When is the VC going to report on (a) Palin's statements re: Fannie and Freddie Mae and (b) the ridiculous sequestration of someone who could become POTUS within a few months?

I can tell you from experience it costs $$$$ to get around in Alaska because lack of roads and high fuel costs. Post was just too lazy to do research.

Yet another attack on Palin thwarted? Quick, Nate, change the subject!

P.S. How about the costs of Obama's European tour?

J. Aldridge:

I'm happy to retract my statement if wrong, but she stated that F&F had " "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers."

Isn't that the past tense? Also, in context, it reads as an explanation of WHY the bailout is occurring.

I don't see what your present vs. past is trying to accomplish, but I'll happily retract if I'm mistaken.

I just cannot see how any thinking person could ever support a Presidential campaign that might see a pro-censorship woman living at Number One Observatory Circle.

Orin, I love that post.

David's explanation of the alleged Fannie Gaffe makes more sense than J. Aldridge's, but I'm skeptical that this Palin actually understands the ins-and-outs of government assistant and the "implicit" burden this imposes on the taxpayer.

We are, after all, talking about someone who went to 5 colleges in 6 years to ultimate graduate form the U of Idaho with a degree in Communications.

Can anyone--Jim or David in particular--actually vouch for her knowledge of the economy? How about the, uh, robustness of her intellect (or whatever you want to call mental acuity)? Orin, David, Jim, (and probably most commenters posting on VC) have a very good understanding of how complex global finance and our economy is...are you folks really so eager to hand it over to someone who may be a) a dullard and b) uninfomed about even the basics?

Did Joe Biden use his Convention speech to talk about cutting his personal expenses as Senator? If he had, then his personal expenses (like Palin's) would be news. He didn't, so they aren't.

I don't find it surprising that the governor of Alaska doesn't have a good idea about how Fannie and Freddie operate or what the current situation is. I've been trying over the last severals day to figure out exactly the problem is (not just vague generalizations) and how much these problems might end up costing tax payers. I can't even figure out whether or not these corporations are insolvent, whether the current value of assets are less than current value of liabilities, or if the problem is more along the lines of a cash flow problem. I have read that the government is going to inject capital (i.e. $$$$) presumably to cover current cash flow shortages (mo matter the cause) and that the government will receive paper in exchange. It is conceivable, from what I have read, the the Feds may actually turn a profit on this whole mess. This, I presume, could be the case if the current value of assets is depressed because of a frightened market. So, it appears to me that the government takeover ( "bail out" is a misleading term)is extremely complex and not well understood by almost anybody who is not familiar with the type of accounting involved. Judging from the wild disparity among news accounts and quotes from government people, I'd bet that Biden, Obama, and McCain don't understand very well what is going on and what the likely outcomes are. I don't think Palin should be faulted for her lack of understanding.

For some reason, it did not want to include the url. So, check out:

http://pajamasmedia.com/ and see the blog on palin-fact versus palin fiction.

Sorry to be inept at posting URLs. I should probably drink less before I post.

I think the controversial aspect of this WaPo article is that Palin billed the state the per diem charge when she was staying in her own home in Wasilla. That seems unusual, right?

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.

Alaska,

Thanks for that. I don't buy into the whole "market regulation is bad" hoo-haw, but if I did, that argument would persuade me. Everyone believes too much regulation is bad, and I believe everyone agrees that too little regulation is bad also. The substantive fight is over what regulation is necessary and desirable. In order to engage in this discussion, one must have at least a rudimentary understanding of the finance system. I have far more education than Ms. Palin and yet don't think I'm up to the task of answering these questions, but I prefer an empirical approach to regulation questions and fear that ideology (on both sides) probably produces inefficient results.

Until Palin submits to press scrutiny, we won't have a very good idea of how detailed her knowledge of the economy is. While I would prefer a VP with knowledge over one without, if I disagreed with the knowledgeable VP's core ideology, I'd also opt for the unknowledgeable VP who more closely aligned with my ideological preferences. So I see where you are coming from.

In regards to the post, I was under the impression that Biden takes Amtrak every day between DC and Delaware, which seems like pretty much the cheapest available option.

Spending less than one's predecessor isn't really all that commendable when you are widely known as one of the less corrupt politicians in a very corrupt state. And just because it's legal to bill the state per diem for living in your own home doesn't make it ethical.

