Time for a Change

[Boreas]

I have been participating in various political discussions in here. I am also listening to news about Stephen Harper's announcement of a Canadian election. All this focus on elections and policies has gotten me thinking. One commentator on CBC spoke of how the Canadian election can be an opportunity for clear statement of vision rather than what each party is not doing.

I am reminded of our former and late Saskatchewan Premiere Tommy Douglas's story of Mouseland:
Mouseland
<!-- start main content --><!-- begin content -->One of Tommy Douglas's most enduring pieces of oratory is the story of Mouseland. It has inspired generations of social activists and progressive leaders alike.

This is the story of a place called Mouseland. Mouseland was a place where all the little mice lived and played. Were born and died. And they lived much as you and I do. They even had a parliament. And every four years they had an election. They used to walk to the polls and cast their ballot. Some of them even got a ride to the polls. They got a ride for the next four years afterward too. Just like you and me. And every time on election day, all the little mice used to go to the ballot box and they used to elect a government. A government made up of big black fat cats.
Now if you think it’s strange that mice should elect a government made up of cats. You just look at the history of Canada for the last ninety years and maybe you’ll see they weren’t any stupider than we are.
Now I am not saying anything against the cats. They were nice fellows; they conducted the government with dignity. They passed good laws. That is, laws that were good for cats.
But the laws that were good for cats weren’t very good for mice. One of the laws said that mouse holes had to be big enough so a cat could get his paw in. Another law said that mice could only travel at certain speeds so that a cat could get his breakfast without too much physical effort.
All the laws were good laws for cats. But oh, they were hard on the mice. And life was getting harder and harder. And when the mice couldn’t put up with it anymore they decided something had to be done about it. So they went en masse the polls.
They voted the black cats out. They put in the white cats. The white cats had put up a terrific campaign. They said all that Mouseland needs is more vision. They said the trouble with Mouseland is those round mouse holes we’ve got. If you put us in we’ll establish square mouse holes. And they did. And the square mouse holes were twice as big as the round mouse holes. And now the cat could get both his paws in. And life was tougher than ever.
And when they couldn’t take that anymore they voted the white cats out and put the black ones in again. And then they went back to the white cats, and then to the black, they even tried half black cats and half white cats. And they called that coalition. They even got one government made up with up cats with spots on them. They were cats that tried to make a noise like a mouse but they ate like a cat.
You see my friends the trouble wasn’t with the colour of the cats. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats they naturally look after cats instead of mice.
Presently there came along one little mouse who had an idea. My friends watch out for the little fellow with an idea. He said to the other mice. “Look fellows why do we keep electing a government made up of cats, why don’t we elect a government made up of mice?” Oh, they said, he’s a Bolshevik. So they put him in jail. But I want to remind you that you can lock up a mouse or a man but you can’t lock up an idea.

http://www.tommydouglas.ca/mouseland



I am thinking that the two major parties of each country are merely different coloured "cats". I am inclined to wonder if a Democratic President in the US, or a Liberal PM in Canada will be a lot different.

What do you think? How do we revamp the system? I know it is not likely to happen in most of our lifetimes. Perhaps we can get the ball moving.

[ki4kxq]

The problem here is that we have strayed very far from the government our founding fathers envisioned. There should not be the very entrenched republican or democrat government. When the founding fathers set up this country, it was supposed to be self governance with elected representatives. The concept was that farmers, businessmen, common folks were to leave their jobs and businesses for a brief amount of time to give their ideas, then go back to their lives.

We now have career politicians. People like Ted Kennedy, John McCain and others who have been in office forever are our detriment. This is not how it was supposed to be. What do any of these people know about everyday problems, running a business, making a payroll, etc. NOTHING! The one thing that would benefit ALL Americans is to vote in term limits. 2 terms for congress and one for the senate. That should be plenty of time and actually should probably be one term for each.

I believe that one thing would solve 90% of our problems. Our elected officials are too busy trying to stay in power over the people than to represent the people.

[Fitz1980]

Politicians and baby's diapers should both be changed often, and for the same reason.

[Boreas]

If that is the case ki, then what do you think of MoonShadow's post about community organizers?

Why is the Republican party so actively mocking community organizers??
What do any of these people know about everyday problems,

Perhaps based on that statement, Obama knows more about everyday people than does McCain.

