First, FactCheck, which says that people have been "sliming" Palin. Second, a post from Charles Martin, with a list of Palin rumors, most of them false.
There are nasty rumors in every national campaign. But I haven't seen anything like this flood of rumors smearing a single candidate before. If anything, the flood has helped the McCain-Palin ticket and damaged the reputations of those spreading the rumors. But I don't see any signs that the flood will abate any time soon.
(And yes, there have been nasty rumors about Barack Obama, that he is a Muslim, that he was not an American citizen, and so forth. I usually don't even mention the rumors on my own site, where I keep most of my discussions of national politics. When I do discuss them, I make it as clear as I can that I believe those rumors to be false. There are enough real defects in Barack Obama's candidacy, his inexperience, his far left views, his ties to the corrupt Chicago machine, so that he can be defeated without spreading nonsense. And even if there weren't it would be wrong to win an election that way.)
Posted by Jim Miller at September 09, 2008 01:45 PM | Email ThisO-my. LOL
did he speak with Edwards.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 9, 2008 02:09 PMJust like socialists truly believe the only reason socialism has not yet worked is because THEIR OWN PARTICULAR ideas were not tried, each and every slimer believes it will be THEIR slime that will turn people from Palin.
Their individual arrogance is not to be underestimated... neither is the damage they are doing.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 9, 2008 02:11 PM4 words...
Bill And Hillary Clinton
The right's smear machines were perfected digging dirt on the Clinton's. Palin has faced nothing in comparison, and to cry about it the way you are now doing is laughable.
To suggest that a candidates history and personal life should be out of bounds is also laughable given the history of the right vis-a-vis their actions toward the Clintons.
I don't mind a good discussion on whether/when to analyze the personal live of politicians, but don't pretend to be holier-than-thou. The left does not own this game, and have been routinely schooled in it by the right.
Posted by: Timothy on September 9, 2008 02:33 PMYou mean the bridge to nowhere Obama and Biden BOTH voted for? Robert, please show us where Sarah Palin voted in the SENATE for the money? Link please. OH that's right! She WASN'T a senator.
Posted by: pbj on September 9, 2008 02:47 PMEvidently NOT by McCain.
The REAL whine is that she was not "vetted" by the MEDIA or the Moron.org gnats or by comrades bHo.... nor was she anticipated.
Boohoo.
I guess that's what comes of thinking you know best and more than anyone else.
Boohoo.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 9, 2008 02:55 PMPalin is LYING when on the "straight talk express" campaign that she says was against it. It is just shameless. It is a stupid lie.
From the very paper you touted the 10 point lead yesterday:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-08-adwatch_N.htm
"As a candidate for governor, however, Palin supported the bridge. "
But I guess it all comes down to the meaning of "Was".
But another point...you want everyone to get the facts straight? Then don't annoint a completely unknown politician to the candidacy of VP 9 weeks prior to the election. You had 4 years to try to get anything and everything to stick to the Obama's, and still the rumors that he's a muslim persist. The world has precious little time to check into the background of Palin, and that will mean that errors are made and frantic digging occurs.
...as it should. As you yourself would do if the roles were reversed, and as the right has done to an artform over the past 20 years.
Who're the whining victims now?
Posted by: Timothy on September 9, 2008 03:22 PMHowever, I also asked him to provide contrast. In other words, the pregnant 17 year old, I think should be offbase, but he should contrast her kids with Bidens or any of the other pols.
Or experience. Sure, Palin is new, but too wail about Palin when the Pres. candidate is extremely lacking, is wrong.
We'll see how Politico does from now on. The lack of perspective is causing the backlash against the MSM.
Posted by: swatter on September 9, 2008 03:36 PMKeep it up. Keep up the attacks. The reason you guys continue to lose national elections is because you're being too nice.
Really. Take the gloves off. Attack Palin. Attack her family. Attack her children.
Please. Show us all just how that vaunted right-wing smear machine is amateur hour when it comes to the politics of personal destruction.
And then let us know how it all turns out.
Posted by: jimg on September 9, 2008 03:38 PMSoon the weakness and pettiness of Comrade Obama will be apparent for all to see, and McCain will coast to a 40 state victory.
Keep up the attacks!!!
