Citizen Voices

It was with great anticipation that I viewed Sarah Palin's speech , given Wednesday at the Republican National Convention . I was not disappointed: the vice presidential candidate addressed real issues and presented herself as someone of conviction who would stand her ground rather than bow to the powers that be in Washington. She cleverly used her own experience (as a "community organizer") and beliefs ("the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery") to undermine Obama's rhetoric . All the while, she struck me as likable and a real promoter of change. Fortunately, she did much in the way of presenting the American people with her own accomplishments, something a large percentage of the news articles I have read conveniently fail to mention. (Her previous praise in the liberal media seems to be left forgotten.)

After researching her activities in government and listening to her speech, I extrapolate the following about Palin: She stands up to her opponents and promotes real reform where reform is needed. She won the gubernatorial race in Alaska on the basis of desiring to clean up government. She is a tough cookie who has opposed own party when necessary. She values reducing America's dependency on foreign oil by expanding oil and natural development at home, but at the same time, she is opposed to big oil and supports higher taxes on oil company profits. She sought to put the money gained by the government (through oil revenue) back into the hands of Alaskans. Throughout her gubernatorial stint, Palin has remained true to her word and down-to-earth. She sold a private jet, purchased with government money, on eBay. She has family serving in the military, and with her son set to deploy in a few short days she understands the general heart-felt desire to bring our troops home while at the same time aware that it would be foolish to forfeit on those grounds alone, while the Iraqi people remain in such a precarious security situation.

Matthew C. Scallon
September 04, 2008 at 07:20 PM
Hopefully, my friend Akismet isn't treating my comment here as "spam" as it is being treated on another post. If that be the case, let me take umbridge --albeit gentle unbridge-- with your complaint about the coverage of Gov. Palin. Full disclosure: whiile I am pro-life, I am neither conservative nor Republican. I am a member and web rabbi for Democrats for Life of America. Now that that's done, complaining about how pro-lifers and conservatives are treated by media other than Fox News is akin to spitting in the wind. John Leo in his former "U.S. News & World Report" explained better than I can how the left-wing bias in news rooms work; he should know. A better tactic --at least better for me-- is to make myself a better news consumer. What I do is to push past their filter and go to social networking sites to get the raw footage so that, instead of depending upon KPBS to tell me what the issues on the campaign should be, I can make up my own mind without their help. Take the aforementioned Jeremiah Wright incidents. These stories only became issues when his sermons ended up on YouTube and only after weeks into the campaign. Now, a bit off-topic of my comment, politicians no longer have the luxury of private lives, especially when politicians, like good Stepford residents, drag their families out on the stage as evidence of how qualified they are for office. As I've commented elsewhere, I wish this weren't so, b/c IMHO I don't believe a politician's family life either qualifies or disqualifies them for public office. That's my $0.02.

