About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

CNN.com, UPI advance Log Cabin Republicans' false suggestion that Palin supports benefits for same-sex couples

September 03, 2008 2:39 pm ET

SUMMARY: In reports that the Log Cabin Republicans have endorsed Sen. John McCain for president, CNN.com and UPI falsely suggested that Gov. Sarah Palin supports benefits for same-sex partners of state employees. In fact, while Palin did veto a bill in 2006 that would have prevented state officials from granting spousal benefits to same-sex couples, Palin has stated that she did so because the Alaska attorney general had advised her that it was unconstitutional, not because she supported spousal benefits for same-sex couples.

88 Comments

In September 3 reports that the Log Cabin Republicans, a group that describes itself as "the nation's only organization of Republicans who support fairness, freedom, and equality for gay and lesbian Americans," have endorsed Sen. John McCain for president, CNN.com and United Press International falsely suggested that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, supports benefits for same-sex partners of state employees. In fact, while Palin did veto a bill in 2006 that would have prevented state officials from granting spousal benefits to same-sex couples, Palin has stated that she did so because the Alaska attorney general had advised her that it was unconstitutional, not because she supported spousal benefits for same-sex couples, as Media Matters for America has documented. Moreover, Palin indicated in a written questionnaire that she disagreed with the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex couples are entitled to the same spousal benefits given to other state employees, and in another questionnaire, replied, "Yes," when asked whether she would support "a Constitutional amendment to overturn [the] Alaska Supreme Court decision mandating public employers to provide benefits equivalent to marriage to same-sex couples."

CNN.com reported that Log Cabin Republicans president Patrick Sammon "said the group was comfortable with her [Palin] being on the Republican ticket because of her 2006 decision to veto a bill that would have banned the state from providing benefits to same-sex partners of employees."

From CNN.com's September 3 article:

Despite her positions on gay rights issues being largely unknown, Sammon said, the Log Cabin Republicans were also satisfied with McCain's choice of running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Unlike McCain, Palin has expressed support for the Federal Marriage Amendment, but Sammon said the group was comfortable with her being on the Republican ticket because of her 2006 decision to veto a bill that would have banned the state from providing benefits to same-sex partners of employees.

"She's a great choice," Valkema said. "We're learning more every day, but what we know, we like."

Similarly, UPI, which cited CNN's report that the Log Cabin Republicans had endorsed McCain, reported:

While McCain opposes same-sex marriage, he also opposed a federal constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

While McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, has expressed support for the federal amendment, she vetoed a bill that would have banned her state from giving benefits to same-sex partners of employees.

"She's a great choice," said Log Cabin member David Valkema of Illinois. "We're learning more every day but what we know, we like."

In contrast to CNN.com and UPI, CQ Politics' Bart Jansen noted in a September 2 article:

In addition to supporting McCain, the group [Log Cabin Republicans] cited Palin's veto, as Alaska governor, of a state bill aimed at denying health benefits to same-sex partners of state employees, [spokesman Scott] Tucker said.

[...]

Palin holds strongly conservative views on social issues, a number of news reports, as well as a number of activists on either side of the gay rights issue, say Palin has told people she supported the content of the measure to deny same-sex partner benefits but issued the veto at the advice of the state's attorney general's office that the bill violated the state's constitution. But Log Cabin spokesman Tucker said the veto "beneffited [sic] the community."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by tommy (September 03, 2008 2:47 pm ET)
         
      Another misleading thread by MMFA. Both CNN and UPI did not say that Palin "supports spousal benefits for same-sex couples", as MMFA insists, but rather they correctly state that she vetoed a bill that would have banned her state from providing such benefits.  Neither CNN nor UPI mention her personal feelings, only her veto.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (September 03, 2008 2:58 pm ET)
           

        It's not misleading at all, Tommy.  From MMFA's story posted above:

        Moreover, Palin indicated in a written questionnaire that she disagreed with the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex couples are entitled to the same spousal benefits given to other state employees, and in another questionnaire, replied, "Yes," when asked whether she would support "a Constitutional amendment to overturn [the] Alaska Supreme Court decision mandating public employers to provide benefits equivalent to marriage to same-sex couples."

