The Candidates and the Tenth Amendment

This is the thirty-second post in an ongoing series regarding the major Presidential candidates and their views on civil liberties.

This post is about Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) and Senator Barack Obama's (D-IL) views pertaining to the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. This is the sister post to the one on the Ninth Amendment.

This will be the last post in the series that looks at the candidates records. The next and final post merely summarizes the preceding thirty-two posts and assigns a final grade.

Here's the text of the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

States Rights. Didn't we fight a war over this?

Anyway, neither Obama or McCain do very well in a discussion of states rights. Obama never remembers the Tenth Amendment, and McCain only seems to remember it when convenient.

Obama:

He's on the wrong side of the Tenth Amendment on abortion.

Obama is probably the closest thing there is to an "all abortion, all the time" candidate. He is a co-sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act.

He's on the wrong side of the Tenth Amendment on National IDs.

Unfortunately, both Obama and McCain supported the "REAL ID" act. REAL ID isn't quite a National ID, but the difference is minimal.

He's on the wrong side of the Tenth Amendment on Voter IDs.

I led the opposition to photo identification requirements for voting.

He's on the wrong side of the Tenth Amendment on Card Check.

I support this bill because in order to restore a sense of shared prosperity and security, we need to help working Americans exercise their right to organize under a fair and free process and bargain for their fair share of the wealth our country creates.

He's on the wrong side of the Tenth Amendment on Gay Rights.

Employment Non-Discrimination:

Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes it should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Gay & Lesbian Adoption:

Barack Obama believes gays and lesbians should have the same rights to adopt children as heterosexuals.

He's on the wrong side of the Tenth Amendment on Hate Crime Legislation.

Barack Obama co-sponsored legislation to expand federal hate crimes laws to include crimes perpetrated because of sexual orientation and gender identity.

He's definitely on the wrong side of the Tenth Amendment on Growth of Government. His health care plan, energy plan, and education plan trample all over the Tenth Amendment. He's never met a federal spending program he didn't like.

But it's not just these items. A look at his Blueprint for Change shows that he favors larger, more intrusive federal government in every decision he makes. The Tenth Amendment isn't merely forgotten by Barack Obama, but literally destroyed.

Unfortunately, McCain isn't a whole lot better. I think this is part of the "Senate" disease. It also shows how much we screwed up creating the Seventeenth Amendment. Prior to ratification of the Seventeenth, Senators represented the states, and would hopefully stand up more for states rights. Now they represent the "people", and everything the Senate does is designed to extend their power and control over the "people" under the guise of assistance and compassion.

Anyway, McCain only remembers the Tenth Amendment where convenient.

Despite having nearly the opposite beliefs on abortion as Obama, he also falls on the wrong side of the Tenth Amendment. He would like to see Roe overturned, but has never mentioned (that I can find) turning such decisions over to the states.

He's pretty much the same as Obama on National IDs, and is therefore wrong, just like Obama.

For Card Check, it's difficult to say. He opposes the bill, but without invoking the Tenth as a reason.

On Voter IDs, Gay Rights, and Hate Crime Legislation, he's on the correct side of the Tenth Amendment. He correctly believes that these things are for the states to decide.

On Growth of Government, he's, if not good, at least a whole lot better than Obama. He definitely wants to reign in the growth of the federal government. That can only be a boon to states rights.

However, pretty much everything our Congress puts up for vote these days violates the Tenth Amendment in one way or another. The Constitution gives very few powers to the federal government, and yet we have a zillion different agencies and departments, many of which have received McCain's support. I'm looking for the Department of Homeland Security in the Constitution, and I don't see it. I don't see how one could look at the Constitution and support things like No Child Left Behind, either.

Grades:

Obama: F.

McCain: D-. Really, I wish I had an F+. D- seems too high a grade, but there is some difference between him and Obama. Just not much.

Tenth Amendment: Advantage McCain

Results so far:

	Obama	McCain
First Amendment	F	D-
Second Amendment	D-	C-
Third Amendment	B	B
Fourth Amendment	D+	D+
Fifth Amendment	D+	B-
Sixth Amendment	B	B
Seventh Amendment	C	C
Eighth Amendment	C	B
Eleventh Amendment	B+	B-
Thirteenth Amendment	D+	B+
Fourteenth Amendment	D+	C+
Fifteenth Amendment	B	B
Nineteenth Amendment	B	B
Twenty-First Amendment	A-	A-
Twenty-Third Amendment	A-	B
Twenty-Fourth Amendment	B	B
Twenty-Sixth Amendment	B	B
Taxes	D	B-
Abortion	A+	D
National ID	F	F
Voter ID	A+	F
Card Check	F	A+
Legalization of Drugs	D+	F
Gay Rights	A-	D
Hate Crime Legislation	F	C
Growth of Government	F	A-
Property Rights	B-	A
Sovereign Rights	C-	B-
Ninth Amendment	B-	B
Tenth Amendment	F	D-

UPDATE: Obama's First Amendment grade lowered to F as documented in this post.

Maybe the Democrats Are Correct About Sarah Palin

Maybe she is on the ticket for only one reason.

No, it's not because she's a woman.

Nor is it because she's not a woman.

Nor is it because she hasn't had an abortion.

Maybe she's on the ticket to act as "live bait" to Democrats.

Maybe Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was sitting around thinking to himself one day and this is what he thought. 

"Hey, I'm having no luck pointing out Senator Barack Obama's (D-IL) lack of experience. The message isn't getting out.

Maybe if I put Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) on the ticket, the Democrats will talk about her experience and that will give me the opening I need to talk about his.

I'm also not having much luck going after his lack of reformer credentials. She has some reformer creds on that whole 'bridge to nowhere' thing. If I put her on the ticket, maybe they'll go after that and then I can point out that they never voted against it, even to help victims of Katrina.

Maybe by putting a woman on the ticket, I can get the liberals and the media to use sexist attacks against her, and move more women to my side.

Maybe by putting someone relatively unknown on the ticket, the media will go overboard trying to 'vet' her, and turn into an  'attack machine' with false smears, thus discrediting any future attacks, no matter how valid.

Maybe she can turn the Obama campaign's focus to her and get them off message and forget that they're running against me."

Of course, it probably didn't really happen that way. After all, it'd be pretty silly for anyone to think those things. Most of those "traps" are so obvious that you'd have to be a fool to walk into them.

The Candidates and the Ninth Amendment

This is the thirty-first post in an ongoing series regarding the major Presidential candidates and their views on civil liberties.