A Musing Reamus from Carlsbad
September 04, 2008 at 08:34 PM
Before we nominate her for sainthood, lets read what one who seems to know her thinks: ABOUT SARAH PALIN by Anne Kilkenny I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992. Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her father was my child's favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the city. She is enormously popular; in every way she’s like the most popular girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won't vote for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because she is a "babe". It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for seven months. She is "pro-life". She recently gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby. There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby. She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym. She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out there" and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit. Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin’s kind of job is highly sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything like that of native Alaskans. Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters. She's smart. Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000 (at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about 670,000 residents. During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign. Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a “fiscal conservative”. During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents. The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren’t enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn’t even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing. While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated more than once. These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city. As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state. In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's surplus, borrow for needs. She’s not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them. While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day. Sarah complained about the “old boy’s club” when she first ran for Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of "old boys". Palin fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal--loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of pressuring the State’s top cop (see below). As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla’s Police Chief because he “intimidated” her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska's top cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support. She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn’t like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness. Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her. When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job which paid $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the “old boys’ club” when she dramatically quit, exposing this man’s ethics violations (for which he was fined). As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the “bridge to nowhere” after it became clear that it would be unwise not to. As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of these projects--which had been vetoed simply because she was not aware of their importance--but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as “anti-pork”. She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal conservative. Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They call her “Sarah Barracuda” because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah's mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her. As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package of legislation known as “AGIA” that forced the oil companies to march to the beat of her drum. Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. She campaigned “as a private citizen” against a state initiaitive that would have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the State’s lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior’s decision to list polar bears as threatened species. McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a heartbeat away from being President. There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable and experienced than she. However, there’s a lot of people who have underestimated her and are regretting it. CLAIM VS FACT •“Hockey mom”: true for a few years •“PTA mom”: true years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, not since •“NRA supporter”: absolutely true •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 unconsitutional). •pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to promote it. •“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 •“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. •political maverick: not at all •gutsy: absolutely! •open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions. •has a developed philosophy of public policy: no •”a Greenie”: no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR. •fiscal conservative: not by my definition! •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. •pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents •pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla’s history. •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. WHY AM I WRITING THIS? First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting programs in the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny + Alaska), you will find references to my participation in local government, education, and PTA/parent organizations. Secondly, I've always operated in the belief that "Bad things happen when good people stay silent". Few people know as much as I do because few have gone to as many City Council meetings. Third, I am just a housewife. I don't have a job she can bump me out of. I don't belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will cost me somehow in the future: that’s life. 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. Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to say anything because they were somehow vulnerable. CAVEATS I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor) from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of Wasilla, and I can't recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust for inflation? for population increases? Right now, it is impossible for a private person to get any info out of City Hall--they are swamped. So I can't verify my numbers. You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the population of Wasilla, ranging from my "about 5,000", up to 9,000. The day Palin’s selection was announced a city official told me that the current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was 5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90’s. Anne Kilkenny annekilkenny@hotmail.com August 31, 2008

Celina from San Diego
September 04, 2008 at 09:07 PM
Just a few points I would like to make regarding your comments on Gov. Palin: "She values reducing America's dependency on foreign oil by expanding oil and natural development at home, but at the same time, she is opposed to big oil and supports higher taxes on oil company profits." - How are these NOT conflicting? Wanting to drill more puts more oil and profits into Big Oil's hands, regardless of how much she wants to tax them on those profits. Meanwhile, more greenhouse gases will be produced by all the "new oil", with less incentive to develop new energy technologies. This might reduce dependency on FOREIGN OIL, but the ENVIRONMENT demands reducing dependency on FOSSIL FUELS, period. "She sold a private jet, purchased with government money, on eBay." - which means she got bottom dollar for it and probably not close to what it cost, and with practically no effort on her part. "...she understands the general heart-felt desire to bring our troops home ..." - does she now? She believes the Iraq conflict to be a "task from God". "...in the Palin spin there seems to be a disproportionate amount of attention given to her personal life..." - sorry, but *she* is the one that brought that situation to light in order to quell "internet rumors" about *herself*. *She* is the one (or her handlers, what-have-you) who decided to *continue* talking about her family and their imperfections, even to the point of parading her pregnant daughter and fiance in front of the ENTIRE COUNTRY. In my mind, this removes any objection she might have to the media and the public discussing her family's issues.

Jessica Jondle
September 04, 2008 at 09:23 PM
Hi Celina, Thank you for your comments. Something immediately came to mind when I read the end of your commentary. I remember thinking, shortly after Obama's nomination acceptance speech when I saw a picture of his family on the front of a national newspaper, that he has the most lovely family. I have thought this before but the picture of them on stage, smiling, really drove the point home for me: he has an attractive wife and two of the most beautiful little girls. Not once did I think, though, that he was parading his family for some political gain. Maybe their attractiveness helps his campaign - it certainly can't hurt! But sometimes, political candidates are human enough to want their family on stage (or at their convention) with them. The fact that these candidates have families is not some intimate personal detail. Palin had to address her daughter's pregnancy in the face of the imminent media smear. But more importantly, like Obama, she needed her family's support at the convention, just like they need her support as a mother - support that Bristol clearly has, as well as all the other Palin children. So I have to disagree that she is parading her children or somehow rubbing her personal life in my face. She is on the defensive, a sad (but perhaps necessary) position for anyone to be in.

