THE FACTS.... STAY FOCUSED, MAN!!!!!!!!

Sorry guys, but I couldn't help myself. You had to know that debate would strike a nerve. I will admit, she stayed on message, but it was the equivalent of an "actor" reciting lines they memorized/wrote down/read off of a Blackberry, in preparation for a performance.

I will admit, she held her own, but she did so simply because the bar was set so low, and she didn't have a major gaffe(the way EVERYONE thought she would), her performance was rated a "success", on the surface. But, those of us paying attention know better. Her knowledge of the facts is lacking, her vision for America doesn't address it's most pressing needs (The Economy/ Jobs/ Infrastructure/ Alternative Energy/ Healthcare/ Education/ & THE MIDDLE CLASS). I don't know about you, but for me, that's just not good enough!!!

They say, forget the facts, or her relative naivety of national issues. That's all irrelevant, Palin doesn't need to get bogged down with details, she "connects" to the average American, and she has energized the GOP base. Basically style over substance is adequate for "their" candidate ONLY.

Funny, a couple of weeks before he chose Palin as his running mate, didn't McCain characterize Obama's whole candidacy of being similar to HOLLYWOOD celebrity infatuation, inexperienced, and inadequate when it comes to having what it takes to be commander in chief?

Apparently, a dip in the polls, has the ability to spin your whole ideology in a nano second. It appears that Palin's "maverick" quality is the basis of her candidacy, coupled with her "qualifications as Gov of Alaska", plus the fact that she is a "Washington outsider", however, based on the FACTS, it is evident that she isn't very far off from the norm.

She is willing to say what they "think" the American people want to hear, and distort the record when it is advantageous to their position, IN ORDER TO WIN!!!!

When they spoke about Obama's "social agenda" ambitions, with "trillions in new spending", who do you think Obama's spending policies are designed to help?? That's right, approx 80%-95% (based on several independent analysts), of the American population.

Translation: Ordinary Joe six Packs, and majority of the nation that has been feeling the brunt of this administrations failed policies WAYYYY before they were even willing to admit there was a problem with Economy. Basically, the social agenda pertains to you, me, and almost everyone you know within six degrees of separation.

Remember McCain's out of touch remark about a week before the market nearly collapsed, "the fundamentals of the economy are strong". Yeah, if your RICH!!!!!!!! It took the possibility of a total collapse, for them (G. Bush too) to acknowledge, and make an effort to do "something" about the crisis. And, I didn't hear the mavericks railing against all of the pork added to the ratified bill for all of the "special interests" = Big Business. McCain/Palin, better yet, a Palin/McCainticket WILL BE A CONTINUATIONof the last 8 years of FAILED leadership, or simply put, just more of the same. And I don't care how much LIPSTICK you use to mask their agenda, it's still does not take away from the fact their party does not fight for the "regular Joe". It's just more swine politics.

Take a look below at the contradictions, and SPIN, for yourself, and YOU DECIDE.....MORE @: http://blaqops.blogspot.com/http://www.myspace.com/reciprok8http://www.thisis50.com/profile/BLAQOPS23
Fact Check: Did Obama vote 94 times for higher taxes?

Posted: 09:36 PM ET
The Statement: At a debate Thursday, Oct. 2 in St. Louis, Missouri, Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin charged Democrat Sen. Barack Obama of supporting higher taxes.

"Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes, and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction — 94 times."

Get the facts!The Facts: The effort to convince voters that Sen. Barack Obama would support higher taxes is a central part of Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. McCain and the Republican National Committee have repeatedly cited 94 alleged votes by Obama to bolster their argument.

Factcheck.org, a non-partisan project of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, pieced through records to determine just what these 94 instances were. Key findings: –23 were against proposed tax cuts. — 7 were "for measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals."

– 11 were to increase taxes on people making more than $1 million a year, to help fund programs such as Head Start, school nutrition, or veterans' health care.

– 53 were votes on budget resolutions or amendments that "could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes," though many "were clear statements of approval for increased taxes"

The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures. Annenberg says a close look at the record reveals that Obama has "voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers."

