http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26677221/

Anyone think he'll tell the truth with his hand raised and the other on a bible?

The clintons and Bushes have had people caned at will for how long?? Hmmmm.Big story. LOL.So what else is new, even if true.

I think caning went out with slavery and Charles Dickens.

"The clintons and Bushes have had people caned at will for how long??"

So two wrongs make a right then.

I disagree.

CJ--just pointing out that this has been going on for how long.

I know. I also know that it's an uphill battle to try and change it. ( " It " = " Blatant abuse of power that serves nobody except the representative exercising it." ).

Sometimes it seems the only hope in getting it stopped is shining a light on it and showing that there are consequences for doing it.

Other times we look for representatives that seem like they will not do it in the first place. Not everyone does it. But ignoring it and minimalizing it will never work. That's one non-solution.

I swear, I'm not oblivious to politicians being tempted to use their power for personal gain or to save face when they know that are doing something wrong. But they still think that there are enough people to go " Oh, big deal. It's been going on forever." As if that makes it alright.

In another time, I can see myself being one of those people. I've kind of reached my limit on that right now though. So I'm saying so in the hopes that it has SOME small influence in making it stop eventually. Or at the very least, I'm saying that I don't like it so others can see that we are feeling the same way.

If there was no impropriety on any level - great. Prove it. Who would not be the better citizen to be shown the truth about what really happened?

But if you make it difficult to find out the truth though, because it's bad timing because you are on the Republican ticket and exposing the truth right now could cost you the election? Well, yeah. I rest my case.

Nice post CJ. I'm there too.

Seems we've crossed some line where abuses of power have gotten out of hand. There is some public push back on this stuff and it's because a lot of those abuses run under the radar.

Some big abuses have lowered the radar to the point where we are aware of far more of these.

I say that's a good thing.

Tough titty for those getting the attention now, when it's been going on for a long time. Rather than blame people for their heightened awareness and push back, blame those that just didn't understand where the former boundaries actually were.

It's never ok, but then again, lots of things are not ok. They get done though, and mostly things work out just fine.

It's abuse of that, in the form of entitlement and a slippery slope, that's lowering the bar for what can and cannot run under the radar.

Think of it like a parent would. You know kids bend the rules. Minor transgressions happen, some we see, some we don't.

Then that kid just pushes it until the parent has had it. Trust is sharply diminished or gone, the kid cries foul, but they did it to themselves.

After a time, where the kid really has to tow the line, healing happens, and boundaries get somewhat relaxed again.

This is what I believe is happening right now.

Example A: Mike Erickson

Unbelievable. Literally.

Yep. I call, "NutBAG!"

Even bigger NutBAG:

Anybody who marks his ballot with this buffoon's name. Seriously.

His parents must be so proud.

No kidding. Guess there is a downside to the non-personally identifiable vote!

Another bumper sticker idea:

"You are voting for that NUTBAG?"

Let imaginations run wild.

I did get some thumbs up and polite honks on a test drive of "See what happens when people vote Republican?"

All it takes is a strip of masking tape, a sharpie and a coupla strips of clear tape to give your bumper phrase a go. Pull it in a week and do another!

Double the fun with your neighbor or co-workers car!

My favorite for the jerk neighbor down the street:

"I (heart) Gay Porn"

I bought it for him, but don't have the guts (yet)

But if smack-talkin' DT wins Fantasy Football, I just may have to go visit Vantucky in the dead of long winter night. And if the car's in the garage, I know where he works!

Another topic bashing Sarah Palin. Very redundant. The last time I counted there were ten. How many are there now? A hundred?

Why not focus your ire on McCain? He's the one running for President.

Because he's going to die or stroke out any day now.

Because she embodies so much about this election. So does McCain. He's got more topics started about him if it's so important for you to keep count.

Quit implying that it takes so much effort to talk about Palin. You're soaking in it.

McCain opened the door. He picked somebody who is absolutely not appropriate for a VP pick. She also accepted, knowing full well she has a substantial number of skeletons in the closet.

We know about McCain. He's been around long enough. So that discussion is really about making value judgments about what we know and how he acts and what choices he makes.

Palin is his choice.

She's new. All of this discussion, fact finding and such is necessary. The fact that it does not look good is being framed as an attack --as if she's not deserving of the attention.

This, of course, is false!

She does deserve the attention and the result of that attention reflects on both her and McCain as potential leaders.

Sorry DD.

You know DD, I think it's clear that NOBODY wants this thing to go badly this time around.

The only way that has a chance of turning out well for us is if we have these kinds of discussions.

Feeling bad about the Republicans being "picked on?" Ok then. Post up some stuff that is good. You know, if we elect these two, we will get:

[fill in the blank here]

What do we get that's worth it DD? How will the nation run better? Will we get the legal matters sorted out? How about terror, infrastructure, health care, jobs, energy?

So far, the Republicans have not offered all that much. It's the same old, same old, and to about 80 percent of us, depending on mood and polling time, that's just not ok.

