About the Candidates… a last look at the FM posts about the campaign

Although the FM site makes no endorsements, many posts have discussed the foreign policies and attributes of the candidates for President of the United States.  Here they are, along with links to a few other articles you might find useful.

My recommendation:  Vote!  This might be one of the most important elections in America’s history.

Contents

  1. FM posts
  2. FM posts about Gov. Palin
  3. Other articles

FM Posts about the candidates and the election

Esp note #13, which had the most intense discussion in the comments.

1. How the Iraq and Vietnam wars are mirror images of each other, 7 February 2008 — Now we have McCain, the leading Republican Presidential candidate, talking of an open-ended commitment to victory in Iraq.

2. What do blogs do for America?, 26 February 2008 — As our problems reach critical dimensions and our economy sinks into what is (at best) a severe recession, our national leadership will likely move into the hands of someone with astonishingly little capacity to govern.

3. A look at the next phase of the Iraq War: 2009-2012, 1 March 2008 — What is next in Iraq?  None of the leading candidates have expressed any intention of leaving Iraq – except in the distant and vague future.  McCain intends to fight so long as (or until) we suffer few casualties, then stay for a long time (perhaps a hundred years, as McCain said here and here) ).  On the other hand, Obama has been quite explicit…

4. Our metastable Empire, built on a foundation of clay, 3 March 2008 — We can elect leaders with vast ambitions (foreign for McCain, domestic for Obama), but can no longer afford them.

5. How long will all American Presidents be War Presidents?, 21 March 2008 — The Presidential campaign rolls on in the seventh year since 9/11, with the only debate about the Long War being in which nations America should fight. We see this even the speeches of the most “liberal” candidate, Senator Barack Obama.

6. American history changes direction as the baton passes between our political parties, 18 May 2008 – Importance of the November 2008 political landslide.

7. President Obama, an Muslim apostate?, 2 June 2008 — Nope.

8. Is Obama running for the office of Chief Shaman?, 6 June 2008 — Weirdness from our next President.

9. Does America need a charismatic President?, 15 July 2008

10. More about charisma, by Don Vandergriff…(#2 in the “getting ready for Obama” series), 16 July 2008 — About charisma:  know it before you buy it!

11. Obama might be the shaman that America needs, 17 July 2008 — At what point does criticism of Obama’s charisma and rhetoric become criticism of leadership itself — and blind faith in technocratic solutions so loved by policy nerds?  Michael Knox Beran crosses that line in “Obama, Shaman“, City Journal, Summer 2008.

12. Obama describes the first step to America’s renewal, 8 August 2008 — Obama’s statement about America may be the simple truth; this may be why so many find it disturbing.

13. McCain believes we are stupid. Is he correct?, 30 August 2008 — What does choosing Palin say about McCain?  Esp note the intense discussion in the comments.

14. Alaska is near Russia, and Gov Palin’s other foreign policy experience, 1 September 2008

15. It’s is not just McCain who believes we’re dumb – it’s a crowd, 3 September 2008

16. Spengler describes “How Obama lost the election”, 5 September 2008

17. Governor Palin as an archetype for our time, 9 September 2008

18. Before we reignite the cold war, what happened in Georgia?, 12 September 2008 — Notes from Palin’s first interview.

19. Stratfor says that our war in Pakistan grows hotter; Palin seems OK with that, 12 September 2008 — More from the ABC interview.

20. These days all American Presidents are War Presidents (part 2), 13 September 2008

21. Biden’s gaffes are a threat to American’s complacency!, 13 September 2008

22. Campaign Update – news from the front, 25 September 2008 — Includes part 1 of Couric’s interview of Palin.

23. Gov Palin speaks about foreign policy, 26 September 2008 — Part 2 of Couric’s interview.

24. What happens to the Republican Party after the election?, 2 November 2008

25. The evil of socialism approaches!, 22 October 2008 — Economic crisis … a leftist radical President … Can socialism be avoided, or is it our destined fate?