Posted by: Kato on September 9, 2008 03:45 PMReally?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp
Posted by: Cat on September 9, 2008 04:01 PMKeep it up, you angry democrats, we'll be happy to take the victory lap from your Venom.
Posted by: GS on September 9, 2008 04:07 PMI don't think I've ever heard of a single case of Democrats complaining that their yard sign was stolen/smashed or the bumper sticker peeled off their car, or worse, their car getting keyed because of their bumper sticker.
I'm not trying to claiming a high victim score. Not at all. I'm just saying that it appears like things are getting disproportionately angrier and angrier each cycle.
I guarantee you there will be riots somewhere if Obama loses on 11/4.
Posted by: blindman on September 9, 2008 04:16 PMGeorge Bush was extremely likable and popular. There were many telltale signs of the type of president he would become.
Sarah Palin is extremely likable and popular. There are likewise similar red flags. And those warning signs are in the Analysis of the FactCheck piece.
Why is it the same people who were rah-rah about George Bush's character, and wrong, the same people continuing to make character judgments as if they know better?
Are we looking for someone to drink a beer with, go to the hockey game, or someone who can find Dubai on the map, will defend our constitutional rights, the 1st and 5th as well as the 2nd? Someone who knows the difference between Sunni and Shiite. And who knows that a community organizer is not supposed to be a bad word. Many church groups are organizers of their community.
Posted by: Just asking on September 9, 2008 04:30 PMMy belief is that the really angry leftists are those who grew up in the '60's and counted on being in power by now. These people are academics, lawyers, and government employees largely. They think they are smarter than the rest of us. They grew up believing in some sort of twisted communist egalitarian utopia. It ain't happening for them and they are mad as hell. When they don't get their way they throw temper tantrums like spoiled little children.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 9, 2008 04:34 PMCompared to the left-wingers, the real pikers are the right-wing wackos (yes, we have them - unfortunately - but we don't celebrate them the way the Left does theirs).
Posted by: sronly on September 9, 2008 04:35 PMBecause both Biden and Obama had the chance to STOP the pork. That is the core of the issue. You don't go be the Pork Santa and then complain because someone actually took he gift you gave them.
YOU are the one trying to change the subject of Porkers Biden and Obama.
Posted by: pbj on September 9, 2008 04:38 PMI wouldn't be surprised if that chain letter was originated by Obama supporters in an effort to discredit Corsi's book. Most of the "lies" in that email are twists on things that Corsi documented thoroughly.
For example, the claim that Obama has been a secret Muslim for the last thirty one years. No reputable person has repeated that claim, but Corsi has demonstrated pretty much beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama was in fact raised as a Muslim until returning to Hawaii in the early seventies. Why is this an issue? Because Obama claims that he has never followed the muslim faith. Is he still a muslim? I doubt it. But why did he lie about his childhood?
Posted by: Calvin A on September 9, 2008 04:39 PMHow many church groups would you send out to fight terrorists?
Posted by: pbj on September 9, 2008 04:40 PMClinton was the presidential candidate. For what office is Bristol Palin running? ANd what of 4 mo yr old Trig Palin? What office is he seeking?
Now please tell us all how the right smeared Chelsea? Hypocrite!
Posted by: pbj on September 9, 2008 04:43 PMPro-choicers don't consider an abortion to be "bad". Neither does the anti-choice side, if one of their own had the abortion. If anyone is trying to expose Gov. Palin's medical history, that person must agree with the anti-choice position: medical privacy does not exist for the pregnant woman.
"...the left-wing wackos have come up with as many and as vicious rumors about Palin in less than 19 days as the right-wing wackos have come up with about Obama in 19 MONTHS?"
Liberals have less to hide than self-proclaimed family valuists. Surely you've noticed this by now? Oops, I forgot: no drug addict told you that on AM radio, so you had no way of knowing it.
Posted by: tensor on September 9, 2008 04:46 PMOf course Obama isn't muslim, even if he himself is confused by his statement to George Step-on-all-of-us. Know why? he likes Pork way too much. Nearly 1 Billion in pork in just over 3 year...mmmmgood. Oh and how about our boy Biden? 36 years in the Senate sure does set the table up for some good old fashioned feeding at the trough.
