home

Palin on the Issues

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:47:47 PM EST
Tags: Sarah Palin (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Politico, in the 2006 Alaska Governor's race, Sarah Palin ran against former Alaska Governor Tony Knowles. Knowles campaign put together this oppositon research document on Palin, outlining her position on issues.

One of Barack Obama's aides worked on that campaign. It will not be distributing the document. It's positon:

We’re running against John McCain — the issues raised around his decision and the fact that he clearly bowed under to the right wing of his party and let them exercise veto power over his vice presidential pick,” Dunn said, suggesting the Obama campaign wouldn’t be recycling the 2006 Democratic criticism of Palin.

< McCain/Palin to Campaign in Colorado Springs Saturday | Fred Thompson Attacks Barack Obama >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Palin on the Issues | 37 comments (37 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I just finished reading the entire (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by americanincanada on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:54:54 PM EST
    63 pages. They won't be using it for 2 very obvious reasons.

    1. The criticism Tony Knowles used against her in 2006 didn't work, she beat him by 8 points.

    2. There is nothing much in the document that really makes her look bad.

    If that's as good as anyone could do to take her down, our party is in trouble.

    It's Obama vs McCain (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by elonepb on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 08:57:49 PM EST
    Not Obama vs Palin.

    McCain has plenty of problems, the main one being such a supporter of Bush's policies.

    And of course, no one has brought up Keating Five...

    Parent

    Is this (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:01:11 PM EST
    the word for today? Because all I've heard for the last couple of days is that Palin was going to kill McCain's campaign.

    Your point about it being Obama vs. McCain is right.

    Parent

    Who've you been hearing that from? (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:03:30 PM EST
    Not the Obama camp.

    Parent
    Some People... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Brillo on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:06:09 PM EST
    Live on the blogs.  It skews your sense of what's actually going on...  

    Parent
    stay away from the koolaid heavy blogs (none / 0) (#39)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:03:34 PM EST
    and November will not be as big a surprise. If Obama loses there will be a lot of shocked people in the supposed "netroots".... yet that is a distinct possibi;ity.

    One 0f the things I like about this blog is that people here have remained sane and pragmatic.

    Parent

    I was going to give you a 5 (none / 0) (#44)
    by hairspray on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 11:56:51 PM EST
    until you brought up the Keating 5.  That is such old news.  If Obama starts attacking where he has some problems (Rezko, etc,) he will be asking for blowback from people who really invented the game.  Stick to how shabby the GOP has treated our country and its citizens for 8 years.

    Parent
    what about the so-called social issues? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:00:11 PM EST
    anti-choice, anti-Roe v Wade, anti-environment, anti-science (i.e., creationism), etc.

    There's a reason why McCain's campaign manager Davis today said: "This election is not about issues."  He knows that if the election is about issues, McCain loses.

    (Nevertheless -- I am astounded Davis would say such a thing in front of the press).

    Parent

    She didn't say she was anti-science (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:04:01 PM EST
    and her father was a public school science teacher. You might wasnt to hunt down her comments on creationism and give them another whirl  :)

    Parent
    so what if her father taught science? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:29:19 PM EST
    she doesn't necessarily have the same beliefs as her father.  After all, she herself (at least claims) is pro-abstinence, and her own daughter didn't follow that one.

    She doesn't believe that climate change is man-made. That's a debate not worth having anymore.

    Parent

    I think most voters, even ones who don't (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:02:56 PM EST
    actually think much about issues, would be offended by that sentiment.

    So yeah, WTF was Davis thinking?

    Parent

    the statement more accurately (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Josey on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:43:00 PM EST
    represents the media - cause they've made sure issues were not central during this entire election season.
    The media has promoted Obama - the candidate with the least amount of focus on the issues, plans and solutions.
    Issue-oriented candidates were given the boot.

    Parent
    I think he (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:06:17 PM EST
    was letting some of the GOP strategy out of the bag with that statement. It's going to be about Obama. It's going to be personal. And Obama has set this up for them since he hasn't really focused much on issues.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:04:28 PM EST
    you're making it a mistake to talk about social issues. How many times has that won an election? I'm sure that many conservative Dems may actually agree with some of Palin's social stances and those are the ones that Obama needs to win in Nov.