Chris
September 04, 2008 at 09:26 PM
Anne Kilkenny 2012! My family lives in Anchorage - Wasilla is a short drive away - Palin is certainly popular there amongst even some liberals. She is an "Alaskan type" - an appealing, kick ass, outdoorsy, get things done woman. My complaint is not with her - it is with McCain's desperate, cynical and maybe brilliant gambit to make this election an American Idol circus. Ironically, McCain is playing the Brittney Spears card here - Palin function here is as a spokesmodel - an insult to Palin's clear, burgeoning talents. As for the media - are you really suggesting that if Chelsea Clinton were pregnant at 17 that both the left and right would not be having a media field day? I think Palin's daughter should be off limits - but it certainly calls into question the wisdom of abstinence only sex ed.

Tim from Los Angeles
September 04, 2008 at 09:41 PM
To give Palin credit for returning oil revenues to the people of Alaska indicates to me a large failure on your part to conduct meaningful and comprehensive research. Alaskans have been enjoying payments from their state government based on oil & gas revenue for some time. The practice of government payouts to Alaska residents goes back to 1981, and it has become an institution there, a real entitlement. I'd like to think that you failed to do your homework here, because the only other explanation for this distortion of the truth is that you are just another Republican party hack with no moral center.

Jessica Jondle
September 04, 2008 at 09:52 PM
Tim, Fortunately, I did do my research, but thank you for your comment. This was exactly the reason for the word "sought" in the following sentence: "She sought to put the money gained by the government (through oil revenue) back into the hands of Alaskans." She did indeed make proposals to give Alaskan residents MORE financial benefit in the form of debit cards and $1200 stimulus checks. This is indeed to what I was referring: not the status quo that has existed in the state for years. But thank you for keeping me on my toes. I should have clarified, no doubt, but felt the constraints of time and space.

Tim from Los Angeles
September 04, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Your excuses prove my point.

K3rM1t from San Diego
September 04, 2008 at 10:29 PM
In case no one else reads your links, I take issue with your comment, "Sadly, polls and studies have shown that the media does not represent the nation (the great majority of news reporters have voted Democrat in presidential and congressional elections, even at times when more than half of the population has voted Republican), but even so, isn't the news supposed to be reported without bias? If you read the studies you link to, most are from the 80's and early 90's and almost all simply ask reporters who they voted for. Only 1 study even attempts to ask the question whether a reporter's personal beliefs lead to a bias in the reporting of the news.

Jessica Jondle
September 04, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Tim, My comments prove your point that I have no moral center? Please, I ask that you do not attack my character without knowing me. Attack my views, but please, do not judge my character. It is extremely hurtful and without warrant.

David from San Diego
September 04, 2008 at 11:37 PM
It is not a distortion of the truth to say that Sarah Palin sought to put increased oil revenue in the hands of the people. It is very much the truth that this is something she is seeking (rightly or wrongly): http://www.adn.com/front/story/442702.html I agree with Jessica that the viewpoints here are open for discussion, and if you feel the need to attack the viewpoints, that is completely legitimate. But I don't believe that attacking the morals of the author of the blog is right. If anyone here has a questionable moral center, it is you.

Jessica Jondle
September 04, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Hi K3rM1t, Thank you for your comment; I appreciate that you took the time to click on my links (i have previously worried that not enough people do that). There is actually a fairly recent study on the subject that I heard about not too long ago, but I was unable to locate it at the time of my posting. I will make it a priority to find out that information and post a comment with an updated link when I do. If I'm not mistaken (but again - I want the proof before I make solid claims here), the media (or large sections of the media - excluding the obviously or explicitly partisan outlets) has veered farther to the left in the past decade.

A Musing Reamus from Carlsbad
September 05, 2008 at 12:04 AM
Jessica, Google the thing. The study you reder to is at the Media Research Center on voting patterns in the media. It was done in 2001. I have no idea what they'r political biases are, but it is there.