        So the facts were out there, Tommy - CNN and UPI chose to ignore them.  Thus, "conservative misinformation".

        WITH?  Because it belongs here.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (September 03, 2008 3:06 pm ET)
           

        By omitting the facts surrounding Palin’s veto, CNN and UPI did not say it, they suggested it, just like MMFA says.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (September 03, 2008 3:15 pm ET)
             
          There was no suggestion, it was an accurate reporting of her veto, that's it.  
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (September 03, 2008 3:20 pm ET)
               
            Nope, you're still wrong.  The suggestion was advanced because Palin's reasons for the veto are on the record and have a direct bearing on the LCR's flawed assessment.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (September 03, 2008 4:04 pm ET)
                 
              Nope.  MMFA wants to write the story and advance their own agenda instead, CNN and UPI distorted or suggested nothing except the accurate truth in their story.  MMFA would have preferred it another way, they are the ones guilty of suggesting and advancing in this case.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (September 03, 2008 10:10 pm ET)
                   
                It's entirely possible to say something true that's misleading because the whole story is not revealed.  Children know this, and I bet you do too.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by rrastro (September 03, 2008 10:31 pm ET)
                     
                  and the point of suggesting palin supports gays is to hurt her not help her
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (September 03, 2008 11:31 pm ET)
                       
                    Utter nonsense.  As if someone who gets Dobson's seal of approval isn't going to win the day in a "lesser of two evils" scenario for religious conservatives.  Meanwhile, Obama opposes same-sex marriage, while supporting civil unions.  This makes it sound like her position is similar to his, which appeals to moderates and independents.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by rrastro (September 04, 2008 9:06 pm ET)
                         
                      a lot of people are turned off by hypocrisy.If true it remains liberal misinformation about a conservative
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (September 03, 2008 10:56 pm ET)
                     
                  In your typical condescending style, revealing another weak argument, even children don't whine about fair and accurate reporting just because their liberal agenda is not advanced by a media story.

                  You could learn alot from a child.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (September 03, 2008 11:27 pm ET)
                       

                    You didn't address the point.  Hearing the whole story makes a difference.  When my four-year old granddaughter tells me her grandmother told her she could have a popsicle, I know she's full of it.  The fact is she was told she could have one if she cleaned up her play area, which she doesn't want to do.  She knows full well that giving half of the story creates the impression that serves her purpose.

                    If you're going to be deliberately obtuse, you deserve condescension.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by tommy (September 04, 2008 10:52 am ET)
                         

                      Your search for the most unrelated and ridiculous analogy never ceases to amaze me.  Your granddaughter's popsicle wish is based on certain conditions being met, so of course telling only half the story is misleading.  Ms.Palin's veto is not based on any preconditions regarding her personal feelings because she did not consider them when issuing her veto.  It was a veto on it's own, not dependent on her "cleaning up her play area".

                      "A" for effort though, but you didn't make your case, these articles are perfectly fair and accurate. 

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Brabantio (September 04, 2008 12:18 pm ET)
                           

                        I wasn't saying anything about Palin having preconditions, I'm demonstrating a common principle.  If you don't know that she vetoed it for legal reasons, it's natural to believe that she vetoed it because of her personal views.

                        You really can't get around that.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by tommy (September 04, 2008 12:25 pm ET)
                             

                          Why? Her personal views are irrelevant and rightly trumped by her legal duty.  We don't need to know every politician's personal views on issues, as long as they uphold their duties, which is what Palin did, that is sufficient information.

                          The left, and you, are just irritated because her personal views, that you don't agree with, are not relevant public policy.  And you want that reported even though it has no place or relevance.

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Brabantio (September 04, 2008 12:36 pm ET)
                               

                            "Why? Her personal views are irrelevant and rightly trumped by her legal duty."

                            Who's saying they shouldn't be trumped by her legal duty?

                            "We don't need to know every politician's personal views on issues, as long as they uphold their duties, which is what Palin did, that is sufficient information."

                            Are you insane?  Her views would clearly have an impact on her decisions in the absence of a legal barrier.  What if you had a gay rights bill tied in the Senate?  Guess what happens then? 

