U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[PanzerJaeger]

Economist magazine polled a bunch of economists, as well as interviewing them to see what they thought of the economic proposals of McCain and Obama. Results are worth a read. Full text below the tag.

Examining the candidates

Oct 2nd 2008 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

In our special report on the election we analyse the two candidates’ economic plans. Here, we ask professional economists to give us their views

AS THE financial crisis pushes the economy back to the top of voters’ concerns, Barack Obama is starting to open up a clear lead over John McCain in the opinion polls. But among those who study economics for a living, Mr Obama’s lead is much more commanding. A survey of academic economists by The Economist finds the majority—at times by overwhelming margins—believe Mr Obama has the superior economic plan, a firmer grasp of economics and will appoint better economic advisers.

Our survey is not, by any means, a scientific poll of all economists. We e-mailed a questionnaire to 683 research associates, all we could track down, of the National Bureau of Economic Research, America’s premier association of applied academic economists, though the NBER itself played no role in the survey. A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond. Still, even if we exclude respondents with a party identification, Mr Obama retains a strong edge—though the McCain campaign should be buoyed by the fact that 530 economists have signed a statement endorsing his plans.

Does their opinion matter? Economics is just one of the many things the next president will have to worry about; voters still seem to prefer Mr McCain on foreign policy. And even on the economy, economists may not have the same priorities as the population at large. Arguably, what a president says about economics on the campaign trail is less important than how he responds to the unexpected challenges that inevitably arise once he is in office.

Yet economists’ opinions should count for something because irrespective of any party affiliation, most of them approach policy decisions with the same basic tool kit. Their assessment of the candidates’ economic credentials and plans represents an informed judgment on how well they will handle difficult trade-offs between efficiency, equity, growth and consensus-building.

Regardless of party affiliation, our respondents generally agree the economy is in bad shape, that the election is important to the course of economic policy and that the housing and financial crisis is the most critical economic issue facing America.

The detailed responses are bad news for Mr McCain (the full data are available here). Eighty per cent of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those who do not cleave to either main party say Mr Obama has a better grasp of economics. Even among Republicans Mr Obama has the edge: 46% versus 23% say Mr Obama has the better grasp of the subject. “I take McCain’s word on this one,” comments James Harrigan at the University of Virginia, a reference to Mr McCain’s infamous confession that he does not know as much about economics as he should. In fairness, Mr McCain’s lower grade may in part reflect greater candour about his weaknesses. Mr Obama’s more tightly managed image leaves fewer opportunities for such unvarnished introspection.

A candidate’s economic expertise may matter rather less if he surrounds himself with clever advisers. Unfortunately for Mr McCain, 81% of all respondents reckon Mr Obama is more likely to do that; among unaffiliated respondents, 71% say so. That is despite praise across party lines for the excellent Doug Holtz-Eakin, Mr McCain’s most prominent economic adviser and a former head of the Congressional Budget Office. “Although I have tended to vote Republican,” one reply says, “the Democrats have a deep pool of talented, moderate economists.”

There is an apparent contradiction between most economists’ support for free trade, low taxes and less intervention in the market and the low marks many give to Mr McCain, who is generally more supportive of those things than Mr Obama. It probably reflects a perception that the Republican Party under George Bush has subverted many of those ideals for ideology and political gain. Indeed, the majority of respondents rate Mr Bush’s economic record as very bad, and Republican respondents are only slightly less critical.

“John McCain has professed disdain for ‘so-called economists’, and for some the feeling has become mutual,” says Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management. “Obama’s team is mainstream and non-ideological but extremely talented.”

On our one-to-five scale, economists on average give Mr Obama’s economic programme a 3.3 and Mr McCain’s a 2.2. Mr Obama, says Jonathan Parker, a non-aligned professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, “is a pragmatist not an ideologue. I expect Clintonian economic policies.” If, that is, crushing federal debt does not derail his taxing and spending plans.

On his plans to fix the financial crisis, Mr Obama averages 3.1, a point higher than Mr McCain. Still, some said they didn’t quite know what they were rating—reasonably enough, since neither candidate has produced clear plans of his own.