Matt Scallon
September 05, 2008 at 05:02 AM
Before KPBS tries blocking me again --they tend to do that to pro-life commenters, for some reason-- let me summarize the comment I originally sent that KPBS decided to block. Full disclosure: while I'm pro-life, I'm neither conservative nor Republican. I'm a member and web rabbi for Democrats for Life of America. Now that that's done, complaining about how pro-lifers and conservatives are treated by media outside of Fox News is akin to spitting in the wind. John Leo in his former column in "U.S. News & World Report" did much better I in explaining how that left-wing pro-abortion bias manifests itself. The solution, really, is to be a better news consumer. I forego gatekeepers like KPBS and go to social networking sites like YouTube to get the unfiltered news. Also, it's hard to complain about how the media treat political families when all of the candidates put them on display like the good little residents of Stepford that they are. I wish that weren't so, b/c IMHO what a candidates' family is neither qualifies nor disqualifies them from public office. Of course, I'm a lone wolf on this issue, otherwise politicians would stop parading the families in public and media and the public would stop scrutinizing them. I hope i can comment further on this, unless KPBS decides to block me this way, too.

Kenny
September 05, 2008 at 07:01 AM
A couple of points I think worth mentioning. 1) Ms. Kilkenny's comments are interesting, no doubt. However, they generally are anecdotal (with the exception of the percentages cited with her "mismanagement" of the Wasilla budget), and not cited. I would appreciate either: a) some citation of sources, or b) some other, independent, unbiased support. 2) Tim, you are a completely off-base in accusing Jessica of having "no moral center." To be honest--you played a game of wordsmithing with Jessica, and when she clarified her comments, you responded with something about "excuses." I'm not sure what you are trying to say there, besides "Oops, I tried to play a game of gotcha with Jessica and got beat." Grow up, Tim. 3) Governor Palin is not "parading" her kids and family around any more than any other politician does. Nobody criticized Senator Obama when his kids (and, his kids are indeed quite adorable) was on stage asking him what state he was in. I have no qualms with the kids and significant others being on stage. Lay off the kids. What the heck does it have to do with being vice president, anyway. Now, if the kids get involved (like Meghan McCain) in the partisan activity, then fine. Go after them, but when they aren't involved (like Bristol or the Obama daughters), leave them the heck alone.

juliet from San Diego
September 05, 2008 at 07:05 AM
Hi Jessica, Interesting post and I am doing my best to keep an open mind and really look at the candidates views and proposed solutions on major issues (economy, foreign policy, education, national deficit, health care, etc). With this being said, I do have to express my skepticism in a novice Mrs. Palin. And, perhaps I missed the 'real issues' she discussed in her speech Wednesday night that you are referring to? I caught 'energy', but it's no secret that plays to her strength. She certainly has a way with delivery, no doubt. She's very natural. I'm also a little concerned about Alaska receiving almost $300 per person from the federal government while, as you mention, Mrs. Palin is busy handing money back to the people of Alaska from all of the 'oil' revenue. I'm sure Alaskan's love it but, seeing as how other states average $38 per person, has me wondering if she's really looking at the greater good. I don't think I'd call this reform. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_earmarks Like I said, I'm doing my best to look at both candidates but I am grappling with her lack of experience in many different critical areas. And, in all honesty, I work for a company that employs more people than the city of Wasilla's population.

Aaron from Daytona Beach
September 05, 2008 at 09:12 AM
here is an ECONOMISTS view of Obama's Redistribution of Wealth Plan....I have yet to read someone that holds a degree in economics, differ from the opinion given here. Palin is NOTORIOUS for earmarks.....her fellow politicians in Alaska think it is absurd that she runs on a "Fiscally Conservative " Platform.....to say so much positive about Palin's spending record shows clear partisanship! I don't want censorship in my libraries, I don't want my children to be clueless about sex and its dangers if, for any reason, I or my spouse were unable to educate them ourselves. I don't want unqualified people getting positions that require actual knowledge of a specific area, where they have none......and most importantly, if I ever have a daughter and she is raped, I want her to be able to decide what she wants to do.

Aaron from Daytona Beach
September 05, 2008 at 09:15 AM
first time posting here...thought i could put the link in the comment box....my bad!

Leng Caloh
September 05, 2008 at 05:15 PM
Matt, thanks for drawing our attention to the fact that your comments were being treated as spam. I assure you, it was purely a result of our spam filters being over-zealous and was not intentional. We value the many viewpoints shared on our blogs. I've gone through and marked your comments as Not Spam, and added you to the whitelist so you should be able to get through in the future. I opened your comments and deleted duplicates.

