How about Obama voting to approve an earmark for a bike trail rather than redirecting that money to the I-35W bridge in Minnesota. How about voting to approved another earmark for a hockey rink in Michigan rather than sending the money down to New Orleans. How about that $1 million earmark to the University of IL-Chicago Hospital a year after Michelle Obama got a nice $200,000 pay raise?
Obama has voted for more earmarks and has requested more in earmarks than Sarah Palin. Yet, he keeps talking about "reform".
September 11, 2008
7:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Oh and Charles B- Barack Obama also voted in favor of that "bridge to nowhere" too.
Obama has put forth any major legislation since becoming a U.S. Senator in 2004. The bills he has sponsored have been to rename some post office in honor of someone in IL. Co-sponsoring a bill is just putting your name on it because you got some letter from the sponsor asking for support.
143 days experience!
September 11, 2008
7:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mtnsjohn writes:
The people of Ketchikan, Alaska were promised a bridge to their airport after it was built to replace the ferry (that runs every 1/2 hour.)
Due to the public outcry regarding pork barrel projects, Congress still gave Alaska the money but removed the "earmark". Alaskans' made the decision not to build the bridge due to the additional cost and the decision to spend the money on other projects.
Grabbing all the pork possible doesn't come from the governor, but from Stevens and Young, both infamous for their earmarks.
The decision not to build the bridge was a wise decision. It's design had to accommodate cruise ships passing beneath it, and for most in Ketchikan would take more time to get to and from the airport than using the ferry.
September 11, 2008
8:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
Here's a little reality check for all of you "the rich are getting richer" folks. Nothing, absolutely nothing, that either candidate does as president will prevent the rich from getting richer or will decrease (or increase) the divide between the haves and the have-not's. The rich will always "get richer" and have done so throughout time. Meaningless arguments about the rate at which the rich are getting richer are pointless as slowing them down does not influence the final result -- the rich will always get richer ... period. Do not delude yourself into believing that either candidate will be able to influence the gap.
If you believe that tax cuts (for anyone) while deficits and national debt continue to climb are the right economical thing to do, please vote for Obama or McCain as they both are proposing tax cuts and will do nothing to reduce deficits or reduce the national debt. Neither president is proposing a balanced budget (not by a long shot) and the result will be more debt passed on to future generations of Americans.
They both are politicians and behave regularly like politicians. Neither holds the interests of you or your family close, they are interested in their egotistical journeys into American history.
September 11, 2008
8:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
She didn't lie about the Bridge to Nowhere Charles B! Yeah she supported it as Mayor and then when she became Governor and saw the wasteful spending on it, she decided it wasn't good for the citizens of Alaska. The Bridge to Nowhere is still a big subject on Cap Hill and Gov. Palin told Congress no more federal funds on the bridge.
September 11, 2008
8:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
if you're gonna say that Palin lied about the Bridge to Nowhere, can I say that Obama lied about his "support" of the second amendment?
September 11, 2008
8:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12210...
it's about how Palin did stop the Bridge to Nowhere
September 11, 2008
8:48 a.m.
IRUNMAN writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
September 11, 2008
9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolyCowBatman writes:
I would like to see Palin answer some raw questions from a mixed audience of 50 people, drawn from a lottery of random citizens throughout the United States. She would have to fully answer all 50 questions in detail. Not this highly-controlled, straight-from-the-script garbage we have been getting from her. Let's do this with McCain, Obama, and Biden too.
If she can't, or isn't willing to do that, that should be the reason you can't vote for her.
September 11, 2008
9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
alanbl writes:
Big_D, are you trying to compensate for your little p? You're a real class act!
September 11, 2008
9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
mcsame_failin writes:
In a BBC interview:
General Petraeus said he did not know that he would ever use the word "victory": "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_eas...)
Its time that McCain listens to his commanders on the ground and quits making "Victory in Iraq" a campaign slogan.
September 11, 2008
9:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
mcsame_failin writes:
Actually, they are not HIS commanders on the ground, though he is itchin' for it. He can't wait to get a chance to Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Again. Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran!
September 11, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
lucy1379 writes:
I'm not sure why anyone has any confidence about the positions Obama will take on reproductive rights given the number of times he "absented" himself on important votes in the Illinois legislature when those issues came up. Face facts, folks, this guy just goes with the wind, whether its tax fairness, Iraq, or reproductive rights. Given the mess this country is in, this election may still be close yet, but it would have been a blow-out if we didn't have a dud for a nominee.
September 11, 2008
9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
mcsame_failin writes:
It is hypocritical to define a clear line for when life begins and human rights, the right to life, are invoked, yet make no such distinction for when life ends and the right to life is revoked. How can a society legislate one end of the life line without it applying to the other? What kind of ideology gives the unborn in our country a right to life, but does not extend that protection to the children of Iraq, or Vietnam, or anywhere else in the world where McCain and others dropped bombs that they new full well would result in the death of innocent people? Of course an ideology cannot be legislated, as any educated person knows, especially one highly educated and experienced in constitutional law who would be more than fit to lead our country. Ideology only leads to law, but law must be practical and reasonable in order to uphold justice. This right-to-life ideology is not one that can be defined or resolved by a legislature. It is one that belongs in the realm of religion and philosophy, for religious leaders and philosophers to convey upon those who subscribe to their words. Lets leave it to those in a different pay grade who are in the position to preach it.