FM Posts about Gov. Palin

A quick checklist on my posts about Gov Palin:

  1. Discuss education and background, compare with Obama?  Here, here, here.
  2. Discuss what she said about domestic policy?  Here.
  3. Discuss knowledge of foreign policy?  Here, here, here, here, and here.
  4. Review the Alaska Senate’s investigation into Palin’s alleged abuse of power?  here, also see “What the Troopergate Report Really Says“, TIME, 11 October 2008.  See the full report here.

Articles from other sources

1. Biden Admits Errors and Criticizes Latest Report“, 22 September 1987, New York Times — A revealing article from Biden’s past.

2. Foreign Policy and the President’s Irrelevance” by George Friedman on Stratfor, 5 Feb 2008

3. Obama Adviser Calls for Troops To Stay in Iraq Through 2010“, New York Sun, 4 April 2008 — No comment needed; the headline tells the story.  Will be interesting to see if this is true.  If so, only the naive should be surprised.

4. John McCain’s “100 Years” — putting the controversy to rest“, Moira Whelan, posted at Democracy Arsenal, 30 April 2008 –  This gives McCain’s actual words on the war, at various times and places.

5. Barack in Iraq“, Michael Crowley, The New Republic”, 7 May 2008 — “Can he really end the war?”

6. President Apostate?“, Edward N. Luttwak, op-ed in the New York Times, 12 May 2008 — Would the Muslim world welcome an Obama presidency?  Is Obama an apostate from Islam?

7. Is Obama the Apostate, or is Bush? A Reply to Luttwak“, Prof Juan Cole, posted at Informed Comment, 15 May 2008 — A rebuttal to Luttwak,

8. Entitled to Their Opinions, Yes. But Their Facts?“, Clark Hoyt, op-ed in the New York Times, 1 June 2008 — Another rebuttal to Luttwak’s NYT op-ed (above).  A definitive one, imo.

9. The wife U.S. Republican John McCain callously left behind“, Daily Mail, 8 June 2008 — About McCain’s first wife, her accident and abandonment.  Again, we need the Brit press to tell us.

10. Obama May Consider Slowing Iraq Withdrawal“, Washington Post , 4 July 2008 — “Candidate Says He Remains Committed to Ending War.” Yes, just as is McCain.

11. McCain’s broken marriage and fractured Reagan friendship“, Los Angeles Times, 11 July 2008 — More about the messy details of McCain’s divorce..

12. The Election From Hell“, John Derbyshire, National Review Online, 25 August 2008

13. The Inconvenient Obama“, Andrew Breitbart, op-ed in The Washington Times, 26 August 2008 — Senator Obama has a problem. And it lives in a hut.” About his brother-in-law living in poverty, in Africa.

23 thoughts on “About the Candidates… a last look at the FM posts about the campaign

  1. Also, don’t be afraid to protest vote. If the race you are voting on is pretty much decided, feel free to protest vote in the DIRECTION you want the country to go.

    EG, I think the libertarians are complete nutcases. There are critical, important roles for regulation and government. The wall street meltdown alone shows the bankrupcy of the “let the market regulate itself” ideal that founds the principle of the libertarian party.

    But I believe they are complete nutcases IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. Thus if the particular candidate I desire is pretty much assured of either winning or losing, I’ll gladly protest vote to the libertarian candidate (as long as I know the libertarian candidate will get less than 10% of the total vote), as I believe that such a vote is more meaningful then a vote towards a sure-winner or sure-loser of the two major parties.

    Likewise, if you are a very left-wing type, don’t be afraid to protest vote to the green party, or socialist party, if you aren’t in a swing state or a tight congressional election.

    Even in a landslide, your vote can count!

  2. Careful, Mr. Weaver . . . there IS a difference between “Libertarians” and “libertarians”. Those of us without the party affiliation (lower case libertarians) are not (all) nutcases. Also, I would point out that every party has their lunatic fringe, but some have recently allowed the fringe to dictate their platform.

    When you look at the meltdown, follow the root causes (many of which have been documented here by FM) and see if you believe that government may be absolved of their responsibility in causing the crisis in the first place.

    I still believe this election will be decided in the Electoral College, and that it might be closer than we imagine. Either way, I am following your advice and voting the DIRECTION I want the country to go.

