1. Troutnut Forum
›
2. Fly Fishing
›
3. The Presidential Election (political thread, read at your own risk!)

Edit by Jason -- I've changed the title. Louis's metaphor is creative but Trtklr makes a good point that people should be able to escape from politics here if they want to, and not be tricked into reading a political thread. For the record, the original title was "Awesome Fishing in Alaska," a sarcastic reference to Sarah Palin.

I'm posting this report up for the party of the elephant, who recently made an impressive catch in Alaska. On closer look the haul may prove problematic though.

A very thoroughly researched September 14 New York Times article has brought to light facts that may save this country from another disaster in the White House. And the environment from another president who doesn't believe we are in trouble. Whatever your political leaning please read the article and do as much research as you can before November. I know I'll catch flack for posting this, but it's too important not to share with intelligent people who care about the environment and our nation--and who vote.

The article is entitled "Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?ref=us

It was written by by Jo Becker, Peter S. Goodman and Michael Powell.

and here are a few quotations:

"WASILLA, Alaska — Gov. Sarah Palin lives by the maxim that all politics is local, not to mention personal.

So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.

Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.

When Ms. Palin had to cut her first state budget, she avoided the legion of frustrated legislators and mayors. Instead, she huddled with her budget director and her husband, Todd, an oil field worker who is not a state employee, and vetoed millions of dollars of legislative projects.

And four months ago, a Wasilla blogger, Sherry Whitstine, who chronicles the governor’s career with an astringent eye, answered her phone to hear an assistant to the governor on the line, she said.

“You should be ashamed!” Ivy Frye, the assistant, told her. “Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now!”

Ms. Palin walks the national stage as a small-town foe of “good old boy” politics and a champion of ethics reform. The charismatic 44-year-old governor draws enthusiastic audiences and high approval ratings. And as the Republican vice-presidential nominee, she points to her management experience while deriding her Democratic rivals, Senators Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr., as speechmakers who never have run anything.

But an examination of her swift rise and record as mayor of Wasilla and then governor finds that her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics — she sometimes calls local opponents “haters” — contrasts with her carefully crafted public image.

Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.

. . .

In Wasilla, a builder said he complained to Mayor Palin when the city attorney put a stop-work order on his housing project. She responded, he said, by engineering the attorney’s firing.

Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.

When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.

“Their secrecy is off the charts,” Mr. Steiner said."

Another really good article on Palin's record came out this weekend in the Washington Post:

Washington Post on Palin's Record

And here's one about her gigantic earmark requests:

Wall Street Journal on Palin's Earmarks

Executive "experience" is overrated to the point that people consider any executive experience to be good, even if that experience was a continuous demonstration of dangerously bad leadership. Palin's entire time as mayor and governor was marked by secrecy, vendettas, and the hiring of completely unqualified cronies to high-paying, important government jobs.

This lady is really a wolf in sheep's clothing. She's only seen as a "reformer" because she's politically shrewd and she realized blowing the whistle on some even more corrupt politicians was the quickest method to push them out of her way. She's only popular here in Alaska because the guy before her was so corrupt he made Jack Abramoff look like a model citizen, and because high oil prices mean she gets to send a huge oil dividend check to everyone in the state. Any governor who gets to send everyone $3,000 no-strings-attached is bound to be pretty popular.

Another Alaskan problem with Palin is that she hasn't lifted a finger to impede the Pebble Mine, which poses a serious risk to the awesome fishing we've currently got in Bristol Bay tributaries. Proponents of the mine claim that, if it's done properly, water quality can be kept within safe limits for fish. But that depends on nobody screwing up, and how often has that happened in the history of big industrial operations? It's just ridiculous to gamble the what may be the greatest fishing in America for the short-term profits of a foreign corporation.