This is not the issue to decide a president on, because there will never be a president who can decide this. Who wants a president that decides when life begins and ends? Not anyone that truly wants a free democracy and a republic based on liberty.
September 11, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ashley writes:
Well, partisan politics aside, I love the attention our beautiful state is receiving from the candidates this year. Political junkie that I am, I'm tickled to death that we're right in the middle of it all. I'd like to see all the candidates come out here; I'd love to see a presidential debate held here!
September 11, 2008
9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
I bet Palin gets a better turn out then the Big O.
NOBAMA
McCain / Palin 08
September 11, 2008
10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
freemarketworks writes:
In light of recent tragedy in Colorado, it will be interesting to see if Obama finally addresses the issue of illegal immigration and its costs to our families and economy. In fairness, McCain has also tip-toed around this issue, of late. I'm not sure what the right answer is; however, I do wish it would come under renewed debate by the candidates.
September 11, 2008
10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
RonInWestminster writes:
WAKE UP WAKE UP WAKE UP
Regarless of whether you support McCain or Obama,
STOP PAYING ATTENTION TO THE 30 SECOND SOUND BITES, STOP FOCUSING ON THE MUDSLINING!
My challenge to all voters is to visit the websites of both candidates and examine fully each candidates' proposals on the issues that matter most to you!
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/I...
After comparing what each has to say about the issues that are important to you go to reliable sources for an independent analysis of their proposals. For example if the economy is an important issue for you see what the Wall Street Journal's analyisis is of the candidates' proposals.
Anyone who goes into the polls on November 4th and casts a vote based on 30 second sound bites, quips in the headlines, slick direct mail pieces and mudslinging does themselves and our country a great disservice.
At this critical juncture in our nation's history we owe it to ourselves and to future generations to make the most informed descision we possibly can.
To do otherwise is unAmerican.
If we don't do our homework, we fail!
September 11, 2008
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
mcsame_failin writes:
Ron4Obama: well said!
September 11, 2008
10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
richardboyd writes:
Ahh, the blogosphere, temperate forum of reasoned debate and civility. Let's dive in.
Obama's three point campaign.
1) I'm NOT GEORGE BUSH
2) I'm with the government and I've got ALL THE ANSWERS.
3) Did you notice I'M NOT WHITE?
Speaking of not being properly vetted; what about Obama? All we know is that he's a really good speaker with a nice voice and some charisma. The democrats should have dug a little deeper on this guy, then put Hillary on top of the ticket. It's all over but the rioting.
September 11, 2008
10:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
Ron4Obama: Thank you for that very left leaning liberal comment. Please come down off the soap box now.
September 11, 2008
10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
richardboyd writes:
I forgot the fourth point:
4) Running for president qualifies me to be president!
September 11, 2008
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
jonas writes:
The rich always getting richer?
57.4% of the top 1% of taxpayers in 1996 were not in the top 1% in 2005.
30.6% of the top 20% of taxpayers in 1996 were not in the top 20% in 2005.
In fact, here is the breakdown:
Broken into quintiles (1/5), here is how people’s income moved from 1996 to 2005:
Lowest – 57.6% moved up, 42.4% stayed in the lowest quintile
Second – 49.7% moved up, 17% moved down
Middle – 42.1% moved up, 24.6% moved down
Fourth – 30.2% moved up, 29.7% moved down
Highest – 30.6% moved down
Top 1%, 57.4% moved down
Source: Dept of Treasury, May 2008
September 11, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
mcsame_failin writes:
richardboyd: where is the reason or civility in that?
The following is not meant directly at richard, as I do not know if he is Republican for sure, but he brings a serious point to consider.
Do the Republicans know how to debate? A debate is not a semantic game of one liner insults that avoid answering the questions. I hope we have reasonable and civil debates for this election that clearly define the issues, where the candidates stand on them, and what their solutions are. I hope that voters will pay attention to these debates and not just keep score on the put downs. I know, I know, such audacity could only mean I am a radical left wing, bleeding heart liberal, and a Democrat as well. But that is the way of it from the Republican labeling machine. I would be an independent if the Republican party would behave otherwise, they used to have some good ideas.
September 11, 2008
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
mcsame_failin writes:
And thank you leatherneck for proving my point. There is nothing leftist or partisan about asking the voters to read up on the issues and make an informed decision as Ron did. Choose the best person for the job based on the issues and the candidate's platform, and if you do so, you deserve respect and honor for your choice; no matter what it is.
September 11, 2008
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
Income is a paltry statistic ... when any rational person talks about the "rich" or "poor" they speak in terms of wealth, not income.
September 11, 2008
10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
richardboyd writes:
dear mcsame_failin
thank you, I'll try to behave. But it's hard to read the blogs because there are so many personal insults thrown around.
I will happily debate any issue you like. My take on Obama's 4-point plan comes from my interpretation of his own words, just distilled down to the way I see things. I have my own bleeding heart tendencies, but also some libertarian ones, and I do not believe in government solutions for all life's issues. Government screws up almost everything it gets involved in. It would be great if "we the people" took care of each other; without Uncle Sugar hanging around. That's why I don't like Obama, he is making way too many promises. But he does come across as very likeable, I'll say that for him.