And that's why Republicans are all about attacks, poor framing, trying to limit discussion and any number of political games.

Digitaldextor: Another topic bashing Sarah Palin.

Oh how exactly was she "bashed?" Give me a break.

Why not focus your ire on McCain? He's the one running for President.

Because at age 72 (he would be 76 at the end of his first term), McCain's chances of expiring or becoming incapacitated in office are much greater than that of a 47-year old. So there's a greater chance of Palin actually becoming president than of Biden. Any VP candidate should be treated as a presidential candidate.

Andrew

How old is Biden?

Exactly. He will never live long enough to be President.

DD sez: "Another topic bashing Sarah Palin. Very redundant."

Sort of like you posting this same thing in every thread -- very redundant.

How old is Biden?

Younger than McCain.

How old is Biden?

Including his hair or not including his hair?

lets say Obama gets elected, then at the end of his term Biden will be older then McCain is now.

See the problem with the age argument now?

Biden is 65 now (66 in November). Doing some math in my head...Biden would be 70 at the end of Obama's first term, still younger than McCain is now. There is no guarantee he'd run again.

But it's irrelevant to compare Biden's age to McCain's age, because if Biden can't be VP anymore due to health issues, he would be replaced by the Congress. If Biden were for some reason to assume the presidency due to something happening to the president then Congress would still select a new VP. I don't see the issue.

The worry with McCain's age is that we know for sure that the VP who would replace him due to health is both unqualified to be president and an extreme right-wing fanatic to boot, far out of step with mainstream America. I don't think anyone claims Biden isn't qualified to be president, and we can't know whom the Congress would select as a new VP, so it's nothing more than hypothetical to worry about Biden's age in regards to the VP to-be-named-later.

Andrew

we know for sure that the VP who would replace him due to health is both unqualified to be president and an extreme right-wing fanatic to boot, far out of step with mainstream America.

BULLSHIT! look sat Obama's resume, he has VERY LITTLE on his resume. So saying that he is more qualified is simpley untrue.

Not bullshit my friend. Obama is qualified to be president not because of a resume but because he has shown he has the smarts and judgment to be a good president. He's been thinking about and talking about foreign policy for a long time. He got it right in 2002 in his "dumb wars" speech when, on the eve of the Iraq war, he warned that it could lead to a long occupation and inflame Islamic extremists against us. Meanwhile, John McCain and his 20 years in the Senate were saying Iraq would be easy (and after 9/11, McCain claimed Iraq was involved in that and in the anthrax attacks, both untrue).

Obama also went through a grueling 18 month primary fight where he had to persuade millions of voters he was qualified to be president. He gave hundreds of interviews, gave hundreds of speeches, convinced dozens of regional leaders to support him (even Ed Koch, who was and still is a George W. Bush supporter). The fact that he was able to beat the entrenched Clinton machine despite having a funny name and being new on the scene should show he has political savy and great organizational skills. These are both going to be crucial for him as president.

Has Sarah Palin done any of that? Of course not - she can't even be interviewed by the media. So far, only one interview with Charlie Gibson. Gee, can't go even go on the Sunday talk shows - how the hell is she going to meet with Putin??? Obama has gone on these shows many times.

What was Palin saying about Iraq in 2002, when Obama was so prescient about it? What was she saying last month about it? She didn't even know what the Vice President's responsibilities were two months ago. Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law and taught constitutional law at University of Chicago for a decade. Sorry, I don't compare that to being a mayor of 5,000 people; *I* could be mayor for crying out loud!

So please don't tell me Obama's resume disqualifies him to be president. And if you think a long resume makes you qualified for the upper levels of government, look at how Don Rumsfeld's and Dick Cheney's long resumes helped them make catastrophic decisions while in office.

Andrew

I find it interesting. how now people won't use certin words. If you don't like someone, they are unqualified. not because they are, but we cant use certin words. like the "N" word or the "R" word.Now im not taking either side. just posting a thought.A lot of space has been used posting about someones qualifications or lack theeof. and after looking at what both partys have to offer, my choice for pres. is clyde-the ape from the clint eastwood movies.

Steve, What grade did you drop out of?

I have a AASEET. how about you. Mc74? Before college, I graduated from SEHS. Class of 72. I haven't wasted a lot of time with school. I know too many people who have Masters Degrees who never worked in their chosen field. A college degree is a worthless piece of paper.

Someone said: A college degree is a worthless piece of paper.

Anyone who makes a blanket swipe at our academic system like this is a LOSER. Get lost.

It's not worthless for most people but for those who are "Book Smart and Bone Stupid" that piece of paper don't mean squat because "You Can't Fix Stupid"!

I beg to differ. While its true you can't fix stupid, BUT if you're Stupid With A College Degree, there are more doors open to you and you're more likely to be a contributor to society than a dependent on society than a Stupid Without A College Degree person.

While many succeed W/O a college degree, they also have to battle closed doors along the way.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/palin_troopergate

Super. They're just gonna float that out there and reverse it in about a week or so.