I found this in the local paper this morning.


The miscommunication and quarrels between the two camps lasted into Tuesday night, said McCain aides familiar with the situation. Palin arrived at the Arizona Biltmore planning to deliver a speech before McCain's concession speech, they said, but was told by senior McCain aides Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter that it would not be appropriate.


Fox News reported Wednesday that Palin's lack of knowledge on some topics also strained relations. Carl Cameron reported that campaign sources told him Palin had resisted coaching before her faltering Katie Couric interviews; did not understand that Africa was a continent rather than a country; and could not name the three nations that are part of the North American Free Trade Agreement -- the United States, Canada and Mexico.






Tensions between McCain and Palin camps come to light -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

It's kinda sad that they are pointing fingers at each other, but you know it was bound to happen.

__________________
I'm the kind of woman when my feet hit the floor in each morning, the devil says "Oh crap, she's up."

It is sad but I think it is normal to want to place blame when things go this wrong. She is the perfect person for them to blame as well. She played into their hands. I have no love lost for Sarah Palin but I feel for her. It is going to get worse, I fear.

The election is over so there's no good reason to keep bashing Palin, is there? Seriously, is there?

This is nothing but MORE Palin bashing. It's just 'anonymous sources' making unsubstantiated claims. In other words, Carl Cameron wants to bash Palin and isn't man enough to do it head on so he claims these imaginary people told him these things.

All the anonymous source 'revelations' are derogatory. such as the 'unidentified' aide claiming that Palin doesn't even know that Africa is a continent. Good God. You'd have to be an idiot to put any faith in this kind of 'reporting'. Why not just post links to the Star and be done with it?

Two aides to McCain and two to Palin discussed the tensions but asked that their names not be revealed, saying they were not comfortable speaking openly about internal operations.

I wish some of these 'anonymous souces' from the McCain would have enough courage to actually give their names.

Right now Gov Palin is the scapegoat for the Republicans. I feel she was thrown into this, basically pushed on stage and told what to do, without ever actually getting to realize what was happening. Had the Republican party decided earlier in the election and did a better job coaching her, things would have been much better for Gov. Palin. I blame the Republican party for that -- not her. It wouldn't surprise me, though, if she doesn't do a lot of homework in the next four years and come back on the scene. I don't think this is the last we'll see of Gov. Palin.

Makes me wonder, though, do you think some of her staff knew of the phone prank from the DJ's beforehand and actually help set it up?? It was just way too easy to get her on the phone with the staffer answering the phone and just basically handing the phone to her.

The call was scheduled and on her agenda for over 3 days.

On to your next conspiracy theory....

__________________
I'm the kind of woman when my feet hit the floor in each morning, the devil says "Oh crap, she's up."

It was played to the public three days before the election. I haven't seen anything about where it was scheduled and on her agenda for three days.

I read the same thing....that it was a scheduled call.

__________________
GO NAVY WRESTLING!!BEAT ARMY!!!
RJB 3/18/60 - 5/22/04
We miss you, sweet brother
God Bless the USA!!!!! Praying for my Youngster son at United States Naval Academy, class of 2014!!

http://mylifeundertheabaya.blogspot.com/

Palin herself repeatedly pointed out that it's not "negative campaigning" to point out the facts. If these are the facts, they're the facts and, by her own standards, that's not Palin bashing.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

The article cited by the OP has Palin foreign policy aide Steve Biegun saying that it had been on Palin's schedule for a couple of days. In other articles, the Palin campaign has defended against McCain camp's accusations that it was blindsided by the interview by pointing out that it had been on her calendar for three days before the interview.

Oh my gosh...it's over..let it go.

__________________
Mary

How is an unsubstantiated claim by an unidentified, anonymous source, a 'fact'? And the campaign is over so yes, it's more Palin bashing.

Isn't it more like a "he said/she said" kind of hear say thing?? Basically it's taking someone's word just because they said it, and didn't we go over that in another thread???

I guess it's not enough for some people that McCain lost the election, let's now beat the pulp out of the candidates.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

As happened to Dems in 2000 and 2004. However, repeating what their own cohorts have said isn't "beating the pulp out of them". It's not our fault the party is falling apart.

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

I agree. While I think her being VP is probably what sunk the campaign, I don't think it's her fault. They picked picked her, they sent her out unprepared, and now they're looking for someone to blame. I'm not a Palin supporter, but I do feel kinda bad for her. What a freakin' whirlwind for her, to suddenly be the party's centerpiece and then their sacrificial lamb all in 2 months.

__________________
Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box.

Now they're sending lawyers in after her.

Tensions between McCain and Palin camps come to light - Los Angeles Times

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

Why would we be quiet? Palin has been mentioned repeatedly as a leading presidential candidate for 2012. It would be awfully stupid to ignore the information coming out about her now on the grounds that it is hurtful and isn it "enough for McCain/Palin to have lost."

Further, the evidence that we are reading about McCain/Palin was leaked by their camps and exposed largely by FOX News. Contact them if you have a complaint about continued coverage of the issue.

I think you're missing the big picture here, and with such an historic election at that. Since it was done in the past (apply to ANY situation) by all means, let's carry on that fine tradition. Not to mention, why kick someone when their down??

As far as repeating what their cohorts have said...well, they are talking on both sides. I haven't heard anyone repeating what the people defending Palin are saying. I'm not surprised tho.

I'm glad the party is falling apart. Apparently they NEED to fall apart, so they can take a good look at what they need to do to come back at the Republican Party they should be. Kind of like in the military.....break 'em down to build 'em up. It's not always a bad thing.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

then by all means, feel free to post. I'd like to see it.

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

http://news.aol.com/political-machin...-camp-attacks/


It's the typical he said she said, as I stated before. Does anyone have this in writing, on a tape recording??? In a debate you will believe what you (general) want to believe. I'm sure the blame game is going on, Monday morning quarterbacking, all of that.

I thought proving something true or false required more than just hearsay.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

I am really disappointed in Carl Cameron. This was a bad move on his part -- citing anonymous (read "sniveling cowards"!!!) sources??? What reputable reporter does that???

Geez.

Governor Sarah Palin is a class act -- and can look forward to a very bright political future.

He does work for Fox, right?

I blame Palin every bit as much as I blame McCain -- surely she's smart enough to know she wasn't remotely prepared to be VP. I give her credit for being at least that smart. I think she just got greedy and wanted to move up too fast.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

Sadly and again this is my personal views. Senator McCain made a huge mistake for his campaign by asking Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate. She truly did not have the experience to be the vice president of the United States, especially in the bad economic state we are... Catherine

I love that..one election in how many? is lost the party is falling apart.

my bad. tell me again who your party leader is now? How's the president your party elected doing? Is the infighting over yet or has it just begun?

The number of elections lost/won is not the only thing that keeps a party together. Your party began falling apart 2 years ago when it lost all those seats in the Senate and Congress. But hey, there is a bright spot - you've got Lieberman now.

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

WOW! What a coinkydink! Wasn't it right after this our economy started going South?

In December 2006, after six years of Bush and the last month before the Democrats took over both houses of the national legislature, a snapshot of our economy looked like this.

* Unemployment stood at 4.4%.
* Real GDP growth over the previous four years (under a Republican President, House and Senate) averaged 3% per year.
* A gallon of regular gasoline cost $2.30.
* The S&P; 500 stock index stood at 1418, or 84% above its post-911 low and more than 7% higher than when Bush took office.
* Every year of Bush's Presidency, real (inflation-adjusted) disposable income per person went up. By the end of 2006, the average person was making 9% more in real terms than before Bush became President .


http://www.sodahead.com/question/174...swer-them-out/

We can also look at the 1993 Democratic Congress, as well (The last time that we had such Democratic Power)

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/budg...3/whither3.htm


I would love to go back through history and see exactly what impact a Democratic House and Senate has done to our economy. Anyone have any links to read further?

I don't know that you can count on the demise of the GOP after just two elections. After all, Dems did pretty poorly in 2000, 2002, and 2004.

That said, the GOP has done a pretty good job of alienating Hispanics, blacks and Muslims, all growing segments of the population. Most of the moderates have been pushed out of the GOP. The party is now far right Christians (Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Pat Robertson), neo cons (Bill Kristol, Rummy, Cheney), greedy corporate execs, and most of the South. The party just isn't attractive to people who aren't in those groups.

And what is the reason that the snapshot looks like that?

The Bush-Cheney administration's fiscal policy has been characterized by budget deficit upon budget deficit, whatever the state of the economy. In its entire eight years in office, in fact, it has never balanced the budget. On the contrary, it has even spent the budget surplus that it inherited from the Clinton administration. And it has announced that it plans to leave the coming administration with a record 2009 deficit of half a trillion dollars. Indeed, the previous Bush-Cheney administration's record was its 2004 $413 billion deficit.

Although such deficits at about 3.3 percent of the gross national product (GDP) are lower than the 6.0 percent of GDP we saw in the early 1980's, they are cumulative, and they have occurred at a time when U.S. foreign indebtedness is much higher and the U.S. dollar much weaker. It can be said that they have contributed to weakening the United States and making it more vulnerable to economic and financial shocks.

Basically....

In economics, bad decisions and bad policies do not always result in immediate negative consequences. It takes time for them to work their way through the economy and produce their corrosive effects. Many of the current economic and financial problems of today are the result of bad policies of the past....your two year Congress theory leaves a lot on the table.

__________________
I'm the kind of woman when my feet hit the floor in each morning, the devil says "Oh crap, she's up."

Why yes, yes it was. Apparently your party laid the groundwork for that really well and you (right on cue) have blamed the Dems.

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

Right.. like about 8 years.

I totally agree with you.

Thanks Bill!

No, but seriously, I will not argue that Bush has done not such a favorable job in the last few years in the White House.

And you expected any different?

I woudn't expect any different with you.

I can hope, but alas, I know what the reality of your views are.

FYI --- oh, and this is just the damage Bush did in the first 4 years....



What the Indicators Mean:

Our Fiscal Future

Debt Reduction Relative to GDP
The national debt is the net amount of debt held by the federal government ($3.9 trillion in 2003). It increased under both administrations (in today's dollars). But under Clinton the debt rose more slowly and GDP rose faster than under Bush. The result is that the ratio of debt to GDP went down an average of 3.89 percent per year during the Clinton years, but has gone up an average of 0.94 percent per year during the Bush years.

Trade Deficit Reduction Relative to GDP
The trade deficit increased during both administrations. It increased by 0.52 percent of GDP per year under Clinton and by 0.37 percent per year under Bush.7 This is one of two indicators where economic performance under Bush appears to be better than it was during the Clinton administration. But underneath that data is a less flattering story for the Bush years. The trade deficit grew at the rate it did under Clinton for two main reasons: because the first Bush Administration's recession had cut imports to an artificially low level, and because the economy was expanding rapidly. People were confident, so they were buying a lot of imported goods. Businesses were growing, too, so U.S. factories were importing materials to manufacture their products. Throughout this period, export growth was very strong. In the Bush years, the trade deficit has been a product of a different, and less healthy dynamic: U.S. exports have dipped dramatically relative to imports.

Employment

Jobs
One of the most important measures of economic well-being is the number of people with jobs. The number of jobs in the economy increased 2.38 percent per year under Clinton, but it has decreased 0.17 percent per year under Bush. While it's clear that the economic downturn in 2001 was not Bush's fault, the sluggishness of the recovery is unprecedented in the period since the federal government began issuing detailed employment reports in the 1940s. There have been 1.7 million jobs created since September 2003, which may sound like a lot, but that number falls short of the 1.8 million jobs that must be created per year just to match population growth, and it falls far below the 3.7 million jobs that the administration predicted would be created when the president signed his 2003 tax cut into law. This slow job growth is largely attributable to both the failure of the administration's fiscal policies (which targeted tax cuts to stimulate savings rather than spending) and the failure of its trade policies (which have done a poor job of opening foreign markets to spur export growth, and have not created the conditions for an orderly decline in the value of the dollar, which would have helped ease the trade imbalance).

Full-time vs. Part-time Jobs
The change in the number of jobs does not provide a complete picture of employment in the U.S. economy. Not only did the Clinton years produce many more jobs than the Bush years have, but they also produced more full-time jobs compared to part-time jobs. This is an important indicator because in an economic slowdown many displaced and new workers resort to part-time work as a second-choice option. Granted, some people might prefer part-time work because they have children or attend school. But, overall, a decrease in the ratio of full-time to part-time jobs implies that a greater share of workers have less stable work with fewer benefits. The ratio of full-time to part-time work rose under Clinton by 0.11 percent per year, but it has decreased at an annual rate of 1.67 percent since the beginning of 2001. In fact, the ratio of full-time to part-time jobs has not only reversed direction, but as of September 2004 it has fallen below what it was before Clinton took office.

Jobs with Good Wages
The economic well-being of American workers is determined not only by whether they have jobs -- ideally full-time jobs with benefits -- but also by how well their jobs pay. This indicator is a weighted index based on the change in the number of jobs in different income quintiles under Clinton and Bush. A positive value represents job growth biased toward higher paying jobs, which reflects an upwardly mobile economy. A negative value represents job growth biased toward lower-paying jobs, which reflects a more downwardly mobile economy. The score of 4.70 during the Clinton administration means that the economy produced significantly more jobs in high-wage quintiles than in the low-wage quintiles. In contrast, the score of -1.0 during the Bush administration substantiates reports that new jobs created under Bush have generally paid worse than the jobs that have been lost. For example, from 2000 to 2003, the economy added 540,820 jobs in the lowest-wage quintile. Meanwhile, 451,440 jobs were lost in the middle quintile and 357,900 jobs were lost in the two highest quintiles.

Americans with Health Insurance
Since most working Americans with health insurance get it through work, changes in the share of Americans who have health insurance is another indication of the quality of jobs in the economy. Under the Clinton administration, the share of Americans covered by health insurance went up 0.12 percent annually. Under Bush, there has been a 0.55 percent yearly decrease. Even more striking is that 5 million more Americans were without health insurance in 2003 than in 2000 and 3.8 million fewer Americans had employment-based health insurance.

Incomes

Productivity
Productivity measures the amount of economic output that each hour of work produces. It is an important indicator of economic performance because high rates of productivity traditionally correlate with strong growth in living standards. The most accurate measure of productivity covers non-farm businesses. During the Clinton administration non-farm business productivity grew 1.83 percent per year. During the Bush administration, it grew by an average of 3.76 percent per year. This is one of the only bright spots in a period of otherwise lackluster economic performance, and it is a measure that suggests hope for the economy in the coming years. But it is important to note that the late 1990s saw both productivity growth and job growth, producing a double benefit for the economy. During the Bush years, productivity has grown while jobs have not. Whether the nation can maintain the robust levels of productivity growth we have enjoyed since 1996 depends in large part on whether we put in place the right policies, including investments in research and development, and the skills of the workforce; promotion of the digital economy, including high-speed broadband deployment; and fiscal discipline to keep interest rates low.

Per Capita GDP
Simply comparing the annual growth of GDP under each administration would be misleading, because the population continues to grow. Per capita GDP -- in other words, how much output there is each year relative to the total population -- is a more accurate measure. While per capita GDP rose 2.42 percent under Clinton, it has risen just 1.62 percent per year during the Bush presidency. In large part, this is because fewer people are working.

Median Household Income
Median household income is the best measure of American families' well-being because it shows the true economic mid-point of the population. By definition, half of all households make more than the median, and half make less. (Average household income figures are bad measures of overall well-being, because a small percentage of very rich families can skew the picture, making everyone appear to be richer than they are.) Median household income has fallen an average of 1.15 percent per year under Bush. It rose an average of 1.65 percent per year under Clinton.

Poverty Reduction
Poverty statistics are telling indicators of the country's economic health. The number of Americans below the poverty line fell 2.29 percent annually in the Clinton years, but has since gone up 4.33 percent annually in the Bush years.

Homeownership
No economic indicator can embody the American dream in quite the same way as homeownership. Indeed, one of the successes that President Bush frequently points to under his watch is the increase in homeownership. But while the home ownership rate has increased 0.37 percent per year during the Bush administration, that is a slowdown compared to the average increases of 1.94 percent during the Clinton administration.


Now, what were you saying about 8 years??????

Want to check the facts....check out these sites -


http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/...ical/gands.pdf
Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/cea_gr...ic_effects.pdf
http://www.census.gov/hhes/hlthins/h.../hihistt1.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h06ar.html
Housing Vacancies and Homeownership - Main


Notice, none of the start with Wiki....

__________________
I'm the kind of woman when my feet hit the floor in each morning, the devil says "Oh crap, she's up."

Crap, Kelliiii....you expect us to read?

cj/

__________________
I was walking home one night and a guy hammering on a roof called me a paranoid little weirdo. In morse code. -Emo Phillips

why do you think i added the pretty graphic?

__________________
I'm the kind of woman when my feet hit the floor in each morning, the devil says "Oh crap, she's up."

Thanks Kelliii,
I read through it, and will take some time to digest it even further, before I want to respond.

THANK YOU SO MUCH for posting the links that did not begin with wiki, snopes, or factcheck! lol!!!

Thanks for taking the time, it is much appreciated.

You do know that the argument is that Clinton was riding the wave of what Reagan/ Bush did?

But back to the topic. . .of course there is finger pointing and dissent among the ranks. Is that really a surprise to anybody? After all, this is politics we are talking about. Nobody wants to be held responsible for what they did. . . .kinda like Obama's strategy to not do anything before now, so that he wound't be held accountable for it during his run for President. "I hit the wrong button." LMFAO!!!!

__________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell Animal Farm

Mccain was never the hard core republican we needed - I wish Romney had been the GOP choice but they wanted to appear partisan - see what that get's us, nothing!

__________________
Lizzzz
Haunted_Studio