Will Palin's VP Debate Performance Impact McCain's Campaign?

[Evo]

The more I learn about her, aside from what my friends in Alaska say, the more I think she is a different breed of politics. In a good way. I'll take her for vice before Biden. Who is also another vaguely known choice. Biden is typical, Palin is not. Typical is not "change".

Could you tell us specifically which of her stands on key issues you agree with?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I believe Quad means fmr Rep. Duke Cunningham, now serving 8 in the federal pen. Hunter has been a close friend of Cunningham

That makes more sense. The wiki article on Cunningham is a tutorial on how to profit from being a member of Congress, but obviously not on how to avoid getting caught. Just for the record, I was not a close friend of Cunningham.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Could you tell us specifically which of her stands on key issues you agree with?

This question was addressed to drankin. I will respond, but drankin still needs to answer your question.

1) opposed to abortion rights
2) pro right to bear arms

However, neither of these are key issues for me, so I guess I haven't really answered your question. What is key for me is her support for private commercial ventures in general and the airline industry in particular. If it was me, I would have put Congress on eBay, no minimum.

 

[turbo]

Biden is typical, Palin is not. Typical is not "change".

Typical, as in normal, rational, not radical, would be a hell of a change from this administration. Bush-Cheney are quite radical. Right now, McCain is promising to continue every destructive policy that they have instituted, and his choice of Palin shows that he is willing to willing to out-crazy Bush-Cheney in regard to reproductive choice, environmental issues, and the reasonable presentation of sciences in public schools. If that's the "change" that McCain-Palin represent, we can't afford it.

 

[mheslep]

...Just for the record, I was not a close friend of Cunningham.

Are you sure? Maybe you hit his facebook nom de web and never knew?

 

[B. Elliott]

Frank Murkowski, then governor of Alaska, bought the plane for $2.7 million in 2005. Palin, then governor of Alaska, sold it for $2.1 million (less commission) in 2007. It is unreasonable to fault her for the fact that used goods sell for less than new ones (not that reason can be had for a mere $2.1 million during silly season). The only reasonable consideration is whether it was cheaper to keep and maintain the plane, or sell it and use the proceeds to purchase alternate transportation. Say for instance, that the state got $1.9 million from the sale. Say that an average ticket on a commercial liner is $300. I have no clue if these numbers are even close. Then the proceeds from the sale would pay for over 6000 tickets. There would also be a savings in fuel and maintanance and that would buy more tickets. I wonder if the sale made sense from that point of view.

That was exactly my take on it when I originally hear her taking flack for the plane 'not being sold for a profit'. Aircraft of that size take a considerable amount of money to maintain so, overall, it saved the government quite a bit. I laugh every time I see someone trying to nail her for the 'profit' part of it, expecially when they mention that it didn't sell on eBay, as if she even ever made the claim that it ever did sell on eBay.

There's only been a few rare instances where I've personally known someone to make a 'profit' off of selling a vehicle, but most often, it's been some sort of a collectors item anyway.

 

[Evo]

To say if it was a financially wise idea to sell the plane, one would need to look at how much everyone that flies that would use the plane would be spending, the cost of up keep and fuel. Was there an ROI done when it was purchased? Were the savings over how many years that plane would last taken into consideration when it was sold? What kind of analysis was done, if any?

 

[B. Elliott]

To say if it was a financially wise idea to sell the plane, one would need to look at how much everyone that flies that would use the plane would be spending, the cost of up keep and fuel. Was there an ROI done when it was purchased? Were the savings over how many years that plane would last taken into consideration when it was sold? What kind of analysis was done, if any?

I don't think it even needs to go that far. Would it not cost less for the officials to fly on commercial flights than it would to maintain and operate a private plane?

 

[B. Elliott]

Stapleton told CNN that Murkowski paid too much for the jet, and that it was costing taxpayers money just sitting in the hangar.

"Eventually you had to concede and say, 'How often are we going to pay these bills and waste more state dollars?' " she said.

When putting it on eBay failed, aircraft broker Rob Heckmann was called into sell the jet. Businessman Larry Reynolds bought the five-passenger jet for sold for $2.1 million. And Reynolds is now seeking another $50,000 from the state for unexpected maintenance issues with the aircraft.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/06/alaska-state-jet-didnt-fly-on-ebay/

 

[mheslep]

I don't think it even needs to go that far. Would it not cost less for the officials to fly on commercial flights than it would to maintain and operate a private plane?

