Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:George W. Bush

2009-02-27T20:25:01Z

Kschroe: /* Zogby poll referenced should have link changed */ new section

{{Protected|TK}}

== Liberal Media? ==
um, isn't that an opinion phrase? I don't really think there's a scientific basis for such a remark.

:::Didn't you hear? This is conservapedia, a place where ignorance coalesces into a gungy goo of people who think their opinions are always right. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is a goshdang Communist! Liberal Media, haha, oh boy that's a larf.

:::::Everyone thinks their opinions are right. That's why they're their opinions. But you are right, the phrase "liberal media" has become an oft-lampooned indication of conservative paranoia. The use of it will only serve to make this article sound Stephen Colbert-ish. Not only do I think the phrase should be deleted; I think it should become the policy of conservapedia to strive to avoid it in the future. --[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 18:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::The [[Liberal-Biased Media]] is the GOP's equivalent of Hillary Clinton's [[Vast Right-wing Conspiracy]], as well as being an all-purpose scapegoat from when the facts turn out to have an anti-Bush agenda. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Considering this page has been locked, I'd greatly appreciate it if an administrator would remove this clearly biased phrase.--[[User:Ge Ming|Ge Ming]] 15:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::There IS no Liberal Media! [[User:MrDubya|MrDubya]] 01:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

*Don't you mean "there is no cabal!" ? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:39, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

It is well known that the media is overwelmingaly liberal. This is based on facts. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:Based on facts that come from the liberal media itself! Mindblowing, isn't it?

== Edits ==

1) Removed the line about Bush executing Saddam. Saddam was executed by the Iraqis under Iraqi law.
2) Removed the un-encyclopediac comment about John Kerry.

Why's this page locked? It's not going to get any better if you don't let people add to it.

The SysOp locked it b/c of rampant vandalism. It's an obivous target for such action.

This page should be unlocked. All of Bush's good (and bad) deeds will not be known to the world until this page is unlocked. The point of our site here is to inform the people, and without people interacting and adding information, Conservapedia will die out. People will go elsewhere to a more democratic environment, and that is not good for this site.

That's just fine. The Liberals can go to Communistpedia, and the people who want a more REPUBLICAN Wiki can come here! --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 21:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The liberals would probably be far more intelligent than the people that frequent this site and go to wikipedia [[User:You're wrong|You're wrong]] 15:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::communists can go to http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php/Main_Page [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:21, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd rather Communism if Fascism were the other choice. If you really need to think you're always right to sleep at night, then be my guest my lil' Yank friend.

Shouldn't the first sentence read Name, birth date, political party, etc. and then say only President of the United States? After all, it's not like there is a Democratic President. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

If they didn't know bush was republican we don't want them on the site.

::I think by "democratic," the above poster (who failed to sign his/her comment) was referring to the political idea of democracy rather than the American political party, [[User:Ballon|Ballon]]. And let's try not to deride each other with pejoratives like "commie" and "fascist." Anyway, I agree that this page needs to be watched closely. It is an obvious location for vandalism. However, very sensible changes (exempli gratia: moving references of George Bush's religious values to a section other than "Foreign Policy") have been suggested on this page, and they seem to have been largely ignored. This article is not passable in its current state. The sysops must either unlock the page or at the very least make changes that we agree upon on this talk page.
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Photo ==

Somebody deleted the body of this page and substituted a photo-- can anybody verify that this photo actually is President Bush? (Could we maybe print the photo as a thumbnail, and link to the large photo?)

I believe the photo is one of Prince Harry, who has recently taken up active duty in Iraq for the UK, in compliance with the American notion that leaders such as George Washington and the sons of prominent and wealthy people should be involved in and at risk from armed conflict for their country in equal measure to the legions of the poor they send to do their work for them.

==Lacking Substance==
Conservapedia will go absolutely nowhere if its alternative viewpoints from wikipedia consist purerly in pejorative adjectives and vague speculative references. Disprove alternative opinions with facts, not derogatory adjectives and slanted phrases. I would provide examples, but they are more than clear and numerous.

This article is useless. It is a stub, which is fine, except that this is GWB, not some arcane entry. This is made more eggregious since this page has undergone many edits, and nobody has decided to actually make it a full article, just back and forth fluff. I admit that I don't particularly want to put the work in, because I don't care about this entry, I just think that conservapedia needs a credible entry for GWB to be taken seriously. Compare with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush Wikipedia's entry].

As a starting point, how about information that would be useful, that you don't hear about in the liberal media; Major (and minor) legislative pushes, both successful and not. Who were his good conservative judicial appointments? --[[User:Whatter|Whatter]] 01:51, 24 February 2007 (EST)

== Nation building ==

It's interesting that Bush's stated opposition to nation building isn't modified to show that he has been involved in exactly that in both Afghanistan & Iraq for over half his time in office.

I'd argue he hasn't done much nation-building in either of those places. :(
It is weird, though--having a site for Conservative politics and having such dinky articles about President Bush and Iraq is like having a wiki about oceanography and not mentioning water. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 14:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I am concerned that the entry reads as if it were written by a gushing fan instead of one who spent significant time researching the President. If the point of conservapedia is to become a credible resource intellectually honest about its bias, we must demand these entries be written at the highest standard possible. This is gossipy drivel; the libs are bound to cackle over it. }-(

== Economy ==

Since when is Exxon Mobile the bellwether of the US economy?

Does it bother the reader that while citing Exxon Mobile profits being at record highs, gas prices also are at record highs? This may not be a very good supporting argument as it raises suspicion that our current American way of life is at risk due to the high costs of fuel, which is hurting real estate as more and more people re-urbanize living closer to their workplaces in the city as well as the overall economy as people go out less because they want to conserve fuel. {{unsigned|Tchen}}
::Does it bother the reader that [[China]] has one fifth of the planets population and only 1% drive cars? Does it bother the reader that China's economy is growing at 17%? Does it bother the reader that when 2% of China's population own cars, gas will go from $3 to $6 per gallon? Does it bother the reader that US politicians in Washington DC can nothing about this? Does it bother readers that implied solution here is to exterminate the Chinese? Yes, it does bother this reader. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:28, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:Whoever wrote that is probably a Liberal grousing about the fact that Bush has made his corporate benefactors a great deal richer by strip-mining the American economy. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Paul O'Niell (the man who rescued Alcoa) tried to talk economic sense to Bush. Good advice fell on deaf ears. Then Cheney arranged his dismissal.

I've just visited the Yahoo! article linked to by reference 7, and it says nothing about unemployment being at an all-time low in March, 2007. In fact, the article's assessment of the economy is quite bleak.

Regarding “the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD” it should be noted that the source that is cited states the opposite. The stock market hit it’s highest in January 2000, before GWB took office.

Per the article quoted: “Oct. 9, 2002, the Dow Jones industrial average, battered by the worst stock market meltdown since the 1929 crash, hit bottom. It closed 4,437 points below its January 2000 all-time high”.

The major blow to the stock market took place in 2002, about 20 months after Bush took office. It should be noted that this took place exactly one week after Congress authorized Bush to invade Iraq. Investors claimed this as a reason for the drop in the stock market.

Such frequently found mistakes underlines why Conservapedia is more propaganda than an online encyclopedia and should never be used as a source of information. The information is at best one sided, and more frequently, blantently false. The truth does not have a conservative or liberal slant. There seems to be a trend, however, in the last 12 or so years of American political media to baselessly proclaim an extream slant in media. Just because the reader does not like the truth does not mean that the carrier is slanted.
Artical

:"As we all know, the facts have an anti-Bush agenda." -- Steven Colbert. (Or, to be more accurate, it looks like Bush has an anti-facts agenda. :( --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Skull and Bones Club ==

MountainDew, why did you take that part out? It's a matter of public record (and any number of jokes) that Bush and Kerry are in the same club.

The guy who put that in there was a known vandal, so I was just reversing all his edits at once. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Locked Page ==

Should we really lock a page with so many typos? [[User:Czolgolz|Miguel_Cervantes]] 09:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I can understand why the page is locked, obviously people will target Bush, but the page needs LOTS of improvement, not just typos, but the Economy section is laughable.

: Indeed. No mention of the 8 trillion (is it 9 now) debt? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 20:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Debt only matters if you ever intend to pay it off. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:29, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:::not true, it also matters if you want to get lent more money, and it is also a matter of principal-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:38, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Economy ==

''Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a signle year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well [5]. This is due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2006, recovering from the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD, and "Companies are churning out double-digit profit growth" currently.[6] Even the working class is benefiting from the Bush economy, as unemployment hits an all time low in March 2007.[7] Bush worked with Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a more livable level.[8]''

The information in this section appears to have either been written by a liberal who was interested in subtly undermining the informative authority of this particular entry (and possibly Conservapedia in general), or by someone who is perhaps good-intentioned but very badly informed.

First of all, using Exxon-Mobil and executive salary increases as an indication of how much Bush has done for the economy is actually quite bad press for him. The majority of Americans are not voting to line the pockets of the people at the very top. They prefer to have their own pockets lined, even if it is just in small ways, like in tax cuts for the middle class. Suggesting that Bush has done good for our economy as evidenced by the economic boon of the elite would seem to give credit to Bush's detractors who have accused him of being concerned only with his "oil buddies" and largest contributors. Let's not add more wood to that fire, please. That's how we lost the mid-terms - shooting ourselves in the foot.

Second point, please, whoever has write permissions, clean up the spelling errors at the very least (Exxon-Mobile, signle - in this section)

Third, someone else cited the error in referencing January 2000 as the lowest point of the stock market. In addition to their points (including the quote from the article that was supposedly used as reference for that inaccurate "fact"), I think it's important to clarify that while the market has never dropped as low as it did following the crash of 1929, the *percentage* drop could again be as great as it was in 1929. In 1929 the percentage drop was 23%. In 1987, the crash of October caused a dip of 22.7%. The actual numbers of 1929 were in the 200-400 range, whereas the Dow Jones is over 12,000 right now. If, in the modern era, the DJIA ever dropped as low as it did in 1929, i.e., down ot the 200-400 range, then we may as well prepare for Armageddon, because the state of the world would probably be *that* bad.

Fourth, is it necessary to place A.D. after every year, even when it is obvious that the referenced year is In the Year of Our Lord (i.e. Anno Domini)? It seems unnecessary, and certainly cumbersome to have A.D. following years that are obviously referring to U.S. political events. Our conservative audience is not so dumb as to be confused about whether the Clinton administration of the year 2000 is in reference to 2000 years before or 2000 years after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. Mostly I agree that we should not be concerned about the stereotypes our liberal brothers and sisters have placed upon us, but when possible for us to avoid looking stupid and playing into the stereotypes the liberals have assigned to us, I think we ought do so.

Fifth, the unemployment rate is dropping for March 2007, and this is wonderful and it speaks well of Bush's handling of the economy. It is not the lowest rate of all time, however. I don't feel compelled to provide sources here, because this information is readily available in under 2 minutes of searching for "U.S." and "unemployment rate" on any search engine of your choosing. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, can tell you that the lowest unemployment rate of the last 60 years was in 1953 at just under 3%. It's an easy fact to check, and a ridiculous error to lock into an entry about our President. There are true pieces of information about President Bush that make him worthy of admiration. There is no need to attempt to bolster his image with false information.

And finally, let's please be honest about the minimum wage situation. The decision to raise the minimum wage is controversial among conservatives, and I am having difficulty finding a reliable source that suggests Bush supports, in isolation, the idea of raising the minimum wage (i.e. without tax-cuts for small-businesses also tacked on as a proviso). In terms of economic growth, raising the minimum wage may not be helpful, and everything I have read about President Bush seems to indicate that he knows that. So any suggestion that his personal opinion is that the minimum wage should be raised is questionable. Aside from his personal opinion, in his professional capacity, he most certainly hasn't been placed in a position of "working with the Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a livable level." The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 has passed in both the House and the Senate, but it has not yet been presented to our President to be signed into law, because it is pending committee review. Additionally, crediting Bush with "working with Democrats" on this is erroneous. Bush has reached across partisan lines on many occasions, but this particular bill was brought on entirely by Democratic feather-ruffling during their "First 100-Hours" campaign. It was an attempt by the Dems to make a garish display of their new "authority," having gained the majority in Congress.

:For starters, what powers do the executive branch have over economics? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::My personal political philosophies aside, I completely agree that Exxon-Mobile is probably the worst company that could have been chosen to show support for Bush's economic policies. This is an encyclopedia for conservatives, but if it's going to stand up to the criticisms of the liberal community and not be a major source of embarrassment for conservatives as a whole, it must hold itself to a higher level of political awareness. Whether one believes Exxon-Mobile's booming business is proof the economy is in great shape or not, the majority of those who read this (including conservatives) will fall out of their chairs when they read that. I guarantee you, liberal citizens all across America will copy and paste the paragraph into their blogs for their readers to laugh at.

::This is probably the most important article on conservapedia. It HAS to be beyond reproof. --[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: When is this going to be fixed? The "lowest unemployment rate in history" is not true, it was far lower in the 60s, and lower during the later years of the Clinton administrator. The claim isn't even supported by the reference, which claims "the lowest in five years", which I suppose is true enough. Concise and fact based indeed. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 16:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ridiculous claim ==

"He is now working tirelessly to end the Iraqi insurgency and stabilize the region."