I say this as an Alaskan resident who is simply embarrassed about the politicians from this state. Palin isn't even that bad, either.

I think the controversial aspect of this WaPo article is that Palin billed the state the per diem charge when she was staying in her own home in Wasilla. That seems unusual, right?

Does seem unusual, but as I recall she commuted to Anchorage much of that time, and it's a lot cheaper to charge the state a per diem for herself than to charge the state for a hotel in Anchorage for her family, plus a per diem for each family member, which she would have been entitled to do because her "duty station" is in Juneau.

(which also assumedly means she did not get a per diem for the days she was in Juneau). This may not make her a saint, but it's hardly a scandal, and hardly worthy of a huge headline on washingtonpost.com

but as I recall she commuted to Anchorage much of that time, and it's a lot cheaper to charge the state a per diem for herself than to charge the state for a hotel in Anchorage for her family, plus a per diem for each family member, which she would have been entitled to do because her "duty station" is in Juneau.

Anchorage is an easy commute from Wasilla, right? Wouldn't she rather be at home, than a hotel? I'm not sure I see how that helps out, but frankly--this article is stupid. There is no "there" there, and it only helps muddy the waters when the real discussion should be on how ridiculous of a selection she is and what that portends for a potential McCain administration.

Alaska wrote, "she [Gov. Palin] has understood, more than most politicians, that government does not produce. It only erect barriers to economic production."

That's a Republican talking point, but the reality is that effective government can add a great deal to economic production.

The Internet, for example, started out as a government project.

The "Asian Tiger" economies grew rapidly from poverty levels to advanced industrial economies because their governments worked to promote industrial development, as well as investing in the health and education of their own populations.

The conservative mantra that the government only gets in the way is just snake oil.

Dan M,

Nice quote taken out of context.

Before he said "Even if" he explicitly said he did not want to take people's guns away. Here is the logic. I would want to do X. But even if I wanted to do X (as some falsely claim) I couldn't do it. Therefore, you should not decide your vote based on concerns that I will do X.

Pretty logical, if you ask me. If you fail to comprehend, that's your issue.

Finally, Palin is not merely running to be VP. She is running to be President if something were to happen to McCain. Which, in the bigger scheme of things is not that unlikely, given the fact that he is 72 years old and has had melanoma.

Oh, and I know that Republicans do not care about their leaders actually being qualified. As long as there heart is supposedly in the right place. And that is precisely why we are in this mess in the first place -- because Republicans would vote for anyone who has an R after their name.

But, let us compare the accomplishments of Obama and the pathetic Palin for a moment.

Obama went to Columbia University and then Harvard Law School, where he was President of the Harvard Law Review. That takes some serious intelligence.

He then went on to work a civil rights lawyer and as a professor of Constitutional Law at the prestigious University of Chicago. Of course, Republicans are not known for caring about the Constitution, so I don't imagine that matters to you. But for those of us who actually care about our founding document, that experience is a big plus.

Listening to Obama speak, it is obvious that he is both very thoughtful and knowledgeable. Listening to Palin speak, you realize that she is clever at insulting people and telling cute little stories, but she doesn't know jack.

Constrast Palin. She got a fluff degree in communication from the rather lowly University of Idaho. Then she worked as a sports reporter for 8 years. Go Palin! All those years as a sports reporter really help qualify you to be President. Oh, then she was mayor of a pathetic town out in the middle of nowhere for 6 years.

She believes in creationism. She asked the librarian if she could ban books. Go Palin! I can't wait to have the most ignorant yahoo possible as President. I really can't wait.

Anyway, the bottom-line is that while Obama is not the most experienced candidate for President, he is qualified. He has more experience than Abraham Lincoln did when he assumed office.

In contrast, Palin is a joke.

All I have to say is this. If the American people are stupid enough to vote for McCain and he dies and we end up with Palin as President, then the American people deserve what they voted for.

I really am in a state of shock that choosing the least qualified person possible has increased John McCain's numbers. But, if that is what a majority of superficial and ignorant individuals want, that is what they deserve. I for one will be nicely happy living a prosperous private life, even as the rest of the country goes straight to hell.

perhaps would be better to concede that government does not produce, but that as well as making barriers to production it can facilitate production.

Call me a cynic, but I think that making obvious and common-sense points that goes against certain quasi-religious points made by right wing fools is a waste of time.