    He should start running ads that tell the voters what he is going to do if elected President. Make them short and to the point. Run some compare and contrast ads. He had a new ad out today that was better than his previous ads but it was still an ad that basically said "I'm not McCain". Yes, we all know you are not McCain but what do you stand for? What do you want to accomplish? How are you going to accomplish those goals?

    Parent

    why should Obama get specific NOW? (4.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Josey on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:45:21 PM EST
    He's made it this far by NOT being specific - thanks to the media and the Dem Party.
    Obama/Britney08

    Parent
    do you know how to use google? (none / 0) (#40)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:06:30 PM EST
    google his campaign website.  There you will see plenty of specifics -- a magnitude more than McCain's.

    Parent
    There (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by sas on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:16:50 PM EST
    are alot of feminist women and real progressives who are fed up with the Fauxgressives and their discussions about Palin....what she looks like, her legs, her pregnancies , her daughter's pregnancy ...like any of that is worth discussing... is this the 50's again?

    This election cycle is bringing out the worst in some of these people...

    check Susan Estrich out here

    http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=165823

    What's (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:28:03 PM EST
    amazing to me is that people who worked on Dukakis' campaign are still around. She does make some points however.

    Parent
    After Estrich became a (none / 0) (#25)
    by byteb on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:21:53 PM EST
    regular on Faux, I lost respect for her and what she has to say.

    Parent
    remember when Obama said - (none / 0) (#37)
    by Josey on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:48:47 PM EST
    he wouldn't go on Fox News? after they smeared him with the Muslim stuff.
    Now - Obama plans to do an interview on Fox News.
    Of course, we never thought he'd stick to his boycott in the first place. But he said it to fire up the base - knowing he could flip flop later when he had them.

    Parent
    Thanks for the video. I sometimes (none / 0) (#45)
    by hairspray on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:05:35 AM EST
    disagree with Susan but I don't write her off completely because she is pretty down the middle IMHO.

    Parent
    I guess I got suckered again... (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:30:08 PM EST
    When I saw the title of the post, I thought I was going to find Palin on the issues, not opposition research put together to bring someone down.

    Make it stop, please?

    There is no way you would accept a post titled "Obama on the Issues" if the supporting information was opposition research.  Nor would you have tolerated the kinds of personal information in that document - even if it is a matter of public record.

    I'm ever so glad to know that Palin presided over a wedding at Wal-Mart, that her brother was on a reality dating show, made a bet with her husband where the loser would have to get a tattoo, and golly - I wonder how many people will try some of those phone numbers listed.

    Yes, I know there was more substantive information in there, but if the Obama campaign isn't going to use it, why are you?

    Unbelievable.

    That's smart... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Exeter on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:33:27 PM EST
    Obama and his surrogates need to steer clear of Palin.  Don't touch her with a ten foot pole.  Obama's statement today about backing off was perfect.  I hope the left blogs and msnbc-televised-air-america follow his lead.

    well (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:02:41 PM EST
    Obama is smart to let Palin's issues play out in the media and not touch them.   Her weaknesses are self-evident and the state investigators in AK can potentially do more damage than Obama's people ever could.  

    Then she has to run the gauntlet of US, People and the National Enquirer, like they all do.

    She might weather it all, I don't have a crystal ball.

    I agree but... (3.66 / 3) (#17)
    by Rob4321 on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:13:02 PM EST
    Remember, McCain did this to pander to the religious right.  Matt Staver, the dean of Liberty University's law school is beaming and Phyllis Schlaffly is about to have her first orgasm in 50 years.  Of course, we all know its a ruse...even the right's leadership doesn't believe half the crap it puts out...In fact, I'd propose the following as "the religious rlght's ten commandments"

    1. You shall have no other gods but me; James Dobson and Pat Robertson have been authorized to act in my stead..
    2. You shall not make unto you any graven images.  Of course, ornate prayer towers and compounds paid for by followers with a median household income of $25,000 or less are allowed.
    3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain unless the Democrats are winning an electoral contest or some "activist judge" rules against you in court.  
    4. You shall remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.  However, that doesn't mean stores and restaurants should be closed on Sundays; those charming foreigners who work there are probably un-saved, un-believing heathens anyway.  
    5. Honor your mother and father unless they're scientists, archaeologists or other followers of Satan who would dare challenge our mythical view of how the world was formed and how it should be run.
    6. You shall try really really really hard not to murder unless you are defending yourself with a concealed weapon that its your God given right to carry or are carrying out a death sentence.
    7. You shall not commit adultery.  If you do commit adultery and are caught, its not your fault, its just anti-christian bias perpetuated by the secular media.
    8. You shall not steal.  Stealing from the sick and the old to build a compound, air condition your pooch's dog house or build "Bible teaching" University isn't really the same as "actual" stealing.
    9. You shall not bear false witness, unless the claims you are making further your own agenda.  
    10.  Just because I say You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor doesn't mean you can't be jealous of what he  has...what does "covet" mean anyway...that's one of them fancy words used by the cultural and intellectual elite to trip you up.


    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by themomcat on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:33:45 PM EST
    George Carlin is probably LHAO somewhere. :-)
    The Eleventh Commandment": Thou Shalt Keep Thy Religion to Thyself. ;-)~


    Parent
    Palin on Alaskan issues 2006 (none / 0) (#11)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:06:33 PM EST
    from her campaign website

    Interesting: (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:10:46 PM EST
    I look forward to building a team that will serve all Alaskans with integrity. I believe in fairness and inclusion, and will call on the public to work together for Alaska's common good. I refuse to use divisive tactics that polarize individuals for political gain. As Mayor of Wasilla, the fastest growing area of Alaska, then as Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, I approached issues in a non-partisan way. I believe in hiring and appointing the best people to serve with me. I will bring this same approach to the state as Governor of Alaska. My commitment to my homestate is to never allow special interests to take advantage of Alaskans. I will always put Alaska first!

    This sounds like something that would have been written by Obama's campaign.

    Parent

    She does have all 3 parties represented (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by nycstray on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:20:11 PM EST
    in her cabinet, iirc.

    Parent
    I disagree with the Obama campaign's strategy (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:16:04 PM EST
    Criticizing McCain's VP pick process may be good as one aspect of the strategy, but to forego discussion of Palin's position on the issues in favor of using the VP selection process alone alone strikes me as insufficient.

    But I'm not the expert.

    What if the GOP focussed its criticisms of Biden solely on the fact that Obama did not name Hillary his VP?  Hmmmm....on second thought, maybe that is a good strategy.

    Obama has not done much (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:27:24 PM EST
    to criticize Palin, nor has Biden.  He's letting the press and the blogosphere attack her.

    Parent
    He has drawn a line about families and (none / 0) (#46)
    by hairspray on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:11:34 AM EST
    children being off limits and I was pleased. I just wish he had done that on sexism in the primaries.  Had he done that I would feel he  has principles that are firm across the board.

    Parent
    Source? (none / 0) (#27)
    by rdandrea on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:23:26 PM EST
    n/t

    Thread cleaned of off-topic comments (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 09:28:30 PM EST
    The topic is Palin on the issues and the obama camp's response.

    Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms (none / 0) (#41)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:07:47 PM EST
    WaPo entry: Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms

    so? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 10:30:22 PM EST
    unless she is now asking for funds for her daughter.. do you really think that anyone cares?
    She has a certain political philosophy that has nothing to do with being able to control her daughter, but unless she is asking the state to care for her daughter your point is going nowhere.

    Parent
    The GOP position is to veto these (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by hairspray on Wed Sep 03, 2008 at 12:16:54 AM EST
    programs and the public has not paid much attention to whether these programs work or not. The events of the last few days may bring home that point more clearly than ever before.

    Parent
    Palin on the Issues | 37 comments (37 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment