The Stonewalling Has Begun!

Discussion in 'Congress' started by Orange_Juice, Sep 2, 2008.

  1. Orange_Juice
    Offline

    Orange_Juice Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,038
    Thanks Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +58
    So much for openess and wanting to move on with this! John McCain must be thrilled! A few more days of this and most Americans will be asking, "John who?"

    Talking Points Memo

    Palin Goes to War with Investigation
    In one of the stories yesterday about Palin's hiring of a lawyer -- which we now find out she's having the state of Alaska pay for -- I noted that her new counsel, Thomas Van Flein, asked the lead investigator in the case to turn over all witness statements and documents produced so far in the probe. That struck me not as a good-faith request but rather an effort to get into a fight over process and thus gum up the investigation until after the election.

    And sure enough, today's Anchorage Daily News provides plenty of evidence that that is what's happening in spades. Though to this point Palin has said she would cooperate fully with the investigation, Van Flein is now challenging the standing of the entire inquiry. He claims that any investigation should be handled not by the legislature but by the state Personnel Board which, conveniently, is made up of the governor's appointees.

    Van Flein is also charging that the state senator charged with overseeing the investigation is on a partisan witch-hunt. "Our concern is that Hollis French turns into Ken Starr and uses public money to pursue a political vendetta rather than truly pursue an honest inquiry into an alleged ethics issue," Van Flein told the ADN. To which French rather persuasively responded that the charge of partisanship rang at least a little hollow since the investigation was instigated and authorized by a committee dominated by Republicans (though it's only fair to note that Palin is noted beloved by all Republicans in the state).

    And finally that deposition that the investigator is trying to arrange with Gov. Palin? Seems she may be too busy running for vice president to make time for that. From the ADN ...
     
  2. Silence
    Offline

    Silence wanna lick?

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,820
    Thanks Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    FL
    Ratings:
    +457
    wait, did he just openly admit that Ken Star used public money to pursue a political vendetta against Bill Clinton? :lol:
     
  3. midcan5
    Offline

    midcan5 liberal / progressive

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,784
    Thanks Received:
    2,365
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Philly, PA
    Ratings:
    +3,298
    If one thing is obvious today, it is given McCain's decision to select Palin as VP, he is not qualified to be president. We have in office now a man who cannot make sensible decisions, why would anyone want another? Sad that so many stretch their partisan values so far they can defend so weak a selection. Surely another right wingnut was available with less baggage.



    A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.
     
  4. SwingVoter
    Offline

    SwingVoter VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,246
    Thanks Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    Ratings:
    +129
    If you're so into gov't leaving us alone, how can you "stretch" your values and support someone who wants gov't increasing taxes and regulations over privately-earned income?
     
  5. Silence
    Offline

    Silence wanna lick?

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,820
    Thanks Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    FL
    Ratings:
    +457
    what?

    didnt Bush increase regulations and taxes over privately-earned income? oh wait, no that's right he cut taxes for the richest people so it's okay.

    These arguments fall short, especially when all evidence to the contrary is so easily accessible.

    We are in debt up to our eyeballs. How do you propose we pay down that debt if not by increasing taxes? Do you want to pass that along to our children and their children and generations beyond that? I don't. I'd rather pay a little more now to ensure that my daughter and future generations aren't paying for the mistakes and waste of this generation.
     
  6. SwingVoter
    Offline

    SwingVoter VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,246
    Thanks Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    Ratings:
    +129
    Why not eliminate all the increases in spending we got under W? He's been a borrow-and-spend liberal, and raised fed spending as a share of GDP to a level 3 pts higher than it was under Clinton.

    Ending Iraq war, scaling back Medicare Part D, reducing big brother government agencies like Dept of Ed, DEA, EPA, and all the alphabet agencies full of career bureaucrats surfing the web all day. Also, reducing troop presence in Korea and Germany. Add that up, you get about $300 billion.

    Taxing capital gains, small businesses, dividends, and crushing people who risk capital, as Obama wants to do, is not only a major intrusion into people's private affairs, it makes no sense economically, especially when it will only pay for W's spending spree.
     
  7. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,428
    psssst... just a reality check, you AREN'T a swing voter. you're firmly in right wing camp if you think Bush didn't absolutely and to a T give the right what they wanted. Bush wasn't a borrow and spend "liberal". The right doesn't get to dissociate themselves from the same policies their party has outright supported since Reagan was president.This is just your hens coming home to roost because it wasn't curtailed by a democratic congress for 6 years. This is what they worked for... to bankrupt government so they could, how was it put again? oh yeah... "drown it in the bathtub".

    And how anyone middle class votes against his own interest for right wing policies that are designed to destroy the middle class is beyond me.
     
  8. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    feel free to send the IRS as much as you like
     
  9. SwingVoter
    Offline

    SwingVoter VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,246
    Thanks Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    Ratings:
    +129
    Are you more interested in debating issues or throwing around labels?

    Bush gave the left more than it got under Clinton. In the 90s, Gore was scaring the crap out of bureaucrats with his reinventing gov't program, while Clinton cut capital gains taxes, and presided over a remarkable economic boom.

    Under Bush, we've had the massive, new Medicare Part D program, the No Child Left Behind Dept of Ed expansion, increases in funding to Africa to fight AIDS. Hardly the stuff of a tightwad right-wing administration. There are plenty of lemming conservatives who just follow whatever the GOP tells them, but any true believer in limited gov't has been disgusted by Bush, and relatively positive on what happened in this country under Clinton.
     
  10. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,428
    Labels? You're the one who labeled yourself. I'm just pointing out that it's not a true or accurate label. I'm for truth in advertising. You remember what that is, right? Or are you too young. And, btw, I never called you names or was rude, just showing your nic to be a fabrication. You guys need to own the results of your failed policies. And I, for one, don't see the need to let you off the hook because you pretend you're a "swing voter" when you're clearly a right-winger.

    Medicare Part D was a gift to insurance companies as was the repub's negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies to NOT NEGOTIATE PRICES... how insane is that?

    No Child Left Behind is an unfunded mandate and is a travesty, which you'd know if you had children in public school, especially in an urban area. And, oh goody, he gave money for AIDS... with the radical religious right's proviso that they teach abstinence only to people who needed to learn about SAFE SEX.

    Any true believer in limited government SHOULD be disgusted by Bush, but it's WHERE the government grew that's appalling. It shrunk in any area that would have helped actual people and grew in every way that appeals to the religious right.
     

Share This Page