Yes, its not even close, commercial is cheaper even if you get the jet as an already sunk capital cost. The only way it makes sense financially is if one assigns a high value to the time of the executives and value of the inability to keep their daily operations private. Then, adding up the time waiting in airports, canceled flights, no flights at all, etc one can make the case for a private jet.

 

[quadraphonics]

I don't think it even needs to go that far. Would it not cost less for the officials to fly on commercial flights than it would to maintain and operate a private plane?

Why would it? The price of a commercial flight includes the cost of maintaining and operating a fleet of privately owned planes, along with the costs of booking agents, checkers, security, baggage handlers, profit for the stockholders, commercial promotion, marketing teams, route planners, salaries for executives, healthcare and pensions for everyone involved, etc. There's also the cost savings that a private plane provides: you don't have to pay your public servants to go to the airport an hour early, wait in a security line, wait at the gate, wait for everyone to board, wait for everyone to deboard, wait for their luggage, and then take a taxi to the place they actually want to go. Instead they drive to an airfield, get on the plane, and fly to the airstrip closest to where they're going, hopefully doing work the entire trip.

It really comes down to how often you need to fly, and how many people you need to fly. If it's one person, once a month, then commercial flights are almost certainly cheaper. But if it's being used every day, maybe not. And I would expect that in Alaska, a huge state with a dispersed population, inadequate road infrastructure, and a long distance from all other states (and in particular the national capitol), there could well be a need for it.

 

[quadraphonics]

And yeah, I meant Duke Cunningham. I'm always mixing up my crusty old San Diego Republican incumbents...

 

[mheslep]

...If it was me, I would have put Congress on eBay, no minimum.

Let me guess: your 'sellers reputation score' is not so hot?

 

[B. Elliott]

It really comes down to how often you need to fly, and how many people you need to fly.

From what's been stated so far, the plane was hardly used.

 

[LowlyPion]

I think your efforts to demonize Palin are getting weaker everyday. Next it will be how she eats her corn flakes. "If she was really a reformer she wouldn't be eating them like that." She not a crook, she isn't afraid to make decisions, and even her mistakes aren't deal killers. The complaints sound trivial.

She cheats only a little so that's ok? Pay no attention to that as she touts herself as a reformer? I suppose if you don't value absolute integrity, but are happy with some kind of integrity threshold, then it's like why be concerned about little lies?

And when the big lies like Weapons of Mass Destruction get floated you will forgive her those too? Or will it already be too late for a nation committed to a rash course by deceit?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Do these help?

Mr. Murkowski primarily used the jet, which seats up to nine, to shuttle between Juneau, the state's remote capital, and Anchorage, its largest city, Mr. Wilkinson said. When the plane was not carrying the governor, it often transported Alaska inmates who were to be imprisoned in Arizona under an agreement between the two states.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEED71531F937A25751C1A9609C8B63"

If the Department of Public Safety decides at a future date that it needs another aircraft, we will invest in something more sensible that can land on Alaska’s rural airstrips. Any purchase, if deemed necessary, will go through the normal legislative budget process.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/25/us/25jet.html?_r=1&oref=slogin"

I have been trying to find information on pricing for the Westwind II. That's the model in question. Apparently, production for this aircraft ceased in 1987. http://flitewise.com/fact_files/fact_file_69.php". My guess is that Murkowski bought a gold-plated version.

 

[BobG]

Do these help?


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEED71531F937A25751C1A9609C8B63"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/25/us/25jet.html?_r=1&oref=slogin"

I have been trying to find information on pricing for the Westwind II. That's the model in question. Apparently, production for this aircraft ceased in 1987. http://flitewise.com/fact_files/fact_file_69.php". My guess is that Murkowski bought a gold-plated version.

Yes, those do help. A governor in Alaska definitely does need a plane. Buying a jet that can't land on all the airstrips the governor would visit would be a bad buy. Buying the most expensive jet one could find would be an even worse buy.

 

[quadraphonics]

Apparently, production for this aircraft ceased in 1987. http://flitewise.com/fact_files/fact_file_69.php". My guess is that Murkowski bought a gold-plated version.

I'm not an expert on private jets, but my understanding is that, unlike cars, their value doesn't necessarily decrease monotonically with age. As I understand it, the engines need to be entirely replaced relatively frequently, and the interior can be stripped out and completely redone for a fraction of the cost of a new plane. So, even a "used" jet can actually be essentially new. Without knowing the maintenance/upgrade status of the jet in question, it's difficult to make a comparison. It could be that the only "used" part of it was the airframe itself.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

More info on the Jet. This story ran in the Anchorage Daily News on April 22, 2007

The administration made a deal last week with Turbo North Aviation, promising the broker a 1.49 percent cut of the selling price.