I'm sure none of our liberal friends here will care to compare and constrast both Tickets as it relates to Pork projects in their political careers, or maybe you do?
The Left owns the NYT, LAT, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, PBS and both Seattle papers. And all of the above have been crying for a decade that they report unbiased news. And all of the above are lying through their teeth, and have been since the days of Cronkite.
The 2008 election is the best laboratory demonstration that's ever been held to demonstrate how biased they are toward one party and against the other. Just examine the 'reporting' that's been foisted on the public in the form of hit pieces on Governor Palin since her candidacy was announced. Compare it to the sum total of all reporting on one Senator Obama since he spoke at the 2004 Democratic convention. That the Palin reporting is blatantly slanted to damage her is obvious to any observer. Her achievements as Governor of Alaska overwhelms any record of Obama's - he only managed to squander $150,000,000 on 'activists' instead of improving Chicago schools.
The amount of reporting that actually investigates the details of Obama's sordid career through the Annenberg Challenge and the Illinois Legislature is dwarfed by just two weeks of the anti-Palin hurricane. And his non-performance in the US Senate, and his record for years of voting 'present' to conceal his aims and goals, is of no concern to these 'reporters'.
Feeble smoke screen, lefties, pretending there's a right-wing 'smear machine' when the righties have no influence on the media list up top here.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on September 9, 2008 04:53 PMDon't know. They might do a better job than the current former governor.
Perhaps it would end up looking more like these tactics, outreach to generate future goodwill.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=25036
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/aug2007/a082807tj2.html
That's why the Seattle Times endorsed Bush last election...they're leftist's. LOL!!
Welcome to the internet...you can get your news from anywhere you want.
Why limit it to the tickets? Let's talk party pork. The Bush Administration / GOP had no problem with Pork until the backlash from their pork problem in 2006. Suddenly McCain is forced to run against his own party pork reputation...funny how that works in an election year.
If she can't take the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen. You think any world leader is going to be easy on her (or, gasp! any foreign media) because she's a woman? Screw that.
Either she's a tough gal or not.
Posted by: westello on September 9, 2008 05:07 PMPerhaps Biden and Obama should switch places on the democrat ticket??? (never mind that Biden isn't in general super appealing to people other than democats)
In fact I suspect that Obama isn't very appealing to those democrats who voted in droves for George McGovern, and Ronald Reagan. He's had his 15-minutes of fame and most voters know by now that Obama is nothing but a phony socialist front man.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 9, 2008 05:18 PMI don't think she was specifically talking about an abortion as "bad" - alththough I beleive human life is not a "choice". She was talking in general about digging something "bad" up from someone's pre-adult past just to sling mud in their face, that of course, is disgraceful.
Posted by: Puyallup Taxpayer on September 9, 2008 05:20 PMObama has been fighting ridiculous smears for over a year. Maybe McCain Campaign, should put up the facts, like Obama has done. Maybe McCain Campaign should allow Palin to face the press, instead of limiting access and cherry-picking/hand-tying the reporter.
Obama's Fight the Smears Page:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/
Obama's FactCheck Page:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/
The contributors here are all in arms about the Palin smears, but not a word about McCain campaign's continued lie about Obama and Taxes. There is not a word denouncing the smear that Obama wants to tax your Home, water and IRA. There is not a word on the outrages lies and smears present in Jerome Corsi's book (see: http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/corsi).
Maybe McCain should come out and denounce and reject both sides rumour mills and state that he will concentrate on the issues. Of course, per his campaign manager, McCain has decided that the race should not be about the issues, but about personalities. Quite the flip-flop from the spring when McCain stated that he looked forward to an upfront and honest campaign on the issues. In my mind, McCain has all but abandon any pretense of Straight Talk. Day after day, he repeats the lies about Obama's positions, fed to him by his campaign. Either is is knowningly lying, or worse, he is so clueless to what his opponents positions are that he just takes for granted what is fed to him.
Posted by: tc on September 9, 2008 05:22 PMI've never been a fan of McCain, but this is a ridiculous statement with reference to McCain--he has NEVER taken earmarks. So to say it is just an election year issue for him is patently wrong.
Either she's a tough gal or not."
Where do you get off saying this? Governor Palin has taken the nasty slings and arrows with grace and humor (unlike the "how dare you criticize me" Obama). However, if you had an ounce of integrity, you would condemn the sleazy attacks on her family.
