Tuesday Highlights

Good morning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


  1. Boonton says:

    Unfortunately it appears Ms Palin has been shifting her views on this. In 2002 she was gung ho for creationism in the classroom but by 06 morphed her view into not changing the textbooks but just being ‘open for debate’ should a student raise the topic.

    In other words, there is credible evidence that Palin did support some form of creationism in the schools. In contrast, no one has ever been able to point to any evidence that Obama is or was a Muslim beyond the “he has a funny name” argument.

    Sadly, it appears her famous opposition to the ‘bridge to nowhere’ is also turning out to be a lie. She supported it until it became a political liability at which point she turned on it.

  2. Mark says:

    That sounds just great to me as its in line with my notions of localization and that she has a proper (Constitutional) notion of state/federal vs local authority. I’m unconvinced that this is a “change of views” just a change of her position in government.

    Obama has a Muslim father and step siblings … under some Islamic rules, being born of a Muslim father “makes” one Muslim, I believe.

  3. Boonton says:

    Check the comments section of the blog you linked too, this is her 2002 quote:

    Q: The education section of the Republican Party of Alaska’s platform states “We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory.” Do you support this position? Why?

    A: I support this plank in the Republican Party’s platform. I believe society can have healthy debates on scientific theories, so equal representation of creation and evolution shouldn’t be an offense.

    She clearly was embracing not a local view of school politics but an attempt to force ID as a top down policy.

    In normal English usage to ‘be a Muslim’ means you subscribe or at least profess some type of belief in the Islamic religion. Even in Muslim countries, Obama would not qualify. For example, if he sought to enter the city of Meca his family status would not be sufficient to meet their requirements.

    Your assertion would be valid if Palin was not on record as supporting ID before she decided to oppose it. She actively choose her positions in 2002 as well as her flip flops in 2006. The argument that Obama is a Muslim that stands slightly above the ‘he has a silly name’ argument still revolves around no actual individual choice of belief or statement on Obama’s part.

  4. Boonton says:

    More Palin problems:


    Nice summary of Palin’s local gov’t career:

    As mayor gov’t spending went up 33% and taxes collected rose 38% during a period of low inflation.

    She cut property taxes on large corporate owners and raised regressive sales taxes, even taxing food.

    City debt went from $0 to $22m. The borrowing went neither for a library or sewarge treatment plant the city needed but a $1m park and a $15m sports complex which, because the city didn’t have clear title to the land, sits in litigation 7 yrs later.

    As mayor she tried to oust the city librarian for refusing to remove books that she objected too. City residents had to rally to his defense.

    As governor she took the oil surpluses generated by the oil price increase and distributed them to individuals. At the same time, necessary road construction was funded by borrowing money.

    Needless to say, she happily supported the ‘bridge to nowhere’ and plenty of other pork projects only switching sides when the bridge became subjected to nationwide scorn.

    She has a history of outsting people who know how to do their jobs and replacing them with personal cronies that owe 100% loyality to her and only her. The culmination of this was/is the brewing troopergate scandal where she tried to have a police officer fired for the offense of going through a custody fight with her sister. Think of Hillary’s personality problems multiplied by a factor of ten or so.

    What’s coming out is not a pretty picture and this is just the beginning.

  5. Mark says:

    And in 2002 … she was ??? not governor. “Top down” from a local position is meaningless.

    My point is that she opposed it from a statewide position and held to it locally. Which in my view is perfectly fine.

    Ah, Mr Sullivan, sorry he’s flipped my idiot bit a few weeks ago. I don’t believe his veracity any longer, he is completely partisan and dishonest these days.

    (Apparently the “troopergate” scandal may if anything play well for the electorate, for some suggestions are that the officer involved was beating her sister physically)

  6. Mark says:

    Explain all this inadequacy in light of 80+% approval ratings? Just good public relations and a pretty smile? Clearly something is being done right.

  7. Boonton says:

    1. Your assertion that she did not endorse the mandate to teach creationism in schools has been demonstrated to be false. Yes you can, if you wish, make it a point that she flip flopped on that issue when she became gov.

    2. Sullivan was quoting another blog so sorry, don’t try the “nanana I don’t believe anything Sully says” line. Either the facts are correct or they are false.

    3. Suggestions the officer was beating her sister? That’s pretty clear cut, file charges. Most places I’m aware of a domestic violence conviction is an automatic grounds for termination from a police department. Since when are charges of domestic violence judged from the gov.’s office when one of the parties is the governor’s own sister? Or are you going to tell us Palin is so pure of motive that she can disregard seperation of powers, conflict of interest and just about everything else people normally think is part of good government.