Let's put it this way. If someone were actually amenable to logic and reason and facts, they would not say something that is so obviously historically and empirically false as to assert that the government can only act as an obstacle.

You are not arguing with a rational human being capable of modifying their thoughts in the face of logic, reason, and facts. You are arguing with an irrational ideological animal who has adopted a quasi-religious idea that they will spout out at the slightest provocation.

In other words, do not waste your time. There are people on the right who are worth conversing with. Those who utter simplistic quasi-religious political slogans are not among them.

Calculated Risk:

I agree that government is not necessarily an obstacle to economic development, and in many cases has actually spurred development by doing things that the private sector either can't won't do. However since about 1970, in the US, the government does seem to have become an obstacle, mostly through excessive and irrational regulation. Sarbanes Oxley is one good example. Very few people have read let alone understand this ill-conceived legislation. Note I am a big fan of securities regulation, and I think we need more of it, but not that kind. The decision in the Carter Administration to forbid the reprocessing of nuclear wastes is another. Japan and France reprocess their wastes while we have ended up with the ridiculous Yucca Mountain Project. Some (but not all) environmental regulation has also been excessive and ill-conceived and acts to prevent economic development. For example the Global Warming crusade, (religion masquerading as science) could have serious consequences for the US economy.

Since Prof. Bernstein did not make it clear, and most people will not actually read the article . . . Palin did charge the state for her kids' travels. Her spokesperson said this was valid, but the state finance director said this: "We cover the expenses of anyone who's conducting state business. I can't imagine kids could be doing that."

So while Prof. Bernstein would like you to believe there is no there there based on the opinion of her spokesperson, the article seems quite legit to me.

So the essence of this defense is that St. Sarah the Reformer is fine because she didn't steal as much as she could have, or her predecessor did. And as someone who visits Manhattan, I will tell you that you can in fact get a nice room for less than $707 a night.

It's OK. She's only a small-time crook.

Calculated Risk writes:

She got a fluff degree in communication from the rather lowly University of Idaho.

Really not germane to the discussion and essentially a cheap shot...

I agree with tarheel. Bernstein, what do you think about the part about the kids' expenses being reimbursed?

Constrast Palin. She got a fluff degree in communication from the rather lowly University of Idaho.

Again, this is "exhibit A" as to why your party can not win an election.

But please don't stop. Continue with this silly arrogance (never before in the history of man has one group, modern liberals, been so ignorant, yet pretended they knew so much).

The point is that most Americans DO NOT get paid to live in their own homes; quite the contrary, in fact. This story is on the front page of the Post because it's helping to expose the lie that Sarah Palin cares one iota about lowering government spending.

Under state law, the governor's "own home" is in Juneau. Americans do get paid for expenses when traveling on business. In theory, Palin probably should pay her own expenses in Wasilla, and get paid for her expenses in Juneau. State law, however, required her to do it the opposite way.

As for the kids' travel, the firs pertinent question is whether she violated state regulations. Given that the governor is exempt from most state regulations according to the article, the answer is most likely "no." The second question is one of ethics. The article states that Piper's airfare has cost around 11K. A rt Juneau to Anchorage, for example, is around 600. So she allegedly took Piper on about 20 roundtrips, or about one per month. Her spokseperson claims that these were "official business," events that it was appropriate for the governor to bring Piper. Offhand, one such event per month doesn't seem especially noteworthy (and, without knowing Alaska travel rules, it doesn't seem to be unreasonable to expect Palin to be permitted bring her young daughter on any trip that lasts more than a day or two).

Nobody should raise any question about whether it's ethical for the ethics queen to charge the State to live in her own home! As the Post points out, this is technically legal, so what's the problem?

CalculatedRisk:
I know that Republicans do not care about their leaders actually being qualified.
Republicans are not known for caring about the Constitution
Palin is a joke

In other words, I will not waste your time. There are people on the left who are worth conversing with. Those who utter simplistic quasi-religious political slogans are not among them.

I didn't know there were so many experts here on Alaska's policy for crediting a governor's expenses. Personally, I will leave the issue to the state's voters, but critics of Palin on this particular matter are disingenuous at best. She asked for meager travel and food expenses, from what I can see, and sought far less than her predecessor. Further comparison would require knowledge of what other governors expense - or U.S. senators, for that matter.

As for the children, it's easy for male governors to avoid flight expenses for them. Leave them home with ... mom! I suspect it's not quite so easy for women governors to leave the kids home ... with dad!