The Verdict: Misleading.Palin's summary ignores the fact that some of the votes were for measures to lower taxes for many Americans, while increasing them for a much smaller number of taxpayers ($250k+ INCOME).The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures and budget votes that would notdirectly lead to higher taxes. Filed under: Fact Check • Vice presidential debate

TRANSCRIPTS
IFILL: Governor?

PALIN: I do take issue with some of the principle there with that redistribution of wealth principle that seems to be espoused by you.(Meaning they intend on continuing the failed Trickle Down economic policies of the current administration). But when you talk about Barack's plan to tax increase affecting only those making $250,000 a year or more, you're forgetting millions of small businesses that are going to fit into that category.

So they're going to be the ones paying higher taxes thus resulting in fewer jobs being created and less productivity.Now you said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that's not patriotic. Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution.

In fact, too often you're the problem so, government, lessen the tax burden and on our families and get out of the way and let the private sector and our families grow and thrive and prosper. An increased tax formula that Barack Obama is proposing in addition to nearly a trillion dollars in new spending that he's proposing is the backwards way of trying to grow our economy.

BIDEN: Gwen, I don't know where to start. We don't call a redistribution in my neighborhood Scranton, Claymont, Wilmington, the places I grew up, to give the fair to say that not giving Exxon Mobil another $4 billion tax cut this year as John calls for and giving it to middle class people to be able to pay to get their kids to college, we don't call that redistribution. We call that fairness number one. Number two fact, 95 percent of the small businesses in America, their owners make less than $250,000 a year. They would not get one single solitary penny increase in taxes, those small businesses. ((((BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!))))))))

The Statement:Gov. Sarah Palin said at the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate that Sen. Barack Obama "would be willing to meet with" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "without preconditions being met first."Get the facts!The Facts:Palin stated an assertion made repeatedly by Republican running mate Sen. John McCain. Sen. Joe Biden said at the debate "it is simply not true" that Obama said he would "sit down" with Ahmadinejad.

Obama has talked about meeting with Iranian leaders if necessary, but not Ahmadinejad specifically.Obama addressed the issue in a July 23, 2007, Democratic debate, when candidates were asked if they would be "willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

"I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous," Obama answered.The Obama-Biden Web site at present calls for "tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. "

"Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. He may not be the right person to talk to. But I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it's going to keep America safe," Obama said at the Sept. 26 debate.

Verdict: Misleading. While Obama has said he wouldn't rule out meeting with any foreign leader, he never specifically said he'd meet with the Iranian president.

The Statement:Sen. Joe Biden said at the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate that "our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan."Get the facts!

The Facts:Gov. Sarah Palin, who lauded the successes of the "surge strategy" in Iraq, asserted in the debate that "the surge principles, not the exact strategy, but the surge principles that have worked in Iraq need to be implemented in Afghanistan.

"But Sen. Joe Biden disagreed, saying "our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan. … He said we need more troops. We need government-building. We need to spend more money on the infrastructure in Afghanistan.

"Gen. David McKiernan, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, was quoted on Oct. 2 in The Washington Post as saying that "no Iraq-style 'surge' of forces will end the conflict" in Afghanistan, even though more U.S. troops are needed to take on a growing insurgency.

"Afghanistan is not Iraq," McKiernan said in Washington on Oct. 1. He also said "the word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge.' " He called for a "sustained commitment" leading to a political and not just a military solution.

He said Afghanistan is a "far more complex environment than I ever found in Iraq." The newspaper paraphrased him as citing the country's "unique challenges" — "the mountainous terrain, rural population, poverty, illiteracy, 400 major tribal networks and history of civil war.

"The Verdict: True.

Filed under: Fact Check


October 2, 2008Fact Check: Is it true Obama 'still can't admit the surge works'?
Posted: 11:04 PM ET
The Statement: During the vice-presidential debate in St. Louis on Thursday, Oct. 2, Republican nominee Gov. Sarah Palin criticized Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama's opposition to the military "surge" in Iraq and said, "The surge worked.

Barack Obama still can't admit the surge works.