Where the candidates’ positions are more clearly articulated, Mr Obama scores better on nearly every issue: promoting fiscal discipline, energy policy, reducing the number of people without health insurance, controlling health-care costs, reforming financial regulation and boosting long-run economic growth. Twice as many economists think Mr McCain’s plan would be bad or very bad for long-run growth as Mr Obama’s. Given how much focus Mr McCain has put on his plan’s benefits for growth, this last is quite a repudiation.

Mr McCain gets his highest mark, an average of 3.5 and a clear advantage over Mr Obama, for his position on free trade and globalisation. If Mr Obama “would wake up on free trade”, one respondent says, “I could get behind the plans much more.” Perhaps surprisingly, the economists rated trade low in priority compared with the other issues listed. Only 53% say it is important or very important. Neither candidate scored at all well on dealing with the burgeoning cost of entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security.

The economists also prefer Mr Obama’s tax plans. Republicans and respondents who do not identify with either political party see Mr McCain’s tax policies as more efficient but less equitable. But the former prefer Mr McCain’s plans—43% of Republicans say they are good or very good—and the latter Mr Obama’s. Of non-affiliated respondents, 31% say Mr Obama’s are good or very good.

Either way, according to the economists, it would be difficult to do much worse than George Bush. The respondents give Mr Bush a dismal average of 1.7 on our five-point scale for his economic management. Eighty-two per cent thought Mr Bush’s record was bad or very bad; only 1% thought it was very good.

The Democrats were overwhelmingly negative, but nearly every respondent viewed Mr Bush’s record unfavourably. Half of Republican respondents thought Mr Bush deserves only a 2. “The minimum rating of one severely overestimates the quality of Bush’s economic policies,” says one non-aligned economist.

What an amazingly revealing expose! Did they need to go to the trouble of visiting Kinkos to tell us a bunch of democrats would side with Obama's plan, though?

[ICantSpellDawg]

i'll bite, CR.

my guess is paglia is suffering from the same hormonal responses as rich lowry. she's way out there, as per ususal. that said, i can't tell if this is facetious:

" People who can’t see how smart Palin is are trapped in their own narrow parochialism — the tedious, hackneyed forms of their upper-middle-class syntax and vocabulary."

i can't imagine anyone actually believes that.

but moreover, it's funny that a mccain voter should be interested in what camille paglia thinks. she's the elite of elite, and about as high up in the ivory tower as is conceivable. a veritable archetype of the out-of-touch, ivy-league intellectual that republicans seem to have adopted as their red-herring since 2000. strange bedfellows.

in any case, her analysis is not compelling. for one thing, i thought biden won easily, on 'debate points' and intangibles like poise and presence, and legitimacy (and arguably authenticity). and i never got any sense that biden himself felt otherwise, not sure where she's getting that. and her obsequious effusion about palin's native american contours and mystical energy is just... creepy. perhaps the "liberal journalists" edited palin's interviews to make her look like a dummy, but the alternative seems more likely, pagila's charge of cutting-room floor shenanigans notwithstanding.

I like Paglia. I post her articles regularly. She is kind of a nut, but I respect her opinion. She is like a bi-sexual Andrew Sullivan that isn't overwhelmed by her ovaries. She usually comes out with unique insight that is true, though rarely realized.

About Palin being brighter than people are giving her credit for - that is almost certainly true. My concerns from her interviews stem from her not being as bright as necessary for this particular job - although the debate helped clear that up for me a bit. She is a gifted politician and understands people.

Susan Sontag was a loon. If she thought Paglia was crazy, I don't see how that hurts Paglia's reputation. 911 conspiracy theorists think everyone in the U.S. Government is crazy for killing all of those people and then lying about it forever...

[Don Corleone]

Forget the presidency, forget either house... Republicans have a new fireline... the supermajority in the Senate....What do you guys think? 60 seats in the senate, both houses and the White House too much power to give to either party?

Heck, they could make it illegal to be anything but a Democrat if they so choose.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Forget the presidency, forget either house... Republicans have a new fireline... the supermajority in the Senate....What do you guys think? 60 seats in the senate, both houses and the White House too much power to give to either party?