Palin and McCain just aren't offering anything different from Bush, policy-wise. They've started trying to copy Obama's change message, based not on having new ideas (like Obama does) but on claiming they'll clean up Washington. But that's a joke. Palin has always been a fake reformer, and McCain has completely sold out. Most of his top campaign people are federal lobbyists. Obama said it best himself this morning,



There's just no reason to risk it with these clowns now that the Democratic party under Obama has moved so far into the mainstream:

• Obama will lower taxes more than McCain will for almost everyone. (The Washington Post has a great graphic to let you estimate how your personal taxes will change under the two candidates' plans.)


• Obama's non-political day job was as a Constitutional Law professor, so he knows the 2nd Amendment inside and out. He agreed with the recent Supreme Court decision to strike down the D.C. handgun ban because he agrees that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right to bear arms.


• He'll implement common-sense policies to reduce the number of abortions people are getting, rather than getting stuck in a stalemate over Roe vs Wade.


• He's got a real plan to boost alternative energy, rather than McCain's silliness about drilling that will lower the cost of gas 20 cents starting in 10 years.

The reason McCain resorted to a campaign based on intentional, shameless lying is that he's sure to lose if voters have the facts about what a practical, common-sense moderate Obama really is.

thank you, gentlemen for putting this election right out there where we can talk about it. usually i vote a third- or fourth-party candidate just to prove that democracy works, because often the other choice seems to be between the venal and the clueless. i appreciate your work to change my mind, and trust the discussion remains civil.

Casey,

I would urge you to read Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope. Unlike most politicians, he writes his books himself, and this one's a great window into how he thinks about policy and government. Read it and you're sure to realize that he's not at all the lesser of two evils. He's open-minded, level-headed, incredibly intelligent, curious, and respectful of actual expertise, and he's right on the vast majority of the issues.

In this election, Venal picked Clueless as his running mate. That left the Democratic ticket wide open for a couple of outstanding leaders.

Also, I've never really understood why people go for third parties. We don't really have just two choices to begin with -- that's what the primaries are for. The choices represent a pretty diverse set, from Kucinich on the left to Ron Paul on the right and everything in between. The primaries are essentially a run-off system. It's not a perfectly natural, non-partisan, free-for-all run-off, but you have to expect that if there were such a contest, given the composition of the electorate, the last two candidates left standing would probably be someone on the right and someone on the center-left... which is exactly what we get from the current system. The idea that there are "only two choices" is flawed -- it's more accurate to say that the voters have narrowed it down to two finalists.

Besides, the third parties that do make it onto the national ticket don't seem to really deserve the votes they get -- they're just a default "not one of the other guys." They focus on just a few issues and don't offer any kind of detailed plans to deal with the majority of problems we face. Often their candidates aren't really qualified for the office. I'm guessing most of their voters aren't passionately for the candidate they're choosing... just dissatisfied with the others. If a person's going to vote with a "lesser of ____ evils" attitude, might as well pick the one who might win.

and that, ladies and gentlemen, is what makes America great!

Jason, Martin has convinced me there is some reading to be done...all may not be lost.

Hi Casey,

Thanks for keeping an open mind, and for your suggestion that this conversation should remain civil. I would welcome anyone with an opinion to weigh in, and I promise to keep things from getting personal on my end. This is going to be a very important election, and I very much hope everyone in the country will try to be well-informed, not believing anything they cannot verify with solid sources.

I just found Factcheck.org -- a site that fully explores claims about candidates. That it exposes lies about Palin and about Obama suggests that it attempts to be objective and just deal in facts. It uses multiple sources in its investigations, and cites its sources, something any researcher who tries to be objective does.

FactCheck.org is one of the best non-partisan places to get informed about current campaign ads, statements, and controversies. I would certainly recommend it.

A good non-partisan place to read about candidates' positions is OnTheIssues.org.