Eh, ok? Source? A silly attempt to try to create some kind of sympathy for the man. It's like saying "Jesus was very kind." in his entry. It has got nothing to do with facts and people should be given facts on this site and then determine for themselves if Jesus was kind and if GWB is working tirelessly.

:Agreed. Authors establish bias effectively by utilizing fact selectivity and through awareness of the perspective from which those facts are related. Ineffective authors establish bias by simply writing their opinions. An openly biased article is not the same thing as an opinion column. An encyclopedia does not need to allow itself to be tainted with opinions in order to be biased. This is supported by conservapedia itself in its article "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia." (Wikipedia, however biased it may or may not be, never allows anything close to the candid opinions of its editors to pollute articles.)
:[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:29, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Hard Work" ==

George W Bush has never done a day's hard work in his lifetime.

Oh wait, he was having trouble reading his children's book when he heard about 9/11. Dang, forgot about that.

:Sarcasm and exaggeration are the didactic devices of idiots.
:[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:: and just insulting people to disprove their point is also idiotic. and sarcasm isn't idiotic at all its actually quite clever-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Ridicolous Article ==

This whole article is a joke, right? How can you put this out as fact when it has been debunked so many times?

==Better Picture==
[[Image:Busio.jpeg|thumb|right]]

::I agree, that is a much better picture. It's the same one used on wikipedia, but it's public domain. I'd use it, but get a higher resolution copy of the image at http://www.defenselink.mil/DODCMSShare/NewsPhoto/2003-02/030114-O-0000D-001.jpg
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
This article does not just neglect important information, but also gives incorrect facts. Al Gore won the popular vote in the 200 election. Also, this I laugh out loud that people are actually believing this conservopedia crap.
:writing unsigned comments is quite annoying, although i agree about the conservapedia point (tip there was no 200 election in america)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:42, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* The article needs to have <tt style="background-color:#bfb"><nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:Bush, George W.}}</nowiki></tt> added just above the categories at the bottom, so its category sortkey is set properly. Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 17:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please add <nowiki>[[Category:Military Commanders]]</nowiki>
:He is after all our [[Commander in Chief]] leading the hugely successful war against [[terrorism]] in [[Iraq]] and elswhere.
::"Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people." (Isaiah 55:4)
:[[User:JC|JC]] 10:26, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::"Hugely successful?" I missed the announcement that they'd caught Osama Bin Laden. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:56, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Poor addition to a poor article ==

You neglected to mention that Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 by a half-million votes. Your refusal to address it is just plain sad. Jesus hates liars.

The line, "Many people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. The Faith of George W. Bush, a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the New York Times best-sellers list" should be quickly deleted from this article. I know wikipedia doesn't allow such B.S. qualifiers as "many people feel," and neither should conservapedia if it's going to be taken seriously. Just state that he's a Christian. How profound his Christian-ness is is both irrelevant and unquantifiable.

At least move it out of the "Foreign Policy" section of the article.

--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 18:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't agree with the first paragraph by Mechrobioticon, but I do agree with the second paragraph. I think that faith statement should be moved from the "Foreign Policy" section to a new "Faith" section. There is tons of material from the book ''God and George W. Bush''. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 02:30, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::OK, maybe requesting that the reference be completely omitted is a little harsh to ask of a conservative encyclopedia, but I still stand by my statement that it needs to be drastically reworded. "Many people feel" is simply a phrase that should never be used in scholarly writing. It's an obvious euphemism for "I feel," and a bad attempt to cover up personal bias. It makes the article appear very amateurish and will become a point of ridicule for knowledgeable readers.
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who cares how 'sincere' he is? [[Marshall Applewhite]] was 'sincere', but that didn't stop him from being lethally deluded. Or are we hoping the [[Great Pumpkin]] will visit Bush this Halloween? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree that how "profound" or "sincere" one's faith in something is is a poor indicator of one's character (not to mention highly arbitrary and impossible to confirm), but this isn't my encyclopedia. It's conservapedia. The ideas of the secular humanist must yield to the consensus of the conservative majority. I think that even bearing this fact, however, that there is a good case to be made for the removal of the sentences in question on the basis that they are, in fact, an opinion that can't be indisputably confirmed. But again, that's not my place to decide, and if the conservative editors and sysops of conservapedia say "it stays," then it stays. Secularists should always remember that we are here to advise and help, not to ridicule and lampoon.
::::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 16:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== No information ==

There's no information about how GWB is being named the Worst President in History [http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history] by alot of people, as well as having some of the lowest approval ratings ever.[http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm][http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml] And lack of information about major events in his presidency. Such as Katarina, September 11th and stuff like that.

==No Information==
Period. This isn't an encyclopedia entry, this is more like the bio somebody writes for the program to their high school musical. Could it be more bland? Ish. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:02, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Nothing about his childhood, his college, or his time as Texas governor. And there never will be. Conservapedia doesn't trust their editors to write about this icon. (They might mention, for instance, his drunk driving arrest or allegations of cocaine use). [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Someone tell me when this article is fixed ==

I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that this article is hopeless. It's not my opinion that George W. Bush's "sincere and profound faith in God" doesn't belong in the foreign policy section of this article. It's a demonstrable fact. Someone tell me what qualifies his religion as a formal written policy by which America's interactions with other countries are deliberated, and I will shut up. The addition is also poorly written, vague, unscholarly, conjectural, impossible to confirm, and dripping with bias and ethnocentrism, but I'll ignore that. Just move it. Please just move it. If this ever happens, please email me at happyhealey@gmail.com, and will resume contributing to Conservapedia. It's ludicrous for a wiki project to be unable to correct its own typographical errors. It's been a month. A whole month. If this were Wikipedia it would have been corrected in less than five minutes. This is, without exaggeration, pitiful.
[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, at least you changed the picture. Good to know the article isn't completely stagnant.
[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== How can I edit this article? ==

There are some spelling mistakes (Exxon Mobil not Exxon Mobile) and grammar that need correcting but I can't get on to fix it. [[User:Erasmus|Erasmus]] 11:19, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Could someone add "Category:Christian warriors" which I created specifically for Dubya?[[User:Muschifresser|Muschifresser]] 08:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Protected articles ==

Protected articles infringe on the right to free speech. I am greatly opposed to this policy. Bush happens to be one of my favorite people and you are depriving the fact that I can't contribute to this article is appalling. I know you are worried about vandals, but you are just punishing the innocent. The world is being deprived of my great knowledge, these are sad times.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Eavesdropping program ==

When it becomes possible to edit this article again, something should be added about the NSA eavesdropping program. As today's New York Times indicates, this program is extremely controversial even among conservatives and almost led to the resignations of Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller.--[[User:Amyz]] 10:04, May 16, 2007 (EDT)

== This is one sad page... ==

....And since it's locked, only the syspos (who have enough to do as it is) can DO anything with it. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 02:37, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

*I quite agree, Gulik3. Me, for instance, I have been reading your many posts, all seeming to be unhappy ones. I hope you will straighten us out with good, solid examples of article production so that we may learn from you! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:16, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::That's be a good trick on my part, seeing how everything worth editing is locked. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:53, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::There actually is a real simple way around that: try, for the first time in known history, to actually write an article according to WP's NPOV. It would actually work here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::::'''Wikipedia's''' NPOV? The onbe that's "Six times more Liberal than America"? That NPOV? I can try... --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Yep. Since WP does not enforce its only policies, perhaps we can have the first ever NPOV article written here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:42, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Wait, wait. So Wikipedia has "a horrible anti-liberal" and "Anti American" bias, and you follow its rules on NPOV? [[User:NaglfarorGleipnir|NaglfarorGleipnir]] 18:58, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

== template ==
I think this article should use a template similar to the others in Presidents of the United States category.. see [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] for example. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 13:03, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

== Public Criticisms? ==
Shouldn't Bush's page have a public criticisms page as suggested in the manual of style? It is an issue significant to his presidency. And what about his handling of 9-11? And why does the economic section sound sarcastic with respect tp executive salaries. This article needs a lot of help. [[User:Pokowpane|Pokowpane]] 18:00, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:What? You think you can do it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:28, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

This page should have a criticism title like those for other President's. I don't think it has much credibility unless it does. [[User:Priestspez|Priestspez]] 10:24, 18 June 2007

:Absolutely. Unless it's Conservapedia policy not to report on criticism of presidents. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:35, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Comment ==

Bush had an alcohol problem until 1986, as he has openly admitted in the past. The severity of this problem remains open to doubt. Comment by User: Darkmind1970 (08:23, 4 January 2008)

== Threats ==

We can't have a threats section. Otherwise, every liberal/communist would be on it!

== Economic Policy ==

To write that Bush worked with the Democrats to raise the minimum wage is a little disingenuous. The minimum wage increase was a platform of the 2006 Democrats. While Bush didn't specifically issue a veto threat, as per the article referenced, the White House wanted tax breaks for small businesses to offset the cost to those businesses. I think the current revision is a better recount of the minimum wage increase. It credits both Democrats, as it was their issue, as well as Bush, who signed the provision after he got what he wanted in the bill.

I'm not trying to vandalize, merely provide more context to the actions.--[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:22, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:Yes, "worked with" is the operative phrase. In general, Republicans oppose increases in the [[minimum wage]], on the grounds that it hurts [[inner city]] youth - making it harder for them to get [[entry-level]] jobs. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:44, 17 January 2008 (EST)

== Poll #'s Are Wrong ==

His most recent poll rating, according to ARG on 2/20/08, is 19%! http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

user:armstongandmiller says:

i heard that his approval rating dropped below that of broccoli

==Faith==

"Most people feel his faith is sincere and profound". Evidence please? Polls showing this to be true? This is clearly the writer's personal belief and not an encyclopedic fact. Please remove this sentence. {{unsigned|StephenS}}

:Absolutely. Without saying who it is that feels this, and quoting some reference to back it up, this is just puffery. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:33, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Cats==
Please add this article to [[:Category:Texas]] and [[:Category:United States Governors]] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 16:25, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

==biased reports==
"mostly due to biased media reports". This statement about the President's popularity clearly reflects the writer's opinion. Do we have a reference to back it up? If not, why is it here? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:29, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Click the wikilink on the word "bias" in the section. Also check out [[media bias]]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:54, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Read those. Nothing there indicates that Bush's falling polls are the fault of liberal media. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:29, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:Daphnea has a point, I think the American populace is more upset that gas prices are skyrocketing while we have two oilmen in the Whitehouse and Americans are dying overseas for oil. I don't see a media bias in this, or if there is, how this bias isn't reflective of reality (I mean, 4.34?! a gallon)--[[User:MarkS|MarkS]] 16:32, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==2000 election controversy==

Why is there no mention at all of the 2000 Florida vote controversy? Surely we can't ignore what happened there? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 13:30, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:There is an article on the [[United_States_presidential_election%2C_2000|2000 election]] where such material would be more appropriate. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:57, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Perhaps a link to that in the first paragraph where the 2000 election is mentioned would be helpful for readers. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:03, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:46, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Early life==
No mention of anything before governorship? No mention of National Guard? What exactly are we allowed to write in this article? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:49, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:Write up what you would like added and post it here. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:19, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Economic Legacy?==

The current version of Bush's economic legacy is no longer valid, and leaves out any mention of the record deficits run up during his administration. I'm willing to put together an objective, properly referenced record of the positive and negative impact this administration has had on the US economy, if someone will pledge to unlock and post it so it's not a wast of time. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:13, 28 July 2008 (EDT)
:It seems like this would be a good time to revise the "Economic Legacy" section. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:38, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
:This page needs to be unlocked so this section can be edited - it's so out of date it hurts the usefulness of this site for students looking to use it as a reference. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:20, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
::I want to remind you not to use word hyperbole to make an unwarranted point. As a percent of GDP, the deficits aren't even close to being "records". I hope that any alterations you make will accurately reflect this and treat it in a balanced way. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:33, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks, and I'll be careful to be fair. My intention is to divide the Bush economic legacy into three phases - one for his first administration, one for the first half of his second administration (2005-06), and the third covering 2007-08. This way he can be acknowledged for areas where progress was both made and lost. I'll also cite statistics from the government instead of the media for objectivity. If the page gets hit by vandalism and needs to be locked, I'll post my suggested edits here and you can apply them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:58, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

== Wikilinks ==

Could someone add wikilinks to "Laura Bush" and "United Methodist" in the infobox please? Thank you. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 17:45, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

== Plg6067's edit ==

I must say that I found his edit very good: up to the point, concise, and... right. Does anyone have any proof on the contrary? --[[User:LadaNiva|LadaNiva]] 16:18, 13 November 2008 (EST)
:Try making some serious edits. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:23, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Unscourced==

''"Liberals have accused him of having a barbaric foreign policy, but actually Bill Clinton invaded more countries than Pres. Bush."''

This is a good and valid point, but it needs references. Please cite a scource for both things. It'd be nice if you could get some quotes from more prominent liberals.--[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 15:36, 11 December 2008 (EST)

==Still President?==

==Still President?==

This page still reads as though he is the current president. E.g. it says "Serving as president since 2001" and also lines like "when he leaves office". Just a thought. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:19, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Zogby poll referenced should have link changed ==

The link to the document on the poll should be changed to be a link to the poll itself.

http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1588

"As the President's job approval ratings hit a new record low, job performance ratings for Congress have again fallen to their previous record-low of 9% it slipped to in August. The Democratically-controlled Congress earns positive ratings from 13% of Democrats, a drop from 18% who said the same in September. Republican approval has also fallen to 6% from 10% who said the same last month, while Congressional job approval ratings from political independents held steady at 10%."

Talk:Sarah Palin

2009-02-27T19:38:31Z

Kschroe: /* Bad Links */ new section

== Sexist ==

Don't consider me sexist but... she at least looks a woman. Not like that Hillary who'd grow moustaches if she could. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 11:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:Maybe not sexist but decidedly un-gallant and not a little silly. Hilary Clinton looks every inch a woman. If she looks less attractive than Sarah Palin that might just have something to do with the age difference: on the same basis I'd be much more worried if Obama was after my wife than if McCain were! C'mon, if attractivness was relevant you'd be lining up to vote Obama in. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 11:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Un-gallant and cynical. --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

They say Lincoln could never be president now, he was too ugly. When did this turn into a beauty contest? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 14:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:Possibly 1960, when Kennedy was elected. At the dawn of TV, Kennedy set up the debate to his advantage, in what is known as the 1960 effect. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 16:42, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Offensive remarks by [[Sandra Bernhard]]==

Hi. The liberal comedian [[Sandra Bernhard]] made remarks which were deeply offensive to Sarah Palin and to Christians in a recent comedy performance. [[User:Breadan43|Breadan43]] 15:50, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

== Her other son, Trig. ==

Should such a private and personal happening as that of her second son be brought to the general public? On one hand, it is only her and her family's matter, but on the other hand it shows that her acts are as honorable as her words. At least I was dubious on her at first, but reading more and more on her I am convinced that she is the Vice President America and the world need. I'm sure even liberals aknowledge her courage and that she did the right thing with Trig. But I leave it to those more knowledgeable to include such familiar matters or not in the article. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:17, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
: For what it's worth I think it should be mentioned, not because it's an invasion of her family's privacy, but because it says something important and positive about her character. She had stated publicly that she and her husband knew of the condition during the pregnancy, and chose not to abort it because of their values. That's a defining statement about her living the values she talks about, and one of the reasons I respect her as a person. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:34, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Please feel free to include that information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:47, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:Done --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:22, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

::Much of that information is in public release and has been reported in interviews in People and Vogue. I added a couple of comments she made, plus information about her son in the military.

::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:50, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The one of the rare times I will make a display of my personal opinions on here. I find this woman to be hypocritical and in fact somewhat repulsive as a mother. I am all for women's rights, adn all for women having a career, but she has a SIX MONTH OLD SON, and is about to go on a campaign trail. The only possible way she can manage a campaign trail is if someone else raises her son. And a special needs son as well. I am heart sick that this woman would put her career before her child. Men are expected to do this, but women are the core of our children's lives. We are central to who they become. Especially for the first 5 years of their life. Work before you have a kid, expand your career after your child is back in school. But the 5 most important years of a child's development are before he or she starts socializing, and this woman is willing to be an American vice president which will keep her on the road over 200 days a year, if you go by averages of other VPs, and often in countries where it's not only "discouraged" to take a child, but out right dangerous. Vietnam and Korea - if you are there to represent the US. Venezuela. Cuba. Georgia. China. not places to be taking a child. I am disheartened, as I said. This is not a good role model for how to be a women in teh US finding a career - when the career comes before your own family. AGain, rarely will you see me make a statement like this, cause I'm not normally into challenges. but this woman makes me so sad for her child, and as a mother, as a woman who believes that a Christian woman (and any woman, frankly) should put her infants first... it is just sad. Would it have killed her to wait 5 years before being in such demanding political positions?--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] Michelle13:58, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Wow, that's heartfelt and does give one pause. I have to confess I didn't put the numbers (dates) together. Thanks for making me think a little more about this.
::::--[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 15:37, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::::: Thanks. I get argumentative on topics about things like linguistics, and what languages are related to what languages (what I'm pursuing for my graduate degree). But i rarely butt into political comments. maybe I should. maybe not. but I set aside my studies for my kids, and it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO for me. I really feel that there is an important reason that the Bible (and many other religions, by the way) advocate that a woman make her life at home *until* such a time as her kids are grown. I woudn't even go that far, but I did say that I woudln't go back to teaching till my two were in school, cause then I don't have to be there "9-5". but when they are so little? I truly feel, and maybe this isn't proven by science, maybe it is, that a woman is more emotionally connected to her kids (and vica versa) than the father, and should be there for them at their development. hugs. Michelle. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 15:45, 30 August 2008 (EDT) (PS, if other than this, you ever want to see me be realllllyyy stubborn, just ask me about the T-D vocalization in Navajo after the move into New Mexico. hehe. (edit conflict)