September 11, 2008
10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
freemarketworks writes:
'mcsame_failin' writes:
" I hope we have reasonable and civil debates for this election that clearly define the issues, where the candidates stand on them, and what their solutions are. I hope that voters will pay attention to these debates and not just keep score on the put downs. "
Well said. I too hope we can have reasonable and civil debates. Remove the teleprompters and let the candidates stand on their own two feet when defining their political philosophies and approaches to solving the issues of today and tomorrow. In the end, I hope that reason, integrity and resolve will reign over empty promises and the 'tax and spend' politics that will ensure economical suicide.
September 11, 2008
10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
fastnloose writes:
Let's go line for line on the spending agenda.Palin running for two weeks has had her spending habits investigated quite openly.Obama running for 20 months,still not being checked out.
September 11, 2008
10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
jonas writes:
fntsymtn
Income statistics I agree do not represent wealth, but are not paltry. Do you have a better source of information to track? If so, please share.
September 11, 2008
10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
dakar writes:
Palin didn't lie about the bridge, she did officially nix it. When it was proposed, it did seem like a good idea until she found out more about it and how expensive it would be. She made a good decision.
She has expressed herself as pro-life, she also said it would not be up to her to ban on abortion but it would be up to the people.
And Obama is going to raise taxes, including cap gains taxes and the Bush tax cuts will expire in 2010, does anyone think that Obama and his Dem congress will re-enact them?
September 11, 2008
10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
RonInWestminster writes:
Leatherneck:
Being an educated voter is left leaning? It's the smart thing.
I guess if a person is a Democrat or a Republican they should just form a line behind their party's candidate and goose step on into the voting booths without examining the issues,is that what you are saying?
Or are you a McCain supporter who is afraid that when this race turns from 30 second sound bites to an airing of the issues that McCain won't stand a chance.
Are you trying to say that being an uninformed or misinformed vote is a good thing?
Are you lacking in a better suggestion on how folks might get past the rhetoric of the campaigns to make an informed descision?
If you have a better suggestion than what I offered from my liberal left leaning soapbox I'm sure we would all love to have you share that with us.
September 11, 2008
11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
mcsame_failin writes:
richardb, fair enough :)
The McCain/Palin platform based on their words appears to be:
1. Cut taxes and tear down the government, let people solve their problems on their own.
2. Keep fighting the war in Iraq and against anyone else who we deem a threat. Do not bring home our troops unless they have achieved victory.
3. Drill for more oil and build expensive pipelines for gas, putting renewable energy sources on the back burner.
4. Define the right to life as beginning at conception and take steps to legislate this.
5. Define marriage as one man and one woman, taking away the rights of those who choose to live otherwise.
6. Vote for McCain because he is a POW who suffered for our country.
7. The economy is not worth mentioning at our convention.
My take on this is:
1. People working together to solve their problems is the definition of community and basis of government, so to dismantle government and leave everyone on their own would mean the end of civil society.
2. The commander on the ground, Petreaus, does not believe "victory" is possible. We need to bring this war to an end and use that wasted money for our future. Continuing to act unilaterally against threats will make the world collectively deem us the threat eventually.
3. We will never quit using oil as long as the government keeps subsidizing the oil companies and encouraging its use. The oil and gas available within the US are not enough to solve the energy problem. It is too little, too late. With the money from the Iraq war and oil subsidies we could rebuild our infrastructure to ween ourselves off this addiction that will bring us to our demise. The quickest way to bring megawatts of energy online is with wind turbines. There are multitudes of other sources ready to be brought online in much shorter time with far greater dividends than continuing to exploit fossil fuels and persist in wars for them. The two greatest threats to humanity in this age are war and climate change, and the McCain/Palin solution will only exacerbate both.
4 & 5 together mean that the government is going to enforce control over our most personal decisions. This goes against the idea of getting the government out of our lives. Do you want the government in your life or not? I don't see how you can have it both ways.
6. McCain deserves honor as a POW, but this does not mean he deserves the presidency. Neither do Clinton or Obama. The next president must earn this position by addressing the issues and presenting solutions that voters believe will work, and demonstrate a capability to carry out these solutions (though no president ever can fulfill all that was proposed).
7. The economy should have been the number one issue for all candidates. This is the future of out country.
September 11, 2008
11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
In the perspective of the "rich getting richer" or the increasing gap between the have's and the have not's, income is paltry (as in trivial or inferior) when considered among other factors contributing to wealth (non-taxed assets).
The Federal Reserve Board publishes the Survey of Consumer Finances (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/os...) that attempts to look at many factors that contribute to wealth and provides a view into the disparity between the wealthy and the poor.
For example: The bottom 60% of all households accounted for only 4% of the nations wealth, but accounted for roughly 28% of all income. Even as their incomes rise, their wealth does not.
Discussions into why this happens is definitely outside the scope of a RMN news comment board, but there is plenty of discussion regarding the distribution (and redistribution) of wealth available via your favorite internet search engine.
September 11, 2008
11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
dakar writes: "Palin didn't lie about the bridge, she did officially nix it. When it was proposed, it did seem like a good idea until she found out more about it and how expensive it would be. She made a good decision."
I disagree that she officially nixed it, but at any rate, she also kept the money.