[Qikdraw]

The problem here is that we have strayed very far from the government our founding fathers envisioned.

And the right wing of the republican party wants to take us further away from what the Founding Fathers envisioned. Time and again we hear how they want to put conservative judges on the supreme court. The supreme court is one of the branches of government, and judges are chosen for the spot, for life, to kep these judges away from politics. So no matter who is in office they can rule, based on the Constitution and precedence, without regard to politics. The right wing republicans want to change this.

This is completely against what the Founding Fathers intended and completely against how this country was set up. The right wing republicans do not care about what the Founding Fathers envisioned, nor do they care about the people, they simply want their ideology pushed over evry single American, and they crave the power.

This is wrong, and it needs to be stopped. Put judges in the supreme court who rule on the Constitution and precedence. Not religion or ideology.

[ki4kxq]

And the right wing of the republican party wants to take us further away from what the Founding Fathers envisioned. Time and again we hear how they want to put conservative judges on the supreme court. The supreme court is one of the branches of government, and judges are chosen for the spot, for life, to kep these judges away from politics. So no matter who is in office they can rule, based on the Constitution and precedence, without regard to politics. The right wing republicans want to change this.

This is completely against what the Founding Fathers intended and completely against how this country was set up. The right wing republicans do not care about what the Founding Fathers envisioned, nor do they care about the people, they simply want their ideology pushed over evry single American, and they crave the power.

This is wrong, and it needs to be stopped. Put judges in the supreme court who rule on the Constitution and precedence. Not religion or ideology.


I believe that is where we differ. The founding fathers wanted self governance, not the bloated federal government that the democrats tout. Also, Scalia and Thomas are very strict constructionist judges. In other words, they adhere to the constitution, not ad lib it like others.

But that is why there are two different parties I guess. I see nothing like what the founding fathers envisioned coming out of the democratic party these days. More government programs, more taxes, more spending, more regulation.

[ki4kxq]

If that is the case ki, then what do you think of MoonShadow's post about community organizers?

Why is the Republican party so actively mocking community organizers??


Perhaps based on that statement, Obama knows more about everyday people than does McCain.

They started with the community organizer when Obama started harping on Palin's experience as a Mayor, completely leaving out that she has been a governor the last two years. He was trying to belittle her experience, and people turned it around on him. Pointing out that a community organizer does not make major decisions, but a mayor and governor do. Not very mature on either side.

Quite frankly, I would rather have someone with no Washington experience. That is Palin alone. I would rather have someone with ideology that I believe in and good judgement. As for foreign policy experience, that is what you have advisors for. As long as you have a good foundation and can make a decision, you'll be ok.

[NudeAl]

The problem here is that we have strayed very far from the government our founding fathers envisioned. There should not be the very entrenched republican or democrat government. When the founding fathers set up this country, it was supposed to be self governance with elected representatives. The concept was that farmers, businessmen, common folks were to leave their jobs and businesses for a brief amount of time to give their ideas, then go back to their lives.

We now have career politicians. People like Ted Kennedy, John McCain and others who have been in office forever are our detriment. This is not how it was supposed to be. What do any of these people know about everyday problems, running a business, making a payroll, etc. NOTHING! The one thing that would benefit ALL Americans is to vote in term limits. 2 terms for congress and one for the senate. That should be plenty of time and actually should probably be one term for each.

I believe that one thing would solve 90% of our problems. Our elected officials are too busy trying to stay in power over the people than to represent the people.

Amen! I am actually very much in favor of that also no more lifetime pensions for just serving they can buy into a nice 401K or something. Unfortunatly when you get to vote for your own pay raises you tend to forget about how things are in the real world.

[Qikdraw]

I believe that is where we differ. The founding fathers wanted self governance, not the bloated federal government that the democrats tout. Also, Scalia and Thomas are very strict constructionist judges. In other words, they adhere to the constitution, not ad lib it like others.

The boated federal government the democrats tout? This completely ignores that the last 3 republican presidents have increased the size of government far more than the last 3 democratic presidents have.

You can differ if you want, but it is quite clear that the supreme court was not supposed to be used as a political bench. To do so, and do advocate doing so, goes against everythign the US was founded upon.