As a citizen, I have no problem with the state paying for young children to accompany their mother governors - or even their father governors - on state business. Being a governor is not like any ordinary job and it's not like the flight costs will break the state piggybank.

To be sure, children do not need to be taken everywhere, but Alaska is an unusual state with its own peculiar arrangements.

There are reasons for people to oppose the selection of Palin as VP - most here who do would have voted for Obama anyway despite his lack of national experience. Her per-diem expense requests, however, is not a reason that seriously intelligent people would entertain.

And yet, some people who question her intelligence are doing exactly that. Odd, but not surprising. Sometimes the pot does call the kettle black.

Nate in Alice:
Orin, I love that post.

David's explanation of the alleged Fannie Gaffe makes more sense than J. Aldridge's, but I'm skeptical that this Palin actually understands the ins-and-outs of government assistant and the "implicit" burden this imposes on the taxpayer.

Sooo, you're suggesting that Palin was basically right, but that you think she's too ignorant to have known what she was saying was right?

Nice. It's going to be a hilarious election if the line of attack is now, "Palin's correct statements highlight that she's a rube!"

Admit it, Byomtov, the geyser of hostility we're seeing on the Left has precisely zero to do with any exaggeration of her virtues on the Right. I listened to a left-wing radio show last night where Palin was excoriated as "white trash" and her admirers as "trailer trash." This is in response to what, exactly?

The rage, anger and vitriol are innate to the Left. Don't blame us mossbacks for your vices.

Per diem, wow! And we shouldn't be concerned that Obama is taking a paycheck to represent the people of Illinois yet he does ZERO work in that capacity. I mean, really!

"Does he bill the government for his daily roundtrip to Delaware? "
A good question but not the only question. As I see it, Biden's one way trip has 3 legs, not one. He needs a ride from his office to Union Station (or an alternative stop on the Wilmington line), then Amtrack, then a ride from the Wilmington Station to his home. How are those rides conducted? Does the government maintain limos and drivers at both ends, do lobbyists drive him as a courtesy, or does he take public transportation.
Further (and the media would be checking this if he were a Republican), where does Biden stay when he stays in DC? I assume he has a girlfriend and I guess that he sometime stays in town to accommodate the lobbyists that have paid his son for his influence. Do the lobbyists maintain an apartment for him, does he bunk in with his son, does he stay in a hotel?
And, maybe we will find answer to how dirty Biden is but, if we do, it will not be because the media has decided to do an objective job. It will be because Hussein has decided that Biden is not the guy and needs a triggering incident to get rid of him, i.e., throw Biden under the bus.

Hey Nate, I'll play. You asked when VC would cover the ridiculous sequestration of someone who could become POTUS within a few months?

If you just scroll up just a tiny bit, you'll see Jim Lindgren's post about months of press complaints about Obama.


Here's Lindgren's conclusion, with which I heartily agree:

UPDATE: If I were working on the McCain campaign, I would turn the access question back on Obama — in essence, working the refs.

In a few days, I would announce that Sarah Palin will hold her first open press conference devoted to questions about her background on the day after Barack Obama holds his first open press conference devoted to questions about his background — his Chicago days, his attempts to reform education, his obtaining grants for developers, his ties to questionable friends, and his earmarking practices in both the Illinois and US Senates. This would have to be an announced press conference where Obama would stay long enough to answer essentially all questions from the traveling press, as well as from investigative reporters from the National Review and the Weekly Standard. The next day Palin would hold her press conference and do essentially the same thing, answering questions about her background.

Even if the McCain campaign does not take this exact approach, if Palin ever does hold a public press conference on her background, she should challenge Obama to do the same. If she has to answer questions from the dozens of news organizations now probing her past, Barack Obama should have to answer questions from the very few news organizations who have bothered to look into his in any depth.

2d UPDATE: The more I think about it, I wouldn't trust the existing press corps to do its job even if given the opportunity — it hasn't so far.

The better offer, which can be made today and fits the anti-press narrative even better, is this: Sarah Palin will sit down for a long interview about her background with an investigative reporter from the NY Times or Washington Post the day after Barack Obama sits down for a long interview about his background with Stanley Kurtz of the National Review.

It seems that Jim Lindgren here at VC did an admirable job of pursuing just that line of inquiry.

Hmmmm.