  8. Boonton says:

    Explain all this inadequacy in light of 80+% approval ratings

    It’s not so much their inadequacy as the fact that factoid lends little support to her overall adequacy.

  9. Mark says:

    On #1, she hasn’t necessarily flipped or flopped. One’s views of what can be enforced on a state and what is appropriate to be enforced in a particular community can be different at the same time without a flip flop. Why don’t you get that?

    #2 I haven’t read her record and I have no reason to believe or doubt the statistics your provide or to find out if they are cherry picking or ignoring valid reasons for any of the decision behind what you’re talking about. And I doubt Sully’s blogger checked in very much detail for what was going on, and figure they were looking for a particular kind of material and found (or found ways to interpret what was found) to meet their partisan needs.

    #3 You think domestic abuse is always “clear cut”? Hmm. That’s odd. The legisator (Democratic) who was interviewed Friday on NewsHour was more cognizant of the details and less sure of the accusation than you. Shouldn’t that give you pause?

  10. Boonton says:

    The response to a domestic abuse allegation is clear cut because accusations are not. Accusations are supposed to be levied in a court of law and heard before an impartial judge or jury in the case of a criminal trial. I do not see how having the alleged victim’s sister deciding to fire you a valid method of hearing such a case by a ‘corruption fighting’ politician.

  11. Mark says:

    My point on that had nothing to do with law or justice. It had to do with the court of public opinion.

    And I thought it was a transfer not a firing.

  12. Boonton says:

    I guess we shall see.

  13. Boonton says:

    It’s interesting how far you’ve fallen as well as other GOP Kool-Aid drinkers. Before you said that you believed government was more often the cause of a problem rather than the solution. Well right in your face is evidence that this woman caused problems. She sacked good people to bring in cronies. She abused her power as an Executive to settle family scores. She raised taxes and spending yet still found it necessary to have the taxpayers borrow millions of dollars at a time when oil revenues were bringing in surpluses. The city she was mayor of sits without a sewere treatment plant but a multi-million dollar ‘sports complex’ (which I don’t doubt has plenty of luxury boxes for the smoozing of bigwigs). She has embraced pork barrel spending, until public scorn caused her to flip flop. On a cultural front she tried to ban books from the library, tried to oust the librarian for resisting her (this is what we need? a war on librarians?). She appears to have belonged to an anti-American seccessionist party whose founder was mysteriously found shot to death (her husband has been verified as a member) and to boot ala Rev. Wright she has sat through sermons of a Pastor who asserts Jewish victims of terrorism in Israel are being punished by God for not becoming Christians.

    But I’ll give you credit. She’s certainly an outsider.

  14. Boonton says:

    And to bring it home, she still said point blank she wants Creation Science taught with equal representation as evolution in schools. It is perfectly fair to call her out on that and absolutely nothing like calling Obama a Muslim. You didn’t say anything in your original assertions about her only supporting ‘local control of schools or anything like that.

  15. Administrator says:

    I have linked to and noted the actual quotes from here where she said that she wanted debate in the schools.

    You also seem to believe everything negative said about here, talk about drinking the koolaid. For example, why at this point tie her to the Alaskan secessionist party, that’s already been debunked.

    Look. I don’t have a strong opinion on Ms Palin at this point. I don’t have very much credible information, but the strong wind of negative press is causing me to lean “against” it at this point, because I don’t trust the media’s judgement in this matter.

  16. Boonton says:

    Fair point on the Secessionist party although the headline I saw indicated she was both at their convention & her husband belonged to it. When I have time I’ll read the details in the article.

    AS for the schools, you linked to a bunch of 2006 quotes where she began to backpeddle…pretending the creationism debate was over students beling allowed to bring up questions about ID in the classroom. I provided you with 2002 quotes where she clearly advocated giving creationism equal representation. This fits perfectly with the assertion that “Ms Palin wants creationism in the schools” in the blog you bashed.

    Your response(s)

    1. “And in 2002 … she was ??? not governor”

    Good question, who was she in 2002? She was trying to run as the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor. Notice how you shift the goal posts?

    2. Try to confuse the issue with ‘local control’…whatever that means.

    First she was endorsing a plank requiring equal time. That’s hardly ‘local control’ nor did the quote say anything about only supporting that plank on the local level and not making it a statewide requirement.

    Second why don’t you try to approach this from the POV of the voter who expects honest answers? What in her quote would say to the voter who wants a statewide ‘equal time’ mandate for creationism “hold on, she’s for letting local schools decide this one!”? Absolutely nothing.