  3. Well put, and apologies for offending you. The Libertarian party IS nuts, IMO. But nuts in the right direction. Small-l libertarians (I’m not quite at that point, but close) are not the same.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: I am not familiar with these distinctions among flavors of libertarians, but this is a strong rebuttal and one of the best web posts (ever): “If Wishes Were Horses, Beggars Would Ride — A Pony!“, John & Belle Have a Blog (6 March 2004)

  4. As a life-time protest voter I have a decided feeling of futility about doing it again. Voting, combined with actively working within a party, is the way to go. The next five to ten years should be fertile times for organizing, educating and movement-building, and ewven troglodytes like our two major parties may be forced to change.

  5. FM Note: This violates the FM comment policy in two ways. First, at 680 words it far exceeds the max of 250 words (no, breaking it into multiple comments does not help. Second, it is materially misleading (I don’t state “Don’t lie”, but that should be understood.). I leave it up unedited as an example of the Republican thinking and writing that I suspect will lead to a well-deserved defeat on November 4.

    Fabius continues to dismiss Governor Palin as unqualified.

    The Branchflower report, if one actually takes the time to read it, absolves Palin of improper or unethical behavior in her firing Public Safety Commissioner Monegan. {FM note: false materially misleading; I reproduce the findings in full below} In fact, it’s clear from the report that there were numerous issues on which Palin and Monegan disagreed, not simply how Wooten was handled. Monegan had his own agenda and Palin had every right to bring someone else on in his place, and Branchflower said so.

    As for the “abuse of power” charge, I fail to see how the report concluded that there was abuse when nothing happened to Trooper Wooten as a result of Palin’s and her staff’s inquiries. The report cites the Alaska ethics code, in that abuse occurs when there is “any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action.” Heck, the divorce judge in Palin’s sister’s case admonished the sister right there in the report that trying to get her husband disciplined was threatening her livelihood. It certainly wasn’t to her sister’s benefit to try to get her ex-husband fired.

    On the contrary, as the chief executive of the state, in charge of enforcing the law, Palin and Monegan would have been the first to be criticized had Wooten further misbehaved in a way that seriously threatened public safety. Where does your responsibility end when you truly believe you have a “bad trooper” on the force?

    Certainly she could have handled it better–Palin backed off when advised that personnel policy was off limits, and she should have done more to get her husband and staff to back off. But I think the motivation–protect the public from a guy who shouldn’t be running around with a badge–is not necessarily a bad one.

    The real issue should be, “How Has Palin Governed?” not what kind of interview she gave to America’s Sweetheart, Katie Couric, in September. Here’s the answer–pretty darned good: “How Palin Governed“, National Review, 22 October 2008.

    As for the beltway hacks that think the Palins are not good enough to inhabit their rarefied world, the Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes point out that none of them have ever met Palin. “To Know Her Is To Respect Her“, Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard, 3 November 2008.

    Rather, as the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger notes, they’ve bought in to the constant negative drumbeat courtesy of our objective, elect-Obama-at-all-costs media: “Behold the shabby frat house that says it’s above her pay grade.” (“Hatin’ Palin“, op-ed in the WSJ, 23 October 2008.

    The idea that an actual citizen (especially one who understands that public servants are supposed to actually serve) could be a heartbeat away from the Presidency terrifies them, and for good reason–their hold on power depends on them being able to convince the rest of us that the problems are too complex, too “nuanced,” for some religious simpleton with a better understanding of the Constitution than, say, Joe Biden, to handle. The informed citizens have known for quite a while that the emperors in DC have no clothes.

    Frankly, I’d rather have somebody who hires good people (and is not afraid to fire them if they aren’t cutting it), listens to their advice, learns quickly from mistakes, and can separate the important stuff from the trivial.

    Finally, if you think Ken Adelman is a great font of wisdom (his call that Iraq would be a “cakewalk” was especially brilliant), here are a couple of Democrats who actually know Palin (but don’t look for these types of testimonials in the Dinosaur Media).