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/203814.html"

Turbo North Aviation had a website http://www.turbonorthaviation.com" but it is not up. I called their phone number and had the most interesting conversation with the fellow there. According to him, the $2.7 million was way over the top for that plane. It was not gold-plated, Murkowski just overpaid. The $2.1 million was actually a very good price and the same airplane would sell for $1.9 - $2.0 million today, which just happens to be the price shown for similar jets on the Aviongoo web page that I linked to previously. TNA also handled the $2.7 million sale. They actually recommended a smaller plane at $1.7 million and cheaper to operate, but Murkowski would have none of it. The Westwind II can only land at 25% of the airports in Alaska. He told me things about Reynolds and the plane that I promised I would not repeat. However, I can say that in my opinion, Reynolds probably overpaid himself.

 

[deckart]

More info on the Jet. This story ran in the Anchorage Daily News on April 22, 2007

The administration made a deal last week with Turbo North Aviation, promising the broker a 1.49 percent cut of the selling price.

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/203814.html"

Turbo North Aviation had a website http://www.turbonorthaviation.com" but it is not up. I called their phone number and had the most interesting conversation with the fellow there. According to him, the $2.7 million was way over the top for that plane. It was not gold-plated, Murkowski just overpaid. The $2.1 million was actually a very good price and the same airplane would sell for $1.9 - $2.0 million today, which just happens to be the price shown for similar jets on the Aviongoo web page that I linked to previously. TNA also handled the $2.7 million sale. They actually recommended a smaller plane at $1.7 million and cheaper to operate, but Murkowski would have none of it. The Westwind II can only land at 25% of the airports in Alaska. He told me things about Reynolds and the plane that I promised I would not repeat. However, I can say that in my opinion, Reynolds probably overpaid himself.

So there we have it. The plane was not undersold, it was overpriced when bought.

 

[Gokul43201]

That was exactly my take on it when I originally hear her taking flack for the plane 'not being sold for a profit'... I laugh every time I see someone trying to nail her for the 'profit' part of it, expecially when they mention that it didn't sell on eBay, as if she even ever made the claim that it ever did sell on eBay.

Did you also laugh when McCain lied about it, by making that exact claim that you suggest Palin herself never made. All for what? Some cheap brownie points?

You know what I enjoyed the most, she took the luxury jet bought by her predecessor and sold it on eBay. And made a profit.

But this is really a non-issue. We are talking about a creationist, god-channeling crackpot who believes Bush's plan for Iraq is "God's plan".

Would we even have heard of Barack if Michelle Obama had registered with a political party that has demanded that Illinois seek independence from the US?

 

[B. Elliott]

Did you also laugh when McCain lied about it, by making that exact claim that you suggest Palin herself never made. All for what? Some cheap brownie points?

By George, yes! I LOL'ed!

...and also just put a McCain/Palin bumper sticker on my car.

 

[LowlyPion]

Would we even have heard of Barack if Michelle Obama had registered with a political party that has demanded that Illinois seek independence from the US?

Those Alaskan Separatists really take the crackpot cake. The US bought the land in the 1860's, they subsidize the territory so the place is even habitable for most of the people up there and now those living there would want to make off with the pirate's booty of oil wealth in the name of separatism?

Oddly if the Alaskan Independence Party had its way Palin couldn't serve - an interesting double standard for Todd Palin no doubt.

It's their contention that that the 6:1 vote in 1958 in favor of statehood should be invalidated because in that election voters weren't offered the choice of becoming independent. The basis of the claim is United Nations rules concerning annexation - laws that do not have jurisdiction for US sovereign matters. (I wonder how many people are alive that voted in that election?)

 

[baywax]

I saw video of Palin speaking at her community institution (church) where people "speak in tongues" and profess to have a direct connection with a god and stuff like that. Do you guys really need that kind of "whoo hoo" continuing in your administration for another 4 to 8 or more years? Isn't the "crusade" mentality slightly out dated by about 1000 years, and isn't it what got you guys into Iraq and into trillions of dollars of debt?

Wasn't one of the articles in your constitution something about the separation of state from church... or is that jolly old England?