                            "The left, and you, are just irritated because her personal views, that you don't agree with, are not relevant public policy.  And you want that reported even though it has no place or relevance."

                            They're relevant because her motivation for vetoing the bill affects how people view her actions.  Since omitting that motivation changes the perception, it's a valid complaint.  Sorry.

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by tommy (September 04, 2008 12:40 pm ET)
                                 
                              No, have you never heard of a public official's personal opinion at odds with their public duties?  If not, then you are insane.  Read the headline of this misleading piece by MMFA, there is no suggestion of anything.  Her veto suggests only what it is, you can extrpolate that to whatever you want but it doesn't make it so.  You are just childishly arguing again for it's own sake, with no point.  You bore me when you do that.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by Brabantio (September 04, 2008 12:51 pm ET)
                                   

                                "No, have you never heard of a public official's personal opinion at odds with their public duties?  If not, then you are insane."

                                Of course I've heard of it.  Is that what you naturally believe is the reason for a veto, if that reason is unspecified?

                                "Read the headline of this misleading piece by MMFA, there is no suggestion of anything.  Her veto suggests only what it is, you can extrpolate that to whatever you want but it doesn't make it so."

                                Her veto suggests what?  Are people supposed to extrapolate that she did it for legal reasons, with no indication of that whatsoever?  Why is that expected? 

                                "You are just childishly arguing again for it's own sake, with no point.  You bore me when you do that."

                                You can't address the point.   How would Palin's personal opinion be "at odds" with her public duties if she were deciding that tied gay rights bill?  Those that are told she vetoed this bill might think she'd support that gay rights bill, when she obviously wouldn't.

                                Report Abuse
        • Author by rrastro (September 03, 2008 6:38 pm ET)
             
          where is the conservative misinformation? Should palin support same sex benefits it put her at odds with conservatives. If anything sounds like liberal sabotage...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (September 03, 2008 10:12 pm ET)
               
            She can have whatever position she likes.  What the media shouldn't do is to suggest that she has some sympathy for the gay community when she obviously doesn't.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by rrastro (September 03, 2008 10:27 pm ET)
                 
              but that is liberal misinformation
              Report Abuse
              • Author by eweston8542983 (September 03, 2008 10:41 pm ET)
                   

                You've checked the Republican platform on what to do about gay folks um?

                Currently abortion gays and guns are what they're about.

                However if you've got some evidence that she's tight with the gay comunity trot it out.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by rrastro (September 04, 2008 9:12 pm ET)
                     
                  none whatsoever meaning that this is liberal misinformation or even sabotage
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (September 03, 2008 11:37 pm ET)
                   
                Again, nonsense.  By your logic, if you nominated a moderate Republican, pushing the lie that he was an extremist would be good for Republicans.  The more moderate elements would not take that message well, while most of the base probably would have voted for him anyway just because he's a Republican.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by rrastro (September 04, 2008 9:10 pm ET)
                     
                  um no. were a republican to endorse gay marriage and free and easy abortion, the base would stay home, figuring it does not matter. For good or ill stating a candidate supports liberal causes when the do not is not conservative misinformation. Though it does raise hope mmfa will satrt to hack at liberals too
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (September 04, 2008 10:12 pm ET)
                       

                    Moving the goalposts?  Nobody's talking about abortion here.

                    So while Obama's being painted as an unpatriotic Muslim baby-killer, and Palin has Dobson's seal of approval, the conservative base is going to sit out the election because they think Palin might not be as rabidly homophobic as they'd like?  You have got to be kidding me.

                    Report Abuse
      • Author by rjc (September 03, 2008 3:06 pm ET)
           

        Tommy, I tend to agree with you on this one. Even the endorsement from LCR is a bit tepid - they are "comfortable" with her is not exactly a ringing endorsement and it's pretty clear that the veto was not out of personal conviction on Palin's part. This is a bit of a stretch, IMO.

         

        Report Abuse
      • Author by wesley (September 03, 2008 3:13 pm ET)
           

        tommy,

        As our dear departed friend Solon (God rest his soul) would say "Anyone with two functioning brain cells" would see from the CNN/UPI stories that Palin opposes same sex marriage.