This post is about Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) and Senator Barack Obama's (D-IL) views pertaining to the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Both the Ninth and the Tenth Amendments are sometimes referred to as "the forgotten Amendments". Conservatives tend to forget about the Ninth more often and liberals tend to forget about the Tenth. I think many people regard the two amendments as in opposition to each other. But it's my opinion that they form a powerful tandem when viewed together.

I'm going to do one post on each, but I want to go over the text of both and what they mean together, first.

Here's the text of the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And here's the text of the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Before we get to analysis, I want to look at the purpose behind the Ninth. Originally, when the Bill of Rights was proposed, many of the Founding Fathers argued that such a document was unnecessary, and in fact, harmful. They felt that to put forth a list of rights of the people was to imply that these rights were granted by the government and not inalienable. They also felt that by listing these rights, an implication was made that other rights didn't exist.

Our founders were proven correct. How often do you hear people discuss the rights they've been given or granted by the Bill of Rights? Often. Even our illustrious news people make this mistake often. The Bill of Rights is set up to guard rights you already have, not grant new ones.

Now, why do I bring up both the Ninth and Tenth together? Here's an example. If you've been following along and paying attention to the items that discussed voting rights, you may have noticed that there is no protected enumerated right to vote in Presidential elections. The Ninth Amendment tells us that just because such a right isn't listed, doesn't mean we don't have it. But, the Tenth Amendment tells us that the States themselves have the power to deny or protect this right as they choose. States rights was a big item for our founders. It's only recently that this country has been called "the United States of America". In the founders time it was "these United States of America". That's an important difference.

So, how do we analyze how the candidates feel about these amendments? Well, in the case of the Ninth, we should look at whether the candidate feels that there's some non-enumerated right that does not exist and should be denied. The Tenth is easier. We just look for usurpation of state powers by the federal government.

My explanation of how to analyze the Ninth probably doesn't make much sense. Another example might help. You will often hear that issues such as abortion rights, gay rights, and privacy rights are protected by the Ninth Amendment. In my opinion that's only half right. The Ninth merely says that a person may have those rights. The Tenth Amendment says that such decisions are left to the states or the people.

So, if a candidate says that there's no federal right to gay marriage and that means that gays can't marry, he's attacking the Ninth Amendment. But if that candidate says that there's no federal right to gay marriage, and that the states themselves need to make that decision, he's not attacking the Ninth Amendment. On the other hand, if the candidate says that by virtue of the Ninth Amendment, there is a federal right to gay marriage, he's attacking the Tenth Amendment.

So, now we see how liberals and conservatives view these differently. Liberals forget all about the Tenth Amendment and want to use the Ninth Amendment to invent new rights out of whole cloth. While conservatives want to pretend that the Ninth Amendment doesn't exist and say that none of these rights exist.

This applies even more so to the various lefty and righty blogs out there where you see claims that various rights are guaranteed by virtue of the Ninth, or that these rights have no constitutional basis whatsoever.

I've left these two amendments for the last topics to be covered in hopes that I would discover information along the way that would tell me how the candidates feel about them. I was not as successful as I'd hoped.

Out of all the things that I covered, only one appears to be in direct conflict with the Ninth Amendment, and that's Obama's views on Card Check. Even this one is tenuous, because you could certainly argue that the right to secret ballot in union elections has nothing to do with any level of the government, state or federal. McCain gets a pass on Abortion Rights, Gay Rights, and Legalization of Drugs because he remembers to invoke the Tenth Amendment when discussing these issues. Not that either candidate does particularly well on the Tenth, as we will see.

Grades:

Obama: B-. We start at B because there's little info that Obama even realizes that such an amendment exists, and dock him once for Card Check.

McCain: B. He gets to keep his B because he's on the right side on Card Check.

Ninth Amendment: Advantage McCain

Results so far:

	Obama	McCain
First Amendment	F	D-
Second Amendment	D-	C-
Third Amendment	B	B
Fourth Amendment	D+	D+
Fifth Amendment	D+	B-
Sixth Amendment	B	B
Seventh Amendment	C	C
Eighth Amendment	C	B
Eleventh Amendment	B+	B-
Thirteenth Amendment	D+	B+
Fourteenth Amendment	D+	C+
Fifteenth Amendment	B	B
Nineteenth Amendment	B	B
Twenty-First Amendment	A-	A-
Twenty-Third Amendment	A-	B
Twenty-Fourth Amendment	B	B
Twenty-Sixth Amendment	B	B
Taxes	D	B-
Abortion	A+	D
National ID	F	F
Voter ID	A+	F
Card Check	F	A+
Legalization of Drugs	D+	F
Gay Rights	A-	D
Hate Crime Legislation	F	C
Growth of Government	F	A-
Property Rights	B-	A
Sovereign Rights	C-	B-
Ninth Amendment	B-	B

UPDATE: Obama's First Amendment grade lowered to F as documented in this post.

It's 12:16 PM September 11, 2001 - Where Are You?

12:16 PM

US airspace is clear of aircraft except for military and emergency flights. Only a few transoceanic flights are still landing in Canada.

Where were you?

2,996 souls were lost on that day, including 343 of New York's Bravest and New York's Finest who gave their lives trying to save others.

Oh, where was I during all of this? In a meeting. No one bothered to interrupt the meeting to mention what was happening. After the meeting, I walked out to my car, somehow managing not to talk to a single person. I got in the car and drove home for lunch, without turning on the radio. I got home, made myself a sandwich, sat down at about 12:05 PM, turned on the TV and discovered that the world had changed while I wasn't looking. Rudy Giuliani has said it best, many times (paraphrasing). "We learned on September 11, 2001 that we were at war. The other side had known they were at war for quite some time, but we didn't know it."

There's a very poignant picture on the NY Times website from 9/11/2006, with the caption "The Hole in the City's Heart"

Where were you?

On September 12, we all promised ourselves that we'd never forget the events of that day. Have you kept that promise?

The times and events listed here are a very small excerpt of what's available at the Cooperative Research History Commons. The whole thing is well worth a read, if you have the time (it's very long).

Where were you?

"Freedom and Fear are at War." - U.S. President George W. Bush

"This is a battle with only one outcome: our victory, not theirs." - UK Prime Minister Tony Blair

It's 10:28 AM September 11, 2001 - Where Are You?

10:28 AM

The World Trade Center’s North Tower collapses. It was hit by Flight 11 at 8:46, 102 minutes earlier.

It's 10:06 AM September 11, 2001 - Where Are You?

10:06 AM

United Airlines Flight 93 crashes into an empty field just north of the Somerset County Airport, about 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, 124 miles or 15 minutes from Washington, D.C.

It's 9:59 AM September 11, 2001 - Where Are You?