"Get the facts!

The Facts:In a January 10, 2007, speech, President Bush announced plans to increase the number of troops in Iraq by about 20,000 in an effort to quell violence throughout the country and especially in Baghdad.

By spring 2008, as the number of deaths and other violence in Iraq began to drop, Bush and other supporters — including Republican presidential nominee John McCain — were hailing the "surge" as a success and giving it much of the credit for the improvements.

In Congress, Obama was one of many lawmakers who spoke against the plan. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse," he said in a response to Bush's speech.

On at least some occasions, Obama — who has campaigned on a promise to end the war in Iraq — said he wasn't questioning the ability of U.S. troops, but the long-term political impact the surge would have.

"Even those who support the escalation have acknowledged that 20,000, 30,000, even 40,000 more troops placed temporarily in places like Baghdad are not going to make a long-term difference," he said in a March 19, 2007, interview on CNN's "Larry King Live.

"But in a September 4 interview this year, Obama said the military surge "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams," while adding that goals laid out by Bush, including turning over control of all Iraqi provinces to that nation's security forces, have not been achieved.

"There's an underlying problem with what we've done," Obama said. "We have reduced the violence, but the Iraqis still haven't taken responsibility."McCain himself has quoted Obama's "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams" remark.

At the first presidential debate on Friday, Sept. 26, McCain attacked Obama's stance on the surge but added, "Senator Obama said the surge could not work, said it would increase sectarian violence, said it was doomed to failure … recently on a television program, he said it exceeded our wildest expectations."

The Verdict: False. Obama has said the surge "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams" from a military perspective.Filed under: Fact Check • Vice presidential debate

*** NO MENTION OF THE FACT, THAT WE SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN IN IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE, AT ALL!!!!!!A TRILLION DOLLARS DAMN NEAR, YET, THEY ONLY WANT TO PUT EMPHASIS ON THE FACT THE "SURGE" IS WORKING. AT WHAT COST TO THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER, AND OUR FLAILING ECONOMY??


Fact Check: Did Obama vote to cut funds for troops?
Posted: 10:25 PM ET
Get the facts!

The Statement:At an Oct. 2 debate in St. Louis, Missouri, Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin was talking about support for U.S. troops overseas.

"I know that the other ticket opposed this surge — in fact, even opposed funding our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Barack Obama voted against fundingtroops after promising that he would not do so," she said.

Get the facts!
The Facts:On May 24, 2007, Obama was one of 14 senators who voted against a war-spending plan that would have provided emergency funds for American troops overseas. He, like many Democrats, was pushing for an end to the war in Iraq, and the legislation included no provisions for that. "We must fund our troops," Obama said that day in a news release.

"But we owe them something more. We owe them aclear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war."

Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, and Obama's running mate Sen. Joe Biden, voted in favor of that resolution.Obama had supported, and voted for, an earlier version of the bill that would have provided the money for the troops but established a timeline for Bush to begin bringing them home.

Biden also voted for that version of the plan.McCain was one of three senators who did not vote that day — but he urged Bush to veto it after it passed 51-46 on April 26, 2007. "I look forward to the president's prompt veto of this misguided bill," McCain said in a written statement. Bush did veto the measure on May 1, 2007, leading to the secondvote.

Verdict:Misleading. Obama supported a different version of the troop-funding plan — one that McCain spoke against. **** Which implemented a "set" timeline for getting the #@!! out of Iraq, responsibly, within a specific time period.

****Filed under: Fact Check • Vice presidential debate

Fact Check: Is Obama proposing $860 billion+ in new spending?
Posted: 02:15 PM ET
The statement:At a campaign stop Monday in Columbus, Ohio, Sen. John McCain said Sen. Barack Obama "has proposed more than $860 billion in new spending."

Get the facts!

The Facts:The McCain campaign is basing this figure on its own tally of how much money all of the new programs Obama has vowed to fund would ultimately cost. The total does not look at how much money Obama would save through cutbacks in other parts of his spending plan.