        This story appears to be a case of mmfa being overstaffed or under-managed...when producing space wasting stories like this one.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by bruce1ace (September 03, 2008 3:29 pm ET)
             
          Did Solon die or was that just an expression?  I haven't seen him post for months.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by wesley (September 03, 2008 3:36 pm ET)
               
            Sorry bruce...it was just an expression. I have no idea about his condition...although his blood pressure was elevating to the exploding point before his disappearance.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (September 03, 2008 3:46 pm ET)
               
            I hear he moved to Alaska. ;-)
            Report Abuse
        • Author by CountOlaf (September 03, 2008 3:50 pm ET)
             

          Unfortunately, those two functioning brain cells have not given them the ability of abstract thought where the extrapolation to it being suggestive would become apparent.

          Those of us with all our billions of brain cells working at full capacity understand it clearly.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by MayberryDrunk (September 03, 2008 7:09 pm ET)
             
          You forgot to throw in a couple of "morons".
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Brabantio (September 03, 2008 10:09 pm ET)
             

          "As our dear departed friend Solon (God rest his soul) would say "Anyone with two functioning brain cells" would see from the CNN/UPI stories that Palin opposes same sex marriage."

          And anyone with two functioning brain cells can see that there's a difference between "same-sex marriage" and "benefits for same-sex couples".  The fact that she opposes same-sex marriage doesn't negate the concept that she supports benefits for same-sex couples.  Therefore, it's misleading to cite that veto without explaining the circumstances.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by RoberttheP (September 03, 2008 3:20 pm ET)
           
        Well said Tommy, it appears MMFA does not like the idea that Palin actually did the right thing and vetoed a bill that would have banned the state from providing benefits to same-sex partners of employees. How dare a Republican woman do that, not allowed.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pointybongo9213 (September 03, 2008 4:16 pm ET)
             
          She was bound by law to veto the legislation. She even said at the time that she disagreed with the veto, but had no choice.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by RoberttheP (September 03, 2008 3:20 pm ET)
           
        Well said Tommy, it appears MMFA does not like the idea that Palin actually did the right thing and vetoed a bill that would have banned the state from providing benefits to same-sex partners of employees. How dare a Republican woman do that, not allowed.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by wesley (September 03, 2008 3:32 pm ET)
             

          Bingo, bob.

          Only a blind partisan would fail to give credit to an elected representative of the government taking action against their own personal convictions...in order to follow the law.

          In this case, an action that benefitted the homosexual community...as Brock's republican brethren recognized.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 03, 2008 3:45 pm ET)
               
            Why only elected representatives, Wesley?. I'm only a private citizen, but I'll give you my word that I haven't violated the Constitution today. Where's my party?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (September 04, 2008 12:33 am ET)
               
            You keep trying to read these bizarre motives into perfectly understandable items.  Nobody's criticizing her for following the law, it just doesn't mean that she supports gay rights in any way.  She had another motive for vetoing the bill besides her personal opinion, and that information makes a difference in perception.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by paguy54 (September 03, 2008 7:41 pm ET)
             
          I suppose it is possible that the Log Cabin Republicans are happy with her because she vetoed the law for constitutional reasons despite her personal feelings, but we don't know that from the reporting.  MMFA may have overstated by saying that the article "falsely suggested" that she supported benefits for gay couples, but CNN and UPI certainly did not eliminate that interpretation from their stories.  CNN under-reported the story by omitting Palin's personal beliefs on the issue.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by DAWUSS (September 03, 2008 2:49 pm ET)
         

      But don't worry, once the POW and the Moose Mom enter the White House, any homosexual marriages will be annulled and in the name of promoting and protecting the family...

       

       

      I don't know - I'm unsure whether or not I should anticipate or dread November...

      Report Abuse
      • Author by princeofwheels (September 03, 2008 8:16 pm ET)
           
        Leave me out of this. I will not go into any private place with this woman.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ultrasanktpauli (September 03, 2008 2:52 pm ET)
         
      This, cribbed from a friend:

      Dude, the GOP could nominate Squeaky Fromme, and they'd back her, if only because of her strong Family background. Now there's a pun worthy of the Republican party (also known for their jaundiced, senile sense of humor).