9:59 AM

The South Tower of the World Trade Center collapses. It was hit by Flight 175 at 9:03 A.M., 57 minutes earlier.

It's 9:57 AM September 11, 2001 - Where Are You?

9:57 AM

Two groups of passengers (one containing Tom Burnett who has been on the phone with his wife, and one containing Todd Beamer who has been on the phone with a Verizon representative) apparently working independently attempt to to regain control of United Airlines Flight 93. Todd Beamer leaves his phone connected and at about this time is heard to say "Let's Roll."

It's 9:45 AM September 11, 2001 - Where Are You?

9:45 AM

Ben Sliney, FAA’s National Operations Manager, orders the entire nationwide air traffic system shut down. All flights at US airports are stopped. Around 3,950 flights are still in the air. Sliney makes the decision without consulting FAA head Jane Garvey, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, or other bosses, but they quickly approve his actions. It’s Sliney’s first day on the job.

My sister-in-law is stranded in Ft. Lauderdale, FL (yes, I know...not a terribly bad place to be stranded, all things considered) after her flight lands safely there, but all outbound flights are canceled.

It's 9:37 AM September 11, 2001 - Where Are You?

9:37 AM

American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon. Approximately 125 people on the ground are later determined killed or missing.

It's 9:03 AM September 11, 2001 - Where Are You?

9:03 AM

United Airlines Flight 175 hits the South Tower of the World Trade Center (Tower Two). Seismic records pinpoint the time at six seconds before 9:03 a.m. (rounded to 9:03 a.m.).

It's 8:46 AM September 11, 2001 - Where Are You?

8:46 AM

American Airlines Flight 11 Hits the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Two minutes later CNN would break off a commercial with live news on this. Carol Lin says, “This just in. You are looking at ... obviously a very disturbing live shot there—that is the World Trade Center, and we have unconfirmed reports this morning that a plane has crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center.” CNN then switches to Sean Murtagh, the network’s vice president of finance, who says in a live telephone interview, “I just witnessed a plane that appeared to be cruising at a slightly lower than normal altitude over New York City. And it appears to have crashed into—I don’t know which tower it is—but it hit directly in the middle of one of the World Trade Center towers. It was a jet, maybe a two-engine jet, maybe a 737 ... a large passenger commercial jet ... It was teetering back and forth, wing-tip to wing-tip, and it looks like it has crashed into—probably, twenty stories from the top of the World Trade Center—maybe the eightieth to eighty-fifth floor. There is smoke billowing out of the World Trade Center.”

Video (requires Windows Media Player)

Battleground States - 09/10

I haven't done an update in the last couple of weeks, because it's silly to look at the electoral college map or the polls during the conventions. It's probably still too soon after the Republican convention to look, but I really don't want to wait another week.

Here's the current standings with difference since August 22 in parentheses:

• Michigan (17): Democrat last 4 elections, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) currently leads by 1 pt. (-6)
• Indiana (11): Republican last 4 elections, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) by 2 (-5).
• Ohio (20): Picked winner in last 4 elections, McCain by 7. (+3)
• Missouri (11): Picked winner in last 4 elections, McCain by 7.
• Pennsylvania (21): Democrat last 4 elections, Obama by 2. (-3)
• Iowa (7):Picked Winner in 3 of last 4 (had Gore in 2000), Obama by 15. (+9)
• Virginia (13): Republican last 4 elections, McCain by 2. (+2)
• Florida (27): Picked Winner in last 3 elections, currently tied (-3 McCain).
• Colorado (9): Republican last 3 elections, Obama by 3. (+6)
• New Mexico (5): Picked Winner in 3 of last 4 (had Gore in 2000), McCain by 2. (+7)
• Montana (3): Republican last 3 elections, McCain by 11.  (+10)
• North Dakota (3): Republican last 4 elections, McCain by 14. (+11)
• Nevada (5): Picked winner last 4 elections, Obama by 5. (+8)
• Minnesota (10): Democrat last 4 elections, Obama by 12. (+9)
• New Hampshire (4): Democrat three of last 4 elections (had Bush in 2000), Obama by 1.
• North Carolina (15): Republican last 4 elections, McCain by 20. (+17)

Bellwether states (EV totals in parentheses):

McCain: OH, NM, MO (36)
Obama: IA, NV (12)

Battleground EV Totals (diff since August 15 in parentheses): McCain 81 (-23), Obama 73 ( +9), Tied: 27 (+14)

Rest of map: McCain 157, Obama 200

Totals: McCain 238, Obama 273

The numbers reflect the difficulties in the polls right now. I have problems believing the poll #'s in MI, IN, IA, NM, MT, MN, and NC. I'd hope that in the next week or so we can get new polls in all of those states and might have a better idea of where things stand.

As I've said many times now, it's still Obama's race to lose.  If he can hold all of these, he wins. And a win without FL would be impressive.

McCain must pick up FL and flip CO.

One of my comments from last time is interesting:

[Obama's] done well as the "rock star", and not so well as the "presumed winner". It remains to be seen how he does in a tight race. Remember that he didn't do very well down the stretch in the Democratic primaries.

Based on the behavior of his campaign the last couple pf weeks, I think we can answer that so far with "not well".  But he's still polling well, so that's really all that matters.

I said this last time about McCain:

I still say that for McCain to win, he has to pick up all of FL, IN, MO, OH, NV, and VA, which seems a tall order. Right now he leads in five of those and the sixth is too close to call. Obama has many ways to win, but in general, he just needs to pick up one of those six states.

I didn't include CO in that list, because I really didn't realize how well Obama was doing there, or perhaps I underestimated the bump he'd get from having his convention there. CO needs to be added to the list. As a matter of fact, I now feel slightly more confident that McCain will pick up IN, MO, OH, and VA, which means that what's left on the table is CO, FL, and NV. I keep pointing out that McCain really should be leading by bigger margins in FL, and I keep expecting that to happen. There have been some polls showing some movement there, but the current latest has it back to a tie race. Once again, McCain is left hoping that's the outlier  and that movement is heading his direction.  I just don't know. Assuming it is, McCain must win CO and NV. And news is looking worse and worse for him in CO.

One thing that bears pointing out is that there has been a significant closing in the last month or so in the gap between people calling themselves Democrats and those calling themselves Republicans. And this tightening is pre-Palin. For most of the year, this gap has been in the double-digit territory.  Rasmussen has it down to 5.7 at the end of August, and USAToday/Gallup's recent poll has it at 1. Gallup seems a little low to me, but Rasmussen might actually be high. Very few of the state polls currently recognize this tightening, which could cause a fundamental shift in the electoral picture. I don't think we'll see many state polls taking that into account before the end of September.