"And Obama is going to raise taxes, including cap gains taxes and the Bush tax cuts will expire in 2010, does anyone think that Obama and his Dem congress will re-enact them?"
Palin on taxes: Added a sales tax in Wasilla to build a hockey rink. As governor, taxed the oil industry which brought in $5 billion dollars of additional revenue, and helped her balance Alaska's budget. (I actually support that tax.)
My point is that whoever gets elected won't have any choice but to assess some taxes. We are that much in the hole.
However, both candidates promise to cut taxes on the middle class, and presently, Obama's plan will give the middle class more of their income back.
Regarding the Bush taxes for the wealthiest 1%, do you realize that percentage owns more than A THIRD of the net wealth in this country? Do you realize that the top 10% own SEVENTY PERCENT of the net wealth in this country?
So, they own most of the wealth. They pay a smaller percentage of their income in sales taxes. They pay a smaller percentage of their income, in fact, for just about every expenditure. They are not victims, my friend!
Yet, you still begrudge the other 90% in this country for paying a smaller income tax rate?
Interesting priorities.
September 11, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Doneuron writes:
Colorado has made the commitment to embrace science and technology with the bold Flagship 2030 plan. The Univ of Colorado has nobel laureates in physics and chemistry and climate science. Whether Colorado will achieve its goal to be a world leader in innovative science is dependent on what kind of support it receives from the Federal government. One can't help but fear the pervasive anti-intellectual theme to the McCain/Palin's platform. It is difficult to lead on this issue when you believe, as Palin does, that the universe is 6000 years old and was created in 6 days. She opposes stem cell research, although McCain has been for it in the past. When Colorado nobel laureates present data supporting a role for humans in global climate change Palin rejected it.
Obama on the other hand presents a detailed vision that emphasizes the importance of evidence-based science curriculum, rather than creationism. He supports stem cell research to make progress treating diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimers and MS. And he trusts the data that shows global climate change is related to human activity. He trusts his own intellect, he trusts science and he will be a strong advocate for federal support of Colorado's vision to become a premier scientific research powerhouse by 2030. We need to press both campaigns on these issues when they come next week.
September 11, 2008
11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
fntsymtn, I personally think your average working American's salary isn't rising in pace with the cost of living, including housing, health care, and energy costs.
And salaries certainly aren't keeping in pace with productivity gains.
September 11, 2008
11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Snoopbobb writes:
Boy you peace lovin' lefties sure do hate good
September 11, 2008
11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
soccermom writes:
Palin was the first mayor of Wasilla to hire a lobbyist to obtain ear-mark funds. She also was forced to hire an administrator otherwise she would have faced a recall campaign. A mayor of a town of 5,460 people (2000 census when she was in office) with a city council that meets for what, a couple of times a month, needs an administrator? The largest employer in town is the Wal Mart store. Not company, store.
She campaigned for governor on a "build the bridge" platform in 2006. There were two bridges that were earmarked, the Feds reversed their decision about funding the bridges and gave the transportation money to Alaska with no strings attached. The Gravina Island bridge to Ketchikan was canceled partly due to criticism that was being voiced in Congress and by the public, but an access road to the empty beach was built so that none of the money had to be returned. Palin also continues to support the bridge crossing Knik Arm to provide an alternate route to Anchorage where she governs from when the legislature is not in session. Where does that bridge go?? To Wasilla, of course! This bridge is estimated to cost twice as much as the notorious Gravina Bridge to nowhere.
If all this is true, then the American people need to know.
September 11, 2008
11:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
I know why the Prom Queen has not talked to the media, Well her and the old man have worked together for about 80 hours, or been with each other that long. She does not know where to stand on issues that might conflict with mcCain. This is a work in progress, a shotgunn ticket. A reach if you will. Not the CHANGE we need as a country. I love it how the people on the right just delete Bush from thier memory. Even if they voted for him twice. McCain is Bush on all issues. No way, No how, No McSame
September 11, 2008
11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Snoopbobb writes: "Boy you peace lovin' lefties sure do hate good"
Well, we were pretty nice people twelve years ago. Then we saw the rightwing extremists waste $70 million taxpayer dollars on an investigation that led to nowhere unless you count the pornographic Starr Report. And Clinton still left office with a 60%+ approval rating.
Then of course we saw the rest of our Treasury looted in the following eight years...
September 11, 2008
11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
richardboyd writes:
dear mcsame_failin
per your points and my thoughts
1) I agree with you and this is why LOCAL government is better suited to a diverse country like the U.S.A. One-size-fits-all is the only way the federal gov't knows how to do things. I agree with McCain/Palin; reduce size of fed'l gov't. Sounds like you might too?
2) Petreaus is in a good position to make the call. Victory against radical Islam will not happen. We've got to get out when it's somewhat stabilized. A good argument for energy independence, don't you think? I believe McCain is more seasoned than Obama; I believed him in his speech when he said he doesn't like war, I think he really meant it. Obama will apologize to the whole world for America's actions. This won't be helpful.
3) Renewable energy must and will be pursued by both parties, but I give the edge to Palin on this one. Wind energy will require huge transmission lines be built from the wind farms to distribution centers. The transition from total dependency on oil/gas must be phased. Concerning climate change I would love to go around with you on this one. Mother Nature is far more powerful than we puny humans. This one is a money game in my opinion, and that of many, many scientists as well.