    Elaine Lafferty (former editor of Ms. Magazine), posting a comment at The Daily Beast, 27 October 2008
    {FM note: Lafferty is a paid consultant to the McCain campaign — considering this a “testimonial” is absurd}

    Mike Gravel, Alaska Democrat: “Mike Gravel Interviewed on Sarah Palin“, The Independent Candidates 2008 Channel — “This video no longer available.”
    {FM note: it is still available at the source: “Interview with Mike Gravel” (interviewed by Mitch Jeserich, Sonali Kolhatkar, and Larry Bensky), Pacifica Radio, 1 September 2008}
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: This comment is a disgrace, in my opinion.

    (1) Here are the findings of the independent investigator hired by a committee of the Alaska State Senate. The full report is here, the Findings are on page 8.

    Finding Number One

    For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides “The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.”

    Finding Number Two

    I find that, although Walt Monegan’s refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

    Finding Number Three

    Harbor Adjustment Service of Anchorage, and its owner Ms. Murleen Wilkes, handled Trooper Michael Wooten’s workers’ compensation claim property and in the normal course of business like any other claim processed by Harbor Adjustment Service and Ms. Wilkes. Further, Trooper Wooten received all the workers’ compensation benefits to which he was entitled.

    Finding Number Four
    The Attorney General’s office has failed to substantially comply with my August 6, 2008 written request to Governor Sarah Palin for infomration about the case in the form of emails.

    (2) The “testamonial” by former Senator Gravel. I don’t listen to this stuff (and do not see a transcript), but here is a more recent comment by Mike Gravel. Hardly a “testamonial”. “An Interview with Mike Gravel“, Splice Today, 27 October 2008 — Excerpt:

    ST: What do you make of Sarah Palin?

    MG: Look, she is clearly a very sharp politician. She can market herself very well. But from an ideological point of view she is really a Neanderthal: her religious views are terrible, her political ideology is terrible, and her experience is really nonexistent. She was mayor of Wasilla. I know Wasilla, I’ve campaigned there door-to-door, and that’s a very narrow — narrow religiously, narrow politically — community, probably one of the two most conservative communities in the state. She’s not well read, she’s not well informed, and she doesn’t know a lot about energy. Just being governor of Alaska doesn’t make you know a lot about energy.

    She has demonstrated one thing: she is very tough and has a good political mind. She knows the direction she wants to go in to satisfy her ambitions and there’s nothing wrong with that in itself, however what is wrong is that she’s totally imbued with the militarism which has existed in this country for the past 50 years—all the more so in Alaska, because it’s such a military culture.

    ST: I was really struck by the difference between the Sarah Palin from the Katie Couric interviews and the Sarah Palin at vice presidential debate.

    MG: Oh sure. Like I said, she’s a natural. But that has to be informed by intellect and she’s not informed by any intellect. She doesn’t read anything. I think she’s really being controlled by the narrow-minded people around McCain—that is, the Neocons. It’s unfortunate.

  6. I keep meaning to thank you for your excellent links on such a wide variety of topics. Much appreciated.

    Including that interview with Gravel. I found his demeanor a bit strange in the one debate I saw, but on the page he is/was by far my favorite candidate. His Democracy Initiative is very smart and one of the only substantive reform proposals I have read in decades, but he is unable to mobilize support from wealthy patrons which is the only way such a thing can gain durable traction.

  7. FM: Fox has a headline: Report Released Shows No Evidence Palin Violated Ethics Law No details tho.

    Your link isn’t showing in your comment reply {Fixed!}. The findings summarized:
    1) She abused the trust, in violation; as explained later (section IV)
    2) Firing Monegan was proper and lawful
    3) Trooper Wootan’s workman’s comp claim was handled normally; he got all he deserved.
    4) The AG office failed to send in all emails.

    Well, if (2) & (3) mean Palin wasn’t wrong, that implies that only (4) is enough for the finding of abuse / ethics violation.

    Not supplying emails to a fishing expedition, if the firing was proper and lawful, doesn’t seem like improper or unethical behavior. So from what I see here, I think Arms Merchant is more correct than FM.

    The investment by FM in demonizing Palin is, IMO, one of the strangest aspects of this mostly fine blog.

    FM: if the final investigation “absolves Palin of improper or unethical behavior in her firing Public Safety Commissioner Monegan”, will you still think this was a disgraceful comment?
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: The Fox headline refers to an report of the Alaska state personnel board, commissioned by Gov Palin. Why would anyone pay attention to this, or find its result a surprise? The 263 page report by an independent investigator, however, has credibility.

