To Dr. Guy: We still share some common ground. You won't see me quoting from Daily Kos or Moveon.org because of their obvious bias. And I do endevour to fact check.

Daiwa and I agree as to the basic facts of the plane sale, for example. He offers a different interpretation while to me the fact that the plane was sold to a Republican contributor for less than the purchase price is not only germane, but central. Specifically to the point the "and made a profit for the people of Alaska" part was repeated when John McCain was in Michigan. It simply is not true.

Moving on the Bridge to Nowhere, it has been by now thoroughly documented (Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Bloomberg) that the construction of a highway costing taxpayers $100 million goes on. That is not open to dispute.

Anthony, in my initial post I quoted newspaper sources. It is not tin foil hat stuff and it is disparaging of you to say so. To offer that McCain wouldn't have picked her if he thought she wasn't the "right stuff".....you do know that they had only had one cell phone call (by John McCain's own admission) before she was offered the nomination?

I'd still like a specific reference to the initial and subsquent quotes.  This is the first time you've used the word 'repeated.'

Try as you might Larry, I don't think you're going to succeed in making a little gently rolling hill out of this molehill, let alone a mountain.  William Ayers is off-limits (I'm sure you're aware of the 'outrage' over the Kurtz interview on a Chicago radio station) but the Dems have at least 30 lawyers in Wasilla trying to pick every nit of Palin's political career & spin it as something bad.  And I think that they will not only fail, but that whatever they try to trumpet as evidence of evil will be met with an even more furious backlash than has already occurred. True colors are truly coming out.  I'm about to the point where I have only one more thing to say on this & that's 'Meh.'

And what's up with the add in the middle of Larry's post today?  I'm a subscriber & logged in - what the hell's that doing there?

You only quoted part of them, the part that would give the wrong impression and push an agenda.  Again, all perfectly legal.  But not very ethical.

Boy, Dr. guy, you are really bending over backwards to try to hold me to a standard that you yourself have never even come close to. I cited source and date for each article. Easily verifiable. Nor, if you looked up the articles, did what I post contradicte the tone of any article. How is that unethical?

Daiwa, Newsday link: http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/saturday/nation/ny-usebay065831440sep06,0,7486973.story

Linked version is quite favorable to Palin in summary, but does corroborate the facts as presented. Please also note the line "State officials said they sold it through a broker for $2.1 million - a loss." (Also note the story is written one day AFTER my post, so the acknowledgement that the plane was in fact sold at a loss was not made at that time.)

Palin has a very limited political track record. But what she has done contradicts what she is promising to do.

Well, that's to be expected.  You see, when one professes conservativism, you're not held to any standards anymore on this site - you can say whatever you want and get away with it.

Barack Obama’s reference to “lipstick on a pig” .... a slap at VP nominee Sarah Palin

Here is a quote from a reputable source.  CNN actually.  Seems clear from the quote that Obama was calling Palin a pig, right?  So it cant be refuted.

That is your logic.  However, reading the whole story indicates that is not the whole truth.  But since I referenced the story and it was reputable, it must be right?  And that is all you get. So what do you believe?

That in essence is what you did.  Cherry picked.  But you are wrong.  While I am the first to admit that I have made mistakes (and so admitted it to you), I do try to be fair and only call a pig a pig when it is a pig.  I thought you did the same as well - until now.  For whatever reason, you are now just another mesmerized Obamabot.  Nothing illegal about that.  And your ethics are your own, so I am glad you can excuse it away.  But dont sell me your bilge water and call it Eau de Toilet.

Those of you who say that the people who support McCain/Palin are stupid or flawed in some way, are wrong! I am from a family of Republicans and have many Republican friends. None of us are stupid, all of us have good educations, are well read, consider other points of view and have strong traditional values. So, do not insult me because I don't agree with you. I live in a liberal college town and that seems to be the first strategy among libs--attack the enemy's intelligence, I guess so the opponents reconsider to be "smart" like them. It hasnt changed my mind and has only made me more resolute in my thinking. 

McCain/Palin '08   

Looks more & more that you're assessment & prediction are going to be frustrated, Larry.

At this point, Biden is looking more like BO's Eagleton than Palen is looking like McCain's.  Of course, I'm ignoring the fact that the Eagleton scenario involved a real health issue, rather than an alleged political liability issue.

I'm sure someone will come back with the claim that vetting is the real issue, but if BO had been 'vetted' in the way Palin's opponents would have vetted her, he would never have been allowed to run.

hey Larry, you just don't write enought!

First remember Innocent until proven guilty? that pretty much sums up Palin firing her ex-brother in law.

There has to be a reason why the left is throwing so much crap at her life, could it be that they are afraid she might be the one reason people might vote Republican when there is no other?

I don't like McCain. Like Oboma even less, Biden is a jerk the one bright spot in this campaign is Palin.

Ms Palin has already decided to declare war on Russia if they get out of hand. Does she have any troops left?

No, Ms. Palin would not have any troops - the VP does not command any troops.  But the president commands many,.  So when do we start bombing Pakistan?

That was so insane. All Palin said was that she wanted Georgia to become part of NATO. If Russians attack any member of NATO, all NATO members would have to respond. This policy goes back to WWII, so its odd that the press would have run a headline like, 'Palin seeks to attack Russia,' or whatever crazy thing they said. Whats even more insane is that you believe it.

Yeah, I haven't seen Palin telling and quadriplegic people to "Stand up!!!" At least not lately.

I need to apologize for not keeping up on this, I can only offer the press of work and home life have priority.

Lipstickmama, please note that I have not called anyone stupid, in this post or any other that I can recall.

