No, I have siad people who have posted FALSE things about Palin are liars. That is significantly different.Primula Baggins wrote:You've said people who post negative things about Palin's record are liars.
How about it Hal? Can we deal in facts instead of righteous indignation?1) show that her statements supporting the Bridge to Nowhere are false and never were uttered by here.
At a rally today, Sen. McCain again asserted that Sen. Obama has requested nearly a billion in earmarks. In fact, the Illinois senator requested $311 million last year, according to the Associated Press, and none this year. In comparison, Gov. Palin has requested $750 million in her two years as governor -- which the AP says is the largest per-capita request in the nation.
From Prim's article.At a rally today, Sen. McCain again asserted that Sen. Obama has requested nearly a billion in earmarks. In fact, the Illinois senator requested $311 million last year, according to the Associated Press, and none this year. In comparison, Gov. Palin has requested $750 million in her two years as governor -- which the AP says is the largest per-capita request in the nation.
But Gov. Palin's claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.
So we knowBut Gov. Palin's claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.
"We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge," Gov. Palin said in August 2006, according to the local newspaper, "and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative." The bridge would have linked Ketchikan to the airport on Gravina Island. Travelers from Ketchikan (pop. 7,500) now rely on ferries.
Someone should tell the Wall Street Journal that they're publishing distortions.Despite significant evidence to the contrary, the McCain campaign continues to assert that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told the federal government "thanks but no thanks" to the now-famous bridge to an island in her home state.
The McCain campaign released a television advertisement Monday morning titled "Original Mavericks." The narrator of the 30-second spot boasts about the pair: "He fights pork-barrel spending. She stopped the Bridge to Nowhere."
Gov. Palin, who John McCain named as his running mate less than two weeks ago, quickly adopted a stump line bragging about her opposition to the pork-barrel project Sen. McCain routinely decries.
No, you're distorting it, or misread it, or something. Bolding is mine, from your link.halplm wrote:the $311 million for Obama's earmarks is blatantly false:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/po ... html?fta=y
or a distortion, or something...
Senator Barack Obama on Thursday released a list of $740 million in earmarked spending requests that he had made over the last three years, and his campaign challenged Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to do the same.
I should also point out that the article is six months old, and that Obama has made zero earmark requests this year. So the comparison of $311 million vs. $750 million over the same span of time is accurate. I won't even get into the per capita comparison.Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign also said that only about $220 million worth of his requests had been approved by Congress.
Gibson is one strange journalist - if that is what you properly call him.Slow Slide Into Oblivion
09.08.08 -- 12:35AM By Josh Marshall
I spent most of the day today traveling and then giving a talk up at Union College a few hours north of New York City. So I was offline most of the day. And though I heard about Charlie Gibson bagging the first interview with Sarah Palin, I was eager to get home and read the details.
Well, now I've read them. And it's pretty clear this farce is going to be close to unwatchable. Set aside that this comes just on the heels of McCain campaign manager Rick Davis saying Palin would not sit for any interviews "until the point in time when she'll be treated with respect and deference." The tell comes high up in the AP story by David Bauder. The second graf reads ...
Palin will sit down for multiple interviews with Gibson in Alaska over two days, most likely Thursday and Friday, said McCain adviser Mark Salter.
Political interviews are never done like this. Because it makes the questioning entirely at the discretion of the person being interviewed and their handlers. The interviewer has to be on their best behavior, at least until the last of the 'multiple interviews' because otherwise the subsequent sittings just won't happen. For a political journalist to agree to such terms amounts to a form of self-gelding. The only interviews that are done this way are lifestyle and celebrity interviews. And it's pretty clear that that is what this will be.
Here's some more to inspire confidence ...
The interview is a coup for Gibson, who also had the only sit-down with McCain during the Republican National Convention. During that interview, he did not question McCain about Palin's family, a decision that he fretted about for hours, Gibson said in a Web log posted last week.
"Once you know about her daughter's pregnancy, once you know about her husband's political interest in the Alaska Independent Party, once you know about the special nature of their latest child, I think that's enough," Gibson wrote.
The relevant questions about Palin all related to her experience and policy positions as a mayor and governor of Alaska.
ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider said he did not believe Gibson's stated stance about family questions was key to securing the interview.
It will be unwatchable.
at 5:39 a.m. PST, quoting an article, sf wrote:Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.
andat 8:51 a.m. PST, Prim wrote:There's a lot of coverage of Palin's misstatements about earmarks and the bridge today, with new reports of 319 nights since becoming governor when she slept at home and charged the state per diem anyway
This is just the kind of feeding frenzy that I was talking about. We've had four or five people hammering away at Palin, in some cases repeating the same exact information as if it is new information. I don't blame halplm for getting frustrated. I mostly agree with the criticim of Palin, and I still find it frustrating.9:57 a.m. PST, vison wrote:Mrs. Palin claimed 312 per diems for days and nights at home.
If you can please then do it. I am very open to reading what you have to show us Hal. Very open.That's the other reason I don't want to engage SF, VtF. I can post links to the refutions of his statements, and make the arguments against them (many of which I already have), and he will ignore them, and claim they haven't been adressed... repeating them over and over.