The Candidates and Sovereign Rights

This is the thirtieth post in an ongoing series regarding the major Presidential candidates and their views on civil liberties.

This post is about Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) and Senator Barack Obama's (D-IL) views on our rights as a sovereign nation.

This is a milestone post, and one I was starting to think I'd never reach. The end is near. After this one, I return to the Bill of Rights, and finally do the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and then a summary post, and we're finally to the end.

Now, on to sovereign rights. This one is a little more nebulous. I don't expect either candidate to come out and say anything like "On my first day in office, I'm going to turn over control of our government to the United Nations." But, you can get indications of how they feel about our sovereignty.

Now first to Obama:

He doesn't start out well.

We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK

He co-sponsored the Global Poverty Act.

A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

There's actually quite a bit about Obama and this topic, but almost all of it comes down to this bill and his statement about SUVs.

Oh, he does appear to support the "Law of the Sea Treaty" (discussed below in the McCain section)

And now to McCain.

As far as I can tell, he has taken no position on the Global Poverty Act.

He apparently does envision a de-emphasized role of the UN, however, since he has proposed a "League of Democracies"

He's been both for an against the "Law of the Sea Treaty", which

[...] creates an independent source of revenue for the United Nations, is now pending in the Senate, of which McCain is a member. This is not an obscure or irrelevant issue for him. He could have a big impact on the fate of this treaty, which he has described as providing “a comprehensive regime of law and order in the world’s oceans and seas” and serving “as an umbrella convention under which rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources are established.”

Grades on this one are difficult. It's clear that Obama favors turning over more of our sovereignty to the UN, but it's not clear exactly how much. And for McCain, it's even worse. He's made very conflicting statements about the UN and the U.S's role there.

There's a good article on both of the candidates here, but from a sovereign rights perspective, I have to say that their conclusions are exactly backwards.

Obama: C-. I could argue this one a bit higher, but also a bit lower.

McCain: B-. This grade is more based upon Obama's grade than anything else. While his statements have been conflicting, it's apparent that he doesn't envision the UN having as big a role the U.S. as Obama does.

Sovereign Rights: Advantage McCain

Results so far:

	Obama	McCain
First Amendment	F	D-
Second Amendment	D-	C-
Third Amendment	B	B
Fourth Amendment	D+	D+
Fifth Amendment	D+	B-
Sixth Amendment	B	B
Seventh Amendment	C	C
Eighth Amendment	C	B
Eleventh Amendment	B+	B-
Thirteenth Amendment	D+	B+
Fourteenth Amendment	D+	C+
Fifteenth Amendment	B	B
Nineteenth Amendment	B	B
Twenty-First Amendment	A-	A-
Twenty-Third Amendment	A-	B
Twenty-Fourth Amendment	B	B
Twenty-Sixth Amendment	B	B
Taxes	D	B-
Abortion	A+	D
National ID	F	F
Voter ID	A+	F
Card Check	F	A+
Legalization of Drugs	D+	F
Gay Rights	A-	D
Hate Crime Legislation	F	C
Growth of Government	F	A-
Property Rights	B-	A
Sovereign Rights	C-	B-

UPDATE: Obama's First Amendment grade lowered to F as documented in this post.

The Candidates and Property Rights

This is the twenty-ninth post in an ongoing series regarding the major Presidential candidates and their views on civil liberties.

This post is about Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) and Senator Barack Obama's (D-IL) views on property rights.

This post was supposed to be about "privacy rights" but when I started doing the research, I realized that I had covered everything in earlier posts, particularly the Fourth Amendment.

Property rights have been constantly under attack for quite a while. When you pay your property tax on your home, you're giving up a tiny bit of your property rights. When government uses eminent domain to confiscate property for their use or for use by another, that is a large abuse of property rights.

How do the candidates stack up on property rights?

As usual, we'll be starting with Obama.

Ok, I admit to being stunned speechless.

I can find nothing, no position statements, no votes, nothing at all with respect to Barack Obama and property rights. The only thing I found is that he supports "the same property rights for gays as heterosexuals", but that's a gay right, not a property right. He's weak on the Second Amendment, and taking away your gun is definitely taking away your property. And he says that the Justices who supported the Kelo decision are his model for Supreme Court Justices, but that's all I have. I found several right wing blogs that said such things as "his record on property rights is abhorrent", but without examples as to why.

I admit, that's not much. But it's all I have.

So, on to McCain.

I have much more news on McCain and it's nearly universally good.

A speech in Iowa:

And central to our ideals is the sanctity of property rights. Without private property there can be no freedom, and without freedom there can be no America.

"Property," John Adams wrote, "is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty." Yet today property rights come under attack from regulations that affect every conceivable aspect of property ownership. Mr. Adams would be shocked to learn what both the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Connecticut did to Susette Kelo, an American homeowner, in allowing the government to seize her home for economic development and gain under the guise of "valid public use."

[...]

In state after state, polls make clear that the American public understands the Kelo ruling is a disaster: 82 percent of Ohioans oppose using eminent domain to take property for economic development, 91 percent of Minnesotans, 92 percent of Kansans, 95 percent of Coloradans, and 86 percent of Missourians. The American public has spoken with one voice, and they're saying that this is not right.

I have co-sponsored legislation to forbid this kind of government taking; Congress and the States should follow Iowa's lead and pass such laws. But laws defending private property are only as secure as the judges that defend those laws. Kelo passed narrowly, supported by a five to four majority with a track record of legislating from the bench. As President, I pledge to appoint strict constructionist judges who respect the Constitution and understand the security of private property it provides. If need be, I would seek to amend the Constitution to protect private property rights in America.

This is not a one time event. He has repeatedly condemned the Kelo decision.

Both candidates have bloggers that say they'll be great/destroy intellectual property rights. I wasn't able to find anything worth quoting.

Grades:

Obama: B-. He starts with a B, since there's so little, and I docked him a little based on his views on the Second Amendment.

McCain: A. He has said a lot of good words, but he needs more actions to bump up his grade to an A+. Plus, he's not the best on the Second Amendment either.