@ Calculated Risk

"Listening to Obama speak, it is obvious that he is both very thoughtful and knowledgeable. Listening to Palin speak, you realize that she is clever at insulting people and telling cute little stories, but she doesn't know jack."

And you've discerned this from what? 3 political campaign rally speeches?

Frankly there are a lot of adjectives I could use right now but your own words condemn you far more effectively.

"Meanwhile, I have to wonder whether the Post has several reporters looking over Joe Biden's expense reports. Does he bill the government for his daily roundtrip to Delaware? How many "fact-finding missions" has he participated in annually during his Senate career? Inquiring minds want to know?"

Hear, hear! I call for more articles on Biden's past, right alongside articles giving a full reprise about McCain's role in the Keating Five!!!

Ah, intellectual honesty at the VC ....

Hmmmm.

What I find vastly amusing is the vitriol over Palin charging a per diem of less than $60 a day.

As a former contract programmer I used to charge $60 a day for my meal allowance alone. My actual per diem, combined, was somewhere around $150 a day. And that was every day, weekends included, because I would be living near the client in a hotel or corporate apartment.

So the idea that somehow a state governor being some kind of villain for charging less than $60 a day is so fraught with hilarity it boggles the mind.

tarheel: Of course it's the WaPo, so it's probably made up.

Do any of my fellow conservatives on VC agree with my perception that WaPo is a much less partisan paper than the NYT? Their editorials are certainly liberal. But there reporting and choice of stories doesn't seem (to me) anywhere near as blatantly partisan as those of the Times.

I read WaPo (online), and spend more time with it these days than with NYT.

Hoosier:

Probably not one of your fellow conservatives, but I agree that the WaPo is a superior paper. More interesting opinion page, better political reporting. It has been my first stop ever since the TimesSelect fiasco.

I thought the article and headline are fair, though the writing was so awkward it was hard to straighten out just what was going on.

There are several issues touched on in the article, some of which redound favorably on Palin and some of which are neutral, but the central issues, especially the one noted in the headline, are legitimately questionable.

It's true that Palin cut expenses by selling the state government aircraft, even if she somehow doesn't quite remember the details accurately and overstated the proceeds of the sale. It's true she saves expenses in the capital by not having as large a household staff there (but which is hardly surprising, nor all that much to her credit, given that she doesn't live there). It seems to be true that the travel records are correct, although the article exhibits some confusion on this point. And her total travel expenses are much lower than that of the preceding governor, which is neither here nor there since we don't know where, exactly, either of them traveled, for what purpose, and with what benefits to the state. It appears to me that most of these irrelevancies were actually inserted into the article to give it a positive slant, in an effort to be fair to Palin. But the real focus of the story is on other matters, which are more troubling.

One is that, whether or not her per diem claims are technically legal, they're clearly an example of "gaming the system". The governor is expected to be in the state capital; that's obviously why the per diem stipulates it is for travel away from Juneau, rather than away from home - the per diem regulation implicitly assumes the governor will be working out of Juneau. There is a mansion provided to the governor free of charge for that purpose. Palin chose to live elsewhere and charge the state by the day for living in her own home (while the state was also paying upkeep on the governor's mansion - though not for a cook, I guess). That's clearly not what the per diem regulation was intended for. As Tony Knowles points out, in a line you didn't quote, immediately after the line you did quote: "clearly, it is and it looks like a scam — you pay yourself to live at home."

So: Governor Palin was engaged in a practice that a recent former governor of the same state explicitly refers to as a "scam" - and which that governor had prohibited among his own staff, but which Palin herself collected on over 300 times in about 600 days.

The article also paints a very sketchy picture on the question of family travel. At one point her paid spokesperson says that state law permits reimbursement for family accompaniment on official trips, and that having kids show up a public events is "official business" (a somewhat dubious claim at best), but in another place the state finance director explicitly says "We cover the expenses of anyone who's conducting state business. I can't imagine kids could be doing that." Former governor Knowles points out that under his administration "the policy was not to reimburse for family travel on commercial airlines, because there is no direct public benefit to schlepping kids around the state", although former governor Murkowski apparently got reimbursement for his wife (according to Palin's helpful spokesperson, who just happened to have the exact dollar amounts available for the press). In short, current and former state officials, including governors for both parties, make it clear that travel reimbursement must be justified by benefit to the state, and that family travel is suspect or prohibited; only Palin's own campaign says otherwise. But, with the blessing of her own staffmember, Palin claimed over $20,000 in airline expenses for her minor children, more than half of it for a girl who was 6 years old when the gravy train left the station.