But that is why there are two different parties I guess. I see nothing like what the founding fathers envisioned coming out of the democratic party these days. More government programs, more taxes, more spending, more regulation.

I'm sorry but how many TRILLIONS has Bush put on the federal debt? Its between 4 and 5 TRILLION dollars. In eight years. To now claim democrats are irresponsible with the federal budget is rank hypocracy.
We've previously agreed that the Patiot Act is wrong, so I won't go there other than to say it was the republicans that put it in. You think the Founding Fathers envisioned that?
In a thread with sanslines we talked about how when the feds cut funding, states and communities have to pick up the slack, so they raise taxes. It ends up being the same thing. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.
Deregulation led to the mortgage crisis which has completely effected our economy. Deregulation led to the Enron scandal, where they bilked California out of 9 billion dollars. This was the result of republican deregulation.

[Qikdraw]

They started with the community organizer when Obama started harping on Palin's experience as a Mayor, completely leaving out that she has been a governor the last two years. He was trying to belittle her experience, and people turned it around on him. Pointing out that a community organizer does not make major decisions, but a mayor and governor do. Not very mature on either side.

How is questioning her policies as mayor equal to insulting every single community worker out there? That just doesn't fly at all. Questioning policy is not a personal attack. As much as the right wing is trying to make it so, it just isn't.

Even life long republicans who are community workers are pissed off at the comments made, not only once, but a few times.

[Boreas]

We are still talking about the virtues of black cats v.s. white cats. Are there any mice on the sidelines? :confused:

For the record, I do not expect to see a mouse show up for this election.

[usmc1]

I believe that is where we differ. The founding fathers wanted self governance, not the bloated federal government that the democrats tout. Also, Scalia and Thomas are very strict constructionist judges. In other words, they adhere to the constitution, not ad lib it like others.

But that is why there are two different parties I guess. I see nothing like what the founding fathers envisioned coming out of the democratic party these days. More government programs, more taxes, more spending, more regulation.

Channeling the founders again?

Share with us Jefferson's intent with rewriting the bible? And, that fellow Adams. What was his intent with increasing federal debt to build a navy, after all we had a whole ocean between us an Europe, now didn't we?

I am so glad we have someone here who can do this for us. I have so many questions, especially about the intent of some their writings in what we call the Federalist Papers. Dang old founders, can be a tad obscure sometimes for we mere mortals.

If I give you some specific "intent" questions would you channel them for me.

[usmc1]

We are still talking about the virtues of black cats v.s. white cats. Are there any mice on the sidelines? :confused:

For the record, I do not expect to see a mouse show up for this election.

My best cat ever was Mollie lived 20 years and died in my arms some years ago, and I miss her everyday, and she was a Jellico cat, they're the very best, just ask Ole Possum. And, good old Sweet William, was a ginger tom, they're the next best to Jellicos.

"Jellico Cats are white and black,
Jellico Cats are of moderate size;
Jellicos jump like a jumping jack,
Jellico Cats have moonlit eyes
They're quiet enough in the morning hours,
They're quiet enough in the afternoon,
Reserving their terpsichorean powers
To dance by the light of the Jellico Moon"

Least ways that's what Ole Possum says, and he knows more about cats than damned near anybody.

And dang it!, you know what, it's just come to me, Obama is a Jellico person!

[Naturist Mark]

Also, Scalia and Thomas are very strict constructionist judges. In other words, they adhere to the constitution, not ad lib it like others.

Snort!

They are just as out on a limb judicial activists as the most progressive judge when it comes to their issues. They have never ruled against a large corporation. They seldom rule in favor of preserving long standing individual rights (like Habeus Corpus). And they come up with inventive new concepts out of the blue to suit their purposes - such as in Bush v. Gore.

Strict constructionist is just a slogan. These Federalist Society (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1466.html) judges, Scalia and Thomas in particular, have never been real strict constructionists.

-Mark

[Boreas]

My best cat ever was Mollie lived 29 years and died in my arms some years ago, and I miss her everyday, and she was a Jellico cat, they're the very best, just ask Ole Possum. And, good old Sweet William, was a ginger tom, they're the next best to Jellicos.

