home

Palin Didn't Sell Alaska Plane on EBay

Sarah Palin touted her business savvy in her acceptance speech. As an example, she said she put a jet purchased by her predecessor on EBay, leaving the impression she sold it through EBay.

The plane failed to sell on EBay. It was purchased by a private entrepreneur for $300k less than the broker's price.

And, turns out, the plane was used to transport prisoners, not just for the Governor's travels.

Update: Sen. John McCain perpetuated the misleading story today, falsely saying she sold the jet on EBay for a profit. There actually was a half-million dollar loss. [More...]

"You know what I enjoyed the most?" McCain said in Cederburg, Wisconsin, according to ABC News' Bret Hovell. "She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold it on e-Bay. And made a profit!"

The jet was purchased for 2.7 million. It sold for 2.1 million to a private entrepreneur, at a loss of around half a million dollars. There was also a broker's commission. More:
After going unsold for months, the jet was put into the hands of Turbo North Aviation, an Anchorage aircraft broker, which put an asking price of $2.45 million on the nearly $2.7 million jet. It quickly sold to Alaska businessman Larry Reynolds for $2.1 million ($31,000 of which went to Turbo Aviation).

She used the jet as an example of her business acumen and her successful role as a reformer and cutter of government costs.

As I said at the outset, it was misleading. She created a false impression.

And John McCain is spinning the misleading impression into a false fact.

< Ceding Control of the Courts to the Radical Right | Jewish Group Launches Online Campaign Against McCain/Palin >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Faust on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:46:45 PM EST
    Saying "I failed to sell a plane on Ebay" is hardly a good talking point.

    OMG! WHO CARES?!? (5.00 / 16) (#3)
    by Exeter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:53:58 PM EST
    The pettiness has reached a new low.  The bottomline is that she sold the plane and that she put it on ebay.  BTW -- its not an uncommon tactic to put something on ebay to drum up interest in a sale of an unusual item.

    Totally agree (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by AccidentalTourist on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:19:30 PM EST
    Both about the pettiness, and the strategy of using eBay to attract interest in an item, even if the sale itself is closed outside of the eBay platform.

    We can keep scraping, or we can wait until something of actual substance comes up. Troopergate findings will be out soon enough.

    Parent

    yes! (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by jedimom on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:43:38 PM EST
    absolutely, this is the kind of thing that I think turns voters off, she said she put it on ebay. She didnt keep it. She sold it. end of story.

    Parent
    And yet, (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Bluesage on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:22:00 PM EST
    The most rabid Obama supporters keep proving themselves to be his worst enemies.  Go figure.

    Parent
    Palin said she 'put the plane on eBay.' (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Don in Seattle on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 11:20:03 PM EST
    At least here, Palin was careful to tell the literal truth.

    McCain, on the other hand, said Palin "sold the plane on eBay." A minor untruth.

    He said she made a profit for Alaska on the sale. Another small whopper -- the state lost money on the sale.

    How many times is a candidate allowed to embellish the truth to sharpen an anecdote, before he begins to do damage to his own credibility?

    Parent

    WHO CARES?!? (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by mm on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:25:02 PM EST
    Evidently, the people who are trying to change the old style of politics do.  The people who support the candidate who says he doesn't "demonize" his oponents.

    Parent
    And do we really want to go down ... (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:13:06 PM EST
    the who lied most trail?

    Obama has told some whoppers.

    Parent

    Watch out... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by alexei on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:45:33 PM EST
    you are not on topic by mentioning that Obama did this.  Jeralyn is going to delete your missive and mine too.

    Jeralyn,
    The Republicans and their world view is totally antithetical to mine.  That also means, that using similar tactics, such as this post and your National Enquirer post and your statement about those that did not support the ticket are no longer here, let's get views on what Obama did wrong, are the same type of gratuitous blogs that do not differentiate why one should vote for Obama.

    NoQuarter is doing the same, only they are going for Palin - using headlines such as Palin accused of Drowning Polar Bears and using one study to justify her position!

    I feel that I have entered bizarro world.  Thank god for BTD and yes, River Daughter and Alegre, different objectives,but they use rational arguments.

    Palin is conservative red meat - let's talk about those issues.  McCain is so wrong on so many issues, let's discuss those.  But, the jet was ebay but not sold on ebay.  Come on!

    Parent

    You think maybe in (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by lizpolaris on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:56:30 PM EST
    that instance, she was touting her technology savvy, by saying she listed something on eBay?

    And in case I (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by lizpolaris on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:58:23 PM EST
    need to spell that out for you - some politicians can barely read email.

    Parent
    I think it was a plug for ebay, (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:26:01 PM EST
    whose founder, a female, spoke at the RNC.

    Parent
    We have a winner.... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:32:31 PM EST
    excellent speculation oculus...you've got a finger on how these people roll.

    I see a no-bid government contract awarded to ebay to sell used govt. sh*t if brand 'R' wins this thing:)

    Parent

    Meg Whitman did not found eBay. (none / 0) (#77)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:51:21 PM EST
    She sure as heck was boring, though. (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:58:35 PM EST
    Did she buy and sell it? (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:06:51 PM EST
    No, she was brought in as. . . (none / 0) (#113)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:14:45 PM EST
    management to help grow the company (which is now mired in a non-growth period, by the way).  I assume she has significant stock holdings in the company from options, but she wasn't a founder.

    Parent
    I went to college and business school with (none / 0) (#152)
    by steviez314 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:48:25 PM EST
    Meg Whitman and I was hoping she'd be the VP pick.

    And I don't mean that in a good for McCain way.

    Parent

    Heavens! (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by JAB on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:05:45 PM EST
    They actually used it to transport prisoners?? So, instead of just being a toy for politicians to run around in, they used it for other state business (instead of spending other state money to transport them)?

    Sounds like a good idea all the way around to me.  Must be that executive experience....

    Under her predecessor it was used (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:15:28 PM EST
    to transport prisoners. Please read before posting.