I'm all for the left continuing with all of these scurrilous attacks on Governor Palin--you will just guarantee that you will be in the wilderness for another 4 years as McCain/Palin win in a landslide. Keep it up!
Barry better be careful because "O Marx the spot!"
Posted by: waflyguy on September 9, 2008 05:50 PMWhat evidence do you have that it is "too much for her"? None.
As I said, you have no integrity and clearly fit in with the loony left if you do not condemn the attacks on her family.
Again, as I said, just keep up the ridiculous attacks, maybe that will comfort you when you lose the White House AGAIN.
Posted by: Bill H on September 9, 2008 05:59 PMThe sexism by Barry's campaign will should that he and the dems are frauds.
Posted by: waflyguy on September 9, 2008 06:07 PMThat's why the Seattle Times endorsed Bush last election...they're leftist's. LOL!!
Liar again, Cato! In 2004 the Seattle Times endorsed KERRY. In 2000 they endorsed Bush over Gore. In 1996 and 1992 then endorsed Clinton. In 1988 they endorsed Dukakis. In 1984 they endorsed Mondale. In 1980 they endorsed Carter.
So let's see... In the last 28 years, there have been 7 elections. In 6 of those they have endorsed the Democrat. Only once did they endorse a Republican.
In your infantile mind I guess that means they are down-the-middle moderates or maybe even conservative!
Cato, you've proven to be - and I use this word in all sense of the word - a dolt.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 9, 2008 06:07 PMTo compare apples to apples. Afraid of the answer? Ticket for ticket- Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin - which team is the bigger waster of your tax dollars during their political careers?
They've had so many kind words for Governor Palin.
They must really like her.
MSNBC is owned by NBC which is owned by GE, one of the biggest defense contractors in the US. The website is jointly owned by Microsoft and NBC.
Posted by: Just asking on September 9, 2008 06:32 PMShe can't have it both ways.
Posted by: westello on September 9, 2008 06:36 PMYes, and Keith Olbermann And Chris Matthews are MSNBC hosts. And they are CERTAINLY pro-McCain and pro-Palin, right?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 9, 2008 06:42 PMSenate Vote 5: Ethics and Lobbying Overhaul �
Earmark Disclosure, S. 1. Sen. Durbin, D-Ill., motion to table
(kill) the DeMint, R-S.C., amendment to require the names of
earmark sponsors to be made public, mandate the disclosure of
earmark recipients, and expand the definition of an earmark to
include federal and non-federal projects. Motion rejected 46-51.
THE TAXPAYERS LOST.
http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Senate_Ratings_Final.pdf?docID=3242
Cato~ if you persuse the current crop of Democrat senators rating with that of the Republicans, you'll find the Dems score alot worse in lifetime pork expenditures.
How can these two swines Obama 18%/Biden 22% with their lifetime pork spending rating possibly have any kind of credibility when it comes to saying they'll change Washington D.C.?
Answer: They can't. But John McCain 88% /Sarah Palin will. Demonstrated change in D.C.
Posted by: Rick D. on September 9, 2008 06:42 PMWhat Marxism are you referring to? The desire to adhere to our Constitution?
What's your point with all those irrelevancies? Do you think a defense contractor is automatically right-wing, and allows no editorial independence, and MSNBC with its Keith Olberman - Chris Matthews 'anchors' are stealth Hitlerites doing their bit to sink Obama? Has Matthews recovered from that chill running up his leg? Did you know that Bill Gates is a soft-left Democrat? What else do you know?
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on September 9, 2008 06:55 PMIt has the current list of both Senators from each of the states and their 2007 rating as well as their lifetime rating. Also, look at some of the biggest porkers around (especially Robert Byrd/KKK D-WV) and with the exception of Steven's , you'll find Dems figure prominently up and down the list as wasting our taxpayers money.
As far as lobbyists, you realize that one if not both of Biden's sons are lobbyists? Why would an old D.C. Relic like Joe Biden want to kill the golden goose (pork spending) when he's benefited greatly from it and now has a family interest in keeping it going? What is your opinion of Obama's fellow Democratic senator from Illinois Dick Durban (8% lifetime rating) killing the reform bill? Just wonderin'
Posted by: Rick D. on September 9, 2008 07:15 PMReally? Is that why liberal Oregon gov Neil Goldschmidt hid his pedophelia?