"Jellico Cats are white and black,
Jellico Cats are of moderate size;
Jellicos jump like a jumping jack,
Jellico Cats have moonlit eyes
They're quiet enough in the morning hours,
They're quiet enough in the afternoon,
Reserving their terpsichorean powers
To dance by the light of the Jellico Moon"

Least ways that's what Ole Possum says, and he knows more about cats than damned near anybody.

And dang it!, you know what, it's just come to me, Obama is a Jellico person!

Well, I guess that is an improved cat. T.S. Elliot was wise in that way BTW. ;)

Does Obama have any mouse in him? As a mouse, I am tired of the cats ruling the show.

*btw, I have a real, as opposed to metaphorical, cat purring and cooing on my lap right now.

[jon71]

I don't think we've ever had judges who LESS adhere to the constitution that Thomas and Scalia. They rule based on what they WISH the constitution says. A fine example of the conservative fantasy world.

[Qikdraw]

My best cat ever was Mollie lived 20 years and died in my arms some years ago, and I miss her everyday,

Taking this off topic a bit... I miss my 20 year old cat too. He was no special breed, he was a famr cat that the previous owners had a baby and they could not have the cat around any longer, so we took him in and he was still a small kitten. This cat went with me through 4 cities and two countries. That cat had more flying time than many of my friends. I miss him batting my head to wake me up to feed him. :)

[Boreas]

Taking this off topic a bit... I miss my 20 year old cat too. He was no special breed, he was a famr cat that the previous owners had a baby and they could not have the cat around any longer, so we took him in and he was still a small kitten. This cat went with me through 4 cities and two countries. That cat had more flying time than many of my friends. I miss him batting my head to wake me up to feed him. :)

He sounds like a cool cat.

So, do you get Mr. Douglas' metaphor? Mr Canadian. :) Any comments.

[Qikdraw]

He sounds like a cool cat.

So, do you get Mr. Douglas' metaphor? Mr Canadian. :) Any comments.

Nope I missed that one. :( Was it talking about something specific in Cdn politics or what? Sorry. I guess living amongst Americans for so long has leeched some of my Canadianess out. :(

By the bye... I am heading back to Wpg at the end of December with my wife. She thinks I am trying to kill her. lol Even the girl who took my reservation asked if my wife knew I was taking her to Wpg, in winter. LOL I don't think my wife has seen anything below -3C. Its gonna be fun! :D

[Boreas]

Nope I missed that one. :( Sorry. I guess living amongst Americans for so long has leeched some of my Canadianess out. :(

By the bye... I am heading back to Wpg at the end of December with my wife. She thinks I am trying to kill her. lol Even the girl who took my reservation asked if my wife knew I was taking her to Wpg, in winter. LOL I don't think my wife has seen anything below -3C. Its gonna be fun! :D

LOL. Please DO give a trip report on THAT one! I will pray for your wife.

[Oceanair]

First thing is get rid of the IRS get the money out and we would not have all these leaches hanging around Washington.

Second get rid of all Federal Government Programs except for National Defense and Internal Defense (Keep Peace Between The States).

[usmc1]

First thing is get rid of the IRS get the money out and we would not have all these leaches hanging around Washington.

Second get rid of all Federal Government Programs except for National Defense and Internal Defense (Keep Peace Between The States).
Remeber what I said about the the shame of the decline of public education?

[ki4kxq]

How is questioning her policies as mayor equal to insulting every single community worker out there? That just doesn't fly at all. Questioning policy is not a personal attack. As much as the right wing is trying to make it so, it just isn't.

Even life long republicans who are community workers are pissed off at the comments made, not only once, but a few times.

Maybe you didn't hear Obama speak, he was not referring to her policies as mayor, in fact, he never mentioned one policy she implemented as mayor. He was saying she didn't have the experience to be VP because she had only been a small town mayor, never mentioning her tenure as governor.

Let me also rephrase my point about bloated federal government and spending. Politicians of both parties have been spending like drunken sailors. Conservative republicans loudly critized Bush and the republican controlled congress and senate for their spending as well. However, as a voting group, republican voters do want limited federal government in size and scope, along with massive spending cuts and reasonble tax cuts. Democratic voters, it appears, want more government programs.

