Palin spent taxpayer money to attend religious events

[LowriseMinis]

A snippet:

The camera closes in on Sarah Palin speaking to young missionaries, vowing from the pulpit to do her part to implement God's will from the governor's office.

What she didn't tell worshippers gathered at the Wasilla Assembly of God church in her hometown was that her appearance that day came courtesy of Alaskan taxpayers, who picked up the $639.50 tab for her airplane tickets and per diem fees.

An Associated Press review of the Republican vice presidential candidate's record as mayor and governor reveals her use of elected office to promote religious causes, sometimes at taxpayer expense and in ways that blur the line between church and state.

Since she took state office in late 2006, the governor and her family have spent more than $13,000 in taxpayer funds to attend at least 10 religious events and meetings with Christian pastors, including Franklin Graham, the son of evangelical preacher Billy Graham, records show.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/11/ap...omote-religion/

 

[AppyLover2]

Surely you're kidding. With the hundreds of thousands of dollars of mis-spent taxpayer money you're bringing up an issue of $639.50?? Or even $13,000?? I agree it isn't right but considering the problems this country is facing right now... I'm not likely to lose a lot of sleep over it.

And if I may say so I'm totally amazed that you'd post a Fox News link.

 

[LowriseMinis]

It's less about the money and more about the ethics involved.

 

[Bassett]

$639.50??

Heck, they pay that much for hammer or a toilet seat.

 

[C G Minis]

 

[LowriseMinis]

I'm just nudging this up. Really, is everyone comfortable with the possible future U.S. Vice President blurring the line separating church and state?

And then there was the invocation before John McCain's speech in Iowa...yikes.

 

[AppyLover2]

Lowrise I find your last post confusing. In one sentence you talk about the separation of church and state and in the next you bring up an invocation made at a rally.

Since I seriously doubt that John McCain wrote the invocation I personally don't see that it's a big political deal. Would I have said it? No! But lots of people say things I wouldn't say....and vice versa.

 

[minimama]

Oh let's see now, she could spend a nice chunk of tax payers money to go on a retreat with her family....something like Camp David, (not that this is a bad thing or bad place) where is would pretty much just be her and her family. Or, she could go to church where she is meeting the people she is supposed to be representing and getting out there in the community showing them who she is and what she stands for. Gosh, I don't know, for some reason I just don't see this as a problem. And I am also going to add that truly if you do see this as a problem, you mayjust have way too much time on your hands and be looking for issues that aren't really there.

i wonder maybe if because she did not use the Governors private jet and instead drove her self around, this could balance out teh money that was spent to go to church? ya think?

 

[Southern_Heart]

If this was all we had to worry about... That would be great!!

 

[littlesteppers]

Wonder why she didn't spend her taxmoney on acorn..apparently nobody cares..even 6 digit numers..

 

[LowriseMinis]

I started and stopped a post several times, because I'm just not sure how to respond to this.

We are guaranteed a clear separation of church (any church) and state. Period, end of story, Founding Father's final words on the subject. Can we all agree on that?

Now we have evidence of a candidate-who has already been found guilty of abuse of power by a bi-partisan committee-has also been using taxpayer money to attend religious events, and has used her time in office to push for some pretty dicey faith-based initiatives and activities.

To me? That is concerning. I don't like religion in my government and I don't like government in my religion.

On the topic of religion in office, that invocation was before one of Sen. McCain's speeches this weekend, and to me it sounds a little radical. Basically saying the Christian God is the biggest and best God, and with prayer will squash all the others so that John McCain can win.

And McCain went on stage, and thought nothing of it. As the video commentary points out, I wasn't aware that this was a holy war. All this time I've been thinking 'election'. I wasn't aware it was about who's God can kick the other gods' butts. And I'm disappointed that even though McCain's stood up and in a way retracted his previous attacks on Obama, that he still allows this sort of insulting, divisive talk to go on at his rallies.

 

[littlesteppers]

I'm just nudging this up. Really, is everyone comfortable with the possible future U.S. Vice President blurring the line separating church and state?
And then there was the invocation before John McCain's speech in Iowa...yikes.

Why are you worried..Obama has a LEAD in polls!! Yeaaahhh for you

In case you missed it..until yesterday Obamas website stated he has NO involvement with acorn..it got whiped last night..after these facts came out..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is the first national candidate ever to hire ACORN, a controversial non-profit accused of voter fraud across the country, for get out the vote activities.

Obama’s campaign paid $800,000 to a subsidiary of the liberally-leaning non-profit Association of Community Organizers for Reform called Citizens Services Incorporated campaign to increase voter turnout.

 

[LowriseMinis]

Littlesteppers, thanks for the reminder. The news on the polls this morning looks very good for Obama. Guess I can stop worrying!

 

[Southern_Heart]

I don't have to much faith in polls. Does anyone know How many people took the poll 5?

Fact check the polls as to how many people were in the poll. Heck, could have been 3 for all I know.

 

[littlesteppers]

I don't have to much faith in polls. Does anyone know How many people took the poll 5?Fact check the polls as to how many people were in the poll. Heck, could have been 3 for all I know.

I am right there with you Southern heart..too many presidents where down in the polls and won..so we shall see..

 

[Bassett]

The fine print on the bottom of some of these polls say 1000 people were polled. I don't call that a poll. Not enough of a crosas section. I don't believe them.

 

[LowriseMinis]

I am right there with you Southern heart..too many presidents where down in the polls and won..so we shall see..

This is interesting: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_/ai_11925690

AS WE ENTER another presidential election year, political pundits will retail a variety of different ways to predict the winner. Here are nine of these predictors and their track records.
1. Incumbent Presidents who run again, win. This was true of 12 of the 16 races in this century when an incumbent President was re-nominated. The four exceptions: Taft in 1908, Hoover in 1932, Ford in 1976, and Carter in 1980. In addition, two other incumbents probably would have lost if they had run: Truman in 1952 and Johnson in 1968.

2. Incumbent Presidents with positive performance ratings in the polls win. Those with negative ratings lose. True, but something of a "no-brainer." The only incumbent Presidents to run and lose since polls began were Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Both were rated, in eve-of-election polls, very negatively. However, Harry Truman had a negative rating in the poll conducted by Gallup five months before the 1948 election; we don't know how he would have rated in November. Eisenhower in 1952, Johnson in 1964, Nixon in 1972, and Reagan in 1984 all had positive poll ratings.

3. The candidate who is ahead in the first polls after Labor Day wins. True, except--rarely--when the lead changes. The two exceptions are Truman in 1948 and Kennedy in 1960.

4. The final pre-election polls get the winner right. True--except when it's very close, when at least some of the final polls may get it wrong. The major national polls have got the winner right in all the presidential elections since they started (beginning with Gallup in 1932) except in 1948, 1968, and 1976.

In 1948, the most infamous polling debacle, the few polls that were conducted all showed Dewey ahead of Truman, mainly because they stopped polling weeks or months before Truman's late surge.

In 1968 and 1976 the polls disagreed but most pollsters said it was too close to call. In the other very close election, 1960, the only major poll, Gallup, correctly showed Kennedy ahead by a whisker, but questions remain about whether he really won (or whether Mayor Daley's and Lyndon Johnson's help in "creative vote counting" put him over the top).

5. The party of the incumbent President, whether he runs or not, loses if the country is in a recession in the fall of an election year. True, according to Alan Lichtman of American University. In his book Thirteen Keys to the Presidency he writes that all seven times since the Civil War when the economy was in a recession in the fall of an election year, someone from the opposition party was elected President. The winners were Hayes (1876), Cleveland (1884), McKinley (1896), Harding (1920), Roosevelt (1932), Kennedy (1960), and Reagan (1980).

Two nit-picks are that the recession in 1980 probably ended in July, and that McKinley was re-elected in 1900 even though some believe there was a recession then.

6. If real disposable income increases by 3.8 per cent in the year before an election, the incumbent party wins; if not, it loses. True, according to Robert Westcott of Wharton Econometric Forecasting, of all elections since World War II. The incumbent party's candidate was defeated following the failure to reach the 3.8 per cent mark in 1952, 1960, 1968, 1976, and 1980. The incumbent party won in 1948,1956, 1964, 1972, 1984, and 1988 after real disposable income had grown 4 per cent or more.

7. If unemployment is falling, the incumbent party wins. True, according to Michael S. Lewin-Beck of the University of Iowa, for all five times since World War II when the unemployment rate fell in the second quarter of the election year (1948, 1964, 1972, 1984, 1988).

Conversely, the incumbent party lost in five out of six election years when the unemployment rate was flat or rising (1952, 1960, 1968, 1976, and 1980). The one exception: Eisenhower's re-election in 1956.

8. Whe either the UK or the United States swings left or right the other follows. Peter Kellner of the London Independent points out that for more than four decades U.S. presidential and UK parliamentary elections have tracked each other precisely; when either country has shifted to the right or left the other country has followed at its next election. The last occasion was Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 following Margaret Thatcher's 1979 victory. Britain will vote this year.

9. The taller of the two main candidates wins. True in 22 of the 23 presidential elections in this country. The one exception was when the unelected President Ford lost very narrowly to Jimmy Carter, who was the beneficiary of the nation's post-Watergate, post-Vietnam, anti-Republican mood.

This is a good omen for President Bush, who is 6'2". All the declared Democratic candidates are shorter except for Clinton, who is the same height. Bradley--6' 5''--is not running.

 

[Southern_Heart]

littlesteppers

Exactly! With so many forums and chats and add your comments to News articles, I can't see how Obama can be ahead. They all seem to not like him. I think its what the media wants you to think. Their all Dems. Even here on LB it shows more McCain supporters! But we shall see in a few weeks as to what happens.

I sure pray McCain gets in....

 

[Cathy_H]

The news on the polls this morning looks very good for Obama. Guess I can stop worrying!

... Until he is in office then it will be too late. If you have any money left after Obama "shares your wealth" you could move to another Country........ Our people are at their lowest if they put into office a president that paid a criminal organization to help get him there. And he will leave the back door open for his buddies................................ As for Palin wasting tax dollars on a religious event - rather that than Obama contributing & being a part of a criminal organization set in place to put him in office and then continue to take & use tax payers money to keep active.................... I understand that no one can pinpoint how much money ACORN is now receiving because there are several off shoots of this " crime ring " and it would take a long time to follow the trail to see if any or all are above board... If it isn't documented now and no one knows how much or where the tax dollars are going HOW & WHERE do you think it will end if Obama is steering the ship.................... Polls are only as good as the people conducting them and the answers can be manipulated to suit ones needs - most of us aren't that stupid! Propaganda to try to get the weak of heart to give up & join their 'farce".. And no I would not believe the polls even if McCain were ahead.

 

[Southern_Heart]

The fine print on the bottom of some of these polls say 1000 people were polled. I don't call that a poll. Not enough of a crosas section. I don't believe them.

Only 1000 people were polled?

Gosh thats nothing compare to all the people in the whole U.S.A.

How the heck can they go by that!! Thats crazy!!! I don't beleive them either!