A letter from an Wasilla resident re: her friend Palin.

[rn79870]

A resident of Wasilla (Alaska) wrote a nice letter describing her long time friendship with Palin. In all fairness, let's look at what a resident who knows Palin well has to say. By the way, Snopes verified this as true.

http://www.snopes.com/politics...y.asp

[AZhitman]

Maybe Ayres will write a letter about his homey Obama.

[szh]

A resident of Wasilla (Alaska) wrote a nice letter describing her long time friendship with Palin. In all fairness, let's look at what a resident who knows Palin well has to say. By the way, Snopes verified this as true.

http://www.snopes.com/politics...y.asp

1. Letter is apparently true.

2. "Friend"? Not accurate.

3. One persons opinion? Yes. Matters not.

Z

[rn79870]

People can be friends and still disagree. It's just another drop in the bucket.

[srellim234]

1. Letter is apparently true.

2. "Friend"? Not accurate.

3. One persons opinion? Yes. Matters not.

Z

1. True that it was written by the person purported to be the author.

2. Probably pretty accurate that the author of the letter is more of an acquaintance than a friend.

3. One persons opinion? The opinion part of your claim is true, but there are an awful lot of facts, statistics, etc. laid out there that are verifiable. It matters in that it speaks directly to her actions, not just words, on bigger federal government, bigger corporate taxes, mismanagement of projects increasing taxpayers' costs dramatically, claiming credit for things she really didn't do that are contrary to conservative ideals and Republican ideology.

Issues that refute the quality of her "executive experience" and in doing so should stimulate you to research what is still a basically unknown candidate in this race. Blindly toting the party line in the face of contradictory evidence is exactly what I thought this forum was designed to avoid, but it's obvious both the left and right are so closed minded here, anything that might legitimately put a question on your candidate and begin a rational discussion is routinely dismissed as a smear.

[The Wicker Man]

CLAIM VS FACTo "Hockey mom": true for a few years

o "PTA mom": true years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, not since

p "NRA supporter": absolutely true

o social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she did this because it was unconstitutional).

o pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to promote it.

o "Pro-life": mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life legislation. o "Experienced": Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska. No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000.

o political maverick: not at all

o gutsy: absolutely!

o open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.

o has a developed philosophy of public policy: no

o "a Greenie": no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.

o fiscal conservative: not by my definition!

o pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20th century standards.

o pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents.

o pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla’s history.

o pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union doesn't make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is pro-labor/pro-union.

[AZhitman]

I find it interesting that when a Rep does something "contrary to conservative ideals and Republican ideology", as Steve said, the left doesn't applaud it.

This tells me, simply enough, that this isn't about wanting change, it's about bashing the party and the candidate.

Just keep on thinking we're all dumb and don't see through the charade... Many of us are keeping notes.

[The Wicker Man]

it's about bashing the party and the candidate.

I think this goes both ways

[AZhitman]

I don't disagree. But I pointed it out, so I get to go first.

[srellim234]

Unfortunately a lot of what I see financially that she has done against the conservative and Republican ideology is EXACTLY 180 degrees from what I desire in a political officeholder. Bigger government, raising corporate taxes, long term bond indebtedness, lack of honesty claiming credit for things she really didn't do, mismanagement of the biggest project she undertook as mayor.

I don't see anything there that the left would or should applaud, either.

[rn79870]

Here is an interesting read on her as the tax champion the party claims she is. Since her party claims she is a fiscal winner, it's fair to look at her record.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org...ecord/

[szh]

I think this goes both ways

Of course! But, the frenzied anti-Palin rumour-mongering is pretty darn amazing - here and elsewhere.

I would never have believed how bad it could be ...

Z

[srellim234]

My criticisms of her have been strictly based on financial numbers or based on quotes vs. actions by her. I do agree that there has been way to much anti Palin hysteria based on rumor, innuendo, and personal life around here.

[rn79870]

By "rumors" do you mean the ethics violations she's facing or the documentated allegations that she tried to fire the librarian for not banning books? She's pretty much on tape doing most of those, maybe you should view them.

[szh]

Can't let go of your obsession with Palin, huhn?

Z

[telcoman]

Of course! But, the frenzied anti-Palin rumour-mongering is pretty darn amazing - here and elsewhere.

I would never have believed how bad it could be ...

Z

It is going to get worse until she meets the press and answers some very tough questions. She should have been on the Sunday talk shows yesterday. There is less than 60 days left until the election and the American people need to know more about a person that will be a single heartbeat away from the POTUS and CIC?

BTW it is no secret that Republicans have a declining membership and she was only picked to try and grab social conservative voters and well as former Hillary supporters.

Once the majority of former Hillary supporters hear more about Sarah, they are not going to vote for her. There are not enough voters on the right to hand McCain the election.

Even by some miracle should McCain win he is going to face a heavy democratic congress and not only will be out in four years but any kind of change from him is not going to happen.