4 and 5) Agree with you these are not federal issues. Roe v Wade is horrible law, totally unconstitutional. These issues should be decided by the people. Locally!
6) McCain's experience as a POW has humbled him greatly, yet he is not bitter. I believe it has also given him wisdom.
7) Agree economy is a huge issue. I believe it is due to government meddling. since Nixon took us off the gold standard the dollar has steadily lost value. We can't tax and spend our way out of this one. There is a huge crash coming no matter who's in there.
These views are my opinion only, of course. Pick your topic; I can't keep doing big replies, since I'm at work and taking a break.
September 11, 2008
11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
richardboyd: "7) Agree economy is a huge issue. I believe it is due to government meddling. since Nixon took us off the gold standard the dollar has steadily lost value. We can't tax and spend our way out of this one. There is a huge crash coming no matter who's in there."
Actually, deregulation on lending many of the problems we now face. Financial systems have basically been running a Ponzi scheme ever since, based on money literally created out of nothing: loans. The truth is, money is increasingly not created by actual work and production. And the real consequences of this are now becoming apparent.
Plus, deregulation has also led to more and more markets run by speculation, from energy to lending.
It's a much more complex situation than your gut feeling "government meddling is to blame" infers.
September 11, 2008
11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
richardboyd writes:
mytwosense: love your moniker; very financial. Agree with you a national economy is complex in the extreme. That is why no president or congress can "fix" it. Wouldn't you agree?
September 11, 2008
noon
Suggest removal
mcsame_failin writes:
Climate change is not about money. Climate change is not debated in the scientific community, only by fringe scientists that have not worked closely with the data. Even Bush as acknowledged it is a problem. The changes are not beyond natural occurrence, until you look at the time period in which they are occurring. Such drastic changes in a tiny fraction of the geological timeline are indisputably caused by human impact. I would like to see any scientific information that can dispute this reasonably, and the credibility of the source does matter.
Wind and solar technology can be placed very near where it is used. There is no need for huge transmission lines, though transmission of electricity does not compare to the high cost and logistical difficulty building and maintaining pipelines. $30 billion is ridiculous.
September 11, 2008
12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
richardboyd writes: "mytwosense: love your moniker; very financial. Agree with you a national economy is complex in the extreme. That is why no president or congress can "fix" it. Wouldn't you agree?"
Thanks, although it's a moniker that is definitely wide open to some less friendly interpretations by other posters. I.e., no sense, senseless, ....:)
Anyway, I don't think a president or congress can necessarily "fix" our economy in one fell swoop. But a president who has astute advisors can come up with sound policies. That's one hurdle. The second hurdle is getting those policies rammed through Congress. That's a whole other story. And of course, appointing qualified people to lead various cabinets and agencies is key, too.
And certainly business needs to have a somewhat roomy playing ground. Too many restrictions are never good, but too few, I'm afraid, leads to situations like we're seeing now.
In other words, capitalism can be great, but sometimes it needs to be saved from itself.
I guess the same could be said for government! :)
September 11, 2008
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Obama may use Colorado as the place to announce that he's dumping Biden.
Biden has been admitting in public that Obama blundered by picking him, and that Clinton would have been a better choice.
Obama's own supporters admit that fundraising for the sinking campaign has dried up, and they're so desperate for cash that Obama is dropping off the campaign trail, so he can do some fundraising with a concert at Barbara Streisand's mansion.
When a politician is dropping in the polls, and decides to STOP campaigning because he wants to spend more time with fatcat donors, then he's in deep trouble. Add in Biden admitting that Obama is making mistakes, and it's no wonder that Democrats are in panic mode.
September 11, 2008
12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
dakar writes:
Charles B - The federal gov. owns most of the land in Alaska, that's the primary reason they get a lot of federal money, its federal land.
She increased some business taxes that because of corruption within her own party - were being kept low. She gave money back to people in Alaska. She never increased taxes on people.
The fact is - Palin nixed that bridge. She could've gotten fed money put with state money for it but didn't. As I said she made the right decision on that. And that bridge was proposed by the 2 senators in Alaska, it was never Palin that put in for it. Get Real.
Also Palin, unlike Bill Ritter, DOESN'T live in a Governor mansion. And she could have her own chef if she wanted which would cost a heck of a lot more.
And she is going to start doing interviews TODAY.
Try to stick with the facts.
September 11, 2008
12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
mcsame_failin writes:
Why isn't McCain interested in helping out for hurricane Ike? Does it not fit in to his campaign schedule as nicely as Gustav, though it will likely be more severe? Does it not make for good media coverage when he cannot sacrifice his precious convention as a gesture of his caring about the people of America? Does he not care anymore?
Where is Bush? It is his state!
September 11, 2008
12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
SkiColo writes:
Interesting commentary on Obama dumping Biden for Hillary. At this point, the dems need to focus on issues. The country is in horrible shape and have Bush to thank for a crumbling economy, a horrible war, and the stock market crash. The Republicans have had 8 years, and I am not impressed with the way things are going-- we cannot afford another 4 years of Republicans. We need change, and believe Obama will win in 08 with either Biden or Hillary. Although, it would be interesting to see Hillary crush Palin.
September 11, 2008
12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
mcsame_failin writes:
rickg19611: please provide your sources. I would like to read about this. Thanks.