It's important to note that McCain did not say "additional" spending.Brian Rogers of the McCain campaign sent CNN the campaign's tally of "new spending" by Obama. It lists more than 40 plans or programs that Obama has discussed creating or funding at a higher level, along with figures for how much each would cost.

Some of those figures come from what Obama or his campaign has said; others come from estimates by the Congressional Budget Office or other agencies. The list says if Obama could enact all his proposals, "taxpayers would be faced with financing $898.472 billion in new spending over one White House term."Jason Furman, the Obama campaign's economic adviser, called McCain's assertion "totally ludicrous." He said the McCain campaign is "exaggerating our spending increases" while ignoring spending cuts.

The Obama campaign does not have its own figure for how much "new spending" Obama is proposing, Furman said, because it "doesn't conceptually make sense." If someone is spending $10 a week on apples, then switches to spending $10 a week on oranges, "it wouldn't make sense to say how much extra you are spending on oranges — you're just changing what you're spending on," he said.

The most detailed analysis of McCain's and Obama's budget plans comes from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The group's president, Maya MacGuineas (pronounced "McGuiness"), called McCain's statement "a misleading figure taken out of context."The committee has looked at how much spending Obama and McCain are proposing and how much they say they'll save.

The candidates have been more specific about spending than saving, but the committee gave them leeway, assuming that the savings they promise could actually happen, MacGuineas said. The committee's figures include the candidates' tax plans as well, because both include spending changes as part of their tax plans, she said.The committee found that both candidates' fiscal policies call for spending a lot more than they bring in.

By 2013, Obama's policies would add $286 billion to that year's deficit, while McCain's policies would add $211 billion, MacGuineas said.The committee has not totaled only "new spending" for either Obama or McCain.Verdict:

Misleading.The figure McCain gave is based on his campaign's tally of the costs of numerous programs Obama has discussed, but ignores the savings from other policy changes Obama is calling for.

Filed under: Barack Obama • Fact Check • John McCain • taxes

The Statement: At a campaign rally Monday, September 29, in Denver, Colorado, Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama once again charged his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, with being a supporter of deregulating financial markets that have since collapsed.

"He's fought against common-sense regulations for decades … and he said in a recent interview that he thought deregulation has actually helped grow our economy. Senator, what economy are you talking about?"
Obama said.

Watch: McCain, GOP have failed economic philosophy, Obama saysGet the facts!

The Facts: During his time in the senate, McCain has been a champion of government deregulation — some of which is being blamed for the Wall Street meltdown. Since the recent crisis, though, he has supported a plan for the government to take on the debt of failing financial institutions.

During a September 21 interview on CBS's "60 Minutes," McCain was asked if he regretted a 1999 vote for deregulating Wall Street. "
No — I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy," McCain said.In footage of a speech aired during that interview, though, McCain voices support for government now stepping in. "I'm not saying this isn't going to be messy and I'm not saying it isn't going to be expensive," he said, "but we have to stop the bleeding."

The Verdict: True — although McCain has supported more government oversight of Wall Street as part of the bailout plan.

Filed under: Barack Obama • Fact Check • John McCain

Fact Check:Obama supports sex education for kindergartners?Posted: 12:00 PM ETThe Statement

In a recent interview on CNN's "American Morning," Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, challenged ads from the campaign of Republican Sen. John McCain, declaring, "They are saying Barack Obama supported sex education for kindergartners when all he said was we're trying to — we should teach our kids how to avoid predators. It's very misleading."

Is the ad's sex-education claim true?Get the facts!The FactsIn a television ad titled "Education," released on September 10 and posted on McCain's Web site, the narrator says Obama has a weak record on education and that his "one accomplishment" as a state legislator in Illinois was "legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners."

The adcontinues: "Learning about sex before learning to read?"The ad is a reference to a 2003 sex-education-in-schools measure in the Illinois state Senate. Obama was not a sponsor of the bill, but as chairman of a Senate committee he voted in favor of sending it to the full Senate. The full Senate never voted on the bill.The legislation was an update to existing sex education standards.