Should that happen, Hillary in 2012

Telcoman

[wingFeather]

A resident of Wasilla (Alaska) wrote a nice letter describing her long time friendship with Palin. In all fairness, let's look at what a resident who knows Palin well has to say. By the way, Snopes verified this as true.

http://www.snopes.com/politics...y.asp

What a joke. Friends who know each other well do not write garbage letters for all to read. Clearly the author is a two-bit phony... desparately looking for her 15 minutes of fame (which are now over). Nice try.

[srellim234]

By "rumors" do you mean the ethics violations she's facing or the documentated allegations that she tried to fire the librarian for not banning books? She's pretty much on tape doing most of those, maybe you should view them.

"Troopergate" is not "ethics violations she's facing." It is an investigation into allegations of an ethics violation. There is a huge difference. You have her pegged as guilty until proven innocent. Try it the other way around.

By "rumors" I mean junk like the unsubstantiated claim that the child was not hers and really was her daughter's. Which, by the way, I don't believe the OP of that thread ever even acknowledged that he was wrong. If it happened, I missed it.

[szh]

Which, by the way, I don't believe the OP of that thread ever even acknowledged that he was wrong. If it happened, I missed it.

AFAIK, he did not. Inspite of my post asking for it.

Z

[rn79870]

AFAIK, he did not. Inspite of my post asking for it.

Z

I think if you read it, you will see that it is clearly called a "rumor" and in fact, it was a rumor. No one claimed it was fact.

[srellim234]

I think it is a liberal taking campaign directions from Carl Rove.

If you throw enough fertilizer at someone, eventually that target is going to stink.

Z- do you see my point about violations vs. allegations and the guilty until proven innocent comments?

[szh]

I think it is a liberal taking campaign directions from Carl Rove.

If you throw enough fertilizer at someone, eventually that target is going to stink.

Exactly the attempt that is being made. FWIW, I don't have any respect for Rove either.

Z- do you see my point about violations vs. allegations and the guilty until proven innocent comments?

Yes. And I totally agree with it. The problem is how we are presenting this "material" here.

Z

[szh]

I think if you read it, you will see that it is clearly called a "rumor" and in fact, it was a rumor. No one claimed it was fact.

And, after you posted this scurrilous rumour, you should have apologized for having done so.

But you didn't.

I now know to no longer expect any differently from your posts. Shrug.

Regardless of which, as I have mentioned before, this was part of the reason why, after the rumour-mongering, innuendo and unreasonable attacks on Gov. Palin here, I got off the fence that I had been on and firmly planted my support for McCain-Palin.

So, the tactics backfired in my case at least! And, I hope it will do the same for others.

Z

[rn79870]

And, after you posted this scurrilous rumour, you should have apologized for having done so.

But you didn't.

I now know to no longer expect any differently from your posts. Shrug.

Regardless of which, as I have mentioned before, this was part of the reason why, after the rumour-mongering, innuendo and unreasonable attacks on Gov. Palin here, I got off the fence that I had been on and firmly planted my support for McCain-Palin.

So, the tactics backfired in my case at least! And, I hope it will do the same for others.

Z

That doesn't speak real well for your concern for the issues facing the country, does it?

Anyway, back on topic. The lady who wrote the letter knew Palin, and published substanted facts about her inability to lead. Is this not relevant to campaign 2008?

[szh]

That doesn't speak real well for your concern for the issues facing the country, does it?

You do not know me.

Quite the contrary, while I do not blindly agree with everything that every politician says, I believe in fairness and balancing the best of all possible outcomes. I am far more concerned about the issues of my adopted country than the vast majority of apathetic voters in the US.

Z

[wingFeather]

published substanted facts about her inability to lead.

Hey, can you post a link to these facts? I would like to read them.

[AZhitman]

"Troopergate" is not "ethics violations she's facing." It is an investigation into allegations of an ethics violation. There is a huge difference. You have her pegged as guilty until proven innocent. Try it the other way around.

Refreshing to see someone who can set aside partisanship and call this nonsense exactly what it is.

Well-stated, Steve.

[rn79870]

Hey, can you post a link to these facts? I would like to read them.

I did. It's in the OP.

[rn79870]

You do not know me.

Quite the contrary, while I do not blindly agree with everything that every politician says, I believe in fairness and balancing the best of all possible outcomes. I am far more concerned about the issues of my adopted country than the vast majority of apathetic voters in the US.

Z

If you choose not to believe the carefully documented evidence that relates to a politician's inability to serve, then that's fair. But the simple fact is that given the ubiquitous amount of information that all reflects negatively on a persons ability to serve, some of it, even a little bit of it, has to be true. If that's the case, then it's better we find out before we vote than after when there is little to do about it? Or should we blindly assume that our party would never choose an inappropriate person for a running mate?

[wingFeather]

I did. It's in the OP.

Oh, I thought perhaps there was a link listing all of Palin's flaws. Not just a letter written by some lady who "knows" Sarah's mother-in-law or seven degress of Kevin Bacon...

LOL @:"Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah's attempt at censorship."

IMHO