    The only significnt finding of the four findings was the one you ignore — #1. Again, not a surprise conclusion about the Gov’s use of power for family interests. The second was not disputed by anybody serious, the third was minor, and the 4th showed that — despite Gov Palin’s promises — she played the game like most politicos (stall and resist outside investigations).

    Careful examination of Gov Palin’s statements and actions is considered “demonizing Palin” by her supporters. Quite bizarre. Fortunately they will have some time out of power to think and reflect. That is good for the rest of us, and perhaps over the long-term good it will prove good for the Republican Party as well.

  8. Libertarianism, basically a deep suspicion about Govt. Has it been (like in the State I live in) been captured by vested interests?

    I like them, I identify with them, my heart is with them. Question, question all the time. Even when Govt works well, such as health care here in Australia, question them, just in case they try to “do a swifty”, that means they try to rip you off and give your money to a rich mate.

    To pataphrase Einstein:” as much Govt as necessary, as little as possible”.

    And as a Citizen pay your honest dues. I might grumble about taxes, but my taxes paid to save my wife’s life. My parents taxes paid to get me to University .. can I do no less, but hear me roar when my taxes are wasted on some ponzi scheme.

  9. Fabius, you did a nice job quoting Gravel’s ad hominum criticisms (“Neanderthal,” “terrible” political ideology, “terrible” religious views, “narrow religiously, narrow politically,” “totally imbued with the militarism”).

    However, in the interview that I posted (thanks again for fixing the link, sorry I haven’t been able to find a transcript), the discussion is more germane to the ethics question:

    Mike Gravel:
    “She had had the courage to put the people and put integrity above the [Republican] party.”
    “She should have had the ability, rules aside, to fire [Wooten], when [the CPS] couldn’t fire him.”
    “Do they have to wait till [Wooten] kills somebody before they get rid of him?”

  10. Re, “Don’t lie.” Them’s fightin’ words. Surely a lover of liberty like FM knows that if a lie is repeated often enough, many start to believe it’s the truth.

    To wit, “[Palin’s] experience is really nonexistent.”

    Are people referring to her six years as Mayor of Wasilla, her four years on the Wasilla City Council, her year as Chair of the Oil and Gas Commission, and her 2 years of party work for a 527 group?

    There are worse ways to learn American government and civics.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: This is an odd comment.

    “To wit, ‘[Palin’s] experience is really nonexistent.'”

    You appear to be contesting a a quote by former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel, whom you cited as Democrats who “know Palin” and give here a “testimonial.” Esp odd since by any rational standard his observation is quite accurate, as the experience you cite is quite trivial for the office of President of the United States.

    Re: “Don’t lie.”

    I am tolerant of differing perspectives on this site, esp since much of the discussion concerns things on the edge of the known — or knowable. But some things are IMO over the line. Such as saying…

    “The Branchflower report, if one actually takes the time to read it, absolves Palin of improper or unethical behavior in her firing Public Safety.”

    … about a report whose Finding Number One states:

    “For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides ‘The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.’”

  11. Her time as mayor was marked by abuse of power (firing both the head librarian and chief of police, largely because they did not support her campaign for mayor), an abusive campaign founded on lies (“the first Christian mayor”), huge cost-overruns on a sports center (lots of debt+, built on land the city did not even own!), on a town where being mayor doesn’t amount to much (no school system, no fire dept, a population of ~5000 people (2000 census), and a city budget of ~$15M/year FY2009.)

    And continuing on as governor, we saw further abuse of power, abuse of travel privildges, and tax-law violations to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars (even if allowed, the children’s travel expenses and her per-diem for staying at home reperesent taxable income.)

    This is the problem with Sarah Palin: If you actually look at her experience and track record, the track record is amazingly dismal, not just amazingly small!

  12. In fact, the report “absolving” her was commissioned by her in a deliberate attempt to kill the state legislature investigation!