September 11, 2008
12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
shrine213 writes:
To PonchoVia
I checked out the site on USA Today that you recommended and I have a question for you. How can anyone state that Obama is leading and is increasing his lead? Obama had up to an 8 point lead at the end of August and now McCain is either leading or statistically tied with him in every poll. It doesnt matter what the polls showed in January and to be honest it doesnt matter what they show today. This election is going to be determined by the electoral college so the important polls to look at are the battleground state polls for:Ohio,Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico, Michigan and Nevada. By looking at those polls you will get a truer sense of who is winning the election. Right now Obama does have a lead in the electoral college but his numbers are dropping in every battleground state. Go ahead and try to convince yourself that he is pulling away but just dont use polling data because it does not support your argument.
September 11, 2008
12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
Part of the reason that salaries aren't keeping pace (with inflation, productivity and history) is because of globalization ... like it or not, if the same job can be accomplished somewhere else, by someone else, for a lower total cost, one of two things will happen: salaries will "catch up" to the global rate by reduced growth rates; or work will be shipped elsewhere. In the US, you have both situations happening ... jobs are being shipped overseas in industries where (US) costs cannot be reduced to levels that are competitive (particularly in manufacturing) ... and salaries are "leveling" by not increasing (even at the rate of inflation).
Globalization is also a primary reason why salaries have not kept up with productivity, as you put it, mytwosense. Productivity gains are being reaped all over the world, not just with the American worker. As Americans get more productive, so does the rest of the world to keep pace, yet they will still do the same job at a considerably lower relative wage. Removing tax breaks for companies that move work over seas will not bring those jobs back to the US, those jobs are gone until it's less (or equally) expensive to employ the people on US soil. Tax incentives might help, but they will have to be VERY large incentives considering average rates in other countries are 1/8 - 1/30 of the cost of American workers.
mytwosense:
Despite the rate of increase in salaries for the "average" American worker (large or small), historically the "average" American worker has been unable to procure wealth. Philosophies abound regarding this subject, but I do believe that most people will never learn how to accumulate wealth, no matter how much wealth you redistribute to them.
I do find it interesting that a country that proclaims fairness as one of it's guiding principles considers wealth redistribution to be in any way fair. I don't recall anything in the US Constitution that suggested that "all men are created equal" means that all men must live equally, spend equally and have equal wealth, but perhaps I misread it.
September 11, 2008
12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
B300 writes:
go ahead and fight over who is the best, when niether can do the job! this election is all about crap and not the real issues, what a joke!!
September 11, 2008
1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
mcsame_failin writes:
Time for a little satire (inspired from an article in the Onion)...
Headline: CHENEY RECALLS 9/11
Today Vice President Richard Cheney announced that he was recalling 9/11 with some regret. In a brief statement he said, "I am sorry to say that 9/11 has to be recalled. It has taken me and my buddies through great changes, and enabled us to achieve great things, but it no longer looks to be profitable. It no longer continues to be as effective in distracting the American people from paying attention to our endeavors. We gave it one last big showing for the RNC, but... Um, excuse me... what was that? ...He is ahead in the polls? ...ahem, your attention please. I have just learned that 9/11 still has some potential, and that with your vote, we can keep it in the face of America for at least another four years."
(FYI, I had to say Richard Cheney because apparently the VP's first name is a bad work. Who would've known?)
September 11, 2008
1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
fastnloose writes:
Obama,makes terrible decision to leave Hillary off ticket.Picks Biden and then thinks about dumping him.Begs Hillary to take him back,what a decisive leader.I think I see what he means by change.
September 11, 2008
1:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
arvada_mark writes:
Really nice to see the crying liberals out in full force today. I love how the libs, of all people, are hating on the mother of a special needs child. You guys are for family, but only when it suits your needs, right? Got it. All of a sudden, you're preaching, "A woman's place is in the home." I mean, why don't you go kick a dog or something? Better yet, there's an old lady that lives in the apartment next to me, you can come by & push her down the stairs if you really want to be a donkey. Or is is burro, or is it 2 S's behind an A? You tell me, libs, you are the ones with all the answers, you alone, nobody else, just you.
September 11, 2008
1:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
"mcsame_failin writes: please provide your sources. I would like to read about this."
Enjoy!
Biden admits Clinton would be better pick for VP
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalrad...
Obama campaign struggling as fundraising drops
"Pushing a fund-raiser later this month, a finance staff member sent a sharply worded note last week to Illinois members of its national finance committee, calling their recent efforts “extremely anemic.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/us/...
Democrats in panic over sinking Obama campaign!
"A major Democratic fundraiser described it a good bit more starkly after digesting the polls of recent days: “I’m so depressed. It’s happening again. It’s a nightmare.”"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/...
September 11, 2008
2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
PANIC TIME!
No wonder Democrats are in full blown panic mode. The SS Obama-tanic campaign is in retreat on all fronts, their fundraisers are hysterical, and they're sending Obama OFF the campaign trail so he can spend his time with Barbara Streisand to try to get some badly needed cash for his sinking campaign.... but now more bad news arrived today!
Another major blue state on the ropes, with a dead heat!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/1...