    When the state began using the plane in November 2005, prisoner transport accounted for 58% of the jet's use, and Murkowski's office used it 23% of the time. Over time, Murkowski's usage increased.
     

    It wasn't her idea to use it for transporting prisoners and the plane was not just used for executive travel.

    No one said it was a lie. It was misleading.

    Parent

    Speaking of misleading ... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:01:30 PM EST
    ... the plane sold for $300K under [some unnamed] broker's asking price, i.e., the price that broker would have started at in negotiations with an interested buyer ... not a determined seller.

    An aircraft broker who means to make a living would keep a healthy spread between bid and ask prices (neither of which would be reflective of typical sale prices).

    Bye again.

    Parent

    That only represents the first 3 months (none / 0) (#146)
    by jccamp on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:39:41 PM EST
    the plane was in service. I cannot find any figures for the additional years the plane was in use before being sold. The plane that the jet replaced was used about 3/4's of the time by the governor, not for transporting prisoners.

    Given the controversial nature of the original jet purchase/lease, it's not very surprising that there were any number of prisoners hauled about in an effort to justify the purchase.

    Parent

    Alaska is huge (none / 0) (#27)
    by Prabhata on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:17:12 PM EST
    Some areas are accessible only by plane in the summer or during the winter when all is frozen.

    Parent
    A corporate jet will not be able to land on those. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by alexei on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:55:31 PM EST
    frozen areas or for that matter anywhere that doesn't have a large enough airport.

    Parent
    I guess I wasn't clear (none / 0) (#148)
    by Prabhata on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:44:56 PM EST
    In the summer planes can reach areas that are not accessible by car, truck, etc.
    In the winter some areas only accessible by plane in the summer, become accessible with snow-mobiles because everything is frozen.

    That's why people, even individuals, have planes.  My brother-in-law and a friend owned a plane.  Not rich people, but if one wants a cabin, fish and go into remote areas, access to a plane is indispensable.

    Parent

    Your point is valid (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by TheRizzo on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:50:59 PM EST
    But you're missing the overall point here.  Having a plane is ok.  Having a luxury jet that is unable to land in almost all these remote places is not.  

    This jet does not meet your requirements and needs.

    Parent

    To put it in context?
    But with the support of the citizens of Alaska, we shook things up. And in short order we put the government of our state back on the side of the people. I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law. While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for. That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay. I also drive myself to work. And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef - although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her. I came to office promising to control spending - by request if possible and by veto if necessary.


    Why'd (none / 0) (#49)
    by borisbor on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:34:55 PM EST
    McCain say she sold it on eBay for profit?

    Parent
    Never mind, found it. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:42:04 PM EST
    Clearly he was wrong. No idea why he said it.

    Parent
    According to ABC News' Bret Hovell (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:48:34 PM EST
    "You know what I enjoyed the most?" McCain said [today] in Cederburg, Wisconsin, according to ABC News' Bret Hovell. "She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold it on e-Bay. And made a profit!"


    Parent
    Dunno, news to me. Got a link? (none / 0) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:36:18 PM EST
    Today (none / 0) (#61)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:43:54 PM EST
    right before Sarah made a bigger whopper in describing McCain's support of the surge.

    LINK

    Parent

    Long history of transporting. . . (5.00 / 8) (#36)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:26:33 PM EST
    crooks on government planes.

    I mean, look at Air Force 1.

    She only said she put the plane on EBay (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Prabhata on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:27:28 PM EST

    That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.

    A little misleading, but if she was trying to make the point that she is familiar with today's technology, then I see why she phrased it that way.

    This is pretty sad (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by TheRizzo on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:37:19 PM EST
    She said put on ebay which she did.  She sold the plane.  She said ebay as it makes her hip with technology but also a lot of middle class families that use Ebay to sell items for extra cash etc.

    I can't believe this is a headline of total misrepresentation.

    Parent

    No, she (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:45:30 PM EST
    implied she sold it on E=bay.  She wanted people to think that she sold it on E-bay.  The intent was to mislead, while still being able to claim it wasn't a lie.

    Typical Republican tactics.

    Parent

    Your mind ran with it (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Prabhata on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:50:10 PM EST
    I'll agree that knowing people, they would make that connection.  But it was your mind that took it on step beyond from what she said.

    Parent
    Look (3.00 / 0) (#93)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:01:20 PM EST
    the story they are selling is that she is change, and will reform Washington.  They put their own spin on the facts to make them agree with that story.

    And yep it is my mind that took it a step beyond.  My mind, which has seen the Republicans play this kind of game election after election after election.

    Parent

    I dislike the Repubs as (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by mg7505 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:07:19 PM EST
    much as you, but attacking them for this doesn't help. I'm surprised no one has stated the obvious -- that she may have said it because it's kind of humorous. I think it's hilarious that a sitting governor stuck it to her predecessor by putting a government jet on Ebay, even if it didn't sell. Of course it would be nice if that person wasn't a far-Right wing truth-bender.

    Palin aside, let's agree on one thing -- Palin is merely the Right's latest distraction from the real issues, and most of all from John McCain's nightmare candidacy. The existence of this thread is a perfect example of how well their 'distractegies' are working.

    Parent

    And she meant to (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by eric on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:01:20 PM EST
    imply that it was some kind of luxury jet for the use of the last governor.  Liars.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by nell on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:38:27 PM EST
    She PUT it on ebay, didn't she? Whether or not it actually sold is not what makes the story endearing, it is the fact that it shows she is "common-sense" savvy. I think the appeal of that line was not about whether or not the plane actually sold, but that it makes her seem so normal, she puts stuff on ebay, just like you and me. I don't even think it was means to make her seem tech savvy, but rather "mom savvy" - like she clips coupons or something.

    I know I have said this before here, but I feel the need to repeat it since I am defending her. I am NOT voting for McCain/Palin, no way, no how. But I like her, I find her charming as a person, I just find her policies to be bad for this country.

    That being said, Palin has been ALL the buzz where I am -  at school, the beauty parlor, everywhere, since she spoke on Wednesday. People like her, even the ones that won't vote for her. And I know several people who watched McCain just because they liked her speech. And for this reason, I think attacks on her are likely to backfire if not handled carefully. Just as was the case for Obama during the primaries.

    Well of course she is the buzz (3.00 / 0) (#72)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:49:27 PM EST
    She was just announced one week ago. Most people hadn't even heard of her until then.    If Obama had picked me as his running mate everyone would be talking about me, too.

    Parent
    Too bad (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Bluesage on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:01:30 PM EST
    It didn't work that way for Biden.  There was a big collective "ugh" and then nothing.  

    Parent
    Yet the Dem (3.00 / 0) (#103)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:09:22 PM EST
    convention united the Dems.  It sure got Jeralyn on board!! And Obama got a nice bounce from Hillary, Bill, his speech, etc.

    So a big "ugh" and then nothing isn't accurate - but then accuracy wasn't your intention, was it.


    Parent

    Yet the Repub (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Bluesage on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:13:53 PM EST
    Convention united the Republicans and still no one is talking about Biden.  Give it up ObamaGirl.
    We were talking about Palin and Biden.  Not Obama or his "bounce".  

    Parent
    Actually... It was YOU... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by EddieInCA on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:22:52 PM EST
    ...who brought up Biden, and introduced him into the conversation.

    Nice attempt at deflection, though. If you can defend Palin, do it. Otherwise, stay on the topic, rather than introducing false arguments to the discussion.

    Parent

    no, you are talking about Biden (none / 0) (#122)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:23:49 PM EST
    and he's not the topic. Don't try to redirect the conversation please.

    Parent
    The Republican brand is in (none / 0) (#133)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:30:16 PM EST
    the toilet, so it doesn't really matter if the Republican convention united all the white people that attended it.  I just hope nobody that was there had to drive after listening to McCain's speech.

    And you say that no one is talking about Biden, yet you're the one that brought him up.  

    Parent

    And (none / 0) (#140)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:34:20 PM EST
    it would be Obamamama, not ObamaGirl.

    Parent
    It's more than that (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:03:58 PM EST
    I highly doubt Tim Pawlenty - who most people also haven't heard of - would generate this kind of buzz.

    I'm not too upset about that line.  It's no worse than saying, "I passed a bill that x,y,z" when of course, no one "passes" anything by themselves.  Or saying the same about a bill you merely co-sponsored.

    Parent

    Today.. on the stump... McCain... (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by EddieInCA on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:44:40 PM EST
    ... said...

    "You know what i enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold it on eBay -- made a profit,"

    1. She didn't sell it on Ebay.
    2. She didn't make a profit, when she DID sell it.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Not_selling_on_eBay.html?showall

    Yes, you got them (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by JAB on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:50:28 PM EST
    At a campaign rally, John McCain made an off the cuff remark that wasn't totally accurate. You nailed him.  Stop the presses.

    Of course, Obama or Biden have never done that.

    Parent

    And when they (none / 0) (#136)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:32:36 PM EST
    do, the Repubs always make a big deal out it to try and score political points.  Are you just as outraged at that?

    Parent
    And this is a legit (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by TheRizzo on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:54:50 PM EST
    thing to point out and let McCain restate what the truth is.   But trying to pin it on Palin is where its ridiculous.

    Parent
    The point made in the speech was (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by jccamp on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:46:26 PM EST
    that Gov. Palin saved the taxpayers money, by selling the jet her predecessor bought for his use. Murkowski tried to convince the legislature to buy him a jet, When they refused, he bypassed the elected legislators and entered a lease agreement for the almost 3 million dollar jet. The down payment was a traded-in State Police owned airplane. That the new jet would be used for prisoner transport was a sham, a way for the governor to buy a plane for his own use without approval. The plane that the jet replaced was also supposed to be used for prisoner transport, but according to the state, 76% of the costs for the plane originated with the governor's office. Also, the new jet would not operate on most of the smaller Alaskan runways. The State Police originally cited that unsuitability, and the fact that introducing a new plane into their fleet would increase their required parts inventory as reasons not to buy the plane. The politically appointed State Police head later said he wanted the plane after all.
    Palin said of the jet "I put it on Ebay." That's a a true statement. Alaska apparently puts a number of large items, including vehicles and boats, on Ebay.
    If it eventually sold through a broker instead of Ebay, who cares?
    Does anyone really consider this to have value in assessing Gov. Palin as a potential VP?

    BTW, the state apparently received a fair price for the airplane, given the depreciation over the length and hours-flown that the state owned the jet.

    If that was the "point" then (2.00 / 1) (#78)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:51:53 PM EST
    why not say it that way.

    And this is just 1 more in a long line of things that indicate qualifications are just another work of fiction from the Republicans.  

    Parent

    Because you'd miss the punchline! (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by mexboy on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:59:41 PM EST
    It was funny and endearing, and so it was constructed that way.
    I got a laugh out of it. I don't care if it sold on Ebay or not, it is a true statement and it illustrates a point about her... She is a doer.

    I've really got to stay away from this site until all this blows over. I just find myself defending Palin and I don't even agree with her policies.

    I wish people on the left afforded her and their opponents the same kind of decency they expect from them.

    I know they don't give it to us, but we're supposed to be better. We claim to care about human decency, fighting for the oppressed, the discriminated against, misogyny and for equality under the law.

    All I have seen lately is progressives acting petty, bullish, and like republithugs.

    I am so over it!


    Parent

    I believe that is exactly what she said. (none / 0) (#107)
    by jccamp on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:12:05 PM EST
    Or do you think her point was something to do with Ebay?

    Parent
    yes it had to do with ebay (none / 0) (#126)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:25:22 PM EST
    and her attempt to get the millions of Americans who use ebay to identify with her.

    Parent
    But it wasn't a lie (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by demchick on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:37:03 PM EST
    Should we be angry at her because she is a good campaigner?

    Parent
    OK, if she also wanted people to identify with her (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by jccamp on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:46:43 PM EST
    because she put the state's fancy jet on Ebay, what did she say that is somehow worthy of censure? Do you feel she should have qualified her statement by saying "I put it on Ebay but it didn't sell."

    Parent
    how 'bout (none / 0) (#156)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:54:23 PM EST
    "I even tried to sell it  on E-Bay."  

    Parent
    That works too (5.00 / 5) (#165)
    by jccamp on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:05:36 PM EST
    but is there really any valid criticism in her choice of words? If this is typical of the arguments con Palin's ability to be V-P, then we'd better start building a snowmobile course at One Observatory Circle.
    Arguments centered around her family or petty issues like this merely make her more sympathetic. Undecided voters won't be convinced of her unfitness because the jet actually sold through an airplane broker. She did put it on Ebay. Several times. Which is what she said.

    Why not concentrate on something of substance?

    Parent

    Would have been right (none / 0) (#163)
    by TheRizzo on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:59:50 PM EST
    If not for the fact that the plane was actually sold so her statement was true.  She put it on ebay and in fact in the end the plane was sold.

    If the plane never sold by any manner, Ebay or Broker, then your statement would have been the way to say it.  

    Parent

    Replying To yes it had to do with ebay (none / 0) (#181)
    by delacarpa on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:24:26 PM EST
    She also said she did away with her house chef, and I think she stated it well, and I do agree it is petty to think she was pandering. I dare say most of the women in America would like a house chef. Look she drives her own car to work also and she did her point across, I am able to take care of myself, my family and my work. That is what I got out of it.

    Parent
    Misleading as to her financial/executive acumen (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:49:12 PM EST
    The jet was purchased for 2.7 million. It sold for  2.1 million to a private entrepreneur, at a loss of around half a million dollars. There was also a broker's commission.  More:

    After going unsold for months, the jet was put into the hands of Turbo North Aviation, an Anchorage aircraft broker, which put an asking price of $2.45 million on the nearly $2.7 million jet. It quickly sold to Alaska businessman Larry Reynolds for $2.1 million ($31,000 of which went to Turbo Aviation).

    She touted it as an example of her financial and executive acumen. Former Governor Frank Murkowski warned her the state would take a loss if she sold it because the encumbrance was the same as the fair market value.

    How is that a profit, Sen. McCcain?

    "She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold it on e-Bay. And made a profit!" - John McCain

    She used the jet as an exammple of her successful role as a reformer and cutter of government costs.

    No one said she lied. It was misleading.

    Murkowski defied the state to even buy it (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by demchick on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:52:31 PM EST
    Story of the Jet

    Former Gov. Frank Murkowski bought the jet, which cost the state about $2.6 million, over the protests of the Legislature and used it to fly around the state, sometimes mixing campaign errands with government business.

    Palin was very popular for doing what she did and they didn't want the plane. she tried to sell it FOUR TIMES on ebay.

    After he defied almost everyone to acquire it, the jet became a political albatross for Murkowski. Gov. Sarah Palin beat Murkowski bad in last August's Republican primary. One of her campaign promises was to sell the plane and she's been trying to unload it for months. Robert Heckmann owns Turbo North Aviation. He said his company has sold more than 1,800 planes including two dozen or so jets in the past 27 years.

    Parent

    From the link: (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:56:24 PM EST
    The last marshal flights to and from Arizona transported 145 prisoners at a cost of $127,000, or about $875 per prisoner. That's cheaper than the jet, whose per-prisoner cost averaged $1,674.


    Parent
    Actually, (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:01:45 PM EST
    Former Governor Frank Murkowski warned her the state would take a loss if she sold it because the encumbrance was the same as the fair market value.
    If Murkowski/AK purchased the plane outright, the money was already lost and she got $2.1 million of it back.

    If it was leased, she stopped a payment stream that, because it included interest, would have totaled much more than $2.1 million, in fact, much more than the $2.7 million "purchase" price as well.

    Parent

    One of her former aides is on CNN (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:12:40 PM EST
    she was involved with the whole jet deal. And now is backing the Gov up on the trooper issue.

    The aide is good. Clear and concise.

    Parent

    And any plane comes with (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by tree on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:18:11 PM EST
    a large maintenance and insurance bill as well as continuing fuel bills to fly it anywhere. I'm sure that for the price it sold at, it was a net benefit to the taxpayers when you include the savings on those recurring costs.

    Parent
    And (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by JAB on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:23:11 PM EST
    Someone should understand the rules of accounting.  Assets are depreciated over a span of years, so the fact that she got $2.1 million out of it, actually sounds like the people of Alaska made out pretty well.


    Parent
    Accounting rules.... (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by vml68 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:33:20 PM EST
    and if I am not mistaken for things like airplanes, cars etc the depreciation is highest for the first year. So if she sold the plane within the first couple of years she most likely made an accounting profit.

    Parent
    IMHO (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Andy08 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:12:32 PM EST
    her point was that she's down to earth and doesn't need a plane or a chef or a chauffer. She talked about driving herself to work, and dismissing her chef all in the same paragraph: she wanted to convey she was "ordinary"  not her "business prowness".... The E-Bay comment was she trying (successfully or not) to be funny, it was a joke...
    If one stretches things a bit it could have also also a jab at Obama b/c of his new luxury plane (of this I am not sure).

    Parent
    Jeralyn (5.00 / 7) (#115)
    by JAB on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:17:38 PM EST
    With all due respect, you and the Obama supporters do not want to go down the road of turning every off the cuff remark into "the biggest lie ever told".

    If so, then Obama's comment about bills he co-sponsored, or the fact that the Banking Committee is one of his, or the story of his parents meeting during Selma, etc.  come back into the discussion, and all his other lies are fair game.  Do you want to go there?

    As it is, the Republicans are already ginning up Rev. Wright again and taking on Obama's "reformer" image when he couldn't even stand up to Chicago politicians.

    Parent

    and no one did (none / 0) (#130)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:29:04 PM EST
    say it was the biggest lie ever told.

    Sorry, factchecking is important -- particularly with someone tens of millions of Americans never heard of before last week, who now is in a position to become, if voters don't see through McCain's Hail Mary pass, vice-president.

    Parent

    Factchecking is one thing. (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by tree on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:47:58 PM EST
    If the facts check out, which they did in her statement that she put it on Ebay, why bother posting this? If what makes Palin dangerous as Vice President is her hard right views then stick to that. This is just a pointless petty distraction, IMHO, and in the end may make her look better, not worse, despite what you may hope.

     BTW, I have a slight familarity with planes and plane sales. The smarter action financially probably would have been to go with the broker from the beginning. However, politically speaking, putting it on Ebay first might have been a smart move.

    Parent

    You drive a car of the lot, it loses $5K of value (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by ineedalife on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:38:35 PM EST
    Comparing the sale price of the used plane to its purchase price is unfair. Perhaps the net cost did end up in a profit. 100 accountants would probably give you 100 different answers.

    Do you consider it a loss of money if you sell your 5 year-old car  for only a fraction of the new price? Or do you consider the average cost over the life of the car and compare it to other forms of transportation?

    Parent

    Jeralyn if DGDad was right, then she did (none / 0) (#182)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:37:09 PM EST
    make a profit... and now this tack is making her look better rather than making this insignificant (and pretty humorous) remark go away.

    You're right, fact-checking is important but if we're going to emphasize this then we better do it to ourselves as well.  Before the Republican do it for use... and use it against us (again).

    Parent

    and politifact.com (none / 0) (#184)
    by andrys on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:59:51 AM EST
    gives it a truth-o-meter rating of 'True'

    This is very, very weak.  She was saying she got rid of the plane. She put it on EBay.  It's true.  That it was sold off-EBay doesn't matter.  Planes like that had sold before.  The main thing was to add the current cultural reference, and it was funny.

    Parent

    Hillary Would Be on Anyone's Short List (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by BDB on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:51:12 PM EST
    That was what Obama said even though Clinton wasn't on his.  Did he do it to leave the impression she was being considered?  Of course.

    This is something that politicians do (and for my money Obama's was closer to a lie than Palin's but YMMV).  To try to make it an attack seems to me to be a waste of time.  Nobody is going to vote for or against John McCain (he is still Obama's main opponent, right?) because Sarah Palin accurately said she put the plane on eBay but failed to disclose she sold it another way.  There isn't a politician in the world who does that, they don't drop clarifying footnotes into political speeches.

    I don't see how Obama or Democrats benefit by holding Palin to a standard that none of them could meet.  It just makes it look like Palin is being unfairly criticized.

    John McCain is Bush's third term.  Sarah Palin is to the right of Attila the Hun.  Those are two things that actually might sway a vote or two towards Obama.  This other stuff is just why so many regular Americans hate politics and are uninvolved.

    I Will Also Add (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by BDB on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:55:23 PM EST
    from what I can tell the entire state of Alaska hated that plane and wanted to see it sold at the time.  If people say otherwise now, then I think they're rewriting history.

    Planes are expensive.  They have to be specially housed and there's the cost of pilots, mechanics, fuel. They are money pits.  And I can easily believe that the costs saved by selling the plane have more than made up for whatever loss was taken on the purchase price.  

    Besides which the important part of the story is that Sarah Palin doesn't need no private plane, she'll fly commerical just like the rest of us.  The more we talk about it, the more it just reinforces her main message - I got rid of my private plane!  

    Parent

    She didn't want it (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by demchick on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:57:53 PM EST
    and neither did the people of Alaska. every article posted here says it was sneaky the way the plane was bought, over the objections of the legislature and using a seperate state account after he was denied money.

    Palin promised to sell it and she did. She also promised never to use it herself and she didn't.

    "The purchase of the jet was impractical and unwise, and it's time to get rid of it," the governor said in a statement on Tuesday. "In the meantime, I'm keeping my promise not to set foot on the jet."

    Parent

    She kept her word (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:05:56 PM EST
    and I trust that when she claims she is "strongly pro-life" and is against abortions even in the case of rape or incest that she will keep her word and do everything she can to take away my choice.

    Keeping one's word means nothing if the word one is keeping is extreme and dangerous.

    Parent

    Upkeep of the plane (none / 0) (#185)
    by andrys on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:00:49 AM EST
    that part of the budget was saved.

    Parent
    I agree with you (none / 0) (#82)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:55:21 PM EST
    on your concluding paragraph.  

    But different things find different things important.  And myths that are unchallenged grow into truths.  If Jeralyn wants to mention it, and it is important to her, then she should do so.

    I'm sure it isn't going to be the focus of Obama's next ad, just a discussion on a few blogs.  A snippet on ABC correcting the fact, etc.

    Parent

    Should be (none / 0) (#86)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:55:56 PM EST
    different people find different things important.

    Parent
    You know what....... (5.00 / 5) (#135)
    by NYShooter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:31:48 PM EST
    Every election cycle we always ask, "Why do we always get two dopes so that we have to choose the lesser of two evils?"
    Answer:........Plane-gate
    I just finished watching Blitzer on CNN. Somebody get that boy a sedative and some serious counseling. He was interviewing Sarah Palin's former aide, who answered every question the drooling, wild eyed Blitzer asked about this, the greatest threat to our Republic ever: The significance between "sold" and "put on." The aide answered every question calmly, rationally, intelligently, and to me anyway, factually. Wolf would have none of this. He kept pounding and pounding. "But do you understand why THE AMERICAN PEOPLE are wondering.......?" And on, and, on, and on.
    So to keep from hurling my clicker into the TV screen, I clicked on TalkLeft to get some intelligent discourse and................

    I know, I know....get my own blog


    The aide was good (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:36:58 PM EST
    I say bring her own down and put her on the circuit  so that maybe we can cut to the chase on all the daily outrage.

    Parent
    Headlines like this smells of desperation (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by GeekLove08 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:00:30 PM EST
    and it makes me want to go out and defend her.

    It's already made me defend her (none / 0) (#186)
    by andrys on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:31:39 AM EST
    This is exactly what will happen with meaningless attacks on her.  
      I put together the Kilkenny letter page, as a starter on the controversial portions of her history.

      I've added an Updates section that uses mostly later articles to expand on the situations, and truth is very complicated.  VERY good articles in NY Times and in TIME about her time in Wasilla and when running for and serving as Governor.  No white-washes, just good info.  The problem with her, for us, is that she's formidable as an opponent, much more so than some realize (or it's realized and people are flailing around trying to stop any momentum).  For each energized person she brings to McCain though, she drives another to the Dem ticket.  But already today, the National polls show a virtual tie again, with margin of error taken into account.

      Interest in the page is high.  Yesterday alone, there were 53,000 web-requests for the page.

      My take is she's pretty ruthless while being smart about what people want and bent on giving them that where possible.  Despite her reputation she was re-elected in Wasilla by a 'landslide' (numbers of people voting aren't high).  And then won the governorship against truly difficult odds.  

      Her goal seems to be mainly getting done what she wants done but her goals and ours will often conflict.  Still, I've found with more reading that she is not as prone to using legislation to meet religious beliefs as I had thought.  

     Another problem is her being as incurious as she has been on life outside America, which is too reminiscent of Bush.    
     But with her political life, running things, including a family with 5 children, she's said there wasn't time.  

      Others have mentioned she would have a lot more time to spend with family as VP then she did as governor of Alaska.

     Definitely not ready for the world stage at this point.  Question is, if they win, can she get up to snuff?  Can she be trusted not to let her belief system override the rights of others?

     Oh, re troopergate: my page has her very long typewritten letter about Wooten that was written in 2005 before she became Governor.  On page 2 there's a harrowing scene described that has Wooten also threatening to taser Bristol.  IF that scene is true, I have nothing against her going overboard (I realize the abuse of power there),  but with regard to placing the investigation with the personnel board instead -- that board's 3 people were hired by the former governor, not by her.

      The legislature is of course politically aligned and put into judgment mode now on someone running for highest offices where stakes are major.  The person (Senator French) managing the investigation (though he is not the independant prosecutor) is a Democrat and has already, before it even has started, told the press it doesn't look good, her credibility has suffered already and it may lead to an October Surprise.  So, I don't blame them for wanting him out.  

    Parent

    She (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by sas on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:14:48 PM EST
    put it on E-bay.  That's what she said and that's what she did.

    Now she cannot be held responsible for what others say.

    Seriously, the Obama campaign is this weak that this is an item of discussion?

    Like McCain's # of houses?

    C'mon Barack - still waiting for you to give me a reason to vote FOR you- other than the ambiguous hope/change theme.

    Cite something specific YOU HAVE DONE.

    Well, in the law biz, one might say that (4.00 / 4) (#6)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:57:25 PM EST
    the statement was intentionally misleading because, while literally true, it omits a material fact. She created an impression she knew wasn't true.

    In the scheme of things, it's not such a whopper, but it is emblematic of how the Republicans use "facts" -- as something to be cherry-picked or used selectively to support a predetermined argument, rather than as a basis for making a decision.

    cherry picking is hardly exclusive...lots of (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 02:59:56 PM EST
    politicians on both sides do it...

    Parent
    True, but... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:09:27 PM EST
    ...the right tends to cherry pick on things like war, with a twisted passion that Dems cannot possibly hope to match.

    Parent
    An impression that wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Exeter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:13:09 PM EST
    true was if she didn't actually sell the plane or bought another plane and used that.  She sold the plane.

    Parent
    She also said, apparently falsely, that (3.00 / 0) (#25)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:16:54 PM EST
    the jet was for the governors' personal use.

    Parent
    I don't believe you. (3.50 / 2) (#64)
    by David in NY on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:44:51 PM EST
    US Marshals (one "L" please) won't transfer state prisoners.  It's not their job, and they won't do it.  In fact, they won't even do it when a federal court orders them to in connection with a federal lawsuit.  See Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction v. US Marshals Service, 474 US 34.  

    Parent
    I apologize! (2.00 / 0) (#91)
    by David in NY on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:59:07 PM EST
    and didn't intend insult (except about the spelling of course), but this is so different from anything the Marshals service will do around here, I really doubted it.  

    Parent
    You convinced me (none / 0) (#46)
    by Prabhata on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:33:13 PM EST
    I'll vote for her.

    Parent
    Well, transportation by US Marshalls is not free (none / 0) (#57)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:40:23 PM EST
    Ya' know we pay for that.  Not sure that is cheaper at all.  Just shifting the expense to the US Marshalls.  Does someone think that is free??

    Parent
    I doubt that (3.00 / 0) (#71)
    by David in NY on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:49:20 PM EST
    the Marshals are doing that at all (see my comment a little below) unless there's some arrangement by which Alaska pays the federal government to transport its prisoners.  But I don't think that, because they're not staffed to do it, and all the states would be wanting their help if they did it for Alaska.

    Parent
    Looks like they do pay (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:57:41 PM EST
    from the link:

    The last marshal flights to and from Arizona transported 145 prisoners at a cost of $127,000, or about $875 per prisoner. That's cheaper than the jet, whose per-prisoner cost averaged $1,674.


    Parent
    and I think it is only for federal prisoners.... (none / 0) (#100)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:06:08 PM EST
    Think "ConAir"

    Parent
    Boy, that's (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by frankly0 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:18:23 PM EST
    a strained argument.

    Parent
    Except for (2.00 / 0) (#123)
    by eric on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:24:32 PM EST
    the fact that misrepresentation by omission is a legally recognized concept, and litigatormom nails it.

    Look at it this way:  when making a statement you have misrepresented something if, by omitting a material fact, you substantially change the meaning of the statement.

    In other words, consider if she would have said, "I put a plane on ebay, but it didn't sell, so I sold it through a broker at a loss, oh, and by the way, it wasn't really a luxury jet for the exclusive use of the governor because it was predominantly used to transport prisoners."  Pretty much changes the meaning of the statement, doesn't it?

    Parent

    If we are going to use a (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by tree on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:33:39 PM EST
    strained legal standard to judge politicians by, then no one would come out unscathed. For example Obama claims to have been raised by a single mother who got food stamps, but she was only single and raising him for a short time before she remarried and he was then raised by his grandparents. His mother didn't get food stamps until well after she was raising him. Same difference. There are myriad other examples. You don't want to get that petty, because NO candidate is going to survive that pettiness.

    Parent
    Look, (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by frankly0 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:39:40 PM EST
    Palin's statement was not a statement in court, was it? It could easily be interpreted as meant as a joke -- which, given that people laughed at it, would be a pretty reasonable one. Acting as if Palin was intentionally and importantly putting all this extra baggage of meaning on top of it -- trying to pretend that they actually succeeded in selling it on eBay when they didn't do so -- is just strained, ungrounded, overwrought over-interpretation.

    You know, not everything is the law, and not everywhere is court, and not every remark is intended with the gravity of a legal contract.

    If you try to apply the standards of the law to this situation, you simply demonstrate that you can't understand the real world on its own terms, and must strain it into the limited strictures of your own very circumscribed discipline.

    It's bad when scientists pretend that everything should be reduced to a mathematical formula, or when a businessman thinks everything should be run like a business, or when a therapist thinks all human interaction should be like group therapy, and it's bad when lawyers pretend that everything that takes place in human discourse should be reducible to concepts of the law.

    Parent

    My own interpretation (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by frankly0 on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:51:03 PM EST
    of Palin's remark is simple:

    It makes a funnier joke, and a slightly better story just to say that she put it up on eBay.

    Might people be "misled" into believing she actually succeeded in selling it on eBay? Sure. But, 1) it is literally true nonetheless to say she "put it on eBay", and 2) nothing material is affected if she says she did, because she did indeed sell it.

    If you can't see how just about anyone should be forgiven for telling a "misleading" joke like this, I hereby give you permission to feel sorry for yourself for being such a literal, humorless stiff.

    Parent

    McCain... (3.00 / 0) (#47)
    by indiependy on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:34:07 PM EST
    "She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold it on e-Bay. And made a profit!" - John McCain

    Oh the tangled web we weave...

    heh (2.00 / 0) (#108)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:12:17 PM EST
    Her entire speech has a series of lies.

    But oddly enough the latest Gallup has Obama up by 4.

    Obama's full bounce (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by BrianJ on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:21:53 PM EST
    Didn't appear until Saturday and Sunday.  I expect that will also be true of McCain.

    My prediction is that, on Monday, with 57 days to go, Gallup and Rasmussen will both be dead heats again.

    Parent

    Not even sure it was wise to sell the plane (none / 0) (#43)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:32:06 PM EST
    Note:  Alaska is the largest of the 50 states, with a total area of 591,004 sq mi (1,530,699 sq km). Land takes up 570,833 sq mi (1,478,456 sq km) and inland water 20,171 sq mi (52,243 sq km). Much of Alaska is not reachable other than by plane or ferry.  

    Also, read this article from the time of the sale:

    http://tinyurl.com/65mqkv

    Note, the plane was used to transport prisoners from Alaska to Arizona.  Alaska had a contract with AR to house some prisoners there.

    That's a better issue actually. (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:49:56 PM EST
    Yes, it is (3.00 / 0) (#109)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:12:19 PM EST
    I am in Mass and we had a savaging of female Gov. Jane Swift over use of helicopter for private transport to and from her home in the western part of the state.  Note she had just given birth to twins.  No one ever considered the time it saved this woman.  Instead, the use of the helicopter was promoted as a scandal!!  She was mocked as if she were corrupt.  The truth is that the helicopter ride saved her hours each way.  That translates to more hours she could actually spend on governing.  

    I don't see any difference here.  Alaska is huge.  It is good time management for the sitting governor to use a jet at his/her disposal rather than waiting around for a commercial liner.

    Personally, I feel that selling off the jet was a symbolic gimmick, rather than genuine prudence.

     

    Parent

    Jet couldn't land on a lot of the air strips there (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:16:42 PM EST
    per aide on CNN

    I believe the Gov has her pilots license and can fly the small planes they use there. It wasn't the fact there was a plane, it's that it was an unnecessary luxury jet.

    Parent

    I meant housing Alaska state (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:30:08 PM EST
    inmates in Arizona facilities.  Controversial in California, at least.

    Parent
    Massachusetts has housed (none / 0) (#137)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:32:54 PM EST
    inmates in Arizona also.  What is up with that?  Awful for family here; they simply cannot visit.

    Parent
    Cheaper. Correctional (none / 0) (#141)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:35:40 PM EST
    officers union must be weak or non-existent in AZ.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#157)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:55:13 PM EST
    or the prisons are private, which I do recall they were.  Mass. inamtes complained that all they got to eat was rice and beans.

    Parent
    Nice Colbert riff (none / 0) (#48)
    by domerdem on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:34:32 PM EST
    on Palin, Rudy, et al

    About Palin but not the plane or eBay (none / 0) (#84)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 03:55:24 PM EST
    Jay Carney at Time is reporting that

    According to Nicole Wallace of the McCain campaign, the American people don't care whether Sarah Palin can answer specific questions about foreign and domestic policy. According to Wallace -- in an appearance I did with her this morning on Joe Scarborough's show -- the American people will learn all they need to know (and all they deserve to know) from Palin's scripted speeches and choreographed appearances on the campaign trail and in campaign ads.

    If you click the link, you can see video of the exchange.

    Gee, I guess they're concerned that she might not be as good off the cuff as she is reading a teleprompter.

    I've seen her in (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by tree on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:10:38 PM EST
    governor debates from 2006. I don't agree with her viewpoint, but she does a good job at debates. It would be dangerous to underestimate her skills.

    Parent
    If she tries.... (none / 0) (#127)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:25:46 PM EST
    ...to lie like a rug again about, say, taxes and the war with Biden next to her onstage, there is no way he doesn't rip her to shreds.  And all she will really have is Orwellian doublespeak or bringing up Joe's plaigarism.  It's one thing to sing to the choir, it's quite another to yell at the choir director.

    Parent
    If that's so (none / 0) (#128)
    by litigatormom on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:26:34 PM EST
    why create even the appearance that they are reluctant to let her debate?

    You can't be a good debater in a vaccuum. No matter how smart and articulate you are, being a good debater requires that you know your facts.  I am sure she knew what she needed to know when she debated her gubenatorial adversary. The question is, will she know what she needs to know in a vice-presidential debate?

    Parent

    They've already started to bring her up (none / 0) (#129)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:28:35 PM EST
    to speed for the debate.

    Parent
    on what? (none / 0) (#147)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:43:17 PM EST
    How not to lie like she has been?  The only thing they can bring her up to speed on is how to spin the same dishonest, mean-sprited crap more "effectively".  

    Parent
    Just the thought... (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:45:19 PM EST
    ...of how she will discuss the war in Iraq makes my stomach turn.  She has a child going over there and has nothing but a deluded, malevolent cheerleader's attitude about it.  I hope someone asks her right off the bat if she knows the difference between a Sunni and Shiite, and which population dominates in Iran and Iraq.  

    Parent
    i REALLY hope... (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:49:54 PM EST
    ...someone asks her a trick question about it, actually.  Something like, "Should we really be that worried about Sunni dominated Iran being too chummy with Shiite Iraq?  Is that a recipe for another Iran/Iraq war?"

    Parent
    ya (none / 0) (#169)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:36:23 PM EST
    They cant teach her enough things quickly enough about foreign policy. As we speak the dems are looking for killer bits to leave her looking uninformed.

    Meanwhile the GOp is figuring out ways for her to get out of tricky spots with humor and home spun wisdom.

    Parent

    It would be nice if the press... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:42:07 PM EST
    ...were thinking of hard, pointed questions to ask, but I'm not holding my breath.

    Parent
    The last time I checked (none / 0) (#176)
    by demchick on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:50:07 PM EST
    the VP debate was not a foreign policy debate. I know the press has been spinning it that way but ti just isn't. Foreign policy is one part of hte debate but in their short alotted time they also have to cover many other issues.

    I would not get my hopes up about the entire debate being on foreign policy. Biden might want to bone up on ANWAR.

    Parent

    well - i (none / 0) (#174)
    by sas on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:17:23 PM EST
    don't expect that Obama could answer that question.

    Parent
    On how to say (none / 0) (#158)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:55:44 PM EST
    "McCain was a POW" since that seems to be there fallback answer for everything.

    Parent
    Sold it for a loss? (none / 0) (#134)
    by Patrick on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:30:51 PM EST
    Or was that normal depreciation.  

    From perusing this thread... (none / 0) (#164)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:04:21 PM EST
    I'm under the impression the accountants can spin it any way you want...profit or loss.

    Parent
    under GAAP, (none / 0) (#172)
    by cpinva on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:06:37 PM EST
    government property doesn't have depreciation, so its basis would be its original cost. to determine gain/loss on disposal, subtract the net selling price (selling price less costs of sale) from the plane's original cost. the difference is your gain/loss on disposal.

    granted, governmental accounting defies logic (which is a big reason us accountant types tend to dislike it), but there it is.

    Parent

    True dat (none / 0) (#175)
    by Patrick on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 06:38:52 PM EST
    granted, governmental accounting defies logic (which is a big reason us accountant types tend to dislike it), but there it is.

    Seems like the value would have logically depreciated despite the govt's lack of recognition.  I guess the real test is what's the going rate for a similar plane w/similar hours on the airframe.  Then I think we can discuss whether or not it was a good deal.  

    Parent

    Maybe if they sold (none / 0) (#159)
    by desertswine on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 04:58:22 PM EST
    Air Force II, it would keep Cheney out of the Middle East or Caucasia. Yeah, she can do that, if elected; sell off Air Force II. There's a deal.

    Now you're talking d'wine... (none / 0) (#167)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 05:08:15 PM EST
    Imagine how much cash she could raise having a fire sale over at the DEA...real estate, airplanes, helicopters, computers, gadgets, weapons....everything must go!

    Parent
    Correction to cpinva (none / 0) (#177)
    by DGDad on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 07:36:55 PM EST
    cpinva writes above:  "government property doesn't have depreciation, so its basis would be its original cost. to determine gain/loss on disposal, subtract the net selling price (selling price less costs of sale) from the plane's original cost. the difference is your gain/loss on disposal."   That used to be true but no longer is (and hasn't been for quite a few years now).  Cpinva hasn't kept up with his or her accounting learning.   Statement #34 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board ("GASB 34") requires state and local governments (including the State of Alaska) to depreciate most capital assets just as in the business world.  So, gain/loss is, in fact, now measured by net selling price minus depreciated cost (not original cost as cpinva incorrectly states).  Therefore, McCain's statement as to "sale at a profit" could be correct.  CNN commentators like Campbell Brown are IGNORANT of accounting and again show their liberal bias in making attacks without an adequate knowledge basis.  Here's a merely sample link that has one Q &A pertaining to depreciation: http://www.state.nj.us/education/finance/fp/gasb34/faq.shtml  .

    DGD, thanks! I had no idea. Very interesting. (none / 0) (#180)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:16:37 PM EST
    Actually, the eBay anecdote was used (none / 0) (#179)
    by Matt in Chicago on Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 09:14:47 PM EST
    to show her "credibility" as a reformer who was going to "end business as usual" in Alaska.

    I thought her quote was that she "put" it on eBay, not that she sold it on eBay?

    Now having said that... why the heck is this even a story?  Ok, it is a cute anecdote but it gets us absolutely nowhere.  We wind up wasting time on this anecdote and wind up looking like loons for caring so much and uncovering "lies" that no one cares about.

    As for McCain's statement, I hadn't heard that... what a silly unforced error on his part!  It is probably just enough to say "if he vetted his VP better he probably would have known the whole story..."