I just had to post a thought of my own. personally I try to seperate politics from conservation issues. don't get me wrong, I don't want to elect an enviromental disaster, but frankly i think the pressing enviro issues need support where you can actually make a difference.... Private clubs, organiztions, etc... Maybe it is my general distrust for our politicians, but I don't think that they would make any decision were it not for lobbyist, so why not support the clubs (which most of us do any way) that match our views the most and lobby to move in the right direction. I just don't think that a president regardless of who we pick will make very many strides to improving the enviroment. Let's not give them any more decision making power to abuse than we have to. Just the thought of an even bigger govt. wakes up at night in cold sweats. Incase anyone was wondering I haven't decided which dem. I am voting for yet, chances are it will be the one posing in the republican costum.
jeff

LittleJ, Obama has taken unprecedented steps to make sure he's not beholden to lobbyists. No federal lobbyists work in his campaign, and he hasn't taken a dime of their money since he started running for President. That's just an on-the-record fact. McCain, on the other hand, raises millions from lobbyists, and most of his top-level campaign advisers are lobbyists.

McCain, like Bush, will have lobbyists writing most of his policies, just like they're doing for his campaign. Obama will push them away... just like he's doing for his campaign.

It's also a big mistake, I think, to think that all environmental improvements must happen through local clubs, etc. It's true that short-term tangible things, like trout stream habitat improvement projects, happen that way (or through the state government). But the stuff that really matters for the environment of the entire country in the long term has to come from the top. I mean things like:

* Regulating factory and automobile emissions to prevent acid rain and reduce global climate change. I use the word "climate change" instead of global warming because the bigger danger to trout fishermen is not the temperature but the instability. Climate change models predict that storms will get more severe and less frequent, meaning we'll see more droughts and more floods, and fewer stable flows. That certainly seems to be happening out east for the last few years.

* Exploitation of federal public lands. Bush has opened up more pristine areas to logging and mining than ever before. He's eliminated roadless area protection from millions of acres. McCain/Palin, especially Palin, would be predisposed to do even more of this, and certainly wouldn't reverse any of the damage Bush has done. Obama will retract a lot of Bush's dirty work.

* Scientific research. Obama's proposing to double the amount of federal funding for basic scientific research. That's the best use of taxpayer money anybody could possibly come up with. The benefits to the environment from improved science are pretty obvious, but the economic benefit is tremendous (long-term, the government makes back a lot more money than they spend), as are the military benefits and the general improvement to America's position in the world... our competitive advantage over other emerging nations.

Even if your real concern is the size of government, Obama's a better bet. Republicans talk about small government, then they throw bureaucracy and committees at everything they see. Many Democrats are guilty of that too, but Bill Clinton wasn't, and Barack Obama will be even better. Both Bushes have grown the government more than Clinton did. Obama will trim it.

I respectfully submit that this thread is not appropriate to Troutnut, but since the genie is out of the box: I hate Obama and Biden for they support the 50 million murders of human beings in the one sacred place they are suppose to be safe, the womb.

As for Palin, she is a life long member of the NRA, whose philosophy I hold dear. So she hires her friends! Wouldn't you?

Now let me ask this: What did any of the leading candidates say "(they would do if elected")??? Your eyes are probably better than mine, but I can't find diddly squat.

IMHO

Dick

Speaking of things that aren't appropriate to this website... that's way over-the-top.

For starters, the womb isn't the one sacred place human beings are safe. In fact, most embryos that are conceived don't survive long enough to even become noticeable pregnancies.

But that's not the point. The point is that if you want to see abortions reduced, railing against the right to choose isn't the way to go. The decision is between pro-choice and anti-choice, not pro-abortion, and the reason that distinction matters is that pro-choice candidates can still be more anti-abortion in their policies than anti-choice candidates.

Take George W. Bush for example -- he's anti-choice, but has he done anything to reduce the number of abortions? No. Because he's too extreme. He thinks they should overturn Roe vs Wade and if they can't do that then they might as well not even try doing anything.

In fact, his other policies act to increase the number of abortions... reducing the availability and knowledge about birth control and promoting abstinence-only programs that do not work at all. That may please stuffy conservative extremists, but it increases the number of unwanted pregnancies that lead to abortions.