    3. You compared this charge to Obama being a Muslim yet:

    a. Nothing Obama said in 2002 could be read as being Muslim.

    b. Nothing Obama said or did of his own free will could be read by a reasonably fair minded person as being Muslim.

    c. Yet at best the quotes from Palin regarding creationism can be said to be confusing as to whether she supports teaching creationism in public schools or simply supports some vague ‘let the locals decide’ position.

  17. Boonton says:


    All it says is that Palin wasn’t registered as a party supporter. Her husband was registered as a party supporter and there’s conflicting statements as to whether or not she attended the party’s convention (the guy who doesn’t remember her admits he wouldn’t have taken note of her at the time and she very well might have been there). It is noted that the party has supporters who nonetheless register Republican.

    The issue remains pretty much open then. What was her involvement with this party and its aims to break Alaska off of the US? Here’s even more fairplay, being that her state is closest to Russia shouldn’t she have to explain to the American people why she should be trusted with the office of Commander-in-Chief and whether she thinks the US should be willing to give up one of its most resource rich states that also would be of vital strategic importance if the Cold War ever flared up again or even became hot?

  18. Boonton says:

    If only the Democrats had a Karl Rove…I could envision the commercial:

    Fade to white: Fake Headlines:

    Alaska declared its own state! One less star on US flag!

    Alaska signs pact with Putin; US radar stations/navel bases to leave by 2015

    Over US objections, Russia installs “SDI” Missile bases in Alaska. Alaskan President Palin threatens to redirect pipeline accross Bearing Straight if US imposes sanctions!

    Cut to blue background, US flag flying “Obama: One country, One flag and 50 Stars!”

  19. Mark says:

    I’m not sure what your “Retract!” remark is meant to say. The linked quote basically boils down to noting that her husband was associated with the party, but there is no evidence (either way) that she was or wasn’t … and there is evidence for the GOP. Open … well that depends on how you want to play it. There is no evidence that Obama wasn’t a serial bomber either … but he did associate with one … so what does that mean? Should Obama’s associations with oil and fertilizer remain “open”?

  20. Boonton says:

    Interesting point. Sitting on a grant making board with an education professor is not associating with a ‘serial bomber’. Even if the man was a serial bomber in his past you seem to be stretching the “he did it too” analogy to the breaking point. What if Michele Obama had been a card carrying member of the Weather Underground? That would have been quite a different matter and don’t think for a moment the GOP wouldn’t pounce on it.

    Her husband was or possibly is a registered member. People remember her attending the convention of the party & others have been known to be both registered Republicans and supporters of the party. This makes it very important and Palin should come forward now and explain what her relationship is to this party exactly, what impact her husband’s support of it has on her and what she thinks of the party’s aims.

    The idea that someone who may entertain the idea that the state with such an important strategic location as Alaska should become an independent country and this person is going to be put right next to the presidency needs to be debated. I’m not saying this alone should be fatal to the GOP ticket but it deserves a lot more than “well she’s on the GOP roster and not AIMs so it must be ok”.

  21. Boonton says:

    Just to show the difference, there is a long standing debate over Puerto Rico….should it become a US state ? Remain a territory? Or become a nation? One could be a perfectly good American and support a island vote on that issue. One could also support the island voting to become a nation independent of the US.

    Alaska is a different story. First, since Alaska’s already a state, supporting a vote that has seccession as a valid outcome tosses into question the whole Civil War point that the Union could not be dissolved. That’s not something the party of Lincoln should take lightly. Second, supporting a vote that could result in Alaska’s independence is a major change in the US’s national security status. Given that Palin’s supporters are trying to tell us the fact that her state borders Russia gives her foreign policy experience….it is very fair to ask what type of can of worms would the US be opening if it allowed the one state that does border Russia and has a massive amount of resources to seperate from the US and become its own nation.

    While it’s perfectly fine for everyday folks to toy with the idea a foreign policy minded person should be expected to think about this sort of thing before attending a party convention or allowing her husband to become a registered member (sorry, your family does reflect upon you….her husband’s membership is not countered by any evidence that his wife disagreed with him or was ‘letting him do his own thing’). Even if they did briefly support the idea they should be happy to tell us why they entertained it and ultimately found it a bad idea. Their answer could go a ways to dispelling doubts about her foreign policy mind.

    Needless to say, if she does support the idea (and I don’t beleive she has yet to say she doesn’t) then it is vitally urgent that is put into the debate now that there’s only two months until the election!