Anthony R and Dr. Guy are quite correct. If you heard her interview in the entirety, Ms. Palin's remarks were temperate, especially her re-interpretation of the so-called "Bush Doctrine." Unfortunately her remarks were "cherry picked," something that I would never do....okay, joking there. She never said nor implied that she would declare war on Russia, nor for that matter ever wrote a "blank check for war" to Israel.

On the other hand....for anyone who cares, Sarah Palin's husband and 12 others have been subpoened as part of an investigation into the dismissal of Walt Monegan, the former public service commissioner. Not judging her guilty, perhaps some will dismiss it as partisan politics. Will the investigation hurt the Republican campaign? My opinion is that it will.

By the way, source: http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN1246165920080914

Moderateman, thank you so much for posting. We sometimes agree, more often disagree, but you are always most welcome. As you said to me once in a time of need, stay strong.

Daiwa, if I have not expressed it sufficiently before, thank you for your well-reasoned and challenging remarks. The Biden case is troubling, The money has been given back, his son has quit the lobbying firm, but perhaps late.

Dr. Guy, I fully admit to being fallible, biased, even opinionated. It was "unethical" that I disagreed with. And strongly disagreed with at that.

Time and again, her successes have been oeverstated, exagerrated. Let me offer this quote from the Wall Street Journal, not exactly a left-wing publication:

"Gov. Palin likes to boast that she finally got Alaska’s big natural-gas pipeline project moving, after years of false starts. She did sign a contract with TransCanada, a pipeline company, to eventually build a pipeline that would carry gas from Alaska’s North Slope down the lower 48 states.

But the state’s agreement with TransCanada doesn’t include any guarantees the pipeline will actually be built. And Alaska hasn’t locked up the gas needed to fill the pipeline. In that sense, Gov. Palin’s barekknuckle approach to the diversified international oil giants–steps like raising the royalty fees oil companies pay the state–may make it tougher for her to fulfill her domestic-energy promises."

Let me add a quote from Bert Stedman, Republican co-chair of the Alaska state senate finance committee:

Ms. Palin’s bill seemed intentionally written to keep the three major Alaska oil producers from submitting proposals. Demonizing Big Oil, he added, could come back to haunt the state. “It’s a sad state of affairs, but it’s true: if you look at the politics of the state and you want to have a devil, you can point at Exxon, as well as at BP and Conoco,” Mr. Stedman said. “It is good politics.”

Article in its entirety: http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/09/11/palins-pipeline-pols-jabs-at-big-oil-could-come-back-to-hurt-them/

From the Houston Chronicle: "An examination of the project has found that she has overstated both the progress that has been made and the certainty of success.

The pipeline exists only on paper. The first section has yet to be laid, federal approvals are years away, and the pipeline will not be completed for at least a decade.

In fact, the pipeline might never be built."

Source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5994825.html

You can add the claim regarding Federal earmarks to the list of exagerrations. Acknowledging that Ms. Palin did in fact REDUCE requests for Federal earmarks, John McCain agreed that she did not eliminate them:

"John McCain got it wrong Friday when he asserted that his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, had not requested any earmarks, the spending directives lawmakers insert in spending bills that McCain has vowed to eliminate.

Palin, in fact, requested $198 million in federal earmarks in February, including such expenses as $487,000 to fight obesity in Alaska and $4 million to develop recreational trails."

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-earmarks13-2008sep13,0,4231195.story

A week and more after I posted the original article all the statements I made have been supported. The investigation into Trooper-gate is proceeding, the Highway to Nowhere is costing Federal taxpayors $100 million, the plane is acknowledged to have been sold at a loss, other statements such as the gas pipeline and earmarks have been greatly exagerrated.

Nothing unethical about my calling a lie what it is, a lie.

That hardly makes the allegation of 'misuse of authority' any more true than it was 10 days ago.

Acknowledged by whom, and on the basis of what valuation?  I haven't heard that.

Without defending the statements, per se, do you really believe that BO's 'achievements' have not been exagerrated?  This is politics.  We're all grown ups.  We can figure it out.

And thanks for your kind words.  Here's back at ya.

From one of my replies in another thread on this topic:

Governments do not depreciate.  Since depreciation is solely a tax gimmick, and governments (in the US at least) do not pay taxes, all assets are listed at the purchase price.  So saying it was sold "at a loss" is technically correct.  But hardly a scandal, and indeed if the valuation was done at market, instead of book, it would be incorrect.

Of course they are!  It is politics after all.  I dont think you are, but for the record, are you then implying that Obama's are not being overstated and exagerated?  Breaking news!  The sun rose in the east today!  Film at 11.

Thanks for the explanation, Dr. Guy.  Makes sense, so I'm glad to award Larry a point on a technicality.

Hey Daiwa, when was the last time you bought a vehicle and later sold it for a profit?

When Tony Rezko bought it from me.

I was able to sell one of my cars a few years ago for more than the corresponding BB value so technically I made a 'profit.'

I still don't get what the advertisement is doing in the middle of the body of Larry's article.  Anybody else seeing that?

Ok, let me be more specific.  How many times or how often do you sell a vehicle that you sold it for more than you paid?  The point being that most vehicles depreciate quickly after purchase. 

Yes I see it.  I've noticed it on a few other blogs as well.

A-D -

To answer your specific question, never of course.  Despite Dr. Guy's explanation, even a government has to sell assets at a price the market will bear.  Why buy a used piece of equipment at the retail asking price when you can have a new one for the same cost?  It's all a tempest in a teapot, anyway.