John McCain has the same stance as Bush here... he sees it as all-or-nothing, and will walk away with nothing. Obama will take up the reasonable middle ground, supporting common-sense steps to reduce abortion (like improving access to birth control, making adoption easier, and providing assistance to single mothers) without being held back by extremists.



The NRA has been completely hijacked by the Republican Party. They aren't an issue advocacy group anymore at all, they're a political hit squad, no better than the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," and no more honest. They've really become a disgrace and embarrassment to all hunters and shooters, the same way PETA is a disgrace to humanity... they're just way too extreme for anyone's good.

The truth is both candidates this year are pro-gun-rights... McCain because he has to be as a Republican, and Obama because he's a professor of Constitutional Law who understands and honors every amendment including the 2nd.



No. I would hire qualified experts, and so should she. When you're running a business, you search for the best talent and hire those people. You don't call up your high school fishing buddies and ask if they want to run a department. Why is it okay for somebody running a state on taxpayer money to do something that nobody running a business could ever get away with?



That information is in Obama's Plan for America. He's got more detailed PDFs about specific issues linked from the 'Issues' section of his website.

I cannot relay how dissapointed I am that this website, particulary you jason, taking part in political discussion. this is going to go down a bad road where feelings get bent. I fish to escape all of this BS and now you bring here. what a shame and a disgrace. I find this whole conversation sad. it reminds me of going to my favorite steelhead river and finding it littered with trash. I haven't even read a post and I refuse to. politics are something I have followed since I was literally 6 years of age. the urge to post is great but I won't. I enjoy talking about it, but when my mind turns to fishing it's the last thing I want to think about. here I actually thought this was a discussion about "awesome fishing in alaska". the least you could do is identify for what it is. If this were my site I would have pulled the post, but since it was the sites operator or owner all I can say is I can not put into words how disappointed I am with you jason.

Hi Trtklr,

I can see your point, but I will beg to differ, with respect for your point of view. First, I'd say that this site has done a good job over the years of keeping all discussions civil, no matter what the topic.

I posted up the fishing report in the spirit of the site, which for a great long time has been posting up playful and witty comments on everything from the pronunciation of Latin to bug genitalia, sometimes under ironic titles that differed from the actual content of the post. Please don't blame Jason for this thread. It is my doing entirely, and that he has added some factual detail shouldn't be held against him.

I actually did it to encourage folks like you to take a look, and in hopes that it would engender some civil conversation about a topic that will potentially have a huge impact on fishing. If we do not care for our rivers and streams, and for our planet as a whole, litter may become the least of our worries. Climate change has the potential to ruin it for many fishermen and hunters--and for a lot of others worldwide. The current administration denied scientific findings on climate change as long as they could, ignoring information or trying to bury it. Palin has the same record. McCain is not in the best of health, and if she becomes president she seems to be prone to take the same approaches Bush has done on many topics. It sounds like you have some informaton to share on the topic; I'd like to hear it.


Dear Flybyknight,

As a Roman Catholic myself, I share your belief that abortion is wrong. But I believe Jason has it right. The way to reduce abortions is not with a simple abstinance policy as has been advocated by Bush, Palin and others. A comprehensive plan to reduce unwanted pregnancy, especially among teens, is needed. Obama and Biden have proposed one. I'd also note that the policies of the current administration have not been pro-life. Count the tens of thousands of innocent women and children dead in Iraq. An unnecessary war, begun by lies, that has left our country in debt to China, and, along with unwise deregulation, in economic shambles.

I would encourage Jason to take a hard look at this thread. If he, on second thought, thinks it should come down, I'll respect that. To my mind it has a place here, and I hope everyone with an opinion on the election will weigh in and debate the facts, politely and intelligently. I do think this election has vast implications for all troutnuts.

When does the Grouse season open in Alaska?

Dick

Trtklr, that's a fair point, especially about the title. I'll modify it to put a disclaimer. People shouldn't have to read about politics here if they don't want to, and want to use this site as an escape from all that. I also think people should be able to discuss these issues with friends in any context, including this one, if they want to. That's especially important when the election has such great consequences for our sport, not to mention the rest of the country's well-being.