September 11, 2008
2:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
It's all over for Obama, if he dumps Biden and asks Hillary to take his place. Everyone knows the Big O should have picked her to begin with. If he would of taken Hillary he would still be way ahead in the polls won hands down. He is screwed.. and stuck with the Biden blunders
September 11, 2008
2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
richardboyd writes:
Climate change puzzler: can anyone out there name the NUMBER ONE greenhouse gas; whose temperature regulating effects far outweigh those of carbon dioxide? short answers please, then we'll take it from there.
September 11, 2008
2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
mcsame_failin writes:
Rickg: thank you. That is all good info. I feel it is all too telling that the public is caught up in polls, gaffes, innuendo, and speculation. My hope is that we get past this trivial mentality once things settle down a little, and everyone is better able to vote with a clear mind. Personally I hope that Obama wins it, but I will be very disappointed if McCain wins based on a continued popularity contest instead of the issues. This is not High School folks.
September 11, 2008
2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
mcsame_failin: "Personally I hope that Obama wins"............
no kidding........I would have never guessed
September 11, 2008
2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
mcsame_failin writes:
Water vapor, whats your point?
September 11, 2008
2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
junglegymco writes:
Jesus was a Community Organizer.
Pontius Pilate was a Governor.
History repeating?
September 11, 2008
2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
mcsame_failin writes:
leatherneck: I was sure I could shock you with that one, oh well.
September 11, 2008
2:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
JMac: I have posted this before but I think it fits perfect for you.
mcsame_failin: Sorry for the repost
I'm voting Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
I'm voting Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday CAN tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.
I'm voting Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies, so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that business should not be
allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even, and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the GOVERNMENT sees fit.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days, to suit some fringe kooks who would NEVER get their agendas past the voters.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that open borders and government giveaways to foreigners is a great way to grow a nation.
I'm voting Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.
I'm voting Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry
whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.
September 11, 2008
2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
JMac: I am very glad people like you are not in the military
September 11, 2008
2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
JMac: I don't live in a trailor......I live in a Van down by the river
September 11, 2008
3:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
Hey leatherneck,
Any bets that JMac's degree is a "draft dodger" degree, i.e. lib arts degree?
Scott
former Squid
September 11, 2008
3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
JMac: keep doing what your doing..... you would not make it in the military....
September 11, 2008
3:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
JMac: you are a moran...."I CHOSE not to serve in GWB's military" I am wondering how full of s&%It you really are.
September 11, 2008
3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
4gColoNative writes:
Amazing that "experience" is still being touted as a major consideration.
Bush had FOUR YEARS of experience *as* President, and look how well he's done for the U.S. in the second term.
September 11, 2008
3:56 p.m.
angryrepublican writes:
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
September 11, 2008
4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
leatherneck writes:
JMac: I have more success then you will ever have my friend. Funny how you think you know me......
September 11, 2008
4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
4gColoNative writes:
I'll go "listen" to Palin if she'll appear in her Miss Alaska attire.
Because, you know, she obviously always wanted to be taken seriously.
September 11, 2008
5:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Wow! PANIC seems to be the best description of Obama fans. They're getting so hysterical that they're posting things that are so outrageous that they're getting removed.
Considering that Democrat party officials are admitting publicly that there is panic in the base, it's not surprising that his supporters on the board here would be hysterical too.
Obama continues his decline in the polls, Obama has to stop campaigning so he can try to dredge up some cash from Barbra Streisand and her Hollywood buddies, and even Biden is admitting the Clinton would be a better running mate than himself...... so the lower rungs of the Democrat party are copying their fatcat leaders and going into panic mode too.
With the election just over 7 weeks away, it's likely they will grow more and more desperate and more hysterical with each passing day. Obama has been in a nonstop plunge since April, so with just a few weeks left, they are getting more desperate. At the rate they're sinking, the Obama fans will be totally out of their minds with panic by the time election day rolls around.
The hours are counting down.... and the panic meter in Democrat minds is ready to erupt.
September 11, 2008
6:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
mcsame_failin writes:
rickg: the nonstop plunge since April is a figment of your imagination. Do you know how to read the poll results? Methinks you are delusional in your desperation.
September 11, 2008
8:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
mcsame_failin writes:
Oh man, this is good. Palin, with all the coaching from McCain's best spin doctors, you know the Rovians, could not even comment on the what the Bush doctrine is, let alone what she thinks it means for our national security. She is not prepared! Period!
September 11, 2008
8:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
diggtbks writes:
Dems need to keep bringing up the bridge to nowhere issue....
Both Uh-bama and Biden voted for it and a small town Mayor stopped it!
lol
September 11, 2008
8:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
angryrepublican writes:
A small town mayor LIED, LIED, LIED!! She supported the bridge to nowhere then opposed it in the face of public out cry. Ms. Lipstick kept the money and built a road to nowhere. She is a tax and spend liar!!!
September 11, 2008
10:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
jaybyrd writes:
Dust off those cheezy styrofoam Greek columns...he's b-a-a-ack! Only this time he is down in the polls, and in fundraising contributions.
September 11, 2008
10:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
rmtalker writes:
"She’s not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them."
Page 2 of this...
http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/Sa...
Within it says there was a public outcry and she faced a recall election, so much for popular.
September 11, 2008
10:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
mcsame_failin writes:
Pressed about what insights into recent Russian actions she gained by living in Alaska, Palin answered: "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."