Heck, they could make it illegal to be anything but a Democrat if they so choose.

Eh, I don't know. It worries me to an extent, but the reality is that not all Democrat Senators toe the party line, not would they in particular if the part suggested something totally anathema to Democratic values. Not all Democrats are mini-Stalins. 60 out of 100 isn't the worst thing I've heard of.

It's enough to get me worried, but it isn't my main conern. Republicans totally blew everything when they had both houses and the executive. They didn't have this kind of majority, but I'm sure that the Democrats will blow it and we'll be back to the drawing boards in no time.

[drone]

Forget the presidency, forget either house... Republicans have a new fireline... the supermajority in the Senate....What do you guys think? 60 seats in the senate, both houses and the White House too much power to give to either party?

Heck, they could make it illegal to be anything but a Democrat if they so choose.

Until the Republican Supreme Court slaps them down.

Yes, it's very worrying. I think they will get the super-majority, and it will be full speed ahead for every pet project and pork for 2 years. Hopefully the overall craptasticness of the economy prevents them from going overboard, but I'm not holding my breath. Payback can be a though for the GOP. The blowback from the past 8 years will be ugly. I'm sure the neocons will be shredding anything and everything on their way out the door. Bush's pardon list will be long and humorous.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Stomping out a few of the hysterical anti-Palin rumors (like the 'she charged for rape kits' falsehood), here's I've got some more information on Palin's hacked yahoo account:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?...7&cid=25301869
Someone says there that the type of personal emails about others campaigning would not be allowed on a state email account.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/17...-mail-hacking/
And here we have a quote from the hacker saying he found nothing incriminating:

There are several misconceptions and errors in most accounts of this story, including your post. Most significantly, the perpetrator(s) were not members of an infamous group of hackers. I don’t blame you for misunderstanding this, because in all the media coverage regarding the war with Scientology the media has completely failed to explain what Anonymous is.
....
>> rubico 09/17/08(Wed)12:58:04 No.85782727

this is all verifiable if some anal /b/tard wants to think Im a troll, and there isn’t any hard proof to the contrary, but anyone who had followed the thread from the beginning to the 404 will know I probably am not, the picture I posted this topic with is the same one as the original thread.

I read though the emails… ALL OF THEM… before I posted, and what I concluded was anticlimactic, there was nothing there, nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped, all I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor…. And pictures of her family

I then started a topic on /b/, peeps asked for pics or gtfo and I obliged, then it started to get big

Earlier it was just some prank to me, I really wanted to get something incriminating which I was sure there would be, just like all of you anon out there that you think there was some missed opportunity of glory, well there WAS NOTHING, I read everything, every little blackberry confirmation… all the pictures, and there was nothing, and it finally set in, THIS internet was serious business, yes I was behind a proxy, only one, if this ever got to the FBI I was , I panicked, i still wanted the stuff out there but I didn’t know how to all that stuff, so I posted the pass on /b/, and then promptly deleted everything, and unplugged my internet and just sat there in a comatose state

CR

[Lemur]

Stomping out a few of the hysterical anti-Palin rumors (like the 'she charged for rape kits' falsehood)

I was unaware that had been disproved in some way. Linky. The only article a quick Google brings up that "disproves" it is here, and the only proof it offers is a statement from a Palin spokesperson. If you have something of greater substance, share please.

Not that it matters; Palin is already toxic among independents and undecideds. She's only playing well to the reddest of the red.

As for her possible use of private email to circumvent the law, there's a lawsuit going on, in case you didn't know. I think I'll wait for the results from that before taking an anonymous email on Michelle Malkin's website.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Your very first link says the police chief charged for the kits, not Palin. And the current police chief said there's no record of that being done. But don't let evidence get in the way of attacks.

As for her not being popular among independents, gee, could that be because of the mountain of slime and smears dumped on her by the media? When a show on MSNBC rhetorically asks if an AP article is from the dailykos, its clear the media is fighting for Obama.

