The Instigator
foresight
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

Sarah Palin's supreme disqualification should be alarming, persuading people to vote against GOP.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
foresight
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/10/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,254 times Debate No: 5687
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (4)

 

foresight

Pro

John McCain has picked Sarah Palin as his VP vote in order to change the dynamics of a presidential election, gain disgruntled Hillary supporters, and appease the far-right conservatives within his own party. Unfortunately McCain did not put America first and choose the most qualified or most ready to lead. Instead McCain took a gamble, a common theme during his campaign, and chose a very unknown and inexperienced Governor from Alaska, Sarah Palin.

After Governor Palin's recent series of Katie Couric interviews, pizza parlor interrogation, and VP debate with Joe Biden, it has become very clear she does not fully understand the issues that plague America today. On top of her lack of understanding on all the issues Palin's misrepresentation of information during her debate, her interviews and stump-speeches to cast doubt in the mind of voters is reckless and irresponsible. And on top of that Sarah Palin's conduct during the Troopergate scandal has eerie foreshadowing for how she would conduct herself during her presidency.

Sarah Palin's lack of foreign policy experience is terrifying. Sarah Palin claimed that Alaska's Proximity to Russia some how qualifies as a FP credential. Unfortunately this very lame attempt to create something out of nothing left her looking like anything but VP worthy. Sarah does not know any other languages, has no profound opinions on FP (Past, Current, or Future), and did not have a Passport until 2007. All these signs point to the fact that she has absolutely no interest in the rest of the world and has been very focused on life in Alaska. Sarah Palin has not shown any evidence that she understands the complicated political and social structures in the Middle East. Her knowledge of the middle east most likely resembles that of "joe six pack" and that is that we have troops in Iraq, Iran is evil, and somewhere along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border is where Osama Bin Laden is hiding. Palin's refusal to answer questions which test her knowledge on FP during the VP debate and focus on her and John's "Mavericky" quality in unfair to voters who want to know where she stands and what she thinks. A no answer only confirms the fact that she does not know anything any regular "hockey mom" does not know. Sarah Palin lacks respect here at home from millions of american's after her botched debate and fumbled interviews, i doubt heads of state across the world are willing to take her serious in negotiations of policy. That is counter productive to American interests espeacially in a time of lingering global recession, and never ending war on terror.

Palin's misrepresentation, exaggeration, omission of facts, and none answers has ultimately been used by her campaign to cast doubt among voters, frustrate americans who watch debates, and hide the fact that McCain-Palin offer the same Republican policies of the last 8 years. Some specific examples of Palin's misrepresentation of facts occured during her VP debate and and recent Stump-Speeches. Sarah Palin got the Commander's name in Afghanistan wrong first of all, secondly she misrepresented his released statements about the effects of a Surge in Afghanistan. He advised against a surge in Afghanistan, Palin insisted that he did not say such a thing in order to cover McCain's current position that a surge is needed and will work in Afghanistan. Palin's return to mud slinging by attempting to associate Ayers with Obama, and rehash the controversy over Rev. Wright. Both claims are attempts to change the focus of this election from the "real issues" to more personal attacks on judgement. Both claims are exaggeratoins of the truth and are hoping that the American people will view Obama as a terrorist. Palin's rehash of Rev. Wright is counter productive because McCain declared that subject off limits early this campaign. Her revival of Rev. Wright now puts makes McCain look like he flip-flopped on that issue. You can imagine a scenario where if Palin were VP she would knowingly go on live t.v. or radio and knowingly tell the American people lies, or misrepresentations of facts as a form of propaganda against the people. And you can see a scenario where Palin defies McCain's position on a past issue in order to satisfy a current need. If her misrepresentations or defiance are acts of ignorance and or lack of knowledge rather than malice and intent, it is even more alarming and people should vote agains McCain-Palin to prevent her from even potentially becoming President one day.