Property Rights: Advantage McCain

Results so far:

	Obama	McCain
First Amendment	F	D-
Second Amendment	D-	C-
Third Amendment	B	B
Fourth Amendment	D+	D+
Fifth Amendment	D+	B-
Sixth Amendment	B	B
Seventh Amendment	C	C
Eighth Amendment	C	B
Eleventh Amendment	B+	B-
Thirteenth Amendment	D+	B+
Fourteenth Amendment	D+	C+
Fifteenth Amendment	B	B
Nineteenth Amendment	B	B
Twenty-First Amendment	A-	A-
Twenty-Third Amendment	A-	B
Twenty-Fourth Amendment	B	B
Twenty-Sixth Amendment	B	B
Taxes	D	B-
Abortion	A+	D
National ID	F	F
Voter ID	A+	F
Card Check	F	A+
Legalization of Drugs	D+	F
Gay Rights	A-	D
Hate Crime Legislation	F	C
Growth of Government	F	A-
Property Rights	B-	A

UPDATE: Obama's First Amendment grade lowered to F as documented in this post.

Gallup And Rasmussen 09/07

Both daily tracking polls are out. I did a good job of reading the tea leaves yesterday from Rasmussen, and of analyzing Gallup.  Gallup, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) 48, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) 45. Rasmussen 48/48. This fits the pattern of the last couple weeks. Rasmussen has been consistently a little more "Obama friendly" than Gallup since the start of the DNC.

I don't see any hints at all in Rasmussen or Gallup about tomorrow.

Question: How long before there's a LOUD outcry on the lefty blogs demanding that Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) be replaced with Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)?

This will be my last day for a while at reporting on the polls.  There are plenty of places to go that are better than mine, and I have enough obsessions without obsessing over polls too.  :)

UPDATE: Ok, I'm not quite finished. I would like to point out that the three point lead in Gallup is better than I projected. I was expecting one to two points.  That means McCain has had two great days of polling in a row. It's very possible that the lead could grow to 4 tomorrow.

The Candidates and Size of Government

This is the twenty-eighth post in an ongoing series regarding the major Presidential candidates and their views on civil liberties.s

This post is about Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) and Senator Barack Obama's (D-IL) views on the size of government.

It's been over a week since I did any posts on this, and I apologize for that. I've been caught up in the Palin-frenzy, but I want to get back to this, because I'm going on vacation in a few days, and I'd like to finish it up before then if at all possible.

Anyway, to the topic at hand. Despite the beliefs of some to the contrary, the size of government has a direct effect on your civil liberties. A larger government is by it's very nature more intrusive and more controlling.

So, how do the candidates stack up here?

First, Obama:

I've previously commented on Obama's socialist tendencies, and that should be sufficient answer here, but I like to be thorough. Here are a few examples of what I found on the web.

Lawrence Kudlow had this to say:

Obama unveiled much of his economic strategy in Wisconsin this week: He wants to spend $150 billion on a green-energy plan. He wants to establish an infrastructure investment bank to the tune of $60 billion. He wants to expand health insurance by roughly $65 billion. He wants to "reopen" trade deals, which is another way of saying he wants to raise the barriers to free trade. He intends to regulate the profits for drug companies, health insurers, and energy firms. He wants to establish a mortgage-interest tax credit. He wants to double the number of workers receiving the earned-income tax credit (EITC) and triple the EITC benefit for minimum-wage workers.

From his acceptance speech:

I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America.

I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars.

And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy-- wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels....

I'll invest in early childhood education.

I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support....

Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves....

Club for Growth says this:

As Senators, it often seemed like Edwards, Clinton, and Obama were congenitally incapable of saying no to government spending. Both Edwards and Clinton voted against defunding pork projects^[21] and for the overbloated 2002 farm bill.^[22] Clinton and Obama voted to keep the $223 million boondoggle known as the "Bridge to Nowhere,"^[23] for the expansive 2005 Highway Bill,^[24] and for corporate welfare.^[25]

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are proposing one new government program after another, from universal healthcare, to universal preschool, to an "education SWAT team."^[29] The proposals read like a laundry list of new and costly government programs: Obama's $18 billion education proposal;^[30] Edwards' $120 billion universal healthcare plan;^[31] Obama's $50 billion "clean technology" venture capital fund;^[32] Clinton's $110 billion universal healthcare proposal;^[33] Edwards' $13 billion renewable energy program;^[34] and Clinton's $50 billion strategic energy fund.^[35] In some cases, the candidates appear to be competing to see who can spend more taxpayer dollars. Hillary Clinton proposes $1 billion a year to expand the Family Medical Leave Act; Obama offers $1.5 billion a year, and Edwards goes a step further with $2 billion a year.^[36] Hillary Clinton put it best when she said, "I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all."^[37] The same could be said for Barack Obama and John Edwards.

Also there's Obama's standing on earmarks:

$740 million over the last three years.

That's just a partial list, but you get the idea. He's definitely going to continue the huge amount of government growth we've seen over the last 8 years.

And now to McCain:

Here's what the Club for Growth had to say about him:

Despite his poor record on tax cuts, Senator McCain's zealous effort against wasteful spending deserves praise. Over his twenty years in the Senate, he has been at the forefront of the battle to eliminate wasteful projects and inject greater discipline and transparency into the appropriations process, often by introducing a slew of cost-cutting amendments. While many of these measures did not pass, they served an important role in shining a glaring light on congressional profligacy. These amendments include:

• A 2006 amendment to cut $74.5 million for various agriculture programs^[17]
• A 2006 amendment to cut $6 million for sugarcane growers in Hawaii^[18]
• A 2003 amendment to reduce funding for the Yazoo Basin Backwater Pump Project in Mississippi^[19]
• A 2002 amendment to eliminate $2.5 million for coral reef mapping of the waters off the coast of Hawaii^[20]
• A 1998 amendment to cut $78 million in projects from an emergency supplemental appropriations bill^[21]
• A 1994 motion to kill an amendment to provide $40 million for the conversion of a New York City post office into an Amtrak train station^[22]

Senator McCain has also voted against a number of pricey bills, even when most of his colleagues preferred to toe the party line. These include:

• A vote against the 2003 Medicare prescription drug plan^[23]
• A vote against the Farm Security Bill in 2002^[24]
• A vote against the 2005 Highway Bill, one of only four senators to object to the pork-stuffed bill^[25]
• A vote against providing Amtrak with an extra $550 million for the fiscal year 2007^[26]
• A vote against $2 billion in milk subsidies^[27]
• One of fifteen senators to vote for Senator Tom Coburn's (R-OK) amendment transferring $223 million for the "Bridge to Nowhere" to the repair of a Louisiana bridge damaged by Hurricane Katrina.^[28] Senator McCain was also one of only thirteen senators to vote for an amendment by Senator Coburn to eliminate $950,000 for a parking lot for the Joslyn Art Museum in Nebraska^[29]
• A vote for welfare reform^[30]

While Senator McCain's opposition to wasteful pork-barrel projects and government subsidies is impressive, it should be noted that he cast an uncharacteristic vote for No Child Left Behind which oversaw a massive increase in government spending.^[31]

He's denounced the growth of government over the last eight years.