Is that why libera NJ Gov James McGreevey hid his homosexual lover for who he created his lover a makedo position?
Is that why the high and mighty "Ethicist" Gov Elliot Spitzer was using government money to visit not just a trailer trash slut like Clinton. No sir, he went for the high priced hookers.
Is that why Democrat WIlliam Jefferson (promoted by Democrats) hide $94K of bribe money in the freezer, because he had nothing to hide?
Hypocrite liberals!
Posted by: pbj on September 9, 2008 07:35 PMThis problem could have been solved years ago.
The fact that it wasn't speaks volumes about both parties and leads to small towns in small states hiring lobbyists to get what they think is their "share" of the pie.
I'm not holding my breath that this way of doing business is going to change, and I don't see anyone on the horizon that is really capable of accomplishing this change. Even now there is this veto power...
Posted by: BA on September 9, 2008 07:36 PMThe point was to correct your statement.
"The Left owns the NYT, LAT, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, PBS and both Seattle papers."
And to question the phrase "leftist media" when the major news providers are actually owned by interests of Disney (ABC), GE (NBC), Westinghouse (CBS), Rupert Murdoch (FOX)
Posted by: Just asking on September 9, 2008 07:44 PMBS. PROVE it. I want link and sources proving this. I know Murdoch owns Fox, but the others are total bull.
Posted by: Just Sayin on September 9, 2008 07:54 PMWait, I thought only Republicans had the attack machine?
Posted by: LCRW on September 9, 2008 07:58 PMGE. THey can't sell it if they don't own it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN0632633720080808
Disney bought ABC in 1995
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1995/08/01/MN58745.DTL
more later, gotta take a break.
Posted by: Just asking on September 9, 2008 08:10 PMWhat they own doesn't tell me how they lean. No liberals own any GE or Disney stock? I don't buy that.
Theresa Heinz Kerry is a big corporate liberal. Oprah Winfrey is another. So this pseudo marxist assumption that because a corporation owns a broadcaster doesn't mean they are automatically conservative in their coverage.
In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets -- including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS -- on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the "media elite" were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article "Media and Business Elites." The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues. This study, which was more elaborately presented in Lichter and Rothman's subsequent book, The Media Elite, became the most widely quoted media study of the 1980s and remains a landmark today.
Posted by: Just Sayin on September 9, 2008 08:47 PMhttp://cjrarchives.org/tools/owners/viacom-timeline.asp (scroll down to 1995)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CEFDA1338F931A3575BC0A963958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Posted by: Cat on September 9, 2008 08:49 PMNew York Times columnist John Tierney surveyed 153 campaign journalists at a press party at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Although it was not a scientific sampling, Tierney found a huge preference for Democratic Senator John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush, particular among journalists based in Washington, D.C. He found that journalists from outside Washington preferred Kerry by a three-to-one margin, while those who work inside the Beltway favored Kerry's election by a 12-to-1 ratio.
KEY FINDINGS:
* Tierney found a strong preference for the liberal Kerry: "When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington."
* To see why journalists preferred Kerry, "we asked our respondents which administration they'd prefer to cover the next four years strictly from a journalistic standpoint." More than half the journalists thought Bush was the better news subject: "The Washington respondents said they would rather cover Mr. Kerry, but by a fairly small amount, 27 to 21, and the other journalists picked Bush, 56 to 40....The overall result was 77 for Bush, 67 for Mr. Kerry."
* "We tried to test for a likeability bias. With which presidential nominee, we asked, would you rather be stranded on a desert island? Mr. Kerry was the choice of both groups: 31 to 17 among the Washington journalists, and 51 to 39 among the others. 'Bush's religious streak,' one Florida correspondent said, 'would drive me nuts on a desert island.'"
In March and April 2005, the University of Connecticut's Department of Public Policy surveyed 300 journalists nationwide -- 120 who worked in the television industry and 180 who worked at newspapers and asked for whom they voted in the 2004 presidential election. In a report released May 16, 2005, the researchers disclosed that the journalists they surveyed selected Democratic challenger John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush by a wide margin, 52 percent to 19 percent (with 1 percent choosing far-left independent candidate Ralph Nader). One out of five journalists (21 percent) refused to disclose their vote, while another six percent either didn't vote or said they did not know for whom they voted.