Lastly, Palin's conduct during the federal investigation of Troopergate is similar to the white houses cooperation with the Firing of Justices scandal. Palin authorized the investigation when she was governor but once she was nominated VP she with the help of other republicans has been dragging her feet and trying to stop its progress. Her lack of cooperation into the investigation is not becoming of VP nominee. There must be some skeletons in her closet which will damage her campaign. Ideally she would like the investigation to conclude after the elections. How immoral is that? Scenario: McCain- Palin win in '08. Palin gets her way and the Investigation releases its results after the election. The results of the Investigation point to Misconduct and Abuse of Power by Palin. The American people were not given the best information from which to choose their new president and VP. That is highly immoral, Palin should want the American people to see the results of this investigation prior to the election so they have proof of her pristine track record and should have know doubt in her ability to conduct government faithfully and morally. Since that is not how Palin decided to play the situation but rather she wishes to sweep it under the rug keeping the American people in the dark. Another huge impediment to the investigation is Palin's habit of using personal Email accounts when conducting business for Alaska. This deliberate tactic is used to reduce transparency because federal investigations can not recover these emails. So Palin has been involved in some very lucrative behaviors as governor of which we may never know. This is not a person fit to sit 2nd in command of this nation. She is supremely unqualified to be VP, she lacks in-depth knowledge of issues, is currently involved in a federal investigation inter her misconduct and abuse of power, and deliberately misleads American's with her attacks and answers to both debate and interview questions. People should understand she is the one sitting at the button waiting for the president to say "fire". People should vote agains McCain just to prevent her from getting office.

**** Palin Abused Power as Governor***** This alone should make people vote against the GOP ticket.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

I AGREE. SARAH PALIN IS AN IDIOT.

HOWEVER, she is not running for president. And that's why we will be okay.

Hopefully, John McCain will be elected, and when he does, Sarah Palin can be impeached. We have a Democratic House, and many analysts are predicting that the Senate Democrats will get a filibuster proof 60 seats. If the House calls for an impeachment of Sarah Palin, they will most likely get it. As my opponent mentioned, Sarah Palin is involved in Troopergate. The Constitution says that the president, or vice-president ought to be impeached when he or she commits a high crime or misdemeanor, as I see it, and as my opponent mentioned, she can be convicted easily of obstruction of justice, and maybe even for firing the state trooper. This gives justification for impeachment. If not, McCain can ask for her resignation as time wears on. You have to remember, she's not president, she has no real power, and I don't expect her to get any.

Also, in all likelihood, McCain will live another four years. His cancer has been in remission since 2002, and both his mother and his grandmother lived long lives (his mom is still alive now). He is in good health for a 72 year old, and his death is unlikely. Obviously it is possible, but it is not likely enough to be a major concern.

I will not rebut my opponent's points, because my argument agrees with them. However, I will close with one last statement: Sarah Palin is running for Vice-President. We can impeach or she can resign if she is elected. Nothing bad has happened if she is our VICE-President. As long as she stays Vice-President, we're okay.
Debate Round No. 1
foresight

Pro

My opponent claims that we should not be worried about Palin being VP. He claims that we can "impeach" Palin if she is elected or McCain can "Fire" her. Both of these scenarios are very improbable. McCain will not fire Palin if they win the election, there would be no need. If they win that tells McCain that people are fine with Palin. She will not be impeached because Republicans in the house will block the vote. My opponent is right that the Dems have an opportunity to win 60 seats in the senate this election cycle, 60 seats will make them filibuster proof. However, filibuster proof is not a large enough majority to be veto proof. To be Veto proof Dems need 67 seats in the senate. Dems have a good chance at best to get 60, 67 would be a miracle. So if McCain-Palin does win this election Sarah Palin will serve her full term, unless she Abuses the Powers of VP.

Trooper-gate-

My opponent believes that if McCain-Palin wins than she is impeachable on grounds of her "Abuse of Power" in the Trooper-gate Scandal. However this is not true. No other legal action can be taken against Palin for this violation. She can not be removed from office. The report released proves Palin did exert excess force to pressure the Alaskan Public Safety Commissioner to fire or relocate Trooper Wooten in order to satisfy a personal gain. Hence, she abused her power. The actual firing of the Alaskan Public Safety Commissioner was legal and followed all required procedures. If Palin had fired the APSC without following all procedures she could than be removed from the Governorship. The only thing that can now happen is for Palin's lawyers to dispute the claims of the investigation, and/or the APSC can sue Palin for firing him on grounds other than his conduct and his ability to perform the job. Many Republican "Spin Masters" are trying to down play the report as a Democratic "Witch-hunt". People need to be aware that Palin was the one who authorized both the investigation and the $100,000 budget for the investigation. It was only after her nomination as VP did her position on the investigation change. Also, the Panel that voted to uphold and release the findings of the report was bipartisan. In fact, the panel was composed of 10 republicans and 4 democrats. Palin's lawyers are also claiming that Branchflower had misused the Executive Office Ethics Act to wrongly accuse Palin of misconduct. The lawyers claim that the ethics act only pertains to "financial interest" and since Branchflower offered no evidence to prove that Palin was seeking financial gain his claim of misconduct is wrong and should be retracted. Here is the actual literature from the Alaskan Governments website(http://www.law.state.ak.us...):

"The legislature further recognizes that in a representative democracy, the representatives are drawn from society and, therefore, cannot and should not be without personal and financial interests in the decisions and policies of government; people who serve as public officers retain their rights to interests of a personal or financial nature; 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."

Focus on the phrase, "personal and financial interest". Clearly the code of ethics does not pertain to only financial interests as the Palin-Lawyers claim. It is unlikely that her lawyers will succeed in getting this investigation retracted. Also hone in on the last part of that passage, "...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". Now since the infraction occurred in Alaska one could argue that this should only concern Alaskan citizens. However, Palin is running for a national office. We as voters need to use all of our available information on our nominees to make the best choice possible for this country. Not to do so would not be logical. She has been found guilty of violating public trust. She used her power to further a personal interest. She betrayed the public by perpetuating a personal agenda. She put Palin first not the citizens of Alaska. This reason alone should be sufficient enough to dissuade you from voting GOP this election cycle. You should not vote GOP for the sole purpose of preventing Palin from presiding over the #2 spot of the most powerful country in the world.

Trying to belittle the office of VP is wrong. Because the VP spot may not be one of great power, but it is a position of great potential. Great Potential because the VP could one day be President. My opponent makes a good point that we can not predict the future. We do not know what will happen to McCain. But we do know the facts that are presented for us today. For this exact reason we need to use all of the available information to make the best decision we can. Not voting for McCain because of Palin is the best way to exercise your right to vote. It sends the message that we will not stand for candidates who are not only unqualified but unethical. It tells our Presidential nominees that they need to do better when choosing running mates. By voting for McCain-Palin you send the exact opposite message. It says that you condone these behaviors. It tells political strategists that our candidates do not have to be either ethical or qualified. As a result we are not furthering the our interest as the American people. We will not see candidates improve over time. We are leaving ourselves open for the failures of such candidates. Not voting GOP to prevent Palin from getting the VP spot will send a strong message to our politicians, a message that we the people demand better.

Since my opponent agrees with my other topics it would not make sense to argue further.

I get the feeling that my opponent does not have anything further to debate. You are more than welcome to continue, but if you forfeit than that will let me know that this is true and i will also forfeit the final round.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

"My opponent claims that we should not be worried about Palin being VP. He claims that we can "impeach" Palin if she is elected or McCain can "Fire" her. Both of these scenarios are very improbable. McCain will not fire Palin if they win the election, there would be no need. If they win that tells McCain that people are fine with Palin. She will not be impeached because Republicans in the house will block the vote. My opponent is right that the Dems have an opportunity to win 60 seats in the senate this election cycle, 60 seats will make them filibuster proof. However, filibuster proof is not a large enough majority to be veto proof. To be Veto proof Dems need 67 seats in the senate. Dems have a good chance at best to get 60, 67 would be a miracle. So if McCain-Palin does win this election Sarah Palin will serve her full term, unless she Abuses the Powers of VP."

This comes down to whether or not Palin will be impeached or fired. On the first one, I would like to point out that an impeachment does not need the President's signature, so the Dems don't need to be veto proof. All they need in the House is a majority, and in the Senate, the 60 seats. That's enough. On firing, I would like to point out that some political analysts (can provide names if you would like) have speculated that McCain will fire Sarah Palin after he is elected, because doing it now would be suicide, but as he will likely be a one-term president, and he knows that Palin is incompetent, he may do the smart thing and fire her.

"My opponent believes that if McCain-Palin wins than she is impeachable on grounds of her 'Abuse of Power' in the Trooper-gate Scandal. However this is not true. No other legal action can be taken against Palin for this violation. She can not be removed from office. The report released proves Palin did exert excess force to pressure the Alaskan Public Safety Commissioner to fire or relocate Trooper Wooten in order to satisfy a personal gain. Hence, she abused her power."
From the Alaska Code "(a) A public officer may not use, or attempt to use, an official position for personal gain,
and may not intentionally secure or grant unwarranted benefits or treatment for any person."
"(1) shall order the employee to stop engaging in any official action related to the
violation;
(2) may order divestiture, establishment of a blind trust, restitution, or forfeiture; and
(3) may recommend that the employee's agency take disciplinary action, including
dismissal."
AS39.52.410
She committed a high crime/misdemeanor. She can be impeached.

"Trying to belittle the office of VP is wrong. Because the VP spot may not be one of great power, but it is a position of great potential. Great Potential because the VP could one day be President. My opponent makes a good point that we can not predict the future. We do not know what will happen to McCain. But we do know the facts that are presented for us today. For this exact reason we need to use all of the available information to make the best decision we can. Not voting for McCain because of Palin is the best way to exercise your right to vote. It sends the message that we will not stand for candidates who are not only unqualified but unethical. It tells our Presidential nominees that they need to do better when choosing running mates. By voting for McCain-Palin you send the exact opposite message. It says that you condone these behaviors. It tells political strategists that our candidates do not have to be either ethical or qualified. As a result we are not furthering the our interest as the American people. We will not see candidates improve over time. We are leaving ourselves open for the failures of such candidates. Not voting GOP to prevent Palin from getting the VP spot will send a strong message to our politicians, a message that we the people demand better."

This is not true. If I don't vote for McCain, simply because I don't like Palin, the only message I send is "I don't want McCain-Palin as our administration." That doesn't change things. Furthermore, as I said, the potential for Palin to gain great power would in all likelihood never become reality.
Debate Round No. 2
foresight

Pro

Opponent: "This comes down to whether or not Palin will be impeached or fired. On the first one, I would like to point out that an impeachment does not need the President's signature, so the Dems don't need to be veto proof. All they need in the House is a majority, and in the Senate, the 60 seats. That's enough."

My opponent insists on debating a point which is not debatable. A 2/3 vote is needed to get an impeachment. Here is a an excerpt from wikipedia.com (http://en.wikipedia.org...):

"....in order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office (either elected or appointed). Despite a conviction by the Senate, the defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution. It is possible to impeach someone even after the accused has vacated their office in order to disqualify the person from future office or from certain emoluments of their prior office (such as a pension). If there is no charge for which a two-thirds majority of the senators present vote "Guilty", the defendant is acquitted and no punishment is imposed. After a person has been accused, they are not allowed to return."

Once again, Dems are in position to increase their seats in the senate to 60 not 67. They do not hold a large enough majority, specifically 2/3 majority, to ensure an impeachment against Sarah Palin. Also "veto proof" is a 2/3 majority in the senate. These definitions are not debatable they are the law as it exits today.

Opponent: "On firing, I would like to point out that some political analysts (can provide names if you would like) have speculated that McCain will fire Sarah Palin after he is elected, because doing it now would be suicide, but as he will likely be a one-term president, and he knows that Palin is incompetent, he may do the smart thing and fire her."

My opponent agrees Palin is incompetent. His argument is that Palin will likely be fired based on a "political analyst's" speculation, and because my opponent claims that McCain knows Palin is incompetent. To this I say, "Huh?". If McCain knows Palin is incompetent but still willing to have her elected to VP, he is not "Putting Country First". This behavior is grossly immoral and unethical. It shows that McCain is willing to put America at risk to win an election. If McCain really thought this way, this is what he would be saying: "Vote for me for President. Ignore Sarah Palin, I know she's incompetent thats why I plan to fire her after i get into office." That argument does not help prove his point. It supports my argument that people should vote down the GOP ticket to keep "incompetent" Palin from reaching the VP. Why wait till tomorrow, when you can get it done today? Let alone betting on chance to save you.

Opponent:
"From the Alaska Code "
(a) A public officer may not use, or attempt to use, an official position for personal gain, and may not intentionally secure or grant unwarranted benefits or treatment for any person."
"(1) shall order the employee to stop engaging in any official action related to the
violation;
(2) may order divestiture, establishment of a blind trust, restitution, or forfeiture; and
(3) may recommend that the employee's agency take disciplinary action, including
dismissal."
AS39.52.410"

Unfortunatly the above excerpt from the Alaska Code of Ethics has been altered. Here is the actual excerpt in as it reads in the legislation (http://www.law.state.ak.us...):

Sec. 39.52.410. Violations; penalties for misconduct.
(a) If the personnel board determines that a public employee has violated this chapter, it
(1) shall order the employee to stop engaging in any official action related to the
violation;
(2) may order divestiture, establishment of a blind trust, restitution, or forfeiture; and
(3) may recommend that the employee's agency take disciplinary action, including
dismissal.

The list goes on to about six. But notice how the (a.) in my opponents version differs from the (a.) posted on the Alaska Government website. Now for those who are not up to par on the Trooper-Gate scandal here is why the ACTUAL (a.) is important. The investigation was conducted by the legislature not the "Personnel Board". This investigation was conducted because the the APSC whistle blew on Palin for her abuse of power in trying to get Trooper Wooten fired. This investigation is simply that, an investigation. It holds not legal weight. It is just formal evidence. Now the "Personnel Panel", which are personally selected by the Governor, will review the investigation and decide whether or not to further action is needed. Now it is unlikely the "Personnel Panel" will conduct a review anytime soon, especially not before election day. So my opponent is wrong. Palin can not be impeached from office as a result of this investigation. Which is why it is important to not vote GOP and keep Palin far away from National Office.

Opponent: "If I don't vote for McCain, simply because I don't like Palin, the only message I send is "I don't want McCain-Palin as our administration." That doesn't change things. Furthermore, as I said, the potential for Palin to gain great power would in all likelihood never become reality."

I disagree, "I don't like McCain-Palin as our administration" is only ONE message that you will be sending. This belief is simplifying the impact of voting. Companies conduct hundreds of polls and crunch countless of pieces of data in order to better understand what causes voters to vote one way as opposed to another. Current polls already suggest that Palin is having a negative impact on the GOP ticket. People are becoming more and more turned off by her. The votes need to support this trend. The vote count is what all the analysts and strategists will come back to in order to reference their findings. It will tell them how much of an impact a candidate like Palin will have on an election. If we vote down GOP because of Palin they will know that other candidates like Palin will result in a lost election.
My opponent claims that Palin's chances of getting into a position of power if elected as VP are unlikely. I consider the VP a position of great power in government. VP is #2 in line to protect this country and put forth agendas that will benefits all its people. "The informal roles and functions of the Vice President depend on the specific relationship between the President and the Vice President, but often include drafter and spokesperson for the administration's policy, as an adviser to the president, as Chairman of the Board of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), as a Member of the board of the Smithsonian Institution, and as a symbol of American concern or support" (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I can see it now, Palin pushing to get a display from a creationist museum, depicting Man riding on Dinosaurs, put into the Smithsonian Institution. Or trying to convince NASA that the Universe is not billions of years old, its 4,000 years old. Despite these informal roles, VP should be a close advisor and confidant for the President. Historically that has been their main role. Palin can't be that person for McCain.

Palin can not and should not be trusted with the VP position. To much rides on this election to leave it to "Chance". Sarah Palin's lack of credentials, lack of knowledge on key issues, and recent "Abuse of Power" findings make her unfit for the job. These are reasons enough to Not vote GOP in this election.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

"My opponent insists on debating a point which is not debatable. A 2/3 vote is needed to get an impeachment. Here is a an excerpt from wikipedia.com (http://en.wikipedia.org......):"

Yes, but my opponent assumes that ONLY the Democrats will vote for conviction. There are plenty of moderate Republicans in the Senate.

"Also 'veto proof' is a 2/3 majority in the senate."
I know. I said they don't need a veto-proof majority, because they can't be vetoed in impeachment convictions.

"my opponent claims that McCain knows Palin is incompetent. To this I say, 'Huh?'. If McCain knows Palin is incompetent but still willing to have her elected to VP, he is not 'Putting Country First'. This behavior is grossly immoral and unethical. It shows that McCain is willing to put America at risk to win an election. If McCain really thought this way, this is what he would be saying: 'Vote for me for President. Ignore Sarah Palin, I know she's incompetent thats why I plan to fire her after i get into office.' That argument does not help prove his point."

He may not have known when he chose her, but now it is more than clear that she is incompetent. He can't say so now, or else he won't win. He can fire afterwords, easily, but that can't be done now.

"The list goes on to about six. But notice how the (a.) in my opponents version differs from the (a.) posted on the Alaska Government website."

No, you didn't pay close enough attention. Then (a.) I listed was separate from the rest of the quote. The (a.) was from the definition of Ethics violations. Below it I listed the penalties.

"This investigation is simply that, an investigation. It holds not legal weight. It is just formal evidence. Now the 'Personnel Panel', which are personally selected by the Governor, will review the investigation and decide whether or not to further action is needed. Now it is unlikely the 'Personnel Panel' will conduct a review anytime soon, especially not before election day. So my opponent is wrong. Palin can not be impeached from office as a result of this investigation. Which is why it is important to not vote GOP and keep Palin far away from National Office."

She can be convicted after election day. She can be impeached.

"This belief is simplifying the impact of voting. Companies conduct hundreds of polls and crunch countless of pieces of data in order to better understand what causes voters to vote one way as opposed to another. Current polls already suggest that Palin is having a negative impact on the GOP ticket. People are becoming more and more turned off by her. The votes need to support this trend. The vote count is what all the analysts and strategists will come back to in order to reference their findings. It will tell them how much of an impact a candidate like Palin will have on an election. If we vote down GOP because of Palin they will know that other candidates like Palin will result in a lost election."

That may be true, but it is already obvious that incompetent VP candidates won't work unless the candidate for President is any good. This won't change anything.

"I can see it now, Palin pushing to get a display from a creationist museum, depicting Man riding on Dinosaurs, put into the Smithsonian Institution. Or trying to convince NASA that the Universe is not billions of years old, its 4,000 years old. Despite these informal roles, VP should be a close advisor and confidant for the President. Historically that has been their main role. Palin can't be that person for McCain."

McCain is not stupid, he won't give her these roles.
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Wasn't Palin was able to balance the budget in Alaska? That is qualification enough for me. Neither McCain, Obama or Biden feel balancing the budget is even a worthwile goal. She should be at the top of the ticket, not VP.
Posted by bthr004 9 years ago
bthr004
Palin changing the dynamics of the campaign was absolutely a responible decision.. It was needed. McCain is worthless to the GOP if he is not elected. He has to get elected before he can apply his political agenda.

This was a good move. Only thing better would have been Condoleza Rice (sp)*.

Politics is politics.
Posted by Leftymorgan 9 years ago
Leftymorgan
Also in reading the PDF file located on fox news there is information that was left out at the cop in question. The findings are in complete and based on what is in the report and what wasn't in the report the board had no choice to find her in violation of ethics. Yet they said the violation was not severe enough to boot her out of office or charge her with a crime. From what I can gather from this at this point in the election is to sway voters and nothing more. Give me more information on the entire case and let me decide or take it to a court instead of letting politicians cast their opinions.
Posted by Leftymorgan 9 years ago
Leftymorgan
Try 263 pages first of all. And 2nd I live by the rule when it comes to elections: Trust no one and question everyone. First question I ask is what is the motive of the person bringing forth the statement and what do they hope to gain by doing so. And as far as I am concerned Barack Obama has way more things to answer for than the Governor does. So until he quits dodging these questions and starts to answer them I will say the attacks on Palin are just in response to the attacks on him that he won't answer. Besides that she is only the Vice Presidential candidate, Barack is the one running for President. If she runs for President later down the road, some of this might be of interest. But I believe the Presidential candidates are and should be under more scrutiny than their running mates. At this point in the election, her issues are not any more or less important than things in Bidens closet.
Posted by foresight 9 years ago
foresight
leftmorgan you are far to comfortable with the fact that Palin Abused her power. The report is 253 pages long. Phone calls, emails, and interviews are all contained within, I am not sure what more specific information is needed. Those remarks are from a republican so of course they will say that. It is alarming how much access Todd Palin has to the State Government. Its the equivalent of Laura Bush trying meddling in National affairs. I encourage you leftymorgan to start a debate and challenge me on this issue. It would be fun dont you think?
Posted by Leftymorgan 9 years ago
Leftymorgan
It is amazing, they say she abused her power and yet didn't give any specifics? Here is a quote from someone that was there: "I think there are some problems in this report," said Republican state Sen. Gary Stevens, a member of the panel. "I would encourage people to be very cautious, to look at this with a jaundiced eye." Read from the different news medias and what they appear to say about the findings. To me it sounds and looks more like a way to sling mud at McCain to ensure Obama maintains a lead in the polls. I still believe that Obama has fair more to answer for than this one thing they want to hold her accountable for.
Posted by foresight 9 years ago
foresight
Well at least we now know she would have fit in very nicely with the Bush and Cheney. It is good to know that government is not so corrupt as to with hold these findings from the people. Well looks like i can shorten my argument. No need for the part about Troopergate. I can simply put Palin abuses her power in while in office. If she loses this election I wonder if she will have a hard time getting re-elected after this?
Posted by Robert_Santurri 9 years ago
Robert_Santurri
Going to look even worse now that she has been found guilty of abusing her power, though no laws were broken.
Posted by Leftymorgan 9 years ago
Leftymorgan
The facts on Obamas tax plan actually targets those who make as little as $42,000.00 a year. That aside. America is made up of a lot of small business owners that just make over the $250,000.00 on the whole. An if their taxes go up, they either raise the cost of goods or lay people off. History has bared this out. Kennedy lowered taxes and government revenue increased, Reagan lowered taxes and again revenues went up. Carter raised taxes and we had gas lines among other things. As for Palin, a Mayor is an executive, the Governor is an Executive. What Executive experience has Obama had that makes him more qualified? I have yet to hear how he is more qualified than even McCain, let alone Palin. Everything that I have read and heard so far is all talking points with no substance.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
"I started my political career at a known US terrorists home, one of my closest friends is in jail for being a crook and all the ministers of my church hate america, who am I?"
I'm guessing Obama, but it could be the guy playing Obama on SNL. Did you know he was kidnapped by aliens, who taught him how to fix health care?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 9 years ago
Rezzealaux
foresightLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by cooljpk 9 years ago
cooljpk
foresightLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by josh_42 9 years ago
josh_42
foresightLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by foresight 9 years ago
foresight
foresightLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70