The other family expenses are questionable, too. Apparently she hired her own husband to conduct a fact-finding trip to Canada. (Remember when Joe Wilson was vicously trashed by the right wing for supposedly having been hired by his own wife as a sinecure, after his fact-finding trip to Africa revealed that the administration's claims regarding Iraqi uranium sources were bogus? This despite the fact that he was a former ambassador in Africa and Iraq and an international consultant, was not hired by his wife, and did produce accurate and useful - though humiliating - information. But somehow Todd Palin the oil-slope worker and salmon fisherman is an Alaskan government consultant conducting planning meetings with the Alberta Institute of Technology?) Palin also conveniently scheduled "official" state trips with her whole family to the church the family already attends, which is located in the state capital. (Yes: the governor of Alaska reimbursed herself for traveling to the state capital, where she was expected to be already, in order to give $25,000 in state money to her own church.) It was also necessary, official, state business for the entire family to travel to Iditarod to visit a snowmobile race that Palin's husband just happens to compete in every year.

Whether or not Palin's legitimate state expenses are more or less than those of her predecessor, she's clearly milking the per diem and travel allowance program for perks that have to be regarded as "loopholes" at best. The program was not intended to pay people to live in their own homes, or to take their kids on family vacations and church outings at state expense. Palin's lame excuse is that as governor she is required to get out and meet people, and therefore everything she does in the state is "official business". As Governor Knowles quite properly put it, clearly that is, and looks like, a scam.

Let's see...Lame Stream Media gangs up on Governor Palin on issues that should be insulting to reasonable people with a modicum of respect for another well meaning human being. At the same time, Barrack Obama has, over more than a decade, engaged in activities that are most probably unethical and corrupt. Since he took his seat in the US Senate, though in attendance for only 150 days, he has apparently continued that program of self promotion and enrichment by delivering earmarks to his wife's employer (the kickback was in the form of her tripled salary) and by the not so well concealed bribe he took from Tony Reszko's puppet master (in the form of his "subsidized" million dollar plus house and lot).
Maybe instead of focusing on the Governor, the MSM and Justice Department should take a hard look at the junior Senator from Illinois, with an eye towards indicting him on Federal corruption charges. Maybe, instaed of running for POTUS, Barrack Obama should be running from the law.

I am a Palin supporter so maybe my judgment is tainted. But it sure seems that her opponents are spending alot of time "crying wolf" and are progressively losing credibility and ,perhaps, votes. And it is hard for me to imagine that relentless focus on the bottom-half of the McCain ticket is helping O'Bama.

I certainly don't want to do enough research to become an expert on this, but from what I can tell from reading some stories on "per diems" in the Anchorage paper, what Palin did is exactly what is expected. And it doesn't seem like anyone expects the governor or anyone else to be in Juneau when the legislature isn't in session; you can't get from Juneau to anywhere else except by plane or boat, so it doesn't make any sense to be there unless you have to be.

I think those defending the Post article are missing the bigger picture. If the real gripe is that she does not have the experience or training to be a vice president, then that should be the focus. Pointless articles about this made up scandal or that one distract from this point. As a result, rather than defending the Post Article, they too should be attacking the Post for getting diverted on a total side issue. I am a Palin supporter and disagree with this view of her qualifications, but it annoys me when I wind up talking about how per diems work in Alaska. Because I don't care. In fact, I don't really care how Biden gets to and from the Senate and I think he is a total blowhard.

There is (or may be) a real debate here on qualifications, but you would never know it from the endless sniping and counter-sniping on travel or some off-hand comment about evolution, or the like. On this point, I would note that neither Truman, FDR, Kennedy or even Clinton had Presidential level "experience" before taking on the job. About the only person I can think of in the post WWII era who did was Eisenhower. More generally, I am not sure that there is any experience that really prepares anyone.

But there is one thing you cannot say. You cannot say that Palin is in anyway qualified or ready to be President of the United States. Shouldn't that be what matters???

Speeches and education opportunities based more on race than intelligence aside, please identify for me even on EXECUTIVE DECISION Barry has ever had to make in his political career. Just one. Even a trivial one.

What's that you say? He has no Executive experience? You don't say!

Remind me again why he's more qualified on paper than Palin is.