There you go, she can see Russia from an island in Alaska and that is all the insight she needs into their recent actions. She is ready to go to war with them, and is qualified to make that decision because she can see their land from her land. THAT JUST MAKES SENSE, DON'T IT?
September 11, 2008
10:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
JayBen writes:
Palin advocates war on Russia ... says 9/11 linked to Iraq ... no idea on Bush policies ... even after one week 1:1 word-stuffing from Joe Lieberman...
omg...
September 11, 2008
11:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Doneuron writes:
Are you all ready for war with Russia. Haven't we had enough of preemptive war. Is Russia our enemy now? Should we reinstate the draft to protect Georgia when they decide to provoke Putin. Georgia has no significant military and the Europeans are fed up with our unilateralism. Are we ready to bankroll the protection of Georgia and Ukraine? Palin, like Bush, uses conviction instead of judgment in her decision making. She is dangerous!
September 11, 2008
11:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
BJG writes:
I am Thrilled that You All are looking at this mess. I still can't believe it all myself. I do not believe this is the best this country can up with....how are we viewed by other countries?
September 12, 2008
1:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
bph writes:
She was stating a fact about the role of NATO and the members committments to eachother if attacked. If she said that we would not support NATO countries under attack I wonder what her critics would have said. Dems, your corner on the female issues has been jacked right out from under you.
If you like her VOTE!!!! if you dont VOTE!!!
September 12, 2008
5:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Stick_To_Issues writes:
It's a good thing for the GOP that Palin is at the bottom of the ticket. Now, can we talk about issues that REALLY concern Americans?
* McCain voted AGAINST Violence Against Women Act
* McCain voted AGAINST Title X Womens Health Care Services
* McCain voted AGAINST Children's Health Insurance Program-SCHIP
* McCain voted AGAINST aid to Children of Domestic Violence
* McCain voted AGAINST Emergency Funding for Victims of Hurricane Katrina
* McCain voted AGAINST Funding Law Enforcement
* McCain wants to bring back the DRAFT
* McCain voted AGAINST GI Bill
* McCain voted AGAINST Funding VA for Vets
* McCain voted AGAINST Funding Military Equipment Shortages in Iraq
* Palin continues to LIE about the bridge. Palin SUPPORTED the bridge, TOOK THE MONEY for the bridge, KEPT THE MONEY for the bridge and SPENT THE MONEY for the bridge.
* Palin AND her husband AND her children BILLED the taxpayers of Alaska, $16,000.00 so the Palin's could have Family Time.
* Other than scripted interviews that have clearly been EDITED, Palin REFUSES to answer questions from reporters. In fact, Palin REFUSES to answer reporter's questions on her plane... SUSPICIOUS?????!!!!!! ...
Will Palin EVER answer questions from reporterS (plural) like say from behind a podium?
September 12, 2008
8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
slocatch writes:
Glad to see that Sarah and Obama will be miles apart, would not want him to get hurt.
September 12, 2008
8:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
slocatch writes:
To: stick to the issues
Yep, he voted.
Why did he vote the way he did on these issues? How come Obama said "present" aprox 43% of the time when asked for a yes or no response(his job). Who can get more change in a system where every vote counts? One who won't vote or one who will?
September 12, 2008
9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Democrats..... keep attacking Palin. PLEASE!
Since Democrats launched their war on Palin, they've dropped 8% in the polls, while McCain and Palin have risen take a double digit lead with likely voters!!!
Democrats may be stupid enough to think that their hatred of Palin helps them, but Americans are rejecting Democrats instead!
Keep it up! Encourage the media lapdogs to attack her (Americans consider the media less credible than used car salesmen!). Polls prove that 10 times more Americans think that the media is trying to destroy Palin, than help her. Big mistake!!!
The more you attack, the further you drop in the polls! Keep going! Only 52 days to go and at the rate you're dropping in the polls, you can still reach 0% support from American voters!!!!! You're certainly well on the way towards bottom with every attack! KEEP THE DECLINE GOING!
September 12, 2008
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
slocatch writes:
Wanna bet that Biden is relieved, Hillary is in. Also, Biden and Liberman agree to be on John's staff for a dollar a year. The way it looks to me now is that, Obama want's a page and can't be relaxed with an alpha personality. On the othe hand, John is quite comfortable in the company of mavericks. I think Binden would be relieved to go that way.
September 12, 2008
10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
more conspiracy theories from the far right about these palin "attacks"?
i'm not sure how calling her record a pig that can't be helped with lipstick is "attacking" her. how is pointing out the hypocrisy evident in her support of failed bush sex ed policies vs. her personal life "attacking" her? i'm not sure why discussing how her superstitious "end times" beliefs could affect her foreign policy decisions should mcsame die is "attacking" her.
i guess i just don't understand the outrage from the far right.
did you not know that palin's life would be scrutinized just as closely as obama's or his wife's?
sounds like standard conservative hypocrisy to me.
no offense...but save the feigned outrage.
we all know you can't defend mcsame's policy stances or the Track Record...but come on....this is getting a little ridiculous.
September 12, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
slocatch writes:
You wouldn't mean the far left would you ,Jay?
September 12, 2008
1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
BrandiWine_84 writes:
Palin charged rape victims for their rape kits when she was Wasilla's mayor.
September 12, 2008
3:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
slocatch writes:
IT'S CALLED THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS.