Mary wrote on Sep 14, 2008 1:10 AM:That is funny Donna, didn't you support Kern in the last election?

In a lonely place wrote on Sep 14, 2008 4:46 AM:How sad is the letter from Adrienne Brown? People of her ilk would’ve been similarly shocked and outraged seeing wedding announcements of interracial couples in the newspaper 50 years ago.
“We all know this is wrong,” she says. Well, no, we all don’t. Shame on the NCT since they never did this before, she says. It wasn’t legal before, Adrienne. What part of legal does she not understand?
Funny how she doesn’t seem to mind her children reading on the front page how our bombs are killing and maiming children in Iraq and Afghanistan. But a gay wedding announcement? A travesty!
Lastly, I seriously doubt her children are reading the wedding announcements page. If they are, and they’re boys, she’s in for a surprise in about 10 years.

Disillusioned wrote on Sep 14, 2008 4:55 AM:I support most Republican values but CANNOT get behind Palin. What was McCain thinking? I will support McCain over Obama but will be holding my nose as regards to Palin. I WILLBE HOLDING MY NOSE. Shame on you John M. for settling. You should have done better. My support is tepid, at best. Shame on you brings shame to us all.

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 5:15 AM:The letter from Fred Schuster is correct.
I must point out that McGWB has said that he will increase spending, keep current tax cuts, not increase taxes AND balance the budget.
It would seem that, of the two, Obama is MORE realistic.
I did NOT say that Obama was realistic, only that he is MORE realistic.
I will still vote for neither and write in Ron Paul instead.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 5:22 AM:The letter from Randall Smith points out that the credibility of Ollie North is-
ZERO.
In fact, it is LESS THAN ZERO!
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 5:35 AM:I disagree with Allan Clark when he says "Our most serious problem now is the economy and the fallout from the housing crisis.".
Our most serious problem is a president gone mad with extra-Constitutional power and a Legislature and Judiciary that let him get away with it.
"Not on the table" says and has said Pelosi for several YEARS to impeaching GWB and The Cheney Branch.
Reign back in the executive powers to ONLY those allowed by the Constitution, toss out all who support the insanity of GWB/Cheney in Iraq,
REPEAL the USA UN-Patriot Act and all related Acts,
RESTORE ALL our Constitutional Rights to pre-GWB status,
GET US OUT OF IRAQ,
AND THEN attack the problems listed by Allan Clark.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 5:46 AM:The letter from Ag Herman says -
"Using the California Constitution, or any American Constitution, crosses the divide between church and state."
I respectfully submit what I perceive to be a reasonable modification and clarification to that sentence -
Using the California Constitution, or any American Constitution TO INTERJECT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS INTO LAW, crosses the divide between church and state.
Regards, Alf.

Put a fork in it wrote on Sep 14, 2008 5:57 AM:Usually, revelations about a candidate come in the form of a drip, drip, drip. Fittingly, in Sarah Palin’s case, it’s an avalanche.
The stories of cronyism, secrecy, abuse of power, personal vendetta, war mongering, outright lies and faith substituting for public policy are there for all to see. This is exactly what the American people have grown weary of the past eight years.
Those who still support GWB think she’s a Godsend, literally. Fortunately and inevitably, most will not quite see it that way. They’ll she her for what she is, a Bush clone.
McCain will have given up any pretense of distancing himself from GWB in the eyes of the majority of voters by selecting Palin, and with it, any chance of winning. His dead-cat bounce in the national polls is fading and so are the prospects of a third Bush term.

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 6:05 AM:In her letter Adrienne Brown says that she is "shocked" by a picture and announcement of a "gay" couple being married??
Bigotry rears its ugly head.
I, personally, am uncomfortable seeing people using their tongues to examine the other person's tonsils whether hetero or homosexual.
BFHFD.
Adrienne Brown is free to be offended and shocked and to express indignation in any LEGAL way desired.
I'm sure that the revenue lost by not having wedding announcements from Adrienne Brown for any of Adrienne Brown's children will be offset by others.
Like someone said - Pull your hand out of a bucket of water and try to see the hole you left.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 6:21 AM:The letter from Judith Bunin got me looking when she said "She [Palin] cut funds for a shelter for unwed mothers."
An article in the Washington Post shows an alleged document which has Palin lowering budget items, among them funds part of which would go to a shelter for unwed mothers.
Let me get this straight -
Palin has cut money for unwed mothers,
Palin would try to make abortions illegal.
It sure sounds like Palin is a role model of Christian beliefs, but I did not know that "kicking them when they're down" was advocated by Christ.
Did you?
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 6:28 AM:The letter from Ralph Anderson sinks to a new low from "pro-life".
The GROSS hyperbole is malodiferous at best.
It not only sinks, it stinks.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 6:33 AM:The letter from Laurie Miller is a diametric opposite to the spiteful, hateful letter from Adrienne Brown.
From Laurie Miller comes happiness and joy, from Adrienne Brown comes the bile of bigotry.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 6:38 AM:Don't worry, William Wernett, Palin openly flaunts being pregnant before marriage, her daughter is pregnant before marriage,
so Palin CUTS FUNDS for a shelter for unwed mothers.
Spite and hypocrisy, thy name is Palin!
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 6:51 AM:While Palin may be able to claim that she is religious and not be lying,
she cannot truthfully claim to be a Christian.
Her actions and attitudes remove all aspects of the teachings of "Christ" from "Christian".
She casts far too many stones for one who lives in a glass house.
Regards, Alf.

Apollo wrote on Sep 14, 2008 7:14 AM:Re: William Cummings (letter)
Cummings makes a valid point, but it is actually incomplete. He notes that Sarah Palin's "oil/gas-rich state could afford to give each taxpayer $1,000 from windfall oil profits."
Actually, the state socialistically owns what their former governor Wally Hickel call the "communal economy" of an oil production enterprise. The state has been providing a dividend ("rebate") benefit to each resident (not taxpayer) for decades. As reported in the Los Angeles Times, the difference under Palin was that she increased the state's take from the oil companies they contract with, and increased the per person rebate by $1,200.00, to a new total of $3,200 PER PERSON. So Palin's family of 7 would qualify to receive $22,400.00 in addition to other employment income. The L.A. Times' story featured a family of 9 receiving almost $30K.
Cummings also makes a good point about her narrow focus on gas/oil deals not making her an expert on energy. I agree. She knows nothing about the development and implementation of solar, wind or geothermal alternatives that represent the long-range solutions to energy dependence, nor has she expressed any interest in demanding that oil companies give priority to sales in domestic markets before selling to China or India.

Palin is Bush wrote on Sep 14, 2008 7:53 AM:Today's news stories include accounts of how Sarah Palin ran things in Alaska. Give lucrative jobs to your pals, go after those who've dissed you. Cronyism, it's called. Sound familiar? Add this to the many, many ways that Sarah Palin is a carbon copy of George W Bush, in beliefs, in style, in philosophy. Tied to big oil. Ignorant about foreign affairs. Belief that you start wars because God says you should. Anti-choice. Anti-stem cell research. Wants creationism taught with evolution in science classes. Squelching and disregarding subpoenas. Claims to be an outsider even as she runs with the ultimate insider. Seems like a regular gal, but is full of sneering malice. So we have a presidential candidate who has ditched his former integrity and has become a cheerleader for just about all of Bush's policies. And a veep who is nothing less than George W Bush repackaged. Choice is clear, isn't it. If the Republicans won't even say the name "Bush" in fear of the negatives, why in the world are they running two of him? If the Bush years are your idea of a great age in America, McCain/Palin is definitely for you. Otherwise, gotta be Obama or Ron Paul, doesn't it?

To Ann Peters wrote on Sep 14, 2008 8:01 AM:Why is saving a marriage so awful? Hillary is to be congratulated. As for Bill Clinton being a lying, cheating husband -- there are many of those -- they just don't always get caught!

Marlowe wrote on Sep 14, 2008 8:02 AM:From today's NY Times QUOTE WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is pushing through a broad array of foreign weapons deals as it seeks to rearm Iraq and Afghanistan, contain North Korea and Iran, and solidify ties with onetime Russian allies.From tanks, helicopters and fighter jets to missiles, remotely piloted aircraft and even warships, the Department of Defense has agreed so far this fiscal year to sell or transfer more than $32 billion in weapons and other military equipment to foreign governments, compared with $12 billion in 2005. The trend, which started in 2006, is most pronounced in the Middle East, but it reaches into northern Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe and even Canada, through dozens of deals that senior Bush administration officials say they are confident will both tighten military alliances and combat terrorism.
“This is not about being gunrunners,” said Bruce S. Lemkin, the Air Force deputy under secretary who is helping to coordinate many of the biggest sales. “This is about building a more secure world.” ENDQUOTE And the Air Force under secretary says this with a straight face. Pretty impressive, isn't it? Because we know for sure that each and every one of those weapons will be used only and forever only by people who have the US's best interests at heart, right? None of those weapons will ever be used to initiate violence, only to defend people, right? Just like the chemical weapons we sold to Saddam to make the world safer, right? I know these deals make some of you rich. Do they make you proud, to see your country be the largest dealers in death the world has ever known? And this comes from our famously pro-life White House. Shameful.

A BAD Republican joke at that wrote on Sep 14, 2008 8:13 AM:Yes, as David Brooks was crowing about Sarah Palin's great speech, the facts have since come in. That speech was written by a former Bush speechwriter. It was written BEFORE Sarah Palin was selected to be McCain's running mate! It was "the speech the vp selection will give, whoever that turns out to be", and then edited to fit the person after she was selected. If McCain had been a man with integrity and power, he'd have Joe Lieberman as a running mate. That's the person McCain himself wanted. Oh, well. Then we'd have read David Brooks' column, spewing about the glories of Mr Lieberman's speech. And why not? It would've been the same speech. The Republican party must thank God every day for the sheer stupidity of the American voter.

Nick wrote on Sep 14, 2008 8:23 AM:Well, the letter from Adrienne Brown makes my point to a tee, when I say state how much I despise organzied religion and the hypocritical bigots that let "belief in God" dictate their lives.
She only proves that they are not intelligent enough to run their own lives, but let a book dictate it.
So much for free thinking!
She has been brainwashed into believing that somehow gay people are not people at all and shouldn't have any rights.
What a load of garbage!
Please cancel your subscription and don't bother writing to this paper anymore, you won't be missed.
As a matter of fact, you might want to stay in your house with the doors locked and wait for Christ to come.
You might just be waiting a longggggggggggggggg time!
Cheers, Nick.

par for the course wrote on Sep 14, 2008 8:40 AM:Can someone please explain to this simpleton what exactly the "tax cut for the rich" is and how it works? My understanding is that everyone received a percentage of the savings. I know I did and being semi-retired I am far from rich. Did the "rich" receive a larger percentage than I did or did they receive some sort of tax break that I did not?

Thanks for the education, this has bugged me for awhile.

Karl wrote on Sep 14, 2008 8:49 AM:Joe Parra, as a single male parent when my son was seven to fifteen I highly resent your message that unless a mom takes charge "Kids can't raise themselves". How sexist and utterly ridiculous. The son I raised is a college graduate and a very fine young man. If I, as a single male parent for many years am offended, I can only imagine the how many women you have ticked off.

Any comments democrat/liberal moms? Is raising children your sole responsibilty or are you married to someone who would do just fine as the primary care giver?

Boy, the more I think about it, the more you tick me off Mr. Parra(noid).

Ron wrote on Sep 14, 2008 8:59 AM:Exactly Fred Schuster. Devotees, groupies, messiah-ites, whatever...
they don't know, and frankly, they don't care. As long as they are told from On High that they will not be responsible for all of this largest, don't bother me with the details.

That's why I always say: Elections today, more resemble a fencing operation, than the selection of qualified leadership.
Since Obama severly lacks any kind of presidential experience, all he's got left is a government yard sale.

US wrote on Sep 14, 2008 9:24 AM:Feminists have lost touch! I am talking at the intellectual level. I happen to work with one and other than the repeated urge to vomit, when I see her, she is a hypocrite!

Other than making the repeated, "I am a man hater" comments, she dares challenge you to open her door. Where is the logic behind that? Either be a lady and reap the perks or open your own damn door!

TFB wrote on Sep 14, 2008 9:25 AM:Resubmission of skipped blog

Ralph Anderson (whose name suggests he will never be one to have the most private part of his anatomy occupied against his will) tries to denigrate those who think the woman should make decisions about her own body by comparing zygotes and embryos to "domestic animals" (I suspect he meant agricultural livestock, not domestic pets who, by the way, do have legal rights prohibiting cruelty). In reality, the comparison works against his point. Farm animals do have measurable EEG brain waves, biological autonomy (they are not occupying the most private part of anyone else's body) and individualized sentient experience. There is no reason anyone needs to kill them. A person can eat more healthily without a need to satisfy the unnecessary lust for artery-clogging animal fleash. Don't misunderstand, I am "pro choice" when it comes to eating meat, but I could definitely make a stronger case that "meat is murder" than that abortion is.
He further observes that a zygote, embryo or fetus is a unique human being with unique DNA. So what? Eggs and sperms are each an individual human life and each has a uniquely selected combination of DNA taken from the parent. "Life" is not the issue; personhood is. If the end of life is defined by the cessation of measurable EEG brain waves, then how personhood be defined as being before the onset of such measurable EEG brain waves (which do not commence until late in the 2nd trimester)?

Ron wrote on Sep 14, 2008 9:35 AM:You know, I'm really beginning to love this, this growing panic amoung the Obama crowd. Obviously, young Barry is not enough of a candidate to pull this thing off, and now everyone know's this messiah has no clothes.
So today, Tom Brault helps us along the path to electing Senator John McCain and Govenor Sarah Palin. I've said this before, and it's worth repeating, Govenor Palin is the only person in this race with Executive office experience. All the other's, including John McCain have been a part of the debating society that is the U.S. Senate.

Tom complains about the firing of the town's librarian. So what? That's what Executive's do. They hire & fire.

As for this investigation for alleged abuse of power. I've said this before, but if you went through the proper channels trying to get an abusive cop off the beat, and his boss, the public safety commissioner wouldn't do it. He should be fired, and she did. So what?

And really, as for pork-barrel earmarks.
Can anybody answer why Barack Obama got $3.4 million in earmarks to the son of his VP nominee Joe Biden's son, Hunter?
And then voted against the Bankruptcy bill, while Joe Biden voted for it?
Talk about an inside the beltway operator. In Govenor Palin's case, She was attempting to help her own residents. And she changed her mind about the bridge. I wonder if Barack Obama has now changed his mind about the earmarks for Hunter Biden? And really, think about it, she was initially for a piece of infrastructure to help her citizens, Hunter Biden got money from Barack Obama to squash people who filed for bankruptcy. Their only crime? They got sick. And building a bridge for citizens to get back and forth is certainly a better deal, than say.. A WoodStock Museum, as Hillary Clinton wanted. Or say.. a road built out in the desert near your scrub brush to boost your property values, as Harry Reid Did. Or even to earmark for improving wharf facilities near your rental property, as Nancy Pelosi did.
With this kind of linkage to personally benefit, I wonder if anyone can point to, in any way, this bridge would personally benefit Sarah Palin, or her family?

And I'm sorry, that Tom Brault thinks that overseeing the Alaska National Guard does not constitute the foreign policy experience. You know? That was said about Bill Clinton too. And he said he was the CIC of the Arkansas National Guard. And the Left at that time, defended it.

sdraoul wrote on Sep 14, 2008 9:36 AM:What a laugh!

Those here who whine that Sarah Palin didn't write her own speech, that, one says, the speech was written before she was selected and that the delivery was coached and modulated by "bush speech writers."

Amateurs of the world UNITE!

Politicians rarely write their own speeches. Barack Obama doesn't. He has dozens of speechwriters on payroll that write every word he utters when it is prepared in advance.

All one has to do is listen to Obama in an interview, he stumbles all over the place. He can't talk without a prepared speech.

Neither can Joe Biden. he was run out of the 1988 presidential race because he stole a speech from a British politician, That's how unprepared Biden is, he can't talk without a prepared speech and that has to someone else's because he can't seem to find anyone who can write a speech.

Professionals know better than amateurs, so, amateurs, keep your juvenile views to yourself.

Lies dont matter wrote on Sep 14, 2008 9:36 AM:I'm so tired of liberals pointing to the "lies" that John and Sarah are supposedly telling about themselves and Obama. Look, can you understand something: that stuff doesn't matter, not a bit. Did you see Sarah speak in St Paul? Have you looked at the kind of person she is? A strong, fiercely strong Christian woman. Her faith and her resolve are what this election is about. She's not a Washington insider. She's got the kind of moxie that can only come from above. She will clean up Washington (even her running mate said so on national tv), clean up the Republicans and the Democrats. She will bring values into the forefront. Life! Marriage between one man, one woman! She'll influence our pitiful, soul-destroying educational system to get right with the three R's and respect, again, for God and Country. God and Country, remember, used to be on the same side. Sarah will get this back on track. Compared to her resolve and faith, those terrorist Muslims will fall to their knees. Go Sarah!

Lucy wrote on Sep 14, 2008 9:49 AM:What a sad comment from Adrienne Brown! How can any kind of announcement of love between two EDUCATED, employed people not be a celebration? I hope she does not let her children go to school (probably home schooled), watch sports/TV or enjoy the Olympic games. Many of the people we love and revere we assume are not gays, may are. Who are we to judge? Let our children decide for themselves what is pure love. An announcement is not an endorsement. Everyone has their right to be heard. I think this is still the USA, land of the free and brave. The pursuit of happiness for all!

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 9:51 AM:Yesterday "sdraoul" at 7:10PM said "There is no "troopergate" problem for Sarah Palin except in the eyes of the Democrats who are running the so-called "investigation."".
The investigation is of Palin trying to use her influence (power) to get someone fired from a non-political job solely because he angered her, not directly mind you, but because of family antagonism, he made her relative mad. HE had not violated any law or any part of his JOB description which SHOULD BE the only reasons for firing him.
THAT, "sdraoul", IS ABUSE OF POWER.
As you like to say - CASE CLOSED!
Regards, Alf.

Lucy wrote on Sep 14, 2008 9:51 AM:What a sad comment from Adrienne Brown! How can any kind of announcement of love between two EDUCATED, employed people not be a celebration? I hope she does not let her children go to school (probably home schooled), watch sports/TV or enjoy the Olympic games. Many of the people we love and revere we assume are not gays, many are. Who are we to judge? Let our children decide for themselves what is pure love. An announcement is not an endorsement. Everyone has their right to be heard. I think this is still the USA, land of the free and brave. The pursuit of happiness for all!

Ron wrote on Sep 14, 2008 9:55 AM:Ask me? Am I loving this?
YES!!!!!!!!!

Full fledged panic at all quarters by the Leftists today. LOL
It just does not get any better than this. And with the latest polls coming showing movement in congressional races, is just icing on the cake.
Historically, every year in which a republican has pulled within 3%, or within the margins, they have won those particular races.
As it appears, there's trouble in ObamaLand, and in the Barackopolis.
Now, several unnamed democrats have said {I love how they are "unnamed"}
have said they don't want Barack anywhere near them when they run.
Apparently, the Messiah's robe-tails is not working. And really, you seriously have to consider how they are handling this mentally on the otherside.
First, we were supposed to have the coronation of Hillary. Then Barack was to sweep thru with all his Majectic Glory, bringing with him the throngs of democrats on his robe-tails.

And now... it's coming un-glued.

So what do the lefties do? They attack the #2, and compare her to their #1. LOL
It's an admission that Barack does not have the experience. And as they continue to "beat up on the girl" {should have learned the lesson from Hillary}, her numbers are rising. Women now support her by 53%, across the board. And they also know, well... 69% of them know the media has been in the tank for Obama, and that ain't help neither.
What was once "in the bag", is now a bag of you-know-what, and their holding it. And congressional democrats want that bag as far away from them, as is possible. LOL

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 10:02 AM:You're right, "Lies dont matter" at 9:36AM,
Palin is a "Christian woman"
IF you believe that Christ would -
deny a pregnant female abortion AND
cut back funding on a shelter for unwed mothers AND
declare that invading and occuping Iraq was for God AND
try to get his (ex?) brother-in-law fired AND
the list goes on and on.
Fortunately for all of us, the Constitution is written to PREVENT a theocracy!
Regards, Alf.

Ron wrote on Sep 14, 2008 10:10 AM:"Alf" @6:21 AM, buddy...
You've just become a victim of the left-wing blogosphere, the daily kookers, and the mover-over's.
Judith Bunin is feeding you this pap, this made up stuff that has now been debunked.
I'll post for you a letter from one such "unwed mother" program in Alaska.

QUOTE: "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 4, 2008
Contact: Deirdre A. Cronin
Executive Director

“Covenant House Alaska is a multi-service agency serving homeless and runaway youth, including teen mothers. The majority of the agency’s annual operating budget is privately raised, with no more than 10 to 15 percent of funds coming from state grants in any given year. We are grateful for the support we have received from Governor Sarah Palin, the Alaska legislature and our Congressional delegation over the years.

Despite some press reports to the contrary, our operating budget was not reduced. Our $3.9 million appropriation is directed toward a multi-year capital project and it is our understanding that the state simply opted to phase in its support for this project over several years, rather than all at once in the current budget year.”

Covenant House Alaska is Alaska’s largest private non-profit adolescent care agency serving homeless, runaway and at–risk youth between the ages of 13 and 21. With particular expertise in helping some of the most hopeless teens grow into independent, successful and productive adults." END Quote

Becareful out there, it's getting really, really nutty.

Nick wrote on Sep 14, 2008 10:15 AM:Hey "Alf" old buddy.....what did you think of the Statement of Principles for The Campaign for Libery yesterday?
That's the kind of "Change" I'm talking about.
Cheers, Nick.

Ron wrote on Sep 14, 2008 10:18 AM:I wonder if "Alf" @9:51 AM,

Would consider the following abuse of power:

1) Tazering a 10 year old.

2) Routinuly beating up his ex-wife.

3) Alleged drinking while on duty as a cop.

4) Threatening the Father of the abused woman.

5) His boss, the public safety commissioner would not relieve this particular cop from active duty.

6) On several different times, going thru the proper channels to report such abuse by this one cop went unheeded, and no action followed to remove him from his duties, or even to look into whether these allegations were true.

Had this happened to you, and the authorities did nothing. Yeah, I think you'd reacted about the same Alf.

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 10:20 AM:Well, "sdraoul" at 9:36AM,
is it your assertion that the 4 people running for the 2 highest offices in the United States are merely actors delivering lines written by someone else, some "professional scriptwriter"?
So far, the "ad lib" gaffes, both by the number and seriousness, are committed more by the Republicans than the Democrats.
Both sides present foolishness regarding the "war" and the economy AND
neiter side advocates repairing the damage done to the Constitution or to Our Constitutional Rights or eliminating the extra-Constitutional powers that GWB has grabbed without serious challenge.
Regards, Alf.

shove it wrote on Sep 14, 2008 10:25 AM:Why do people like Adrienne Brown use the term "shove down our throats" when gay people try to live their lives and love openly without hiding and cringing in some Christian guilt-wracked closet? If Ms. Brown doesn't like something in our local paper, tough. It is not your personal paper Ms. Brown. I find photos of dead Afghan and Iraqi babies on the front page rather offensive, but news is news and I still know how to avert my eyes.

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 10:25 AM:I suggest "Ron" at 10:18AM,
that you do something -
provide more than allegations,
you know,
like proof!
Regards, Alf.

SOLON wrote on Sep 14, 2008 10:26 AM:McCain is not a "natural born citizen" . . .

. . . of the U.S. There is quite legitimate doubt about the legality of John McCain as a "natural born citizen of the United States", as posted on Snopes.com.

Yesterday letter writer Nora la Corte falsely stated that Senator Obama was not a "natural born citizen of the United States." This sleezy, swiftboat lie has been totally refuted both by vital records and careful examination of the senator’s original birth certificate. Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Hawaii, and his birth and certificate have been verified by officials of the vital statistics center.

The real question is John McCain.

The following is posted on Snopes.com/politics/McCain:

"Among the few qualifications specified in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution regarding eligibility for the office of President of the United States is that the office-holder must be a 'natural born citizen of the United States.' This qualification has not previously been an issue in U.S. politics since no one so far elected to the office of president (or who otherwise served as president) was born outside of the United States. But it has been a (minor) issue so far in 2008, as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, was born not in the U.S. proper but in the Panama Canal Zone. (McCain's parents were themselves U.S. citizens, and at the time of his birth they lived on a military installation in the Panama Canal Zone, where his father was stationed as a U.S. Navy
officer.) If Senator McCain were deemed not to be a natural-born citizen of the United States, his name could be kept off of ballots in the 2008 presidential election, and he could be ineligible to serve as president even if won the election.

As much we'd like to dismiss this one as just another frivolous election season rumor, it's impossible to make any definitive statement about Senator McCain's presidential eligibility because the issue is a matter of law rather than a matter of fact, and the law is ambiguous." END of QUOTE on Snopes

Regardless of whether he is "legally" a natural born citizen", all reasonable citizens accept him as a citizen. This legal splitting of hairs is a waste of time and silly distraction.

Reardon wrote on Sep 14, 2008 10:26 AM:I doubt that Mr. Titus knows the Pueblo story quite as well as does Reardon, who organized the Remember the Pueblo Campaign nationally, and only health forbids his being in Vermont today where the Pueblo crew is honoring him at their 40th Reunion.

There have been many books written on the Pueblo incident, including by Reardon, and there are many more to come as new information becomes available that has been classified. There are at least 25 such books.

It is true that the ammunition was below decks, and that the guns were not manned (.50 Caliber, one fore one aft), because the ship was ordered “not to start WWIII,” and the guns were fully exposed (without armor) to FAR greater enemy weaponry – three SO2 gunboats (3’ guns) and two MIG jets – but Bucher was awaiting promised air cover. (It never arrived.) Bucher made several mistakes, but among them was anticipating help from Ships of the Line, and that is what all auxiliary ships expect.

COMNAVFOR JAPAN, who had the responsibility to provide protection for the Pueblo, was reprimanded – the only person to be reprimanded in the entire affair.

I personally witnessed crewmembers on their knees trying to reach through crowds of their own family members to touch Bucher's trousers the day after the return of the Pueblo crew at Balboa hospital.

That alone speaks for Bucher, but I was also the recipient of a note passed through me to Bucher from Shore Patrol guarded crewmembers at Bucher's Court of Inquiry: It said, "Skipper -- we started this together, we will end it together."

They did, with but two exceptions. It is called "leadership."

Apollo wrote on Sep 14, 2008 10:30 AM:Re: Ron (10:18 a.m.)
Ron cites examples of things he would consider abuse of power.
I would agree with those conclusions upon a finding of fact through due process of law.
Each of these points has been either denied or explained.
Using the appropriate protocols of due process, which a governor should certainly be able to manage, would be appropriate. Acting like a loose cannon and trying to get someone fired before any proof has been offered is a criminal offense and, yes, it is abuse of power.
Haven't this nation endured enough of that?

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 10:34 AM:Well, "Ron" at 10:10AM,
the Washington post article shows a copy of the 5 mil budget with the 5 mil crossed out and 3.9 mil handwritten in (supposedly) initialed by Palin.
The shelter stating that it is grateful for the 3.9 mil does not change that it had been originally been budgeted for 5 mil.
Look at the article, I know you can because you're adept at getting, cutting and pasting.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 10:40 AM:Yes, "Nick" at 10:15AM,
I read it yeaterday and I also read it the first time that I saw you refer to the Campaign for Liberty.
Good stuff!
That is one reason that I'm writing in Ron Paul.
Regards, Alf.

Lies dont matter wrote on Sep 14, 2008 10:41 AM:Alf, dear, you are living in the past. Don't you know who our enemies are today? First, they are the Muslim radicals. For them, it's a religious war. At times like this, only a greater strength from a greater power can defeat them, can show them what they are truly up against. Second, they are the atheists. In case you haven't noticed, Alf, atheists are also trying to take over the world and this nation. From KGB communist Putin, to the children of the Maoists, to the atheistic materialist "evolutionists", to the liberals that run our colleges and our entertainment industries, all have one thing in common: the heresy of unbelief. For this enemy, too, we need a greater power to show them what they are up against. This is a time in our history where we have a chance to regain our national soul, Alf. Which side are YOU on? Go Sarah!

SOLON wrote on Sep 14, 2008 10:44 AM:Lavish gifts to foreign nations from McBush . . .

. . . but what about the Hurricane victims? Why are we giving $32 billion in weapons and military equipment to foreigners, instead of directing help to our own people to rebuild their lives and homes after Hurricanes Faye, Gustav, Hanna and Ike? That is borrowed money, loaned by China, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern kingdoms. We do not have $32 billion in our treasury to begin with, and should not borrow money to give to foreigners who are not our friends.

If we must borrow money, it must first be used first for our own citizens in desperate need.

Thank you, Marlowe for bringing up this fact (8:02 AM). I also saw that report about this $32 billion for to arm foreigners for war. America and our citizens come first.

ENOUGH !! Turn this country around. Vote these scoundrel and their party out!

Boat wrote on Sep 14, 2008 10:53 AM:Re: The USS Pueblo. Every once in awhile some Monday morning John Paul Jones or Stephen Decatur opines about what should have happened in this unfortunate incident.

But, lets look at the opposing sides for a moment, like they do on those PBS programs. On the one hand you have the USS Pueblo, she was exactly like the ship in "Mr. Roberts," with a top speed of about nine knots & armed with two fifty caliber machine guns & a few rifles & pistols. Then you had the North Koreans who had several PT Boats, a larger patrol craft & four to eight Mig jets. The Pueblo's machine guns were under tarps that had frozen in place making them useless. On top of everything else, this took place in international waters.

The letter writer, Mr. Titus, is incorrect when he says that "no attempt" was made to man them. The one casualty suffered by the Pueblo was a crewman who was attempting to remove a tarp from one of the guns. He was cut down by machine gun fire.

The Pueblo called for help repeatedly on all channels, including fleet common, to no avail, despite the fact that the Air Force kept F-4s on standby in South Korea. In an account that I read in Naval History magazine the Enterprise sortied out of Japan so fast in response that she left many crewmembers behind. However, they received a message, allegedly from LBJ himself, to go back to Japan. No satisfactory explanation has ever been given for the lack of support for the mission in general or the Pueblo in particular. The real crime is that both the commanders of the Pueblo & the Liberty were assured that they would have all the support that they would need. They & their crews were let down big time.

There have been those who have said that Cdr. Bucher should have fired off one shot from a handgun in token resistance. This is a vestige of the days of sail when a captain would fire one cannon shot before surrendering to overwhelming odds. The North Koreans are not known for their chivalry & would have most likely have killed him. Thus his crew would have been deprived of his exemplary leadership throughout their ordeal in captivity.

The Pueblo & the Liberty were converted from cargo ships to "spy ships" & were wholly unsuited to defend themselves. At least the USS Maddox, a destroyer, which was on a similar type mission in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964 was much better able to defend itself against a similar attack.

But, in the end, someone had to pay for the only U.S. Navy ship to be boarded & taken since the Civil War. That someone turned out to be Cdr. Bucher. Nice reward after keeping his men alive for eleven months of brutal captivity.

hardtack wrote on Sep 14, 2008 11:03 AM:Hey, folks: Forget Sarah Palin. Forget the flip-flops of the candidates. Forget their lack of experience. The election will swing on one thing : How many people believe Santa Clause resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500.

I believe the Democrats have that majority wrapped up – but it’s close.

Baited breath wrote on Sep 14, 2008 11:13 AM:Is The Prophet ready to grace us with his predictions on the eventual outcomes of the Congressional and Presidential races?

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 11:19 AM:Sorry, "Lies dont matter" at 10:41AM,
our biggest enemies today, this very minute ARE GWB and the Congress that keeps giving him money and powers far beyond what the Constitution allows.
Did "Muslim radicals" set up Guantanamo?
Did "Muslim radicals" seek the passage of the USA Patriot Act, the single most Constitution-violating Act in history that I know of?
Did "Muslim radicals" advocate torture of "enemy combatants"?
Did "Muslim radicals" go to Iraq with "Shock and Awe"?
Did "Muslim radicals" continue to occupy Iraq at the expense of the deaths of over 4,100 American Troops and almost a trillion dollars?
Is it a "Muslim radical" that is in the office of the president of the U.S.?
Did "Muslim radicals" wiretap American Citizens without warrants?
Wake up and watch GWB (and McGWB if elected) flush the Constitution and your Constitutional Rights down the toilet.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 11:24 AM:One more thing, "Lies dont matter" at 10:41AM,
I care more about our Constitution than a "national soul".
IU care about Constitutional Rights more than your Constitution-violating in word and spirit theocracy-seeking, budget-busting, military abusing garbage that is offered by Republicans.
The Democrats ain't far behind.
Regards, Alf.

OBAMA MAMA wrote on Sep 14, 2008 11:30 AM:The world-traveled Sarah Palin . . .
. . . is documented. She is for real. She has already traveled to Mexico, Canada, and even to Kuwait and Germany. This makes her a well-traveled foreign expert, far more traveled than GW Bush, who had never been beyond Mexico and Canada before he took office. She far and away more traveled than Bush, and she was not even running to be President.

Furthermore, Palin, through the process of spiritual osmosis, has been to Russsia, by peering over from one of the Aleutian islands into the distant shore of Russia.

Now comes the revelation of another of her osmosis travels, this time to Iraq. Seems she was in Kuwait last year, and, being close to the border, peered over into Iraq, transmuting her into an expert on Iraqi issues, acquire by the mysterious miracle of osmosis. It works, you know. Stand close to a uranium pit, and with a little trance, osmosis will begin to make you glow with radiation. You can even become a nu-culer expert.

On Saturday, a Palin aide told The Associated Press the governor had actually traveled one-quarter mile into Iraq itself during her July 2007 trip.
That appears to contradict The Boston Globe, which reported Saturday that McCain-Palin aides had twice revised their description of Palin's visit to Iraq.

The Globe said unnamed aides initially explained that Palin had visited a "military outpost" inside Iraq. The Globe said campaign aides and members of the Alaska National Guard subsequently explained that she did not venture beyond the Kuwait border when she visited the Khabari Alawazem Crossing on July 25, 2007. Lt. Col. Dave Osborn, commander of the 3d Battalion, 207th Infantry of the Alaska National Guard, who was in charge of the 570 local troops serving in Kuwait and Iraq, said Palin did not cross in Iraq.

The central point here is, it does not matter whether Palin actually set foot inside Iraq. All she has to do is peer over the border and use Osmosis to understand the complexities of Iraq.

I once visited Four Corners, and with just 20 steps visited Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, all in just a few seconds. My visit to these 4 states, however, was real. I did not use Palinian osmosis. I actually set foot inside these 4 states. I cast no aspersions on osmosis, however. I believe osmosis is a scientific fact, and does work. Palin is living proof.
MAMA believes it.

Marlowe wrote on Sep 14, 2008 11:31 AM:Yes, SOLON, I for one am sick and tired of America's policies being run by and for the oil and munitions companies. How many American kids will be killed or maimed by the weapons we are selling these states "to make the world safe"? How many wars will be initiated because our customers will feel they have such great weapon systems? As for oil, Tom Friedman's column today is right on spot. When we scream to drill, we are screaming for our own slavery, to continue our own addiction to foreign oil. Yes, foreign oil. Why? Because even if we found enough oil to reduce by some small margin the percentage of foreign oil we require, a temporary dip in gas prices, if that even happens, will just assure us that all's well. The hummers and suvs and trucks will once again pour off the assembly lines and progress on renewables will once again sag. And, exactly has happened between the 1970s and now, our need for oil will increase, and the Middle East states will be in charge of our lives again. Oil and munitions might be in Ron's best interests, but they surely are not in America's.

Nick wrote on Sep 14, 2008 12:00 PM:Thanks "Alf"!!!!!
He may not have joined "Ms M", but there's another Ron Paul supporter here on the blogs as well.

Still havne't heard you chime in "Ms M".
Do not agree with the Statement of Principles of The Campaign for Libery?
If not, why????
Cheers, Nick.

Bill Too wrote on Sep 14, 2008 12:05 PM:(Not to be confused with Bill One or just plain “Bill”)

(SECOND TRY – COMBINED POST)

Chuck wrote on Sep 13, 2008 1:36 PM: >>>Why do you condone the bombing of pregnant women and little children by American air strikes>>> “Lets see, if mommy is too busy housing, clothing and feeding her terrorist husband, I rather think its mommys fault if the baby gets killed in a raid. How stupid could one be than to live with terrorists with US drones overhead? Plus, everyone knows this but liberals: Terrorists have been known to kill women and children and then deposit them at the site of a US raid, so Time and Newsweek can run back to Murtha and make a scne out of it”

WOW – someone get Chuck’s meds quick!! This sounds like something out of Chaney’s propaganda machine. If some foreign country invades us as we did in Iraq I will become one of those “terrorists” in a heartbeat. Chuck sounds like he would become a “quisling” like in WWII. Doesn’t he understand yet that Iraq doesn’t want us there? Chuck – have you ever been in a real shooting war? Have you ever had the stench of rotting human flesh permeating your lungs? It’s a smell that takes years to get rid of. I can STILL smell it at times – and it has been a long time since I got out of the Army in 52 (Korea).

Pred Elim is right wrote on Sep 13, 2008 9:18 AM: “You know, Predator Eliminator is right on the button. I'm beginning to think that conservatives' approach to child sexual abuse is to do nothing to prevent it whatsoever, but then, when it happens, to scream for the torture and execution of the perpetrator. Notice that this entire approach focuses on the perp and on satisfying the desire for revenge of the family and the society. Hmmm, who is left out of this? Oh, yes! The victim! Who cares about her? No one on the right, it seems. This is remarkably similar to their view of abortion, isn't it? I'm beginning to think that conservatives don't really have that much care or respect for women, and even less for girls.”

It seems that by far the majority of molestation of minors by “Conservatives” – Politicians, Boy Scout leaders, etc – as reported in the papers in the last several years have been of BOYS – as in homosexual molestation – NOT girls. Lately there have been several of the politicians who have apparently graduated to adults. Why do the “Conservatives” scream so loudly about the “Gay” situation? Is it only wrong if it is someone else doing it?

NCT 9/12 states that this year has been the deadliest for US forces in Afghanistan. Has anyone seen the reports that since we have been fighting there the OPIUM production has gone from 30% of the world’s production when we invaded to 90% today? Has anyone even considered that we are now fighting the very people that we equipped and trained to fight against the Russians?

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 12:05 PM:It is obvious that "Lies dont matter" has not read many of my posts and does not know where I stand.
I know about religion and am not particularly religious.
I hold those who would turn this country into a theocracy, in violation of the Constitution, in contempt as much as I would hold in contempt anyone who would deny any person the RIGHT to believe in any or no religion.
I am a Libertarian who values the Constitution above all other doctrines and will not tolerate those who would bypass the Amendment process.
Both war-mongers AND those who would not defend themselves and their country WHEN NECESSARY I hold in contempt.
I believe that people like "Lies dont matter" are part of the problem with this country, part of what is going and has gone wrong with this country.
I believe in PROgression, not REgression.
Atheists and Southern Baptists and every other belief system are guaranteed their right to believe and practice their own beliefs -
right up until they try to dictate to me how I live my life.
In that regard, I AM most of the things you do not like.
Here is the big difference between us -
I support the Constitution while you support your religion and religious views.
Which one is the American?
We both are.
Right up to the point when you go against the Constitution and my Constitutional Rights, then you stand apart from Americans.
Regards, Alf.

But Lies dont matter wrote on Sep 14, 2008 12:08 PM:Since when is heresy a crime?

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 12:15 PM:Well, "Nick",
there is a comparison chart on sfgate (the San Francisco Chronicle online) that does a weekly overview entitled "Campaign check: Lies and half-truths outed".
This week McGWB had more but I haven't gone to previous columns.
Regards, Alf.

Karl wrote on Sep 14, 2008 12:17 PM:One word Alf, decaf. Since you are so anti-Palin I seriously want your opinion on Joe Parra's letter and my response. How is it that anyone on this blog that jumps on the "Sarah Palin is an idiot" get's a free pass? Please respond to Joe Parra's letter all you so called equal rights bloggers.

I am stilled pissed at anyone that thinks for one moment that sex determines parental ability or lack thereof.

I will take more non response as "who cares" as long as we demos/libs take down Sarah.

Marlowe wrote on Sep 14, 2008 12:34 PM:Ron and others ask why Obama seems to running, all of a sudden, against Palin instead of McCain. Well, if you haven't noticed, Palin and her backers took over the Republican party. Didn't you catch that? Palin isn't parrotting McCain's positions, he's parrotting her positions (or those of her base). He's even dodging one on one interviews, preferring to be seen only with Palin. Why? Because his race would still be dead in the water if she'd not invigorated the Republicans. She's brought independents to the GOP in even bigger numbers than white women. Even though in every important way she is a carbon copy of George W Bush, and even though about 80% of the US thinks Bush stinks, they are flocking to the female Bush because she's fun and because the Rove/Fundamentalist slime machine is all over it again. Look at this blog space! Other than raoul, who loves anyone with a gun, the conservatives have two messages: Palin is great and Obama is a bum. Before Palin was picked, they only had the latter message. If McCain/Palin win, America will have an even more extreme fundamentalist Christian in charge than we've had since 2000. Even as our kids' education lags farther and farther behind the world, even as kids from China and India fill our universities and graduate schools of science, American kids will be taught creationism and the evil of secular materialism. Picture us as this trend continues. In debt to China. Frantically pumping and importing oil while the world goes greener and greener and our young adults scratch their dumb heads and plug in the latest version of their iPods. Our oil and munitions manufacturers getting wealthier still at the expense of an increasingly stagnant and irrelevent middle and lower class. As the American idea fades from world history, we can say that not only did we watch it happen, we chose it.

He Said wrote on Sep 14, 2008 12:41 PM:It appears Obama collected 66 million in funds during August. McCain didn't get that much. If Obama were true to his redistribution of wealth philosophy he should give some of his ill gotten gains to the McCain camp. Kind of a stupid post but not out of line with a lot of others here.

Realist wrote on Sep 14, 2008 1:29 PM:Many interesting comments.

NICK: It is one thing to have a belief in God with all the morals, values and teachings that it brings and IT IS QUITE ANOTHER to let your beliefs dictate your actions. There are many Christians that do the latter, but there are many Saints that believe in faith, morality, justice and charity. I am one of those people.

ALF: Muslim terrorists were the ones that slammed planes in the World Trade Center, killing 3000 innocent people. I also encourage you to look up the story of the terrorists being held in Cuba, got released and then blew himself up in Iraq. I'm all for treating people like human beings, but when they want to blow up innocent women and children, SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE. Would you rather sit on our hands and do nothing?

-Realist

Richard wrote on Sep 14, 2008 1:53 PM:Selling weapons to, and building foreign armies for, foreign countries was forbidden by General George Washington and I agree with him. Now we find that we not only are still weaponizing foreigners, in many cases we are paying for them as well. Strangely, Bush authorized the sale of patriot missiles and other weapons in vast amounts to Saudi Arabia, the country that still has Osama bin Laden's wahhabism cult schools. When it comes to getting countries that harbor terrorists, I guess it all depends on if their leaders buddy up to be your family friends.
Also in today's news I'm reminded of this self proclamation of Sarah's that she is a pit bull with lipstick. That would be great and complimentary if pit bulls were unleashed to get some evil person, but the sad thing about pit bulls is that they too often attack the wrong people. Take today's news, a 4 year old girl was killed by pit bulls that belonged to their own family in Las Vegas. I think the pit bull characterization is not as funny as Sarah thinks it is, particularly when she believes those who attack us were in Iraq when we invaded, and even tells her own son to go find them there.
Bing West's book apparently states the truth, where McCain misses the mark when he brags about the surge being something that Obama should thank him for. The real reason the hot Anbar province became stable was in spite of the surge, not because of it. It was in spite of Bush's bullying. It was exclusively due to the competence of our military forces who insisted on meeting with Sunni tribal leaders to turn the population against Al Qaeda who formerly had been invited in by them. It was solely attributed to a Marine and an Army officer. If it weren't for them we indeed would have been there for a hundred years probably with McCain-Sarah coming along. Even with the expertise of our forces, I see no end anyway with pit bull Sarah ordering flip-flop Cain what to do, a la the Cheney tells Bush format.

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 2:19 PM:Well, "Karl" at 12:17PM,
I don't drink caffiene in any form, I stopped several years ago because it wrecked my buzz from my brew.
On the letter by Joe Parra, he is a dyed in the wool "traditionalist" who has no respect for single parenting.
"Karl", you had indicated earlier that you were a single male parent in the days when it was a "woman's world" in the courts and general public opinion.
A child needs at least one loving parent, the gender is not as important as many would have us believe and you are proof of that.
I don't care if Palin has a house-husband or a nanny or whatever,
my beef is with her mixing religion and politics, her hypocrisy, her "alleged" abuse of power, her malevolent ultra-right, religious right stances and her being a right wing-nut ala GWB, possibly worse.
Those are the primary reasons that I believe Palin has no business being "a heartbeat away" from being president, gender, age, parental status and looks have nothing to do with it.
Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 2:34 PM:Well, "Realist" at 1:29PM,
the moment that "Shock and Awe" started was the moment that GWB became a terrorist, he ordered bombing of a country that had not attacked or even threatened us, just like the primarily Saudi national terrorists did when they flew planes into the WTC Towers and the Pentagon.
Are you trying to tell me that our bombs did not blow up, kill and maim innocent women and children in Iraq?
We may not have intended to do so, the terrorist(s) did intend to do so, BUT
dead is dead, the intent of the murderer does not make them any less dead, does it?
By the way, terrorists killed 3,000 people on 9/11, in his holy grail quest at vengeance, GWB has sent over 4,100 American Troops to their death.
GWB ordered those men and women into harms way needlessly, their blood is on GWB's hands as much or more than the ones who actually killed them.
Regards, Alf.

Lies dont matter wrote on Sep 14, 2008 2:51 PM:Alf, there are times in our history (WWII was such a time; the Reagan years were another) when things bigger than the Constitution are at stake. All those white men and women flocking to the GOP grasped this when they heard Sarah speak. This is not a time to be led by a Black Socialist "Church". This is a time when we need to be led by a true American Church. The forces of evil are aimed at our heads, Alf. We need more strength and resolve than the Constitution affords us. FDR knew this in his hour. Reagan knew this in his hour. It's that kind of hour again, Alf. At times like these, the ends always justify the means. Ron, Chuck, Esteban, and raoul understand this. So should you. Go Sarah!

Maybe there is hope wrote on Sep 14, 2008 3:03 PM:I see today that the leading polls say that McCain is maintaining a small lead over Obama, but that the lead is shrinking. And I see also that Obama has raised an enormous $66 million in August. Perhaps the hit of speed that the GOP got when they introduced Sarah Palin has peaked, and now that McCain and Palin are actually starting to talk to people, the reality of who they are is beginning to sink in. Maybe, as the lies they are telling compulsively are being called out, the hangover of the reality of these two is starting to hit people. Maybe, bit by bit, Americans are coming to their senses about what the sales job has been on them since the Palin splash. Maybe they are grasping that the Palin/McCain ticket is almost identical to the political philosophy of George W Bush. Maybe it's hitting them that this is not a good thing. One can hope...

Focal Point wrote on Sep 14, 2008 3:05 PM:LOL: Nothing matters until the debates are over. But, thanks for the entertainment. I do not know why the media, liberal and conservative, even bother doing research and paying their reporters. I mean all they have to do is tune in here to review Ron's Bill's and sdraoul pontifications.

Richard wrote on Sep 14, 2008 3:12 PM:And as far as the post yesterday about Kerry changing his views on Iraq funding when a bill was re-written and voted on a second time, the GOP made a huge deal about that because Rove told them to; to paint this gross lie to voters that somehow Kerry doesn't have an intact mind, that he flip-flops for no apparent reason and is 'incompetent'. Since the GOP made the huge deal of that, why now do you make no big deal about Sarah? She claims she boldly refused the bridge that she had lobbied for earlier. If it's bad for Kerry but not bad for Sarah, then it's pure party hackery. And by the way the change of vote by Kerry was admirable. The change in heart you say was Sarah's was in fact, now we learn, not hers to make in the first place. Congress had already denounced the use of the funds for that bridge before she decided to go along. The whole idea of Sarah making a campaign slogan bragging about it is the exact opposite of Senator Kerry, who did not make a huge campaign out of the fact that he had to vote against a bill that got corrupted after its first version. If the GOP can complain about that, which was innocent and admirable, why do you block democrats from complaining about Sarah's flip when it was she who tried to force the bridge funds in the first place? Kerry had the war in Iraq thrust on him, against his will, from falsified 'intelligence'; it was not anything he ever promoted. A HUGE difference.

Nick wrote on Sep 14, 2008 3:20 PM:Well "Ralist", I was raised with "Faith" and christianity and spent the first half of my life in the church.
I spent years going to bible study, youth group, sunday services, and doing outreach.
I have read the bible numerous times, as well as The Torah and The Quran, so I know a little something about religion.
In all my years spent in the church, I have never seen a larger bunch of judgemental bunch of hypocrites in all my life.
I speak from experience and that is just my own personal opinion.
You can take it for what it's worth.
My wife spent her life in private school as a Catholic taught by Nuns, and as she likes to put it, is still a Recovering Catholic.
Funny, both of us grew up in churches, albiet different ones, but are both of the same opinion on religion.
Works for us in our house just fine.
Cheers, Nick.

Intentional wrote on Sep 14, 2008 3:28 PM:Alf, I agree completely that Bush became a terrorist when he started bombing Baghdad. But maybe unlike you, I am not willing to say that his killing of children and innocent adults was not "intended". What could "shock and awe" possibly mean if not the deliberate use of terrifying, overwhelming force against a civilian population? How do you deliberately bomb a major capital city, use cluster bombs and all the rest of it, and then pretend that you didn't "mean to" kill civilians? Is the argument that "well, we could've killed a lot more if we'd wanted to" a valid reason to let Bush and his bombers off the hook? Not to me and not to the people of Iraq, as has become obvious in the years since. Bush is a mass murderer, no doubt about it. He is not nearly so on the scale of Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot. I don't consider this a statement to be proud of. When yahoos brag that if Bush had wanted to (as some of them had wanted him to) he could've outdone all three of those personifications of evil, I frankly want to vomit.

Alf wrote on Sep 14, 2008 4:40 PM:Oh boy, "Lies dont matter" at 2:51PM,
you just do not get it.
There IS NO "American Church", no such thing.
The "Church of England" is what inspired part of the First Amendment,
specifically to ensure that there never was, is or will be an "American Church".
You say "All those white men and women flocking to the GOP" and then "Black Socialist "Church"" speaks volumes.
I get it.
And I am disgusted by what I see from you.
Your statement "At times like these, the ends always justify the means" shows your true lack of character, your true lack of morals.
Again, it disgusts me.
A barbarian who has never been civilized cannot be blamed for being a barbarian.
A civilized man who rationalizes reverting to barbarism is worse than the barbarian because the civilized man knows better and reverts anyway.
The "crisis" of which you speak was brought about by people like Reagan and GWB and all who believe that we have any right to interfere with other governments.
I do not expect you to comprehend this concept, but you would HATE and fight tooth and nail, to the death, against foreigners mucking with our government and/or invading our country yet you haven't a clue as to why others don't like us mucking with theirs.
I forgot, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an inconvenient thing to be tossed aside by people of your lack of moral fiber.
Regards, Alf.