[Sanslines]

Are you serious about getting rid of ALL fed government programs? Do you realize the chaos that would exist in this country? Corporations running wild and doing whatever they wish, pollute whatever they wish and this list could get long; people shooting each other, robbing each other; taking whatever they want; polluting wherever they want to; Insurance companies running amuck;


Ok.....ok....back to the Wild Wild West we go. Time to get out my Wild Bill books.

People shooting and robbing each other? Sounds like daily life in any major U.S. city.

[ki4kxq]

LOL --- many of us would like to see the IRS removed but that isn't going to happen.

Are you serious about getting rid of ALL fed government programs? Do you realize the chaos that would exist in this country? Corporations running wild and doing whatever they wish, pollute whatever they wish and this list could get long; people shooting each other, robbing each other; taking whatever they want; polluting wherever they want to; Insurance companies running amuck;

The reason we have so many programs now is that we,the people, did not hold ourselves accountable on what we did and that includes corporations and small businesses.

Yes, some programs could go, but most cannot as we have shown throughout history, we are out of control when left up to our own devices and vices.

Moonshadow, with all due respect, maybe you should look up the difference between "laws" and "government programs" I believe the poster was referring to government programs such as welfare, social security, earned income tax credits, etc, etc, etc.

Some regulations and laws are needed, we do not want mob rule or anarchy. Government programs, that's a very different kettle of fish and I think you all know exactly what he was referring to, just trying to be a little melodramatic were you?

[Sanslines]

Trust me, it would be worse than the wild, wild West.

Yes, people are shooting and robbing each other today, but our regulations and laws also prevent those who have considered it to not do so; imagine if there were no regulations?

Why I would have to get out the pick and shovel and start digging a 'secret' bunker to hide from wild, roaving hoards of outlaws, killers, and robbers. We should also be grateful that the 'regulations' keep the lynch mob and radical hate mongers at bay!

[hm0504]

As we know, the Republicans are the party of small government -- firmly believing that government should stay out of business' way and let the free market decide where the chips shall fall.

I thus assume there was an unreported coup in Washington DC recently when I saw the headlines that the U.S. Federal Government took over Freddie Mac and Fannie May in what appears to be the largest corporate bailout in history. Could someone give me pointers to the outraged Republican reaction to this event which goes against everything they hold dear. (I assume the liberal media has been failing to report what must be a huge Republican backlash against the Whitehouse imposters.)

[Qikdraw]

Let me also rephrase my point about bloated federal government and spending. Politicians of both parties have been spending like drunken sailors. Conservative republicans loudly critized Bush and the republican controlled congress and senate for their spending as well. However, as a voting group, republican voters do want limited federal government in size and scope, along with massive spending cuts and reasonble tax cuts. Democratic voters, it appears, want more government programs.

Yes you need to rephrase because your formerly beloved president has spent this country into massive debt far more than any democratis president ever has, now you have to rephrase to say both parties do it. Yes both parties do it, but republicans are far more reponsible for putting more money on the national debt. I find it funny how so many republicans are staying the hell away from Bush in this election although they all supported him in bankrupting this country. Where is your praising of Bush now?

Republican VOTERS do want a limited government in size and scope, but you don't get that from your politicians. Frankly I don't see why republicans keep voting the same people in. None of the things the voters care for are even considered at all.

Massive spending cuts and reasonable tax cuts. I have no problems with this, however we differ into where this happens. I want pork barrel spending stopped, like the 'bridge to nowhere'. I think Bills should only containly like issues. In other words a Bill dealing with healthcare issues cannot contain anything but healthcare issues. No last minute changes or additions without further voting. Tax cuts should be done to the middle class and not the rich. Why? You don't build a house from the top down, you make sure the foudation is strong and by the time you get to the roof it has strong support from below and everyone benefits. Since the republicans had complete control of government they made sure they tried the 'trickkel down' theory and look where it has gotten us. It doesn't work, tzx cuts for the poor and middle class are what works best. This is what Canada did and their economy grew while the US's sank. Don't misunderstand me either, I am not for punishing the rich, I want them to pay their 'fair share' without tax loopholes to get out of paying.

Democrat voters want a reponsible and well run government. The republican politicians do everything they can to make sure government programs just don't work, then point to them and say they don't work and are wasteful.