I think I'll wait for the results from that

You've been more than ready to slam her on the troopergate thing before waiting for the results from that.

CR

[Lemur]

Whoa there, I link to CNN and you respond with Confederate Yankee: Because Liberalism is a Persistent Vegetative State? And this strikes you as an authoritative move? Yee-ouch. Can you cite a news source, as opposed to a political advocacy group?

Please feel free to quote from where I "slammed" Palin for troopergate, beyond getting irritated that she's suddenly stonewalling the investigation and trying to move it to after the election. Show me where I've come to some sort of conclusion about her behavior as governor in that case.

Meanwhile, the attempt to turn the G.O.P. into a White Christian Identity Party gets explicit:

Even the opening prayer was politically charged. "O God, we are in a battle that is raging for the soul of this nation," the preacher said. "You, O God, have raised up Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin for such a time as this." The preacher went on: "Help them, O God, to strengthen our economy, to keep our taxes and spending low ... and grant them the privilege of being elected the next president and vice president."

[Crazed Rabbit]

Way to dodge the issue, and the fact that the blog actually quoted people in Wasilla, and facts and testimony in the Alaskan legislature.

That's a huge logical fallacy, and your resorting to it shows how feeble that anti-Palin argument is.

CR

[Lemur]

Way to dodge the issue, and the fact that the blog actually quoted people in Wasilla, and facts and testimony in the Alaskan legislature.

The blog claims that it made calls to a city clerk who couldn't find records. The blog also bills itself as a partisan mouthpiece. Maybe I should put a little more stock in the local newspaper?

When Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the city billed sexual assault victims and their insurance companies for the cost of rape kits and forensic examinations.

That's the Anchorage Daily News. And since when is it "dodging the issue" to ask one of our fellow Orgahs to come up with backing evidence that isn't from an advocacy group? Who's got a "feeble" argument here?

-edit-

Look, CR, I'm not trying to be obtuse or unreasonable. If the rape kit thing is a big fat lie, surely there are some more mainsteram Republican sources who are covering this. Gimme something, anything, how about National Review? They hate the daylights out of Obama, and they'd love to embarrass his supporters. Can you cite them? How about Fox News? I'm not asking that you find an unbiased source, whatever that means, just that you pull from a slightly more mainstream bucket.

[Xiahou]

I was unaware that had been disproved in some way. Linky.

I was unaware that it had been proved in some way. Even your link makes no mention of a victim ever being charged for a rape kit in Wasilla. All it has ever been is half-truths and innuendo.

Edit:

Gimme something, anything, how about National Review?

Here you go.

[Lemur]

All it has ever been is half-truths and innuendo.

Feel free to dismiss it as a liberal lie, then. More sources:

McClatchy Washington Bureau

Eight years ago, complaints about charging rape victims for medical exams in Wasilla prompted the Alaska Legislature to pass a bill -- signed into law by Knowles -- that banned the practice statewide.

"There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla," Knowles said.

USA Today

In 2000, Alaska lawmakers learned that rural police agencies had been billing rape victims or their insurance companies $500 to $1,200 for the costs of the forensic medical examinations used to gather evidence. They quickly passed a law prohibiting the practice.

According to the sponsor, Democrat Eric Croft, the law was aimed in part at Wasilla, where now-Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor. When it was signed, Wasilla's police chief expressed displeasure.

"In the past, we've charged the cost of exams to the victims' insurance company when possible," then-chief Charlie Fannon told the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, the local newspaper. "I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer."

If these statements are untrue, Plain certainly has grounds to sue for libel. I suppose you could make the argument that it was the Police charging for the rape kits, not the Mayor's office, but that seems like a rather weak dodge.

Here you go.

Interesting read, thank you Xiahou. What jumps out immediately is that the NRO cites a local newspaper's article on the subject, which confirms the notion that Wasilla was charging for rape kits.

While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.

Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams.

"In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer," Fannon said.

According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases.

"Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs," Fannon said.

"The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. Id like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things," Fannon said.

Fannon said he intends to include the cost of exams required to collect evidence in a restitution request as a part of a criminals sentencing.