Oh Well wrote on Sep 14, 2008 4:42 PM:Nice try, Chargers. Wait till next week.

Richard wrote on Sep 14, 2008 4:42 PM:The earlier post is here repeated because it Rather, not Wallace.
Sorry, but lies do matter. It's lies that got us to start a war against Iraq. It's lies that make it seem terrorists are comparable to WWII Nazis who had the power to conquer the entire civilized world. Terrorists had to steal our planes to have a weapon of any size to use on us. And by the way, FDR did not re-write the Constitution during WWII. Yes there were a few mistakes, like incarcerating Japanese here in CA internment camps, but that is not surprising considering it was Japan who actually attacked us. And at least they weren't tortured nor was Geneva ever violated as Bush now does and has forced through in writing. Bush demanded Congress re-write laws to let him do 'whatever it takes' to capture Bin Laden who he later let go anyway. What a joke.
Another earlier post was that Rove was responsible for the forged letter that got Dan Rather fired. It figures. Even forgeries aren't beneath this GOP in their quest to control Iraq as though it is somehow a noble adventure to force democrat governments on others. The irony is that the statements in the forged letter were true, proving what most of us already knew, that Bush dodged the Vietnam draft. But the fact that it was not the original letter, it was a modern copy, is all the GOP focused on, to the demise of an honorable reporter of many decades. His producer of the show verified the accuracy of the statements in the forged letter and thus stood by the report's intent; that Bush dodged the draft when others were ahead of the National Guard line who were sent to Vietnam when their draft numbers came up. Bush was supposed to be drafted but escaped by moving ahead of the line. Bush didn't even have the courtesy to find the name of the person who had to replace his draft spot. Nor did Bush have the courtesy to stand up for Rather; he let him get fired even though the piece was spot-on correct. The producer Mary Mapes was also fired because she refused to change what was truth into a lie (she wrote a book about Bush on this incident). This reminds us of the forged document Cheney ordered that spread the lie from a detainee that he'd been trained in Iraq. Bush attacks not terrorists, but those in Iraq who don't want our democracy there and all while allowing people like Rather and Colin Powell to be fired for understanding it

He Said wrote on Sep 14, 2008 4:49 PM:Things are really getting desperate if Senator Kerry is getting into these blogs. Keep up the anti-Palin stuff, it's backfiring.

Vista Granny wrote on Sep 14, 2008 5:06 PM:Alf-I have always felt you were one of the most level-headed, intelligent bloggers here. Then you say you'll write in a vote for Ron Paul!! That means you are going to throw your vote away. Why? Choosing the lesser of two evils may be how you see it, but at least you'd be choosing -- not just goofing off. Shame on you.

Richard wrote on Sep 14, 2008 5:24 PM:What is that supposed to mean, that Kerry discussions signify "being desperate" and discussion of Pailni's mistakes is 'backfiring'? Is this some kind of a threat to thwart an American, Democratic election that is supposed to be based on truth, and hoping and expecting that the best candidate wins? What exactly is "it"? Are we interested in finding and spreading the truth for the benefit and security of our country, or is "it" some other agenda you have in mind to influence the outcome of an American, supposed-to-be Democratic, election based on truth, rather than inaccuracies. Are we going to hope to keep our country, or are we just going to give it to the ticket that tells the most false stories about the other one?
Whatever is in these posts, if the truth doesn't come out, then they obviously would then have no redeeming purpose.

Right on Richard wrote on Sep 14, 2008 5:25 PM:Richard brings an important truth, not only to our recent history, but to the Republican way of doing things. Dan Rather reported about a memo. The content of the memo was exactly accurate. The physical memo itself was a copy. He was roasted and his career killed over the technicality, which was seen to be of much greater significance than the content, which was true. The person who wrote the real one admitted it. You hear what I'm saying here? The CONTENT WAS TRUE! No matter to our "liberal media": a technicality was discovered. Rather was lynched, Bush was exhonerated. Rove had his glass of champagne. This is America. Truth is not important, only whether your guy or the other guy wins, and all is fair because they decided to make this a war between parties, not a fight over what's best for the nation. Nation? What nation? There is no nation. There is only the money behind the politicians fighting for power, and we play along, accepting their lies and all the rest of it, like the fools that we've become. Just look at the last two weeks of the current campaign. The puppet masters are laughing as once again, we prove to be the fools who can be led anywhere by lies and innuendo. Look in the mirror, folks. Wake up.

Apollo wrote on Sep 14, 2008 5:27 PM:Re: Alf (4:40 p.m.)
Hey Alf, I checked the blog you referred to at 2:51 p.m.
Now I am just as happy as the next guy to see clever efforts at undermining the conservative hypocrites in the Administration, the religious right, or bloggers such as Ron, Chuck, Esteban and SDRaoul.
But as a liberal, I suppor the REAL "straight talk" (meaning not campaigning based on more lies than any candidate ever in the history of this country including the current fraudulent president and then calling it "straight talk"), and I do not like "put ons" no matter how clever.
Read the blog again at 2:51 p.m.
The American Church?
Need to save the Constitution by subverting it?
Ends always justify the means followed by a rousing, "Go Sarah!"?
Gotta be a put on. Liberals don't need that. Straight talk, please!
But if you're right and it's the real deal, things are worse than I ever imagined.

Lies dont matter wrote on Sep 14, 2008 5:29 PM:Well, Alf, I don't know what I can say. You scare me. Ron, Chuck, raoul, esteban, can you please help me explain to Alf and his ilk what is going on in the world today? Can you tell him more effectively than I why Sarah Palin is not just a good candidate, but a necessary one! Sarah is the only candidate who can bring the Lord to His central place in American politics, which is where He should be, where we NEED Him to be. Please, Ron, raoul, Chuck, esteban, help me. And don't forget: Go Sarah!!

Richard wrote on Sep 14, 2008 5:30 PM:When people who know the truth are told to shut up and quit complaining, that's exactly how we lose our Democracy, you know, the one we're supposed to be demonstrating for other countries to consider. Einstein made some mistakes, but one thing he said that is spot-on is that anyone who has studied a matter and knows the truth of it has a responsibility to make it be known to others. So I object to the earlier post that anyone bring up Pailin's (or McCain's, Obama's or anyone else in government's) errors must stop speaking about them. Quite the contrary. If I support Obama/Biden and disagree strongly with anything they do or say it seems to me it's my responsibility to write to them about it. I've done this on a few occasions with Bush. I think it's necessary to do it.

sdraoul wrote on Sep 14, 2008 6:15 PM:Richard is full of himself and his lies. George W. Bush was never vulnerable for the draft, ever. He didn't move ahead of anyone because he qualified for pilot training in the testing phase before he signed up. He was enlisted and commissioned only after Officer Training which could only come after testing before he enlisted. He never was subject to the draft as a pilot cadet especially as there were a shortage of qualified pilot cadets.

Dan Rather promulgated lies and Karl Rove had nothing to do with it. Bush family enemies forged the papers and Rather broadcast them when in fact he was warned they were forgeries by document experts.

If you really want to know, Rather who joined the Marines but washed out of boot camp here in San Diego was a fraud, a partisan fraud who didn't report the news -- he debated politicians he didn't like under the mantle of being a reporter.

Bush served honorably and was released from his Guard obligation to attend graduate school like every single other Guard soldier or airman as per standard operating procedure.

Art Hoppe Redux wrote on Sep 14, 2008 6:22 PM:To paraphrase the late Art Hoppe:

Black Liberation religion knows what is good for us.

Fundamentalist Christians know what is bad for us.

Between the two, there is not much to choose.

