Rogues get what they deserve!

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/527218.html

http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-election-2008/state-employees-to-testify-in-palin-probe-20081006-4v0i.html

Dontchaknow, 7 - count 'em - 7 of Palin's gosh-darn state employees will now testify in the abuse-of-power investigation against her. Palin insists that her mavericky firing of public safety commissioner Walter Monegan was based on insubordination, and not on his refusal to fire her state trooper ex-brother-in-law. McCain's camp has called Monegan a "rogue" for pursuing funding for a project Palin vetoed.

Now, hold the horse here a minute. We've got a saying where I come from. "A rose by any other name..." *wink* So Monegan was fired for being a "rogue" or having a "rogue mentality" but we're expected to entrust the next four years to a coupla "mavericks"? Now, doggonit, I ask ya - is that fair? Why does a rogue fail where a maverick succeeds? Here's a guy who went outside the box, wouldn't practice politics as usual and got kicked to the curb as they say on Main Street, some Main Streets, somewhere. *wink*

That's what I call gettin the short-end of the stick. Any Joe Six-Pack would agree. Monegan has, I'm sure, years of "roguish" experience behind him (you don't get to be a rogue overnight here, folks). But now that a coupla of mavericks might be 30 days from the White House, he can't benefit. It's clear to me he just wasn't an Alaskan insider. He just didn't know how those guys think. *wink*

Palin should say, "ya, yaknow, I fired him for not firing my worthless brother-in-law. That's a maverick thing to do." It'd be a lesson on how a maverick works and the unusual politics of the future. And besides, she might've been right to do it. I'm not tryin ta play the race card here, but a maverick can't tolerate a rogue. They just... They'll, well ya know. The newspapers'll fight this one out. You know how they are with their attention to words and such. One thing's clear. If Monegan had any chance of being brought to Washington, his "rogue mentality", his clear disregard for politics as usual as run by Governor Palin screwed it for him (as I like to say to appear likable to Joe Six-Pack). There's room for only one maverick in Washington. And that's John McCain. Or Sarah Palin. Well, they'll have to keep workin at each other. *wink*

A special shout-out to some kids somewhere!

This town ain't big enough for the both of us

That little girl is Main Street America.

Photo: AP

Gotta hand it to her...

...Palin did pretty well. But I don't feel she gave us any more than she did at the RNC. I have no doubt if I ask any parent anywhere about the economy I would hear fear in the answer. Naturally I would. I wouldn't bet against that. I know it. We all know. Palin saying it only lets us know that she's up with what's going on, but it sounds like she's only just now figured it out. She did well in talking directly to the country. But I disliked her folksiness. It was smug and condescending, especially when she addressed Biden ("Say it ain't so, Joe. There you go again."), and it speaks again to an insular, parochial outlook. "We need a little bit of Main Street Wasilla in Washington." What is it exactly that Wasilla has that can fix the housing market, Wall Street, and two costly, protracted wars?

The debate succeeded in being positive because the anticipation was both candidates would fall all over themselves. The upshot might come solely from neither candidate doing what many were worried about: Biden in looking like a bully and talking too frankly off-the-cuff; and Palin in tripping over her words and not being able to think on her feet. They redeemed themselves, both of them. There was so much worry heaped on this debate, it could be nothing but toothless. The first comment from the post-debate analysis last night was that it wasn't a game-changer. And that's been echoed this morning.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/10/03/palin-rebounds-in-debate-–-but-is-it-too-late/

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html

http://www.factcheck.org/just-the-facts/the_2008_vp_debate.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122300786229301597.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2008/10/palin_all_attitude_and_image_t.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5942414&page=1

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14236.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14235.html

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html

How many times can Palin say the word "maverick"? I used to do this as a kid, say a word so many times in a row it lost all meaning. It wouldn't even sound like a word after awhile. Has John McCain said "maverick" as many times as Sarah Palin?

I have to admit, I do find something of myself in Palin. She reminds me of my younger self, having just learned something in school and, feeling collegiate, running it into the ground - linking it to everything and saying it again and again and again.

She still talks in general terms, and assumes that's how we're all thinking. "John McCain's healthcare plan is detailed." I hope it is. I don't need the preamble to reassure me that a man with decades in the senate has a detailed plan for anything. I assume it. I assume that John McCain has thought things through. I assume general terms have been starting points. What I want is to hear about the middle and the end, the particulars and the results McCain and Palin hope to gain from them. A $5000 dollar tax credit for healthcare? That's a little open-ended.

Greta van Susteren's fair and balanced attack against Gwen Ifill's journalistic integrity

This is a comment I left in Greta van Susteren's blog over her concerns that Gwen Ifill won't be objective in the VP debate tonight. Seems Ifill wrote a book about the rise of black politicians and changes between generations of minority activists. That, at least, is what I gleaned from the quote provided by van Susteren herself in an interview with "The Politico"'s David Mark. To make her point, Ifill uses Obama as an example and this, van Susteren says, shows the potential of conflict. If Obama wins in November, then Ifill's book might sell "like hotcakes". So, wouldn't a reporter of Ifill's "terrific reputation" (as stated by van Susteren) want to slant the debate in favour of Obama and the almighty dollar? Of course she would. That's why she works for PBS. Here's my response:

Come on, Greta. This is a pretty hard slam against someone whom you call a talented journalist. Of course this is about her reputation. Stop dancing around it. Your concern is that Gwen Ifill will moderate the debate with a slant towards Obama inorder to sell her book. That is the very essence of calling her reputation into question. The headline on the Fox News site is "Can Gwen Ifill Be Fair and Balanced?" Do you mean, can Gwen Ifill cop to the Fox News standard and toady up? This is yet another play against Ifill that so many conservative pundits like yourself like to make. Her book is about Barack Obama's rise to being a front-runner in a presidential race. To being the leader of one of the only two parties in America that ever have a chance to make it to the Whitehouse. This is obvious even in the quote you provided in your interview with David Mark from "The Politico".

In it she says she's "taking the story of Barack Obama and extending it to talk about a whole new generation of black politicians who are doing very similar things in very different ways. They are younger, they are more likely to get to power not by marching in marches the way their parents did, or by leading protests. They have decided to do it by getting educations, basically walking through that the doors their parents opened and choosing public service in a different way."

It's no different than John McCain standing up on the night Obama accepted his nomination and congratulating him on an historic victory. This is a partisan attack and you know it. How often do you actually watch Gwen Ifill? Because it strikes me as odd that you fire off at her over a book instead of looking into record as a journalist. Don't you think, as you say, having "a terrific reputation as a journalist" should weigh heavier than a book that is only minimally connected with Barack Obama? She used his story as a jumping block. Wouldn't you do the same? How can you expect a journalist to ignore a sea-change in political activism when we're right in the heart of the swell? Obama is news and Ifill had something to say about it; not about him being president but about him and others being successful in mainstream politics that had previously frozen them out.

Honestly, Greta, how much do you expect Ifill to make off her book if Obama wins in November? Wouldn't you think that if Obama wins, she might write another book? Won't you write one? This issue is a non-starter and your claims of only wanting "fair and balanced" moderating in the debate are reprehensible. This is an attack on her reputation, calling her integrity into question. I'm certain that your inbox IS flooded - with outrage from your devoted veiwership. That doesn't make this as newsworthy as you're reporting it to be. Book or no, shouldn't we always be looking out for breakdowns in journalistic integrity? Gwen Ifill knows this and is cognizant of this in her duties as a journalist, as most journalists are. Give me one example where she comprimised her integrity while doing her job. If you have a problem with Ifill as the moderator, then come out with it but look at her entire career, not one book. McCain trusts her. Palin said she's "not going to let it be a concern", even though she seems to worry with you that Ifill won't be objective. (That's good company. Ask Sarah Palin if she's ever watched Gwen Ifill.) The problem with the Media isn't in trying to spin the public trust. It's in journalists trying to eat each other alive.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,431613,00.html
http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/10/02/what-do-you-think-61/

Hey, what's in a name?

Bail-out, Buy-in, Rescue Package. Not much to say here. This article from Australia's The Age covers it well.

http://business.theage.com.au/business/when-is-a-bailout-no-longer-a-bailout-when-its-a-rescue-package-of-course-20081001-4s4t.html?page=1