      Remember Dan Quayle? They don't. He never happened. And 'potatoe' is also spelled with an e on the end in Alaska.



      Now: at what point are people going to start mentioning that the Alaska babe was a staunch advocate of "abstinance only" sex ed? And that her kid got knocked up; so much for abstinance. In my book, that's a huge turd in the bed, politically, but again this is America we are talking about. It seems the more ugly, hypocritical, flawed, tasteless, mean, ignorant, hateful and stupid a person is, the more endearing they are to the body politic in the USA.



      The electorate continues to be certain that a great candidate is one every bit as bottom-feeding as they are. The idea of a candidate appealing to a higher standard (and possibly raising the calibre of the citizenry in the process) and NOT wallowing proudly in the same swamp as some twobit sustanence hunter makes American queasy. It's what will do in Obama. He's just not a big enough loser, nor hypocritical enough to be president.



      One day, the GOP will abandon all pretense and will run a mentally retarded man for president on the slogan "HE'LL SCREW STUFF UP REAL GOOD" and it will be a landslide.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (September 03, 2008 3:01 pm ET)
           
        I think part of what is going on here is that Karl Rove and his Acolytes are trying to establish themselves as the ultimate Republican King Makers. By electing Grampy, whom the conservatives hated just 6 months ago, and a VP that is by all appearances a theocrat, they will have proved themselves able to operate outside the boundaries of rational thought. They almost proved it by electing Puddinhead George twice, but this will be even more impressive, given the mess they've created over the past 8 years. In the new world that they are fabricating, the identity of the candidate is secondary. They could elect a ham sandwich if it had a U.S. Birth Certificate.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DAWUSS (September 03, 2008 3:03 pm ET)
             
          But the ham sandwich would get eaten alive in one sitting.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by wzwriter (September 03, 2008 3:08 pm ET)
               

            But the ham sandwich would get eaten alive in one sitting.

            Not if Joe LIEberman was there - he's Orthodox.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 03, 2008 3:47 pm ET)
                 
              It would be a good test to see if Obama's really a secret Muslim.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by ultrasanktpauli (September 03, 2008 4:14 pm ET)
                   
                USP whips out his trusty "Islam-o-meter" and if it reads positive we can open a spray can of Terr-b-gone'.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by wookie (September 03, 2008 4:25 pm ET)
             
          You just have irrational hatred of the ham sandwich.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (September 03, 2008 2:52 pm ET)
         
      The fact that these "Log Cabin Republicans" support the Church Lady reveals that they are not serious individuals.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by thomp.steve9098 (September 03, 2008 3:04 pm ET)
         
      Palin's working out better for the repubs than I expected.  Attacks on her inexperience obviously are unavailling, as she has about as much as BO.  The dems and their spokesmen in the msm feebly attack her for being a staunch conservative, but that's no loss because that's exactly why she was chosen in the first place.  Thus for the past few days they've disgacefully, and pathetically, resorted to smearing her for being the parent of a pregnant 17 year old. I seriously don't think that's gonna make much headway with voters either. 
      Report Abuse
      • Author by rjc (September 03, 2008 3:08 pm ET)
           
        Can you provide links to this smearing you speak of?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by thomp.steve9098 (September 03, 2008 3:13 pm ET)
             
          Oh come on.  You can't turn on the news without the liberal media discussing whether Palin's pregnant daughter "raises questions" about her ability to be VP (although I have no idea how the two are connected) It's pathetic, but at this point it's all the liberal media has to try and smear her with
          Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (September 03, 2008 3:18 pm ET)
               
            Nice talking point, but if you think that's the only issue, you aren't paying attention.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by thomp.steve9098 (September 03, 2008 3:28 pm ET)
                 
              Perhaps you have a point.  My girlfriend, being an Obamaniac, gets her campaign "news" from BO's acolytes on msnbc and cnn. So perhaps I need to review other, more objective, sources, to see whether more substantitve criticisms of Palin are being leveled.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (September 03, 2008 3:25 pm ET)
               
            Here's a deal for you..... let's agree that the Media will exercise the same restraint in their reporting on Whatshername that they did reporting on Obama a few months ago.