It was just announced that the Prime Minister of England is backing Obama. Now, its unprecedented because usually heads of other nations stay out of other nations business... but, following this breach of protocol, I'm letting everyone know I'm backing Biden and Obama whole heartedly. If you want education to take a front seat in your next admin, you'll do the same.



PS (edit) for some strange reason the current prime minister of Canada, after setting specific dates for elections... the next one being next year in Oct... has gone against his own ruling and called a "non-confidence" motion to trigger an election for Oct 14th this year. At the moment, there's no one for me to really get behind and vote for on our roster of 4 or more parties. I guess that's why I'm watching your's... besides, if the Republicans get in again... Canada wouldn't cost nearly as much to invade. Go Dems!

 

[mheslep]

...Wasn't one of the articles in your constitution something about the separation of state from church... or is that jolly old England?

England still has a state sponsored church.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Let us know if you see a breech somewhere.

It was just announced that the Prime Minister of England is backing Obama. Now, its unprecedented because usually heads of other nations stay out of other nations business... but, following this breach of protocol,

No he isn't, not publicly.

In a statement, Number 10 said that the "Prime Minister is not endorsing any candidate and never would." It added: "Presidential elections are a matter for the American people. The Prime Minister looks forward to working closely with whoever is elected."

 

[BobG]

Those Alaskan Separatists really take the crackpot cake. The US bought the land in the 1860's, they subsidize the territory so the place is even habitable for most of the people up there and now those living there would want to make off with the pirate's booty of oil wealth in the name of separatism?

Oddly if the Alaskan Independence Party had its way Palin couldn't serve - an interesting double standard for Todd Palin no doubt.

It's their contention that that the 6:1 vote in 1958 in favor of statehood should be invalidated because in that election voters weren't offered the choice of becoming independent. The basis of the claim is United Nations rules concerning annexation - laws that do not have jurisdiction for US sovereign matters. (I wonder how many people are alive that voted in that election?)

Actually, the US bought the land for $963 million in 1971.

The 1860 agreement with Russia really couldn't hold up legally, in spite of its place in US history. You should own the land you sell, or at least have visited it. Russia visited and settled a few islands along the Aleutians and in the Gulf of Alaska.

The US had to repurchase the land from the Native Americans that actually lived there. In fact, oil on the North slope and the need for the Alaska pipeline led the US to finally agree to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act where Native Americans relinquished claims to all but 10% of the state's land.

I'm not sure what you mean by government subsidies making the land habitable since people have been living there way before the government existed. The government has made a lot of improvements to the infrastructure - especially in communication and transportation, but that was motivated by the military bases the US built there and by the oil that exists there.

 

[baywax]

No he isn't, not publicly.

OK, I guess this statement from Brown was him keeping his nose out of American Politics.

Brown extols Obama's plan to lift the U.S. out of an economic recession and slow home foreclosures.

"In the electrifying U.S. presidential campaign, it is the Democrats who are generating the ideas to help people through more difficult times," Brown gushes.

"To help prevent people from losing their home, Barack Obama has proposed a foreclosure prevention fund to increase emergency pre-foreclosure counseling and help families facing repossession."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/gordon-brown-ob.html

 

[baywax]

England still has a state sponsored church.

Better than a church sponsored state.

Originally Posted by US 1st Amendment text
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

And this must apply to each individual... even those who govern the population of the USofA. Personal beliefs are a hands off point of concern in a democracy. However, Hitler had personal beliefs that permeated his entire admin and instigated some pretty horrible actions. Do you see a fail safe against this kind of dictatorship in the constitution?

Letting someone with strong beliefs or convictions... such as to a god or to a mega corporation... run a country seems like a mistake... and has proven to be one over and over again.

That's why I say Americans have a choice between dementia and a dream. Voting for Republicans requires amnesia and a form of dementia to forget the atrocities that have come out of their time in office. Voting for the Dems requires the courage to uphold the American Dream of equality and forward thinking diplomacy.

 

[edward]

Shades of George Bush , Palin is witholding 1000 official emails claiming executive privilege.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9620_sarah_palin_secret_email.html

The woman learns fast the McCain handlers may remove her training wheels any day now.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But this is really a non-issue. We are talking about a creationist, god-channeling crackpot who believes Bush's plan for Iraq is "God's plan".

Actually, in the church video, she was praying to make it God's plan retroactively. That's a first.

...also praying that it's God's plan to drill for oil in Alaska.

Did anyone catch the bit that Palin is an "energy expert" because Alaska has a pipeline? Isn't that a bit like saying that Obama is an energy expert because they grow corn in Illinois?