Whats the saying? 'Republicans say government doesn't work and then get in office and prove it.'

The last 8 years have certainly proven that.

[usmc1]

Warned by the Court
A judge repeatedly told Palin and family not to badmouth her sister's ex

Mark Hosenball
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 7:36 PM ET Sep 9, 2008


An Anchorage judge three years ago warned Sarah Palin and members of her family to stop "disparaging" the reputation of Alaska State Trooper Michael Wooten, who at the time was undergoing a bitter separation and divorce from Palin's sister Molly.

Allegations that Palin, her husband Todd, and at least one top gubernatorial aide continued to vilify Wooten—after Palin became Alaska's governor and pressured state police officials to take action against him—are at the center of "Troopergate," a political and ethical controversy which has embroiled Palin's administration and is currently the subject of an official inquiry by a special investigator hired by the state legislature.

Court records obtained by NEWSWEEK show that during the course of divorce hearings three years ago, Judge John Suddock heard testimony from an official of the Alaska State Troopers' union about how Sarah Palin—then a private citizen—and members of her family, including her father and daughter, lodged up to a dozen complaints against Wooten with the state police. The union official told the judge that he had never before been asked to appear as a divorce-case witness, that the union believed family complaints against Wooten were "not job-related," and that Wooten was being "harassed" by Palin and other family members.

Court documents show that Judge Suddock was disturbed by the alleged attacks by Palin and her family members on Wooten's behavior and character. "Disparaging will not be tolerated—it is a form of child abuse," the judge told a settlement hearing in October 2005, according to typed notes of the proceedings. The judge added: "Relatives cannot disparage either. If occurs [sic] the parent needs to set boundaries for their relatives."

A spokesperson for the law firm that represented Palin's sister, now known as Molly Hackett, said Hackett's lawyer would have no comment because custody issues are still in litigation. Other lawyers representing Sarah Palin in connection with the state legislative investigation—which is examining whether she abused her powers as governor in trying to have Wooten fired or disciplined—had no immediate comment. Palin's official gubernatorial spokeswoman did not respond to e-mails and a phone message requesting comment.

Wooten's lawyer also did not respond to messages requesting comment. John Cyr, executive director of the State Troopers union, who testified at the divorce hearing and is acting as Wooten's spokesman, said Wooten has avoided giving media interviews because he wants to avoid criticizing his former relatives (to date, Wooten has granted just one interview, to CNN).

As the divorce case dragged on, the judge's concern about family "disparagement" appeared to deepen. In an order signed Jan. 31, 2006, which granted Palin's sister and Wooten a final divorce decree, Judge Suddock continued to express concern about attacks by Palin's family on Wooten. The judge even threatened to curb Palin's sister's child custody rights if family criticism of Wooten continued.

In monitoring how a joint-custody arrangement worked out, the judge said in his order that he would pay particular attention to problems noted by a "custody investigator," specifically "the disparagement of the father [Wooten] by the mother [Molly Hackett, Sarah Palin's sister] and her family members."

"It is the mother's [Hackett's] responsibility to set boundaries for her relatives and insure [sic] they respect them, and the disparagement by either parent, or their surrogates is emotional child abuse," Judge Suddock wrote. He added that: "If the court finds it is necessary due to disparagement in the Mat-Su Valley [the area north of Anchorage where Palin and her extended family live], for the children's best interests, it [the court] will not hesitate to order custody to the father and a move into Anchorage." Cyr, the union official, said that to his knowledge, no such move was ever ordered.

The "Troopergate" special investigator, former prosecutor Steve Branchflower, was hired by a unanimous vote of state legislative leaders. His mission: to investigate whether Palin fired Walter Monegan—her State Public Safety Commissioner (and the official in charge of the State Police)—when he refused to dismiss or open a new disciplinary investigation of Wooten after receiving complaints about him from Gov. Palin and her husband Todd. Initially, Palin indicated she would cooperate with the investigation. But more recently, a lawyer hired by the state to represent her in the case asked the Alaska Attorney General to request that a state personnel board conduct its own special-counsel inquiry and demanded that the state legislature back off.