"Why has our party, the party of small government, lately adopted the practices of our opponents who believe the bigger the government the better? I'm afraid it's because at times we value our incumbency more than our principles," the Arizona Republican said in a speech to be delivered at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

"We came to office to reduce the size of government. Lately, we have increased the size of government in order to stay in office," McCain said. "Soon, if we don't remember what we were elected to do, we will lose both our principles and our office and we will leave as part of our legacy a mountain of debt and bankrupt entitlement programs that our children's grandchildren will be suffering from."

Surprisingly, he has a reputation as being pro-government growth. A reputation that does not appear to be based upon fact. He does want to spend a ton of money to fight global warming, though.

His website pledges to limit annual government growth to 2.4%. I've read this on numerous sites, but I can't find a link myself. Will update when I do.

Grades:

Obama: F. As the Club for Growth said, Obama's never found a spending program he didn't like.

McCain: A-. Really, the only thing holding McCain back is No Child Left Behind and Global Warming. His acceptance speech shows a renewed commitment to small government.

Size of Government: Advantage McCain.

Results so far:

	Obama	McCain
First Amendment	F	D-
Second Amendment	D-	C-
Third Amendment	B	B
Fourth Amendment	D+	D+
Fifth Amendment	D+	B-
Sixth Amendment	B	B
Seventh Amendment	C	C
Eighth Amendment	C	B
Eleventh Amendment	B+	B-
Thirteenth Amendment	D+	B+
Fourteenth Amendment	D+	C+
Fifteenth Amendment	B	B
Nineteenth Amendment	B	B
Twenty-First Amendment	A-	A-
Twenty-Third Amendment	A-	B
Twenty-Fourth Amendment	B	B
Twenty-Sixth Amendment	B	B
Taxes	D	B-
Abortion	A+	D
National ID	F	F
Voter ID	A+	F
Card Check	F	A+
Legalization of Drugs	D+	F
Gay Rights	A-	D
Hate Crime Legislation	F	C
Growth of Government	F	A-

UPDATE: Obama's First Amendment grade lowered to F as documented in this post.

Vetting Sarah Palin

The mainstream media has been telling us that Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) was not vetted properly by Senator John McCain's (R-AZ) campaign. There's a term in psychology for this. It's called projection.

the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety

Make no mistake, the mainstream media (I prefer "old media" actually) was snookered by John McCain and even though Palin's name has been mentioned several times during the VP search, they didn't do their homework on her. Now they see that this pick may turn the election around and they're feeling guilty about it and in a state of panic.
As I write this, it's been about 10 days since we first learned that Palin was McCain's choice.  And in those 10 days every lefty in America with an internet connection or a phone has been trying to get the dirt on Palin. Let's see how they've done.

• She lied about the “bridge to nowhere”. FALSE. And FALSE. And FALSE. And FALSE. And FALSE.
  The worst you can say is that she was for it before she was against it.
  
  

  She changed her mind, he said, when "she saw that Alaska was being perceived as taking from the country and not giving, and that impression bothered her and she wants to change it. … I think that Sarah Palin is someone who has the courage to reevaluate situations as they developed."

  I added more links to this one because it refuses to die.
  
  
• She lied about Trig. He isn’t really her baby! FALSE.
  
  
• She was a member of a secessionist party. FALSE.
  And unsourced. Good job here, old media. And now retracted.
  
  
• Troopergate. DEAD END.
  To be fair here, this is only news to mainstream America. Most bloggers and the media, left and right, knew about this "mini-scandal".
  
  
• She hired a lawyer to help her with Troopergate. FALSE.
  This is a legal proceeding, and typically the Governor would be represented by the Attorney General. He felt he had a conflict of interest, so directed the state to hire a lawyer for her.  All perfectly reasonable and above board.
  
  

  The state has hired a private lawyer to represent Gov. Sarah Palin's office in the Legislature's investigation into the firing of former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. The lawyer already has challenged whether lawmakers even have authority to oversee the inquiry.
  
  The state Department of Law hired Thomas Van Flein, an Anchorage attorney with expertise in employment law and professional liability, because Attorney General Talis Colberg has a potential conflict of interest and shouldn't represent the governor, Van Flein said Monday.

• She has refused to testify in Troopergate and is blocking the investigation. FALSE.
  The only investigation she has refused to cooperate with is the one that has no legal jurisdiction. She has made it quite plain that she is more than willing to follow AK's laws in this matter. So, the left is criticizing her for obeying the law. This whole "investigation" is a witch hunt and is based upon a crime without a victim. The supposed victim is required by law to file a formal complaint if he feels he has been the victim of of an ethics violation. He has not done so. In fact, he has repeatedly stated that no one pressured him to fire the trooper. This really should be the end of the story. The fact that it isn't shows that this is all about politics and not about reality.
  
  
• Archives of her newspaper aren’t available online and haven’t been accessed by anyone locally. FALSE.
  
  
• She is a supporter of "Nazi Sympathizer" Buchanan and anti-Israel. FALSE. And FALSE. And FALSE.
  It's worth pointing out that this smear comes directly from the organization of Mr. FightTheSmears himself.  Classy.
  
  
• She is tight with corrupt and indicted Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK). FALSE. And FALSE.
  Yes, I know she directed a 527 for him in 2003. But that was before she got fed up with corruption and ran for Governor against Stevens' pal former Governor Frank Murkowski (R-AK). Stevens has never forgiven her for that. He endorsed her a mere 3 weeks before the general election, long after Murkowski had been defeated in the primaries, and frankly, when it was obvious she was going to win.
  
  
• She's in the pocket of "Big Oil". FALSE.
  
  
• She cut funding for teen mothers. FALSE.
  
  
• She pushed to have creationism taught in schools. FALSE.
  
  
• Peggy Noonan said that the campaign is over and that McCain has lost. FALSE.
  
  

  But, I argued, that's over, those assumptions are yesterday, the party can no longer assume that its base is utterly in line with the thinking of the American people. And when I said, "It's over!" — and I said it more than once — that is what I was referring to.

  Now, it's true that Noonan thinks that Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) would be a better choice, and she's entitled to her opinion. But, as she has said already about Palin:
  
  

  [H]er candidacy will be either dramatically successful or a dramatically not; it won't be something in between.

  As far as I know, the only "right-wing" pundits that has come down hard against the Palin selection are Charles Krauthammer and Mort Kondracke. Mort often takes the "liberal" side on Fox (I get the impression his heart isn't really in that), so his criticisms should be taken with a grain of salt. Krauthammer has been consistently negative on her selection. I'd link, but he's written about it numerous times, and continues to do so, so the links would quickly become out-of-date. Use your favorite search engine on "Krauthammer Palin" if you're curious.
  