It called for "medically accurate" and "age and developmentally appropriate" information in classes teaching various aspects of sex education from kindergarten through high school. It did not spell out specific class content. It also said no student could be required to take or participate in sex education classes if parents objected.One part of the legislation called for teaching children "how to say no to unwanted sexual advances."

Obama's campaign has said the passage referred to teaching very young children how to recognize and report inappropriate touching or unwanted advances.During the 2004 Senate campaign, Republican Alan Keyes tried to use the legislation against Obama, and Obama responded that he was not supporting teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten.

According to the Chicago Daily Herald, Obama told a group of college students: "Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it. If they ask a teacher 'Where do babies come from?' — that providing information, that the fact is that it's not a stork, is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case-by-case basis by local communities and local school boards."

The Verdict: True, but incomplete. The 2003 legislation encouraged "age-appropriate"teaching.Obama, chairman of the committee that advanced it, has said its focus for young children was on protecting them from predators. *** THE SPIN ON THIS ONE WAS A WRECKLESS STATEMENT, AT BEST****

Fact Check: Did Obama refuse to support bailout bill?
Posted: 01:30 PM ET

Sen. McCain said Sen. Obama never supported the bailout bill.The Statement:After a House of Representatives vote on a financial bailout failed, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an aide to Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, said Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama never voiced support for the plan. "Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain and refused to even say if he supported the final bill," Holtz-Eakin, McCain's senior financial adviser, said in a written statement.

Get the facts!

The Facts

In the lead-up to the September 29 vote, which failed after 133 Republicans and 95 Democrats voted against it, both Obama and McCain were measured in their comments about the bill.

Obama, however, appeared to come very close to an endorsement of it Sunday, September 28, on CBS's "Face the Nation": "My inclination is to support it because I think Main Street is now at stake," Obama said.

The same day, McCain seemed to voice qualified support for the bailout. "This is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with," he said on ABC's "This Week."

"The option of doing nothing is simply not an acceptable option."Both Obama and McCain outlined details they'd like to see Congress add and ultimately said changes that were made to the plan made them more comfortable supporting it. On September 24, the two issued a joint statement, saying "(t)he plan that has been submitted to Congress by the Bush administration is flawed, but the effort to protect the American economy must not fail."

Both McCain and Obama traveled to Washington to meet with President Bush and congressional leaders, both were in contact by phone and in person with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and both called for bipartisan action on the plan.

The Verdict: Misleading.Obama and McCain made similar comments expressing qualified supportfor the bailout prior to the House vote.

Filed under: Barack Obama • Fact Check • John McCain
Fact Check: Did Obama help take power from lobbyists?

Posted: 03:47 PM ETSen.

Obama spoke in Reno, Nevada Tuesday.The Statement: Sen. Barack Obama, speaking at campaign event on September 30 in Reno, Nevada, said he would make health care and financial reforms. "And I will take power away from the corporate lobbyists who think they can stand in the way of these reforms" he said. "I've done it in Illinois, I've done it in Washington and I will do it again as president."Get the facts!The Facts: Obama last year voted for the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 in the U.S. Senate.

The legislation increases waiting periods for ex-lawmakers to become lobbyists, requires donation disclosures, prohibits lawmakers from receiving gifts from lobbyists, and places limits or bans on air travel provided by lobbyists. The bill first passed in the Senate 96 to 2 on January 18, 2007. It passed in the House 411 to 8 on July 31, and a final version passed in the Senate by an 83 to 14 vote on August 2. President Bush signed it into law on September 14, 2007.

Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group, told CNN that Obama pushed hard for this and other ethics-reform legislation. Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, initially voted for the measure, but opposed what he regarded as a weakened final product. An NPR report said he complained about "gutted" earmark reform provisions.

As a state senator, Obama was key in crafting and drafting the Illinois Gift Ban, passed overwhelmingly and signed into law in 1998, said Cynthia Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. The law includes stiff disclosure rules, permits only nominal gifts from lobbyists and bans the personal use of campaign contributions, she said.

The Verdict:True. Obama has supported and helped shape legislation cracking down on all lobbyists.