At the heart of the continuing "Troopergate" flap is evidence that despite Judge Suddock's warnings back in 2005 and 2006, Palin and her husband continued to make disparaging allegations against Wooten, even after she went to the statehouse. During her first security briefing with a representative of the state police, Palin and Todd were both asked whether they knew of any potential physical threats against them, according to a deposition taken from one of Palin's top aides following her election in Nov. 2006. Both said the only threat they were aware of was posed by Wooten.

The Palins later raised allegations about Wooten with public-safety chief Monegan, according to an account Monegan gave to The Washington Post. Last February, a top Palin gubernatorial aide named Frank Bailey criticized Wooten in detail in a conversation with another senior state-police official. Bailey repeated previous charges made by the Palins against the trooper—including allegations that he had Tasered his stepson; driven a cop car while holding a beer; and shot a moose without a permit (charges which resulted in his suspension for five days without pay as a trooper). But Bailey also made a new allegation: that Wooten might have submitted a questionable workers' compensation claim. The state police recorded Bailey's conversation, and Palin later released it after Monegan's sacking.

Palin and Bailey both said that Palin did not instigate Bailey's complaints about Wooten to the police. Bailey, who is now on paid leave from his state job, has said that in trashing Wooten to state police management, he had "overstepped my boundaries … I should not have spoken for the governor, or Todd, for that matter."

In a press release issued last week by her new lawyer, Palin continued to attack the character of Wooten—still serving as a state trooper in Palin's hometown of Wasilla. The release repeats allegations that Wooten had threatened members of her family, including her father, with violence; that Wooten had threatened to "bring" Palin and members of her family "down;" and that Wooten had once been the subject of a court-imposed domestic-violence protection order. A court filing by Wooten's lawyer indicates that within months of being issued, the violence protection order was dismissed.

[ki4kxq]

Yes you need to rephrase because your formerly beloved president has spent this country into massive debt far more than any democratis president ever has, now you have to rephrase to say both parties do it. Yes both parties do it, but republicans are far more reponsible for putting more money on the national debt. I find it funny how so many republicans are staying the hell away from Bush in this election although they all supported him in bankrupting this country. Where is your praising of Bush now?

Republican VOTERS do want a limited government in size and scope, but you don't get that from your politicians. Frankly I don't see why republicans keep voting the same people in. None of the things the voters care for are even considered at all.

Massive spending cuts and reasonable tax cuts. I have no problems with this, however we differ into where this happens. I want pork barrel spending stopped, like the 'bridge to nowhere'. I think Bills should only containly like issues. In other words a Bill dealing with healthcare issues cannot contain anything but healthcare issues. No last minute changes or additions without further voting. Tax cuts should be done to the middle class and not the rich. Why? You don't build a house from the top down, you make sure the foudation is strong and by the time you get to the roof it has strong support from below and everyone benefits. Since the republicans had complete control of government they made sure they tried the 'trickkel down' theory and look where it has gotten us. It doesn't work, tzx cuts for the poor and middle class are what works best. This is what Canada did and their economy grew while the US's sank. Don't misunderstand me either, I am not for punishing the rich, I want them to pay their 'fair share' without tax loopholes to get out of paying.

Democrat voters want a reponsible and well run government. The republican politicians do everything they can to make sure government programs just don't work, then point to them and say they don't work and are wasteful.

Whats the saying? 'Republicans say government doesn't work and then get in office and prove it.'

The last 8 years have certainly proven that.

Tax cuts will work for everybody when spending is cut as well. The problem is, we have never done both together, in either party. Reagan had the right idea with tax cuts, got a promise of spending cuts from the congress, they didn't follow through. That along with having to spend massive amounts to rebuild our military from years of neglect added up to some pretty hefty deficits.

I agree with you on earmarks. They should be stopped completely. Bills should only have things in them that pertain to that particular bill, no hiding things in there to get them passed.

As far as GW is concerned, you don't talk to many conservatives do you? I agree with him on the war on terrorists and he did cut taxes. After that, he definately did not govern as a fiscal conservative. He vetoed not one spending bill and there was plenty to veto. Do you not remember conservatives going crazy when he passed the medicare drug program. He also was not conservative on border issues. I have a lot of problems with GW. However, your premise on tax cuts is wrong. Everytime taxes are cut to all wage earners, along with corporate rates and capital gains rates cut, revenue to the treasury INCREASES. Even the democrat party hero JFK realized this. You say the president has spent us into massive debt, I believe you have forgotten that spending happens in the congress. Both parties are to blame.