You've been indoctrinated with the mindless 'corporate media' slogan. And you buy that? Ever think for yourself? The editorial policies of the NYT, LAT, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, PBS and both Seattle papers are to put it mildly, left of center, and in the last two decades their 'news' coverage has constantly increased in leftist (oh, 'progressive') bias. That is, they obsessively search for news or rumors that hurt the right (the Palin coverage is blatant in that slant, and their defeatist coverage of the Iraq war since 2003 is more so), and supress news that doesn't hurt the right (they were as late as Obama in admitting the surge worked, despite the honest news coming out through Michael Yon, Bill Roggio and other observers on the ground).
Mainstream media in general is untrustworthy, and considers its main service the bulldozing of public opinion in a leftward direction. Furnishing complete and balanced information to the citizens of a democracy is laughably naive as a goal - they're in the culture wars to win. You may as well revel in those facts as long as such media survive.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on September 9, 2008 11:40 PMSo... in other words, your statement was inaccurate. Unless by "own" you mean "they work for"
Posted by: Just asking on September 9, 2008 11:49 PMThere would not have been any outrage. The media would have been praising Chelsea Clinton as being a strong woman figure like Hillary and saying things like "this baby will be very lucky to be growing up in the White House if Bill Clinton is elected". That is what would have happened if Chelsea Clinton had been pregnant while Bill Clinton ran.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on September 10, 2008 05:45 AMBiden's other son did get a job with MBNA out of college, but to call him a lobbyist is a great stretch. Biden covered this topic in depth this last Sunday on Meet the Press. For reference, go to the transcript for this last Sunday's MTP. One key point, Biden never met with "lobbyists" of Delaware banks. He had a rule to only meet with CEO's. Further, MBNA, which has many employees, as a whole, contributed less than 2% to Biden's past campaigns.
Posted by: tc on September 10, 2008 06:45 AMThe lobiest son, is Hunter, who is a founding partner of the lobbying firm Oldaker, Biden & Belair, LLP. He is also Vice Chairman of the Amtrak Board of Directors.
Right, he's only a registered Lobbyist so of course calling him a "lobbyist" is really a stretch....good god man, you really need to brush up on the history of your candidates before making such statements. You really embarrass yourself when you sound so uninformed. Hunter biden has lobbied for two drug companies and five universities funneling hundreds of millions his way through Government contracts. Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080824/pl_bloomberg/a6qrvqdtzkv4
The younger Biden started his career as a lobbyist in 2001 and has registered to represent about 21 clients that have brought in $3.5 million to his Washington firm, according to lobbying disclosure forms.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/27/politics/washingtonpost/main4388540.shtml
He (Hunter) and his Uncle (Joe's bro) are both also listed in 2 separate law suits as defendant's accused of defrauding a business partner.full story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/23/AR2008082302200.html
....keep your dancing shoes on,tc
Posted by: Rick D. on September 10, 2008 09:00 AMtotal crackpot
There is a difference between someone who will spend all their time pushing papers in the green zone in Baghdad and someone like Track Palin who will be deployed a few weeks later to an area of Diyala province teeming with al-Qaeda insurgents.
Biden is going over like Kerry, to say he was there and fake some medals while Track is actually going to kill some terrorists.
Posted by: pbj on September 10, 2008 11:09 AMDiyala is littered with improvised explosive devices (IED's) -- there were 82 bomb blasts in a particularly kinetic two and a half month period.
A notorious patch of palm groves five miles by two and a half backing on to the Diyala river, has taken a particularly heavy toll on US troops. Al-Qaeda fighters are believed to be entrenched in the the thick under-bush. On one recent mission into the groves troops from the 2nd Stryker Calvary Regiment lost one man and had six injured.
Posted by: pbj on September 10, 2008 11:15 AMYeah... sure. Whatever you say, duderino.
Just like when we dropped the bomb on Nagasaki, it helped clean everyone's ovens throughout the entire city! Hurray!
Posted by: Snuggles the Clown on September 11, 2008 06:12 PM