            Will that work for you?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by princeofwheels (September 03, 2008 8:21 pm ET)
                 
              But is she an American citizen? Need to see a birth certificate...sound familiar
              Report Abuse
          • Author by peebs755 (September 03, 2008 3:36 pm ET)
               
            How is questioning her "fitness to be VP", for lack of a better term, smearing her? 
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ultrasanktpauli (September 03, 2008 4:21 pm ET)
                 
              Not having any kids...i don't know. however...aren't there issues with women who have just had babies...like aren't there hormones in a whirl? So you can survive that whole getting up in the middle of the night three or four times? Can't some women suffer from depression?

              I make light of most stuff but it seems to me that these might be legitimate concerns. I'm in a wheelchair...it's not like it's a good bet to let me race indy cars...and in no way do i try to make light of pregnancy or women in this matter. I'd like to know what you all think.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (September 03, 2008 4:31 pm ET)
                   

                 I'm in a wheelchair...it's not like it's a good bet to let me race indy cars...(USP)

                I'd watch that and I never watch racing!

                Report Abuse
      • Author by dave (September 03, 2008 3:14 pm ET)
           
        I don't know, Steve. While most of us know why she nominated, I don't think there was much of a smear in pointing out the fact that she has a 17 y/o pregnant daughter. She does. Its an unpleasant fact being pointed out by the msm. McCain and the GOP should've known it would be an issue.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (September 03, 2008 3:17 pm ET)
           
        I haven't seen any "smears" outside the blogosphere. I have seen a lot of curiosity about her record and the investigation into her alleged abuse of power. There have also been some questions about the wacko views of her church..... is that off limits all of a sudden?

        It's funny to hear Grampy's campaign whining about all this media scrutiny. Did they really think they could drop an unknown in the middle of a Presidential Campaign without creating a circus? Of course they didn't.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by princeofwheels (September 03, 2008 8:26 pm ET)
             

          Who would have thought that the mcaho Repubs were such sissies when a few questions are asked of them. The whining is deafening. "Cry Me A RIVER" is still the partys' theme song.

          Dam Press...trying to find out some FACTS about a person who could be the POTUS in a short period of time. Keep asking MEDIA, I enjoy watching a good tear-jerker..this time the Reepublican Party is the poor soul.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 03, 2008 3:33 pm ET)
           
        Saying that she has "as much experience as BO" only suggests to me that must smell nice.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by peebs755 (September 03, 2008 3:41 pm ET)
             
          I'm sorry. I think that being a State, and then Federal Senator, makes Obama much more qualified than being the mayor of a town of 5ooo people, and then Govenor for 20 months.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (September 03, 2008 3:53 pm ET)
               
            How so?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (September 03, 2008 4:24 pm ET)
                 

              Yes, Obama is much less qualified than Sarah Palin:

              Harvard Law Degree < Idaho Journalism degree

              Constitutional Law Lecturer < PTA Council Member

              State Senator < Mayor of small town in Alaska

              U.S. Senator < Governor of smallest U.S. State

              U.S Foreign Relations Committee < Alaska is right next to Russia!

              Report Abuse
        • Author by thomp.steve9098 (September 03, 2008 3:59 pm ET)
             

          Saying that she has "as much experience as BO" only suggests to me that must smell nice.

          What did you think I was trying to say?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (September 03, 2008 3:08 pm ET)
         

      quote - Alaska attorney general had advised her that it was unconstitutional

      Actually it is a little confusing. Did the AG tell gov Palin her veto was unconstitutional or the bill was unconstitutional ?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by DAWUSS (September 03, 2008 3:48 pm ET)
           
        The AG told her what Karl Rove told the AG ;)
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (September 03, 2008 10:17 pm ET)
           
        He told her that the bill was unconstitutional.  Apparently "I didn't violate the Constitution...put me in the White House!" is a compelling argument to the right-wingers here.  I guess after eight years of Bush, that's about where you would expect their standards to be.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by deanoakwood (September 03, 2008 4:50 pm ET)
         
      You nailed it Kyle!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by thedailyphosdex (September 03, 2008 5:17 pm ET)
         
      And let's not forget the Log Cabin Republicans' endorsement of the McCain/Palin ticket amounts to nothing short of doublethink, pure and simple.
      Report Abuse