So there you have the Police Chief speaking on the record to a local reporter in May of 2000, when nobody cared about Sarah Palin any more than we care about the mayors of thousands of small towns in America. Maybe I'm being dense, but this completely cuts the legs out from under the NRO piece which cites this very article.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The blog claims that it made calls to a city clerk who couldn't find records. The blog also bills itself as a partisan mouthpiece.

And CNN et al aren't?

Is the state of Alaska good enough?

DEL SMITH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Public Safety,
testified in support of HB 270. He noted that it has always been
the position and practice of law enforcement to pay for the
collection of forensic evidence in support of a criminal
prosecution. Under no circumstances, he explained, has he ever
thought it appropriate to bill a victim or even by extension bill
the victim's insurance company. He commented that he does not
think that a victim ought to even see a bill related to sexual
assault whether it is on their insurance form or not. He
emphasized that a police agency investigating a crime should pay
because that is the cost of doing business in the collection of
evidence no matter what the crime; he does not know of any police
agency that has requested payment. The Department of Public
Safety paid $48,659 in fiscal year (FY) 1999 for sexual assault
exams in the state, and so far in FY 2000 the department has paid
$22,880. He indicated that paying for exams had never been an
issue in the department or in the Anchorage Police Department.
He reiterated Representative Croft's comment that Alaska Cares
handles juvenile sexual assault exams, and the department is
pleased with the proposed CS because it leaves payment of
juvenile exams with Alaska Cares.

Number 1750

CHAIR JAMES asked if she understood correctly that Mr. Smith is
saying that the department has never billed a victim for exams.

MR. SMITH replied that the department might have been billed, but
he has not found any police agency that has ever billed a victim.

Here's something from national review, which basically says the same thing as the blog:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...UwZWYwNTVlMTQ=

EDIT: Since this lie is important to you, let me state some things I gleaned from the NR article:
Wasilla was not mentioned once by the democrat Croft in all the hearings on his bill. What you are basically saying is that this story, though never proven, has to be disproven before you'll stop accusing Palin of it.

CR

[Lemur]

What you are basically saying is that this story, though never proven, has to be disproven before you'll stop accusing Palin of it.

Smooth those hackles down, CR, we're still having a friendly discussion here. What I just said was that a May 2000 article quotes the Wasilla Police Chief telling a local newspaper he charges for the rape kits, and that he is irritated by the new law which disallows the practice. Why did he say such a thing? Can you come up with a solution that absolves Palin without requiring a time machine?

-edit-

Since neither CR nor Xiahou appears to be ready to continue this discussion at the moment, I'll hit you with some more Palin news: Hugh Hewitt's book, How Sarah Palin Won the Election ... and Saved America is having trouble finding a publisher.

[Koga No Goshi]

There is speculation that the reason she line item vetoed budget spending for rape kits was because in each kit was one of those retroactive contraceptive pills. I don't recall which brand or name the pill was but I'm sure we can guess the reason why, politically, she'd oppose that. Seeing as how the pro-life GOP campaign machine is what blitzkrieged her into political office.

[Koga No Goshi]

I like Paglia. I post her articles regularly. She is kind of a nut, but I respect her opinion. She is like a bi-sexual Andrew Sullivan that isn't overwhelmed by her ovaries. She usually comes out with unique insight that is true, though rarely realized.

About Palin being brighter than people are giving her credit for - that is almost certainly true. My concerns from her interviews stem from her not being as bright as necessary for this particular job - although the debate helped clear that up for me a bit. She is a gifted politician and understands people.

Susan Sontag was a loon. If she thought Paglia was crazy, I don't see how that hurts Paglia's reputation. 911 conspiracy theorists think everyone in the U.S. Government is crazy for killing all of those people and then lying about it forever...

Personally I never thought Palin was Forrest Gump levels of Stupid. She's certainly brighter than George W. Bush from what I can intuit. I do think that as Governor of a relatively obscure, distanced from the "homeland" state, she's been very much insulated in local concerns and has not paid much or any attention to foreign affairs. Apparently to such an extent that she can't even bluff her way through it in cold interviews. I would doubt that many Governors are exactly "experts" on our foreign policy at any given moment, but they probably pay at least enough attention to be able to make a convincing bluff at a press conference.