So I'll strike a compromise and leave the thread up but put a warning in the title that it's political. I'll also delete anything that isn't civil, especially any personal attacks on other forum members. It's a credit to this community that, so far, people have been able to discuss this without getting personally nasty.

Flybyknight, grouse season here in Alaska has been open for a while, but I've been too busy with research and now classes to go small-game hunting. I may bring a gun for grouse or ducks on a work float trip this weekend, though.

I am only 16 years old, but am very interested in the state of our country, environment, and politics in general. Nonetheless, the following are the views of a 16 year old and you can take them for what they are worth...

An important fact to know is that Sen. John McCain has voted with President Bush 94% of the time. 94 times out of 100, he agrees with Bush. If you're not happy with the way Bush does things, then you can't realistically expect anything different from McCain.

The new articles on Gov. Palin really disgust me. It scares me to think that she has improved Sen. McCain ratings so much. Talk about being a celebrity, not a leader...she is example "A"...talk about corrupt morals...how about over paying your unqualified friends...

Mike

Well Mike,

High tide has evidently come and gone for the boost the McCain/Palin ticket got from its convention. Most polls are now moving back (albeit modestly) towards Sen. Obama.

I did my graduate work in political parties and electoral behavior, and while this doesn't make my opinion any better than anybody elses, I follow this stuff rabidly, especially the demographic component of election numbers. My view is that if Obama's numbers hold up and or continue to improve for the next week to 10 days, you can call the fat lady and tell her to spray her throat in preparation for singing.

To be truthful, I'm not all that taken with either ticket, but will probably vote Democrat at the Presidential level. If McCain would have chosen Tom Ridge, he would have had a shot at my vote. Not a guarantee, but a shot. Tom can be a bullhead, but he can also change his mind if persuaded rationally. We found this out during the Reg-Neg fiasco in his first term in Harrisburg.

Anyway, while I am not a single issue voter, resource and public lands issue stances comprise a big portion of my motivation for voting one way or the other. I've long been a registered Republican. This was partially because I'm from the Erie area where Democratic politics and Democratic candidates have traditionally left a long and fragrant slime trail. But I also always felt it was a luxury I had because I am native Pennsylvanian, a place with a long tradition of rational moderate Republicans, many of whom were pretty good on resource issues: Pinchot, Scott, Heinz, Schweiker, Ridge and others. I didn't mention Rick Santorum because he is a Virginian, not a Pennsylvanian. This is above and beyond the lingering question as to whether he is even a person...:) I couldn't abide him.

The funny thing is that despite my registration, I have never voted for a Republican for President. My first vote was during my hippie phase when I pulled the lever for McGovern in 72. After that, I weighed environmental issue positions and intent in every election that followed and over the years, could not bring myself to vote for any of the Republicans based upon these issues. So, I've always voted Democrat for President, knowing full well I'm putting myself in league with groups that, if they could, end my fishing and the hunting my brother so enjoys. I really admired Jimmy Carter as a President committed to improving the well being of our air and waters. Me and about 3 other people, I suppose.

If I could rearrange history, I'd bring John Heinz back from the other side and vote for him for President...

Lee

Good Stuff Lee,

Ha, just as I posted that message I turned on CNN (no, not FOX) and saw that Obama now had a 4%-5% lead. It seems that both parties get a boost after their conventions, and now the polls better reflect the actual mood of the voters.

Lots of Ridge fans back home here, and just as many voters McCain could have had...

Mike

Interesting points.

Mike, I'm impressed that you are so politically aware at your age. You are far ahead of where I was when I was 16.

Lee, it was interesting to hear your perspective on Pennsylvania politics. I once sat near Tom Ridge at church, and felt he was someone to look up to then; I understand what you're saying about him. And I too was a fan of Carter. He wasn't a helicopter expert, and he had some bad luck, but he was an honest man who I still respect deeply. Habitat for Humanity has brought hope to many.

Thanks for adding your voices and sharing your perspectives.