  
• She claimed that the Iraq war is 'a task that is from God'. FALSE. 
  
  
• She cut the budget for Alaska's special needs children by 62%. FALSE. 
  
  
• As Mayor of Wasilla, she tried to get this list of books banned, and then attempted to fire the librarian for not doing so. FALSE.
  It's TRUE that she did ask the librarian about censoring some books, and I admit that's not one of Palin's better moments, but it's not the list shown, as some of those weren't even published at the time. I'm unable to find a real list.  Some time later A few days before that, and again later she did ask the librarian to resign, along with other holdovers from the previous administration, so it's hard to claim the "censorship question" as the cause here. She later withdrew the request for resignation and no books were ever banned. As I said, this is not one of Palin's better moments, but it's not nearly as bad as the left makes it out to be. FactCheck.Org has more on this. My speculation was originally that the question may have been hypothetical. The FactCheck.Org article makes that seem even more likely as they have some more details that I had not read before. And here's still more from the city of Wasilla. It appears that during Palin's entire tenure as Mayor, the library received only one book banning request, from an unlisted person. I think we can officially put this smear to rest now.
  
  
• Sarah Palin is being hidden from the media. FALSE.
  
  
• She lied about putting the plane for sale on e-Bay. FALSE.
  We shouldn't even have to deal with this one, and it's obviously a smear rather than an attempt to get at the truth. This event made all the national news at the time. I remember hearing about it long before I ever had any clue who Sarah Palin was. The people claiming this know their claims are FALSE.  It's TRUE that it didn't sell. It was sold later offline though.
  
  
• She didn't do anything as Commander-in-Chief of the AK National Guard. FALSE.
  Look, I admit that Republicans really ought not to trot this out. It's weak compared to the C-in-C role as President. Of course, her experience there, no matter how weak, is still stronger than Obama's, who has none. As I said, her subordinate was impressed with her work there.
  
  
• Willow and Piper are named after witches! FALSE.
  Apparently the timeline is wrong for Piper, and it is possible that she was named after a character in Charmed.
  
  
• She believes in abstinence only education. FALSE.
  
  
• She was nearly recalled as Mayor of Wasilla. FALSE.
  
  
• She raised AK sales tax by 40%. FALSE.
  AK has no sales tax.
  
  
• She raised the state motor fuel tax. FALSE.
  
  
• She's an extremist on global warming. FALSE.
  
  
• As Mayor of Wasilla, she made rape victims pay for their medical exams. FALSE, and ludicrous. The "smoking gun" article that started this smear doesn't even mention Sarah Palin.
  
  
• She would ban all abortions. FALSE.
  
  

  I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor's determination that the mother's life would end if the pregnancy continued. I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an innocent's life.

• She caused Trig to have Down's Syndrome by jetting to Texas in the 8th month of her pregnancy. FALSE.
  Down's Syndrome is a chromosome disorder. The disability occurs at the moment of conception (or very near thereafter).
  
  
• Her son, Track, is being forced to join the military to escape prosecution from various juvenile charges. FALSE.
  
  
• She cut funding for AK's Special Olympics by $275,000. FALSE. In fact, she increased funding by $25,000.
  
  
• She was the Queen of Federal Funding Requests as Governor of AK. FALSE. Analysis here, and too complex to put succinctly. The short version.  Quite a difference between earmark requests and normal legislative appropriations.
  
  
• On a similar note, AK is the largest "welfare state" under her administration. FALSE. Yes, AK receives quite a bit of federal funds, but it's also owns 60% of the land, and has 20,000 troops stationed there. In addition, there's a significant indigenous population. Calling it a "welfare state" is more than a tiny bit disingenuous.
  
  
• She made a "huge gaffe" on the campaign trail by saying Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." Mostly FALSE.
  She did say it, but it's a TRUE statement, so therefore not a gaffe. In fact, Congress approved a "blank check" for the two mortgage giants back in July. McCain came out with a warning about it then. If anything, Palin's words appear to reinforce what McCain has been saying for months.
  
  
• She had an amniocentesis to test for Down's so she could decide whether or not to abort. This shows she's not as "pro-life" as she'd like to pretend.  SPECULATION and likely FALSE.
  I know several parents who have had the amniocentesis done who never had any consideration of getting an abortion. They just wanted to be the most prepared. There's little reason other than blatant partisanship to suspect anything different of Governor Palin.
  
  
• She believes that we're in a "holy war" in Iraq. FALSE. AP did some really sleazy reporting here.
  
  
• She's a member of the John Birch society. FALSE. Although, in this day and age, that might be a compliment rather than a smear.
  
  
• She wasn’t vetted. PROJECTION, and FALSE.
  Old media has an ego problem. They honestly believe that if they didn't report on it, it didn't happen.
  
  
• She's Pentecostal! MAYBE.
  But, so what? Is there something wrong with that, particularly when compared to the Trinity United Church?  The New York Times says she's definitely NOT a religious extremist. (Pentecostals aren't, anyway, just in case you were wondering).
  
  
• She "Hired Friends and Lashed Foes" once elected. MAYBE.
  However, this is hardly a scandal, even if true. Think about it a moment. She campaigned on reform and as a corruption-buster. So, once elected, she fired people from the previous corrupt administration and hired people she knew she could trust. Shocking.
  
  Another point worth making here is that Sarah Palin has about an 85% approval rating in her home state. Now, I know that AK is over 50% Republican, but even if every single one of them likes Palin, that stil means that she's polling better than 50% approval among Democrats and Indepents. Keep that in mind when you read an article in the New York Times or Washington Post telling you how bad things are in AK or full of criticisms of her. It's obvious that they're only presenting the views of the 1 in 7 that dislike her rather than the 6 in 7 that like her.
  
  
• She went to five different colleges before graduating. ELITIST.
  Is it TRUE? Apparently.  Is it relevant? I don't see how, except in a "my candidate went to Harvard" sort of way. I'm really not interested in people's college careers. I'm not even interested in Obama's grades. I'm just curious as to why they haven't been released, and why the press hasn't pushed for them.
  
  
• She should stay home with her family in this time of need. SEXIST.
  
  
• Her daughter getting pregnant reflects poorly on her. Oh God…if this is what you have to settle for, then you’re in deep trouble. There’s not a family in America that hasn’t had similar issues. Somehow I don’t remember Gore’s son being treated this way when it was discovered he had some drug issues. What the H***, I’ll go with SEXIST.
  