  13. How I wish the same level of digging went into the “One” as well. Palin may not be qualified nor has the experience but neither does Obama. As I have expressed in the past, I am not fond of either set of candidates but the general lack of any kind of effort by the “Press” in looking into Obama concerns me more than the election itself. Meanwhile there is this from Instapundit from yesterday.

    “GALLUP: Sharp Increase in Concern About Ineligible Voters This Year. “As Americans cast their ballots in this year’s historic presidential election, just 18% are very confident that votes across the country will be accurately cast and counted, down sharply from 29% who said so just prior to the 2004 election.” I’ve been warning about this for years. It’s a crisis of confidence that may turn out to be worse than the financial crisis, in time.”

    I have to agree that this could end up being our largest problem in the future. Without trust in the system the rule of law becomes next to impossible.

  14. FxConde: “Can you honestly say that Obama was not throughly investigated by the press, the McCain campaign, and the Clinton campaign?”

    Obama has suprisingly little dirt for a Chicago politician (or a policitian in general), about the only real slime that we know of being being Tony Rezko (his Wikipedia entry), which was slimy but not illegal, and definatly no more slimy that McCain’s relationship with Charles Keating.

    Part of the problem in a campaign like this is the tendency to see everything as biased against “your guy”, be it Obama or McCain. If you support Obama, you wonder why the press went so light on McCain’s history, gambling habits, and temper? If you support McCain, you ask why did Obama get a free pass but Palin was so investigated?

  15. Unfortunately, Mr. Weaver you really can’t say he has. If McCain or Palin had any associates like Obama’s it would be news every night. Only over the last week have I seen things really nasty from the McCain campaign in regards to just one associate of Obama’s. Why? Who knows. The association with Ayers, Rezco, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. and other subjects would be fantastic fodder to be used in a campaign. It’s a little late but whoever is coordinating advertising side for McCain should be fired. But you also do not realize that I’m not very fond of McCain. Problem is, I’m even less fond of Obama. I feel we are faced with two candidates who really are not good enough. But this what the citizens have asked for and this what they get.

  16. The exact analgous relationships exist, if not more so, and got far LESS airtime than William Ayers and company, because they were being far less hyped by the Obama camp (the only one they pushed was the Keating 5, and mostly in longer-form discussions.)

    * McCain’s Tony Rezko is Charles Keating (Wikipedia entry).
    * Palin’s Jeremiah Wright is the Wasallia Assembly of God (Wikipedia Entry) .
    * McCain’s Bill Ayers is his relationships with the Contras in Nicaragua, both as a senator and as an individual donor (Washington Post) (And a relationship with the KLA as well)

    And how can you say that Ayers, Wright, and Rezko were not fantastic fodder for a campaign? Thats part of the problem, they were fodder so much (Clinton was the first to try all three) that they became purely exhausted.

    And how can you say they weren’t covered. Google news searches:

    Results 2,161 for Rezko and Obama
    Results 10,892 for Wright and Obama
    Results 34,344 for Ayers and Obama

    Results 2,837 for Keating and McCain
    Results 402 for Assembly-of-God and Palin
    Results 99 for Nicaragua Contras and McCain *

    (*Qualifier is necessary because “Contras and McCain” picks up queries for “Contra Costa County”)

    The only one which is even in Obama’s favor is Rezco vs Keating, and thats largely because the S&L crisis holds many parallels with the current financial crisis.

    And just a little extra:
    Results 8,830 for palin trooper

    You may continue to believe that Obama was given a free pass compared to McCain by the press. You can continue to believe this for the next 4 years. But that hardly makes it true. Both candidates were brutally investigated, by their opponents and by the press.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: Whatever the role of the press, I agree that both sides performed adequate research on the opposition — and had sufficient access to let the American people know whatever they discover.

  17. The internet is not very reflective of the main stream media. The google search reflects people looking for information not the day to day news that still a very large number of people get their info from. Be it as you want. I still beleive he got not only a free pass but active support. Many Democrats that I know also concur with this. Not that it matters.

    This is one area, abortion, that there should’nt be any confusion but there is: “How successfully has the MSM covered for Obama?“, Michael Greenspan’s blog, 3 November 2008

    But again I know it does not matter. On a lighter note: “If the Vote’s A-Rockin, Don’t Come A-Knockin – Babeland Offers Sex Toys for Votes“, Advertising Age, 4 November 2008.