Tim from Los Angeles
September 05, 2008 at 07:04 PM
Allow me to clarify my point. The point I think you prove was lack of homework. I did not accuse you of having no moral center. I offered that as an explanation for distortion of the truth. We have seen this time and again from the likes of Karl Rove, Angela Coulter, Sean Hannity and others, It was your choice to wrap yourself in that label. While your representation of Palin as someone who "sought" to return oil revenues to the people of Alaska is true, your singular representation of this fact without background as a part of a superlative list is misleading. It floats without the proper grounding that comprehensive truth dictates. Anyone not fully aware of the history of the Alaskan oil & gas revenue payout would take this for better or worse, as some initiative fully attributable to the actions of Palin. It is not. This kind of floating commentary has the effect of "padding" Palin's resume. The oil and gas payouts were institutionalized in Alaska long before Palin even completed college. Attributing that to Palin as part of a list of accomplishments would be like giving Bill Clinton credit for social security, because checks for this went out while he was President. Presenting a real and truthful picture of a candidate is more than just assembling a collage of sound bytes. Like your "sought" remarks, my response was incomplete. Isn't it interesting how incomplete statements can be manipulated or implied to mean something not originally intended. I guess the time (and space requirements for some) requirements get to us all. As for Kenny and David, both of you jumped to conclusions without definitive evidence. The comment I left was vague. How typically Republican of you to think the worst and get behind it.

A Musing Reamus from Carlsbad
September 05, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Kenny, The post of the e-mail of Ms. Kilkenny came from the Washinton Post. It was originally an e-mail from her to her many friend in the "lower" 48 asking about "Sarah." I posted it, but have no knowledge of itts veracity. Her e-mail is there, why don't you ask her. It was of course anecdotal, most e-mails are.

michael valentine from spring Valley
September 06, 2008 at 01:01 AM
When as a Governor she cut funding for assistance to teenaged mothers .... When as Governor she pushed absence only birth control .... When she knew her 17 year old unmarried daughter was pregnant and her family would be in the spot light when she accepted the V.P. slot ... I have to wonder why?

Matthew C. Scallon
September 06, 2008 at 03:30 AM
@Leng Caloh, thank you very much. I'm glad to read that it was a technical issue. As an engineer, I can understand how that can happen.

Matthew C. Scallon
September 06, 2008 at 03:35 AM
@A Musing Reamus from Carlsbad, you may not be aware of this, but Ms. Kilkenny told her respondents not to forward her e-mail to anyone else on the Internet. Unfortunately, some of them didn't heed her request.

A Musing Reamus from Carlsbad
September 06, 2008 at 07:43 PM
Re: Kikenny e-mail: I am now, if you say so. I said it came from the newspaper and how it got there. Until e-mail becomes intellectual property she should be careful what she writes if she expects it to stay her private property. It is anecdotal, some of the facts are very wrong but seemed no worse than the rest of the reporting immediately after her nomination and seemed as informative as most of the blogosphere hysterics at the time. Make of it whatever you want., I saw no such request in what I posted. Maybe I missed something.

Aaron from Daytona
September 06, 2008 at 10:53 PM
WATCH THE MOVIE ZEITGEIST....... DOES ANYBODY HERE KNOW THAT THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION HAS ALREADY BEEN SIGNED INTO LAW BY GEORGE W. BUSH.......LOOK IT UP! THE ONLY MAINSTREAM REPORTER THAT HAS TALKED ABOUT IT IS LOU DOBBS ON CNN......GOOGLE.....NORTH AMERICAN UNION LOU DOBBS.......THEN FIND ZEITGEIST THE MOVIE (FEDERAL RESERVE) AND WATCH IT....YOU WILL BE SHOCKED AND HORRIFIED TO SAY THE LEAST!

Matthew C. Scallon
September 07, 2008 at 01:08 AM
@A Musing Reamus from Carlsbad, you probably didn't miss anything b/c the request not to forward got left off subsequent forwardings. I have no doubts of your sincerity in forwarding it. There is a teachable moment, especially for Ms. Kilkenny, on the reach of electronic communications. Ms. Kilkenny presumed that her e-mail was a private message, but, unfortunately, there is no such thing as a private message when one of those you send e-mail to wants to forward it. In the "ATC" interview, she claimed not even to know what a blog was. When I forward an e-mail, I get the originator's permission first. I believe that that's the ethical thing to do.