I do, however, think that perception of IQ drops fairly radically when you are canned into having to stick to GOP talking points. These things are designed to reach people who shop at Wal Mart and have possibly been guests on Jerry Springer. Wafer-thin, simplistic, easy to digest and lacking in substance or analytical depth audio quotes and soundbytes for big issues, keeping everything in the easy realm of black and white. (This leads to the constant criticism of Democrats as being "too nuanced" or "not having a message", which generally just means they give a more detailed answer than a Republican counterpart might on the same issue.) From a marketing perspective the fact that the Republicans are so good at staying on talking point is a net positive because it gives them the appearance of all having a clear message and being on board. From an intelligence standpoint not only is it implausible that so many different people from different backgrounds would have precisely the same shallow views on every conceivable topic, but it erodes credibility when you are constantly wondering "is that Republican REALLY a fanatic fundamentalist? Do they REALLY think gay people, divorce and abortion are the worst things plaguing our society?" So, when someone is sticking straight to the talking points, both their intelligence and their credibility come into question, for me. It's hard to believe an honest and intelligent person would happen to share dovetailed views with scarcely literate people in rural Arkansas.

[Lemur]

There is speculation that the reason she line item vetoed budget spending for rape kits was because in each kit was one of those retroactive contraceptive pills.

Yup, every rape kit contained emergency contraception, the so-called "day after pill." Considering Palin's base was and is pro-life white Christians, it doesn't take a tinfoil hat to make the connection. State funding for any sort of day-after pill would be anathema to these people.

If John McCain wins this election, there are going to be a lot of far-right pro-lifers praying night and day that he dies of a heart attack. Frankly, I don't think he'll be able to govern effectively if he wins. The Dems will take their time forgiving him for such a distasteful, dishonorable campaign, and the far right will go back into its reflexive I-hate-McCain crouch. He will lack any sort of base. He'll be unable to make anything happen.

[Xiahou]

There is speculation that the reason she line item vetoed budget spending for rape kits was because in each kit was one of those retroactive contraceptive pills. I don't recall which brand or name the pill was but I'm sure we can guess the reason why, politically, she'd oppose that. Seeing as how the pro-life GOP campaign machine is what blitzkrieged her into political office.

She line item vetoed it now?
Source please.

Edit:
Here's a piece by CBS's Dean Reynolds comparing being a journalist on the Obama Campaign with the McCain campaign. (Hint: He much prefers the McCain campaign)

[Lemur]

Kinda glad Koga threw you a lifeline, eh? Keeps you from having to explain the reason the Wasilla Police Chief talked to a local paper about charging victims for rape kits in 2000. You contend that there's no evidence this ever happened, that it's all innuendo and liberal slime.

I say there's a text quoted in the NRO, no less, that shows the Police Chief was talking about the practice way before anyone thought Sarah Palin was going to be anything besides Mayor of Wasilla. Explain that away, please.

-edit-

Edit:
Here's a piece by CBS's Dean Reynolds comparing being a journalist on the Obama Campaign with the McCain campaign. (Hint: He much prefers the McCain campaign)

Got Lemur's Disease much? Grasping at straws much?

[Xiahou]

I say there's a text quoted in the NRO, no less, that shows the Police Chief was talking about the practice way before anyone thought Sarah Palin was going to be anything besides Mayor of Wasilla. Explain that away, please.

The guy's an idiot? I dunno.

You should know, Lemur, that I can't prove a negative. I have still seen no records of rape victims in Wasilla being charged for their rape kits, and I certainly haven't seen any evidence that such a thing was supported by Palin. Most of the hype seems to be based on a conference call setup by the Obama campaign with a Democrat legislator in Alaska- it's a political smear.