Lemme ask you this:. If you were on the board of directors of a company and needed to replace the CEO, would you dip into the pool of talent that had executive decision making experience, or would you randomly pull someone from the assembly line? That seems to be the choice we are being asked to make.

Hmmmm.

@ DaveM43

"Lemme ask you this:. If you were on the board of directors of a company and needed to replace the CEO, would you dip into the pool of talent that had executive decision making experience, or would you randomly pull someone from the assembly line? That seems to be the choice we are being asked to make."

Really?

Care to explain where and when you've encountered someone from a "assembly line" that was able to make a deal to build a multi-billion dollar natural gas pipeline from Alaska, through Canada and to the lower 48, in cooperation with major energy companies?

Go ahead and take your time. I've worked in manufacturing so I know first hand how smart and clever "assembly line" people can be.

Though I am a bit dubious about your chances.

The palpable desperation is amazing.

If this is the best opposition there is ("University of Idaho! Claimed a per diem for living at home when it wasn't her official residence!"), I guess we should start buying President McCain memorabilia before the rush starts.

(Oh, and Kevin? Joe Wilson's fact-finding trip to Niger? You might want to look at the Robb-Silberman Report where they point out that his report to the CIA said that the Nigeriens themselves thought that the Iraqis had been looking for Uranium. In other words, his report to the CIA backed up the President, in terms of reporting what the Government of Niger actually thought, rather than what Joe Wilson thought.

"He said, however, that in June 1999 he met with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq, which the Prime Minister interpreted as meaning the delegation wanted to discuss yellowcake sales."; Robb-Silberman Report, Nuclear Weapons Finding 4, in Chapter 1.)

technically legal but not within the spirit of per diem rules? that will go far towards winning the election. as to family expenses, many states have governor's mansions-to satisfy the newly minted "within the spirit of per diem rule" experts, shouldn't the State charge the family members rent-after all, they aren't the governor.

jawbone (mail):
Per diem, wow! And we shouldn't be concerned that Obama is taking a paycheck to represent the people of Illinois yet he does ZERO work in that capacity. I mean, really!
9.9.2008 10:01am

That's not the point. Obama never claimed ethical purity. Palin does and she should be held to fire!

"This PTA hockey Mom moose shooting Polar Bear hating talking in tongues backwoods peckerwood is never going ot be in the same league as Joe Biden, a seasoned and highly respected, and ETHICAL statesman so don't even try it."

John McCain thanks you sincerely for your continuing help with his campaign.

100 lies and scandals-so far, the "lies" and "scandals" have amounted to nothing. she isn't passing off her grandkid as her daughter. it sounds like she did address the State Police for allowing a drunken, death threat delivering in-law to remain on the force, essentially penalty free. she took per diems allowed by the law. she did kill the bridge to nowhere, as credited by no less biased a source than the Alaskan Democratic Party. She stated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are costing taxpayers money, something that was incredibly stupid per leftist talking point except for the fact it is true.

EIDE-you are precious. John McCain thanks you for keeping the debate substance free.

Obama's academic creditentials are more impressive than Palin's.

Joe Biden went to the University of Delaware (whose football helmets and uniform are a rip-off of the Wolverines). Biden also went to Syracuse University law school, where he got caught cheating his first year.

W. went to Yale undergrad and Harvard for his MBA.

Cheney flunked out of Yale and graduated from Wyoming.

Ronald Reagan graduated from a college people in Illinois have never heard of.

Nixon went to a college people in California have never heard of. He then went to Duke Law School.


Do academic credentials equal capabilities?

Can you provide a link because I've never seen where either Palin or the McCain campaign claims that Palin made a profit off the jet, nor that she actually sold it on EBay.

Look harder. John McCain said it himself, introducing Palin at a campaign rally on September 5.

sigi:

his report to the CIA backed up the President

A few significant issues with your claim are described here. Some related information here.

Calculated Risk:

I was not taking Obama's quote out of context. I am accusing him of being a pandering liar. Yes, he said that even if he wanted to, he wouldn't have the votes. Evidence abounds that Obama actually would like to ban guns, or all semi-automatic guns, or all guns within 5 miles of a school, or whatever. He clearly wants to lie about that, and then essentially says "But even if I do, I wouldn't have the power! Vote for me you bitter gun-toting rednecks!"