With everything you said, I don't see how on earth you can justify voting for Obama. He is one of the worst offenders when it comes to earmarks. Nearly 1 billion within his tenure. John McCain, if I'm not mistaken, has zero. Obama has done nothing but promised new spending, new spending, new spending. What you say you want, and what Obama preaches just doesn't jive.

Heard the other day that there was 30% of the medicare budget unaccounted for. That's ridiculous. If that happened in private sector, the ones responsible would be fired. This has been going on for years. That is why I don't trust the government with anything, much less healthcare.

[Qikdraw]

Tax cuts will work for everybody when spending is cut as well. The problem is, we have never done both together, in either party. Reagan had the right idea with tax cuts, got a promise of spending cuts from the congress, they didn't follow through. That along with having to spend massive amounts to rebuild our military from years of neglect added up to some pretty hefty deficits.

Reagan turned this country from being the biggest lending nation to the biggest debtor nation. He didn't spend money on the military because of previous neglect, he did it to give the military industrial complex a hand in the till, its been there ever since. To give credit where crdit is due, Reagans' massive military spending certainly quickened the end of the cold war. I believe it would have ended at some point in the future anyway, but he certainly quickened the end.

I agree with you on earmarks. They should be stopped completely. Bills should only have things in them that pertain to that particular bill, no hiding things in there to get them passed.

Shall I break out the champagne or should you? We agree on something! :D I knew it had to happen eventually.

As far as GW is concerned, you don't talk to many conservatives do you? I agree with him on the war on terrorists and he did cut taxes. After that, he definately did not govern as a fiscal conservative. He vetoed not one spending bill and there was plenty to veto. Do you not remember conservatives going crazy when he passed the medicare drug program. He also was not conservative on border issues. I have a lot of problems with GW. However, your premise on tax cuts is wrong. Everytime taxes are cut to all wage earners, along with corporate rates and capital gains rates cut, revenue to the treasury INCREASES. Even the democrat party hero JFK realized this. You say the president has spent us into massive debt, I believe you have forgotten that spending happens in the congress. Both parties are to blame.

Actually until the past few years my whole neighbourhood were registered republicans, and had been their whole lives. Now 3 families have reregistered as independentes because of Bush.
Bush is the first president in the history of the US to cut taxes while at war, becaause it was believed that we need more money to fight a war.
I remember the medicare spending bill, it was an instance of the Bush admin lying even to his own party. They said it would cost 'X' amount, then after it was signed it majically went up another 100+ million. Many republicans were seriously pissed and said that if they knew the true cost of it they would not have voted for it.
My premise on tax cuts is not wrong. As I mentioned Canada did cut taxes, but on the middle class, not the wealthy, this helped Canada's economy stay strong, even though it is closely tied to the American economy. Usually when the US's economy goes down, so does Canada's.
I do say the president spent us into massive debt, do you forget who had control of congress and the senate until 2006?

With everything you said, I don't see how on earth you can justify voting for Obama. He is one of the worst offenders when it comes to earmarks. Nearly 1 billion within his tenure. John McCain, if I'm not mistaken, has zero. Obama has done nothing but promised new spending, new spending, new spending. What you say you want, and what Obama preaches just doesn't jive.

Well you obviously have not read Obama's plan. Check out this (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2008/db20080611_220050.htm) article. McCain is going to continue Bush's policies which has gotten us to the state we are in. It is McCain's economic policies that I disagree the most with him.

Heard the other day that there was 30% of the medicare budget unaccounted for. That's ridiculous. If that happened in private sector, the ones responsible would be fired. This has been going on for years. That is why I don't trust the government with anything, much less healthcare.

Where did you see that? I would love to see where that was based on. However the Pentagon recently released that they 'lost' over TWO TRILLION dollars. Talk about mismanagement. If you really want to save money, go through defence spending and find the waste. But I agree, if that 30% number is true, they need to smarten up. But you really need to read up on how a universal healthcare system works. Its actually cheaper than what the US spends now and it will cover everybody.

I think we both agree that there is government waste, and both of us want it to change, but we disagree on where. :)