Some people took me to task for yesterday's pointer to one Alaskan blogger's view of Governor Palin. (I am also taking myself to task, for not properly referring to her yesterday by her title of Governor. In most of my previous posts that touch on political topics, I have tried to make a point of using proper titles at least in the first reference to any given candidate in order to show respect. Nobody called me on it, but I should not have slipped up on it yesterday. The fact that I did concerns me, and I believe that I should spend some time thinking about why I slipped up in this particular case.)
Anyhow, in browsing around tonight, I started noticing references to the fact that one of Governor Palin's opponents in the 2006 Alaska gubernatorial election is a blogger. He is former Republican, now indepedent Andrew Halcro, and he has an impressive resume in Alaska politics. He has put up a lengthy post Palin for VP: The S.W.O.T Analysis which I think that people on both sides of 2008 electoral politics will find very interesting and very objective.
1. Craig Wiseman08/31/2008 09:10:07 AM
Indeed, an interesting read, and worth time.
However, I would never in a million years call it "very objective".
"Less partisan", maybe.
2. David Vasta08/31/2008 09:32:46 AM
Richard, nice find, but this Andrew sounds like some jilted lover, not an unbiased political person from Alaska. We are all learning a lot about her right now and this I think is another in what I am sure will be a long list of post to pick apart Palin and McCain.
I to this day still don't understand how you can post this knowing all we know about the NOTHING Obama has done and he is the one running for President.
We also need to understand Obama may not even be a citizen of the US and without that you can't be President.
We all need keep reading all we can about all the candidates and maybe someday someone with a decent perfect background will run for President.....
3. Richard Schwartz08/31/2008 11:06:09 AM
@Craig: It can be both objective and partisan at the same time. These two things are not mutually exclusive. The piece is written by a man who knows her, has worked with her, and lost a race to her. He is on record multiple times as respecting her and what she has accomplished. He admits up front specific issues that he differs with her on, and that criticism is apparently coming more from right of center, than from the left. He clearly knows the issues in Alaska far better than any other commentator you're going to hear from, and he knows her political strengths and weaknesses. He wrote his analysis based on first-hand knowledge of the facts and personal experience. He does not depend on hearsay. He has an opinion, clearly, but it is also very clear that he stepped back from his opinions to write this piece.
@David: We know everything about Obama. Everything. He has been picked apart for years, and his entire record is available for anyone who cares to know it.
Not a citizen? ROFLMAO. He was born in Hawaii two years after Hawaii achieved statehood. He has a birth certificate issued by the State of Hawaii. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says he is a citizen because he was born in the United States: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States". The status of his parents is irrelevant. He would be a citizen of the US even if both of his parents were non-citizens simply by virtue of the fact where he was born. This is black letter constitutional law. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
4. Ed Brill08/31/2008 11:32:05 AM
Rich, thanks for another good link. The first one was amazing, and I think I lost an hour of my life reading the comments there last night. I'll set aside a few minutes for this one.
@David, ironically, it's Mr. McCain's whose citizenship is actually questionable. He was born in the Panama Canal zone two years before Congress passed a law extending US citizenship to people born in what was then US territory.
5. Richard Schwartz08/31/2008 12:20:59 PM
@Ed: Regarding McCain's citizenship, the consensus seems to be that it is in fact legally ambiguous, which means it would be decided by judges. But no federal judge would construe the constitution's "natural born citizen" provision to exclude the child of US citizens born outside of US territory while serving in the US military. http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/citizen.asp
6. Ed Brill08/31/2008 12:29:49 PM
@Rich, thanks. I knew it wasn't *really* an issue but decided there needed to be an appropriately vague counterpoint to Mr. Vasta's comment. David, each time you post on politics, someone has refuted every link or every post -- and obamacrimes.com? that's a URL redirector from some spammer. There's nothing there. Even the first link takes you to a supposedly exciting paper that you have to register to read. If it was all "the truth", why wouldn't it be "out there"?
7. Richard Schwartz08/31/2008 02:25:03 PM
Check for typos, Ed. It comes up as a legitimate site here, run by the attorney who has filed the case challenging Obama's citizenship. From a couple of minutes of googleing, he's a former Deputy AG in PA, former candidate for various offices, local Democratic party operative, a Clinton supporter, and oh yeah, he apparently believes the US government was behind 9-11.
8. Chris Whisonant08/31/2008 08:52:34 PM
@Ed - McCain's citizenship has been confirmed. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23406107/ If I recall, the Senate even passed a non-binding resolution regarding it earlier this year.
@David - not quite sure about that. Just like McCain, if he weren't a "citizen" he wouldn't have been allowed to get this far.
@Rich - no worries about not using "Governor". I do myself try to refer to the person's position at least the first time I refer to them in my blog. After that, and in comments, I'm usually not as thorough. Regardless of how we feel about one's politics or policies, they have attained that honor. I still refer to President Clinton. Regarding your slip - I don't think that I would ponder it too much unless you believe there is truly an underlying reason. Often just trying to get a post out the door can lead to doing things out of haste. But for the record, no offense taken at that Rich! I had to look back at my latest post to make sure I referred to him as Senator Obama myself...
Regarding this article, I think that it was fairly objective. One could definitely see that Halcro and Palin have a past and that there are some differences of opinion. But all in all, it was a good read - I wish I saw more fully researched and thought-out stories like that from both sides. Also, you may want to further research the Monegan issue for your own sake (I'm not saying it's a closed case, but you may not have seen some of the other side..). While I don't have time to find the "best" site, here is a good assessment about "troopergate". http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/08/29/palins-troopergate-beating-msm-distortions-to-the-truth/
The key thing to gather from it is that there was an investigation by the state trooperss office before Palin was even Governor and there were also legitimate reasons for his being let go beyond the family disputes once she was Governor.
Thanks again Rich!
9. Ed Brill09/01/2008 09:47:30 AM
re the typo - I actually got the URL right in my posting...David's comment added an "S" to the URL (obama-s-crimes). I just hadn't tried what I typed. Now that I did, sigh.
10. cialis_pills11/17/2016 04:16:41 AM
Pretty us scuffed a http://pills6via.com/ , , and the cialis for his arch.