Filed under: Barack Obama
• Fact Check
Fact Check: Do Obama and Biden oppose 'clean coal?'
Posted: 03:52 PM

ETA freight train carries coal in Colorado, the site of the recent Democratic convention and a state that is also the focus of a recent radio ad by the McCain-Palin campaign.

The Statement: In a set of radio ads aired Tuesday, September 30 in several battleground states, Republican Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign says Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama and his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, are against "clean coal" technology.

In "Clean Coal Colorado" a narrator says, "Obama-Biden and their liberal allies oppose clean coal. Listen to Joe Biden — 'No coal plants here in America.' 'We're not supporting clean coal.'"Get the facts!The Facts: The ad quotes an amateur video posted on the Web site YouTube, in which Biden is greeting supporters at a September 17 campaign event in Maumee, Ohio. A woman approaches him and says, "Wind and solar are flourishing here in Ohio, so why are you supporting clean coal?" Biden's immediate response is, "We're not supporting clean coal."

His comments that followed seem unclear. He goes on to suggest Obama-Biden supports improving technology to make burning coal more environmentally friendly — although he does say the "no coal plants" line the ad quotes."China's going to burn 300 years worth of bad coal unless we figure out how to clean their coal up … ," he said. "No coal plants here in America. Build them if they're going to build them over there.

Make them clean because they're killing you."Biden's off-the-cuff comments quoted in the ads seem at odds not only with the Obama campaign's stated policy on coal, but his own stated policy. On its Web site, the Obama campaign's energy plan includes a push to "develop and deploy clean-coal technology."

"Obama's Department of Energy will enter into public-private partnerships to develop five 'first-of-a-kind' commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology," it says.

In a campaign speech Wednesday, October 1, in La Crosse, Wisconsin, Obama again highlighted plans to pursue clean-coal technology.On his Senate Web site, Biden calls for spending $5 billion on energy research that would include "technologies that will allow us to use coal cleanly."

Both Obama and Biden have supported several pieces of legislation that would fund research of "clean coal" technology — which, if successfully developed, would trap dangerous carbon emissions from the coal-burning process.

The Verdict: Misleading. The partial Biden quotes that the ads use are accurate, but leave out the full context of his comments. The Obama campaign supports "clean coal" technology and building plants using the new technology.

Filed under: Barack Obama • Fact Check • Joe BidenTRANSCRIPTS

IFILL: Senator?

BIDEN: The charge is absolutely not true. Barack Obama did not vote to raise taxes. The vote she's referring to, John McCain voted the exact same way. It was a budget procedural vote. John McCain voted the same way. It did not raise taxes. Number two, using the standard that the governor uses, John McCain voted 477 times to raise taxes.

It's a bogus standard it but if you notice, Gwen, the governor did not answer the question about deregulation, did not answer the question of defending John McCain about not going along with the deregulation, letting Wall Street run wild. He did support deregulation almost across the board. That's why we got into so much trouble.

IFILL: Would you like to have an opportunity to answer that before we move on?

PALIN: I'm still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again. And I want to let you know what I did as a mayor and as a governor. And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also.

As mayor, every year I was in office I did reduce taxes. I eliminated personal property taxes and eliminated small business inventory taxes and as governor we suspended our state fuel tax.

We did all of those things knowing that that is how our economy would be heated up. Now, as for John McCain's adherence to rules and regulations and pushing for even harder and tougher regulations, that is another thing that he is known for though. Look at the tobacco industry. Look at campaign finance reform.

****** READING FROM A SCRIPT AGAIN..... PURE THEATRICS.. NICE FOR SOUNDBITE APPEAL THOUGH, HUH?

2008PALIN: Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced your whole comment with the Bush administration.

Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education and I'm glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? (Inappropriate!!!!!!!)

1980 REGAN:
Debate #2
Held just a week before the election, the debate received much attention.
Reagan had all the best lines. To Carter's attack that he would cut Medicare, he quipped, "There you go again." And in his closing remarks, Reagan asked, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"


***********************************I'm done...................... for now!!!!!!!! HAVE A WONDERFUL WEEKEND, EVERYONE.....