  18. Huh??? FM, you quoted the finding yourself:

    “Finding Number Two

    I find that, although Walt Monegan’s refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.”

    The abuse of power finding had to do with her and her husband and staff pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten and her husband’s calling about the workman’s comp thing.

    I wrote, “The Branchflower report, if one actually takes the time to read it, absolves Palin of improper or unethical behavior ***in her firing Public Safety Commissioner Monegan.***” I then go on to write about the abuse of power charge. Good grief.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: Why do you say that Finding #1 relates only to the relationship of Gov Palin with Trooper Wooten? The Finding itself clearly does not limit itself to that issue (see pages 48-69). Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 17 for Finding #1 concern pressure by Gov Palin, or those connected to her, on Commissioner Monegan.

    As I stated above, almost everyone recognizes that she had the power to fire Monegan at will. The report provides substantial evidence that this was done to some degree as an action for family and personal reasons. Given Gov and Palin’s limited cooperation, that is the most that can be said at this time.

    However, I have revised the comment above to read “materially misleading” rather than “false.”

  19. FxConde: Google News represents what is being WRITTEN, not what is being searched, both in blogs and the print media.

    If you still believe that Obama was effectively given a free pass by the press and by both the McCain and Clinton campaign, there is nothing I can say that can convince you otherwise.

  20. Ah, Nick Weaver, if only it were just Wright, Ayers, and Rezko. Here’s another story that never made it into the MSM:

    Soldier for Stroger: the candidate of change helped keep Chicago politics dirty (National Review, subscripber only).

    Excerpts:

    “As a presidential candidate, Obama has styled himself a reformer. …The problem is, had he endorsed the [corrupt] elder Stroger’s serious challenger in the March 2006 Democratic primary, he might have lost the support of some of his most important allies and donors.

    That reformist challenger, Forrest Claypool, was a progressive county commissioner. Local politicians of the Left and the Right, weary of corruption, lined up behind Claypool in the kind of post-partisanship Obama extols today.

    “The other anti-Stroger candidate, Democratic commissioner Michael Quigley, dropped out of the race to present a unified reform campaign-he even became Claypool’s campaign manager. He declared that Stroger “cynically abuses” the trust of poor people who depend on county government, by “wasting precious resources on the hangers-on-the contractors and the patronage workers.”

    …In the last two weeks, it appeared that Claypool might pull off a victory. But…[t]he machine organizations worked overtime to turn out the pro-Stroger vote.

    …By withholding his endorsement [in the primary], Obama probably saved the machine…There was still a chance, in the general election, to defeat the Strogers. But instead of keeping silent as he had in the primaries, Obama supported the machine.”

  21. If the Stroger story had legs (its 2006), McCain or Clinton would have exploited it. Their campaigns weren’t stupid, they understood opposition research and how just making adds and speaches can make it a story.

    And what about McCain’s craps habit [1]? His messy divorce with his first wife? Etc. Those did not get much play in the press, even though they are in the public record.

    You will always find the bias you desire to find.

    [1] What I actually find very disturbing, and except for a Rolling Stone feature and a misplaced article in the NY times. I don’t want a president who gambles at games that you KNOW you lose at in the end. I want a poker player for president, not a craps player.

  22. Hmm, Obama’s supporting public corruption vs. McCain’s personal moral failings. Kind of weak, don’t you think?

    Let’s set up an equivalency, e.g. Rezko=Keating. Well, for one thing, McCain was deeply ashamed and publicly repentant of his dealings with Keating, despite the fact that he, McCain, was exonerated. Obama?

  23. Results of the Presidential Campaign

    (1) The last time a Democrat received 52% of the vote in a Presidential election was 1964.

    (2) The last time a non-incumbent received 52% in a Presidential election was 1952.

    (3) The 4th popular vote wins for the Democratic Party in the past 5 Presidential cycles.

    (4) 3/4 of American Jews will have voted for a many whose middle name is Hussein.

    The first two are from Matthew Yglesias; the last two are from Prof Brad Delong.

Leave a Reply