Here is a memo from the current mayor saying they have absolutely no record of a victim ever being billed for a rape kit. Here is an article on Slate about the issue. I think they say it well:

But the fact remains that this is a nasty and untrue rumor about Sarah Palin that's been circulating for weeks. If you're an Obama supporter who gets frustrated that people still believe he's Muslim or won't put his hand on his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance, you should understand the frustration that Palin supporters feel when this slime is taken at face value.

I don't expect you'll find this compelling, nor do I really care. Koga makes things up out of whole cloth and you sound off in agreement. I guess it's not the evidence so much as the seriousness of the charge, eh? Dan Rather would be proud.....

[Lemur]

Doesn't sound as though anyone can explain the Police Chief's statement. Also, if the city was trying to pass the cost off on rape victims' insurance companies, as your Slate source states, how is that different from charging the victims? Or are you one of those people who believes that insurance money comes from the magical land of free stuff?

Samuels also quotes from an article in the local Wasilla paper that police chief Charlie Fallon didn't want to pass the burden along to taxpayers. That is an undeniably boneheaded and offensive statement. What she leaves out is his statement that he was TRYING to bill INSURANCE COMPANIES, not victims. "In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible," is what he said.

As for the letter from the current mayor, I'm not sure what to think. If it's on the up-and-up, hooray. But rape victims were never charged, were they? just their insurance companies. 'Cause that's a completely different animal.

My agreement with Koga was strictly about Palin's probable motivation. But thanks for playing the guilt-by-association game, just like your favorite candidate. I haven't seen you distancing yourself from our resident fascist lately, friend, so let's not go there.

[Strike For The South]

Gentleman, We are all going to get screwed in the end...so why the hate?

[Crazed Rabbit]

From the DRUDGE:

WASH TIMES Friday: Obama secretly tried to sway Iraqi government to ignore Bush deal on keeping troops in Iraq... Developing...

Now that's some really principled and bipartisan leadership there.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

Koga makes stuff up out of whole cloth

Coming from you? Or CR or Panzer? Funny.

Oh and yes, I confused her line item vetoing funding for the pregnant women's centers with the rape kit. Similar issues. So shoot me.

"Eric Croft, a former Alaska state representative who sponsored the 2000 legislation, told CNN that "I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it."

From http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...ctims_pay.html

[Crazed Rabbit]

For all Croft now claims that Wasilla's chief mounted a campaign against the bill, Wasilla was not once mentioned in the hearings for the bill.

But I guess Croft, a democrat, can't be questioned.

Coming from you? Or CR or Panzer? Funny.

Oh and yes,

Not as funny as that.

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

Coming from you? Or CR or Panzer? Funny.

Please don't confuse me with those two. Dismissing Xiahou or CR out of hand just won't fly... you'll have to do better than that or cede the point.

[Koga No Goshi]

For all Croft now claims that Wasilla's chief mounted a campaign against the bill, Wasilla was not once mentioned in the hearings for the bill.

But I guess Croft, a democrat, can't be questioned.

I never said any such thing. The reason you leap to that conclusion though is because you are projecting your own behavior onto me. You could do a forum search and find me saying the Dems were wrong on this, wrong on that, that I didn't like Clinton, etc. etc., many times. But with you? We always have to go through the exhaustive litany of justifications first including but not limited to:

1) The media was biased
2) The media was involved in an open conspiracy against Republicans
3) The most right-wing lunatic blogs I could find say this story is bunk
4) It's a lie made up by Democrats
5) It was actually Clinton's fault, the Reps just got blamed for it

But, while we're on the topic of

But I guess Croft, a democrat, can't be questioned.

I would not get into credibility wars right after my party had given the country 8 years of Dubya. ;)

Please don't confuse me with those two. Dismissing Xiahou or CR out of hand just won't fly... you'll have to do better than that or cede the point.

Concede what point? He said I made something up, and I said no, I confused it with her vetoing budget spending on the shelters for pregnant homeless teens.

[CrossLOPER]

But I guess Croft, a democrat, can't be questioned.

MOST CERTAINLY NOT GOOD SIR.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Way to avoid addressing the fact that Wasilla was never mentioned in any of the hearings Croft was in.

I think he's just saying what he is now to make political hay out of it.

CR