Lies dont matter wrote on Sep 14, 2008 6:33 PM:Apollo has outed me. Sorry, Alf, I'm a put on. But in a sense, I'm not. I betcha I have not said a word today that many, if not most, if not all, Palin supporters believe. The only difference between them and me is that I was willing to say what they think. I honestly believe that what I said today is what true Americans, or let's just say people with a mind and a conscience, are actually up against in November. I said what Sarah and John and the Rovians that speak for them, that write their words, believe. More than 10% of Americans actually believe that Obama is a Muslim, folks. White voters, particularly the males, are running to Palin and that old guy she's running with. Read the letters and posts: it's Palin that is revered as the person bringing "fresh air" and "hope" to the Republican party. Can you imagine? A Bush clone bringing fresh air? People are believing this claptrap. And my words today are what her true believers actually believe. That this is a holy war. That all you need is gumption and Jesus (of a certain kind, not the Obama kind of Jesus...just read Ron's post to hear about Obama's kind of Jesus...Sarah's Jesus wants us to kill people!). It is essential that people see this for what it is, an effort by the small minority of fanatical jihadist Christians to take over the country. That's the deal. Wake up. (Good job Apollo. Sorry Alf)

sdraoul wrote on Sep 14, 2008 6:34 PM:"lies don't matter" brings up an interesting point. The free exercize of religion is in the Constitution, the "separation of church and state" is not and never was.

It was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, the hypocrite who wrote "all men are created equal" even as he owned slaves all his life and didn't free them on his death like George Washington did. He even believed that "negroes" urinated through their skins pores which was why they smelled funny.

Most religious politicians are hypocrites (except for Joe Lieberman, Antonin Scalia and Sam Brownback) with JFK as a prime example. He used prostitutes in the White House. So much for being a practicing Roman Catholic.

Marlowe wrote on Sep 14, 2008 6:36 PM:There was a great philosopher who taught at the University of Texas at Austin who passed away a few years ago, before his time. He said something to the effect of: there are two kinds of religious leaders, those who want to lead their people to freedom and the promised land, and those who want to play golf with the Pharaoh. Nuf said, he nailed it. Up to us.

Good job raoul wrote on Sep 14, 2008 6:39 PM:You tell em, hoss. Every conservative can be proven, by your journalistic acumen, to be an honest hero. Every liberal can be PROVEN to be a lying traitor. This gets a little old, raoul. Do you have an honest bone in your body? Do you have an atom of respect for the truth? Do you care how many of our kids are killed needlessly so that you can cheer? Raoul, what did the Marines do to your soul? I know many Marines...they aren't all as twisted as you are. Raoul, what did this to you?

Richard wrote on Sep 14, 2008 6:42 PM:Yes, America needs God's help. But remember that we're admonished not to be like some people, who cry all day for the lack of a leader or a king. We're supposed to be more like ants outside, where they have no leader and yet know how to behave anyway. So to think that only Pailin is the one who will bring God to Americans I'm afraid I can't see, particularly when she has this glaring false belief that we're killing in Iraq "those who attacked us." The American military for example did not get involved in the Russian civil war. It raged without us. But we're in Iraq, killing certain Iraqis, to hopefully liberate other Iraqis. We're basically now taking sides in another country's internal divides. If you want to get involved in something likely to backfire, this is a prime one. Pailn is not going to spread the Gospel to Iraq by sending her son there; it's not what God had in mind and I'm sorry but if God spoke to Bush to invade Iraq, then Bush would have known this with certainty; he would not have re-worded that into a different type of claim some time afterward. Pailin has provided zero evidence that God expects us and wants us to take part in Iraq's internal fighting. Johnson, Nixon, everyone else during Vietnam never made such a claim that I'm aware of; where does Pailin get this stuff from, if it isn't simply Bush's previous false claim from years ago? This reminds me of Barbara Bush who proclaimed that all those people trapped in the Superdome were "underpriviledged anyway". It's like, hey they're used to having so little so it's not as bad as you might think. Christians that don't concern themselves about poor people maybe aren't the Christians they think they are.

Chris to Intentional wrote on Sep 14, 2008 9:21 PM:I fully agree with your blog concerning the fact that the killing of innocents by Bush was intentional. The problem is that there are those out here that still want to believe in the goodness of the military and our government. No the military and our president don't care how many innocents they kill and they don't do anything to minimize the killing of innocents. But finally someone other than myself has the guts to say so.

Richard wrote on Sep 14, 2008 9:26 PM:For the record I'm now being accused of being 'full of myself and full of lies' by the very same person who wrote that Pancho Villa is a true Mexican 'hero' who never actually attacked New Mexico or gunned down and killed, among others, my good friend's relative. This same person also told me before that President Wilson was such a racist that he tried to 'overthrow Mexico' when what Wilson actually did was to try to capture Villa. Then his response to that was "see, Wilson was also incompetent because he couldn't capture Villa". The dead in Columbus were Americans, gunned down by Villa's thugs, and this is the response, an attack on President Wilson, the one who tried to do something about it. Unbelievable. I know one thing, the same things that Mary Mapes wrote in her book about ultra right bloggers who change the truth into a lie is a formidable and vicious element now, where apologies seem never to forthcome. Her code in the book was FEA. Read the book and learn the truth about Bush and how Barnes arranged for him to escape the Vietnam draft. You don't have to take my word for it (see: Mapes, Mary, "Truth and Duty, the Press, the President and the Privilege of Power" for this and for the Killian memos from Bush's superior in the Guard.

Apollo wrote on Sep 14, 2008 9:27 PM:Re: Lies dont matter (6:33 p.m.)
This blog comes clean, acknowledges the earlier "put on" and perhaps says more than s/he intended (or maybe did intend).
The blog says: "Sarah [Palin]'s Jesus wants us to kill people!" and then describes Palin's movement as "an effort by the small minority of fanatical jihadist Christians to take over the country."
OK, I don't like put on's, and I like liberals to be the REAL "straight talk express" but I am sad to report that this blog hit a point that has troubled me but which I have been reluctant to express.
Today's so-called "Christians" (who have nothing to do with what Jesus actually taught, as my friend "Three D" has documented many times) believe it is OK to kill or torture if it is for God's "holy war."
They have no scruples whatsoever.
They also know that John McCain is not one of them.
They opposed McCain until they woke up one Friday morning and were surprised to find that one of their own had been selected for the number two. They rubbed their eyes in disbelief and a sinister smile crept across their evil, fanatic faces.
John McCain, the infidel, the non-religious, the 72-year-old multiple cancer survivor (whose father and grandfather died young from sudden heart attacks, had chosen one of the holy insiders as his number two. A heartbeat away from the presidency. One of their own.
I have heard the despicable threats that if Obama were to be elected he would be assassinated. Despicable, yes, but not beyond the sad realm of possibility.
But why have we not heard more about the more probable danger, that if McCain is elected (or steals the election) the holy warrior crusaders for God will make sure he has an early "heart attack" so their puppet the "barracuda" can take over.
Barracuda?
Why do I have a hard time reconciling that with my mental image of Jesus?

OBAMACAN wrote on Sep 14, 2008 9:50 PM:Sarah Palin belongs to an extremist Protestant denomination that proclaims that neither Catholics nor Mormons are real "Christians."
SDRaoul, who has repeated proclaimed his Catholic faith in this blog, doesn't seem to mind.
He's going to vote for her anyway.
Party first.
Country second.
God a distant third.
We're so proud of you, Raoul.

confussed wrote on Sep 15, 2008 6:52 AM:Why do the republicans believe that they are the ONLY PARTY that can solve the problems that were caused by THEIR PARTY?

Boat wrote on Sep 15, 2008 8:15 AM:sdraoul
[-] wrote on Sep 14, 2008 6:15 PM: Sorry, Buddy, but GWB did not, I repeat, did not, got to OCS. He attended Air Force enlisted boot camp. The day he graduated he was discharged and then immediately commissioned as a 2nd Lt. He went straight into flight training. He never went to OCS which would have been the normal route for student pilots. Perhaps the only person in Air Force history to do so.

When he went into the Texas Air Guard he was only twelve days away from his college deferment's expiration.

This has been documented in several places. You may want to check it out.

Nick wrote on Sep 15, 2008 8:25 AM:To "Confused":
Why do Democrats think they are the ONLY ONES who can solve the problems caused by Republicans?
Riddle me that one Batman!
Cheers, Nick.

Richard wrote on Sep 15, 2008 7:30 PM:No Democrat I know of claims to be able to fix the problems caused by the GOP. That would be a lie because it is impossible for example to undo the invasion of Iraq. Fixing it with glue doesn't fix the fact it was broken. Impossible. How can a Democrat say he's going to solve the problems incurred by the Republicans for the last many years? It's impossible. What Democrats say is that allowing Republicans to dig us in deeper is insane. Democrats can only hope to stop the bleeding to help prevent things from collapsing further. Get the picture?

Nick wrote on Sep 16, 2008 11:21 AM:Like I said before "Richard", your dilusional.
Democrats are more of the same bovine excrement, just with different face.
Our debt will increase and Democrats will move to socialize more programs and dole out more entitlements.
They will take from those that have and give to those that have less with their ideas of redistribution of wealth.
You've been swallowing the Democrat kool-aid for so long "Richard", that you can't even see the writing on the wall.
Get the picture?