  
• The mayor of a town with only 9,000 people doesn't have the experience for the Presidency. Somehow forgetting that she is currently the Governor of AK. Even Community Organizer Barack Obama (D-IL) has gotten into the act:
  
  

  Well, you know, my understanding is that, uh, Governor Palin’s town of Wasilly [sic] has, uh, 50 employees, uh, uh, we’ve got 2500, uh, in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. Uh, uh, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. Uh, so I think that, uh, our ability to manage large systems, uh, and to, uh, execute, uh, I think has been made clear over the last couple of years.

  If that’s your tactic, I’m going to call Obama a “community organizer” from now on and forget all about his Senate job that he doesn’t do anyway. It's worth mentioning here that there was a lot of talk about Governor Tim Kaine (D-VA) as Obama's running-mate. He has no more experience than Palin, and yet I don't recall hearing these kinds of complaints about him. I'm going to have to go with SEXIST again.
  
  BTW, someone please remind Obama that he's not running against Palin. He's running against McCain. And while you're at it, let him know that when he compares her experience to his all that does is remind us that he doesn't have any.
  
  
• Her husband got a DUI 20 years ago. TRUE.
  SO?  If we're going to start eliminating politicians because of substance abuse problems with them and their families, the halls of Congress would be empty. I checked for similar things in the past of some prominent Democrats, but Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment.
  
  
• She got federal money for her city as a mayor. TRUE.
  But isn’t that what mayors are supposed to do?
  
  
• She implemented a plan to have wolves killed from the air. TRUE.
  But, the left is attempting to make a smear out of this, when in fact, it is a good thing. They claim that the wolves are needed to cull the populations of moose and caribou and keep their population from getting out of hand. But, in fact, the wolves are the ones who have gotten out of hand, and threaten the existence of the caribou and moose. This position is pro-environment, NOT anti-environment. This has only been implemented in very limited areas where the wolf population is out of control. Yes, it's controversial, and if you have a better idea for how to handle the wolf population, I'm sure Governor Palin would love to hear from you.
  
  
• She laughed on a radio show when another woman, a cancer survivor, was called a bitch. TRUE.
  But there's much more to the story than just that, and in fact, she does appear to be a bitch.
  
  

  A radio interview with Palin surfaced in which she discussed a petty, last-minute attempt by Lyda Green — the Republican state Senate leader and Palin’s political enemy — to change the time of this year’s state of the state address. The schedule had been set well in advance, but Green cited a transparently bogus scheduling conflict in an attempt to force the speech to a time that would have prevented Palin from attending her son’s graduation. In that context, Palin let loose a small giggle when the radio host called Green a “bitch.”

• Her daughter is pregnant. TRUE.
  Oh, but the media didn't find that one, the Palins released that information in response to the trash I've noted above. It's worth noting that Palin apparently feels that the child is a "blessed event" and doesn't feel that her daughter is being "punished with a baby".
  
  
• She billed the state for nights spent at home. TRUE.
  People that are upset about this don't understand AK's politics or grasp the size of the state. They've been working for years on being the first state to institute "virtual government" allowing the state legislators to form a quorum and vote on issues from their legislative offices back in their home district. Just about every state official, including the Governor spends quite a bit on travel expenses. It's more than legitimate for the Governor to expense travel to and from home. In fact, the Governor could apparently expense far more than she has, and has expensed far less than her predecessors.
  
  
• She should drop out, or McCain should kick her out.  This one has been really picking up steam the last couple of days.  My question: WHY?  The implicit answer is "because we're going to keep making up stuff about her for as long as it takes." Certainly there's no other reason.  Nothing that's TRUE that's been brought up so far even rises to the level of a gnat bite. I'm not sure if this is SEXIST or just SLEAZY, but it's certainly BIASED.
  
  
• The National Enquirer is reporting that she had an affair with a businessman in AK. UNKNOWN.
  I don't discount it automatically because it came from the Enquirer.  Sometimes they get things right.  John Edwards is a recent example.  On the other hand, how many times have they reported that Dr. Phil's marriage is on the rocks?  The Bush's marriage is on the rocks?  Here's what the story says:
  
  

  Another incredible allegation emerging from the family war is that Palin, a mother of five, had an affair with a former business associate of her fisherman husband, Todd.
  “Todd discovered the affair and quickly dissolved his friendship and his business associations with the guy,” charges an enemy. “Many people in Alaska are talking about the rumor and say Todd swept it under the rug.”

  Seems pretty thin, even by Enquirer standards. But, it is possible that this is the only TRUE and relevant story out there. We'll see. The Smoking Gun has more info on this, and at least the main reason behind this speculation is FALSE. The status of the entire story is still UNKNOWN.  This blog has more. My FALSE meter's starting to get twitchy.
  
  
• She called Obama "Sambo" and Hillary "Bitch". UNKNOWN and likely to remain so.
  This comes from the LA Progressive, apparently a "news" site. They have one source, a waitress named "Lucille". Unless other sources are found and can confirm it, then it will likely stay UNKNOWN, as it will be nearly impossible to disprove. I'm going go to with "innocent until proven guilty" here, especially given that there's only one source. I suppose Governor Palin could be a big jazz fan, but she's only two years older than me, and that's not a reference I'd make. I had to think on it a minute when I heard it to realize what the article was talking about. In the same vein, I could call up RedState and tell them that I heard Obama threatening to bomb the Pentagon if defeated. It would carry the same weight. Of course, one difference is that RedState probably wouldn't believe me and therefore wouldn't publish it.
  

Ok, so after probably tens of thousands of man-hours of research what have our best and brightest on the left come up with that's relevant and TRUE?
Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. Also, this seems to belie the statement that she wasn't vetted properly.
Now, if only the press was so interested in vetting Obama. But I’ve given up on that.

This post will continue to be updated as long as more "vetting" occurs.

UPDATE: Many updates have occurred in-line.  I'm not going to post that an update has occurred every time I do one.  Too much trouble.  However, I wanted to point out that Charles Martin at Explorations has another list. He's done some impressive work and it's worthwhile checking out. I have some things that he doesn't have, and he has some things that I don't have. I'm working to bring mine up to compatible with his.
UPDATE: People who have contributed to this list, either knowingly or unknowingly are too numerous to mention. But I thank you all, and most of you are linked.
UPDATE: I'm having a hard time keeping up. Let me know if you know of any others.
UPDATE: It was getting hard to read, so I added in more whitespace. Unfortunately, this has the effect of making this post even longer (by the scrollwheel count anyway).
UPDATE: More on SEXIST attacks against Governor Palin can be found here.