And the funny thing about saying that he wouldn't have the votes is that the Democrats are going to take control of the legislature and he will have the votes to push through AWB II, regulation of ammunition, and any other scheme that he has shown support for that will ultimately drive gun ownership into oblivion or spark a civil war.

Of course, at the same time the supercilious dismissive elitists in the MSM ponder how Sarah can fulfill her onerous ["pitcher of warm spit"] duties while a mother of five, they also screech &howl that she took per diem on the days off from Juneau to visit her family hundreds of miles away in Anchorage.

Do they ever reflect on how the American people judge them to be hypocritical imbeciles?

And nobody has vetted Obama or Biden, giving Obama ginormous access-passes on Rezko, Ayers, &Rev [God Damn America] Wright---while overlooking Obama's "scheduling conflicts" that prevented him from visiting his mom's deathbed in '96!

actually, jbg, the death threat was one of the substantiated allegations. but, I imagine that, as an international expert on law enforcement issues, you will explain in all your wisdom why that doesn't matter and how consensual tasering of 10 years olds is consistent with good public policy (and how pregnant 17 year olds can give birth to kids with down syndrome and still remain pregnant-if, truly, she is actually pregnant and not just borrowing her mother's fat suit).

if she did fire the state police chief for not firing a dirty cop, more power to her. after all, he reports to her and serves at her pleasure. it's not very evangelical of her given that she doesn't assume a subservient role to men, but I'll live with it.

(c) spent a lot less money on expenses than did her predecessor, especially on travel and by ridding herself of the state's personal chef.

Which also says a bit about Frank Murkowski.

it's a lot cheaper to charge the state a per diem for herself than to charge the state for a hotel in Anchorage for her family

It's a 40 mile commute. Millions of people do that every day and don't feel entitled to either a hotel or a per diem.

she apparently maintained two residences, the governor's mansion in Juneau, which by state law is her official work "base"

Why would we assume that? The whole analysis falls apart if that assumption - which doesn't seem warranted - is axed.

A pittance to what we are paying Obama to run for President rather than to act as Senator.

ed, no apology necessary. But thanks for proving my point.

But the primary question remains unanswered: What is one executive decision Barry has had to make in his political career? Hell, I'll even take an executive decision he made during his Community Organizer career. Just one. (Deciding to quit because he wouldn't get the notoriety he desired doesn't count)

Hmmm.

"Do academic credentials equal capabilities?"

*shrug* Abraham Lincoln never went to college at all.

YMMV

how consensual tasering of 10 years olds is consistent with good public policy

11, not 10 (there is conflicting information on this, but the reports which claim the boy was 10 are incorrect). And it was not "consistent with good public policy." It was dumb. That's the main reason Wooten was suspended for 5 days. But I hope you and your little straw man are having lots of fun together.

the death threat was one of the substantiated allegations

The letter telling Wooten he is suspended is here (pdf). It's quite detailed (for example, it even mentions various minor infractions, like failing to use turn signals). However, it doesn't mention the alleged death threat, or any other threats. Why?

It's true that the original Memorandum of Findings (pdf) decided to sustain the death-threat allegation, at least as a violation of trooper policy. But Col. Grimes apparently decided to overrule that finding.

This might have something to do with the fact that the threat wasn't reported to the police until two months after it happened. Or the fact that Palin said "Wooten had no reason to shoot her father." The evidence behind the allegation is shaky.

Anyway, the issue is not Wooten's behavior. He had already been investigated and punished, by a prior administration (before Palin became governor and before Palin hired Monegan). It would have been double jeopardy for Wooten to be punished again, for the same bad conduct that had already been punished (especially because there were no new facts). Double jeopardy is a violation of the 5th Amendment. It's a very bad thing that Palin didn't know this, or didn't care.

It's also pretty amazing that a large number of people on a legal blog seem to have no awareness of the concept of double jeopardy.

if she did fire the state police chief for not firing a dirty cop

The term "dirty cop" generally means a cop on the take. There was never any such allegation against Wooten. So you should stop making things up.

It costs the state of Alaska $356,500.00 annually to maintain and staff the Governor’s Mansion in Juneau. That is where the governor of Alaska is supposed to live while serving their term. The State Capitol, and legislature, is about a hundred yards down the street. Governor Palin prefers to live at home in Wasilla, over 600 miles away, and collect per diem, while the state continues to pour the money into the empty Governor’s Mansion in Juneau. That is not efficient or ethical.

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/Gov/comp9.pdf