== Oh, boy... ==

Cue the whitewashing. I'm gonna guess the polar bear section will be deleted or completely rewritten within 24 hours. As it stands, it certainly seems like a good example of "[[liberal bias]]". [[User:Egen|Egen]] 15:26, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:I suggest to close this article from editing for a few days or at least hours. It's clear that it will become a favorite target for vandals. I'm sure if changes have to be made, Administrators will be able to make them well. I'm not suggesting a long term block, mind you, just to let things calm down. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 15:29, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::I think Silvio has nmade a good point. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

:::The polar bear status is unclear. International numbers have been increasing, but largely due to numbers now being reported in Siberia and other former states of the Soviet Union. I don't know if different species are involved or that the aggregate is germane. It will be interesting to find out.

:::kind regards, --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 21:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Neither polar bears nor polar ice are decreasing at such a rate as to prove the "[[global warming thesis]]". Average air temperature fluctuates due to natural causes. There's been a lot of hot air since 1989 aimed at enforcing some socialist ideas of forced redistribution of wealth, but no such system has ever worked out well. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:53, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action Vice-President ==
What is the Affirmative Action Vice-President part about? That is ridiculous. She would be the first woman VP but that has nothing to do with affirmative action. [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 16:48, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:It's criticising (in an oblique way) the accusations that Obama would be the first "Affirmitive Action President". I suspect that whoever called Palin that is hoping that you will find it ridiculous and decide that the Obama accusation is similarly ridiculous. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
Help me out here... Obama, if elected, will of course be the first Affirmative Active President. The rationale being: he's being elevated to a level higher that he would have been, primarily because of his race. Yet isn't Palin, a former mayor of a town of 7000, now a governor for all 18 months, also being elevated to a level higher than she would have been, because of her gender? You cannot suggest that she is the best person, male or female, for the job, can you?
Is the objection that affirmative action only apples to race? (Because it certainly applies to gender as well.)
Is the objection that Palin is in fact the most competent person, male or female, for the position of vice president?
(If not, on what basis can you say that Palin is not an affirmative-action candidate?)
--[[User:Mycosaur|Mycosaur]] 19:44, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

: There are several problems with your simplistic analogy. The qualifications for a Vice President are different from that of a President; Palin has stronger executive experience than Obama; Palin was selected to run against Obama; and we never claimed that Hillary Clinton would be the first affirmative action president.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:50, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:I think part of the idea is how readily the path was cleared for each person. For Obama, based on that thinking, his position was pretty much given to him along the way whereas for Palin, she had to fight the establishment to accomplish what she did. Now as far as her selection for Vice President, well, that could be a different matter. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:54, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't agree with "affirmative action whatever" for either of them. If Obama is the next President or Palin the next Vice-President they will be there because millions voted that way. "Affirmative action" is best kept for appointments: respecting whoever is in charge after the election respects the US electorate. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

==Second Picture==
I think we should take it down. It's just like the first one and is totally unnecessary. If there is a second picture then it should be her with [[John McCain]]. I'm going to take it down. Maybe an administrator could replace it with this. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 29 August 2008 http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2008-08/palin.jpg

: Sorry, link says '''access denied'''. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

O.K., how about this one. http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

:That's better! --[[User:UnicornTapestry|UnicornTapestry]] 11:15, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

:That's a good one.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 14:47, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

It seems to be popular. Anyway an administrator could come in and upload it? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 30 August 2008

: We have to see the original source of the photo first... not only that link. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:00, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

== Foreign Policy ==

The section has one compound sentence, and one of the words ("commender") is/was misspelled. Also, saying that the governor of Alaska is the commander of chief of the Alaska National Guard is somewhat patronizing to people who know things about state National Guards. It seems as though it's simply trying to inflate her foreign policy experience, which she doesn't have much of. --[[User:DrtyLb8|DrtyLb8]] 23:35, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
:Why shouldn't it say she is the commander of the Alaska National Guard? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:39, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
::HenryS, your an administrator, I was hoping that you could upload this picture. I would really appreciate it, thanks. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 31 August 2008 http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/08/29/PH2008082902687.jpg
::It's misleading to feature it so prominently. It implies military experience on her part when there is none. All governors are commanders of their state's National Guard, and that only comes into play in the event of a natural disaster. In times of war when National Guard units are activated to be sent overseas, they instead fall under the command of the United States Army and are treated as reserve soldiers. At that point, they aren't being commanded by the governor, they're being commanded by the Army. It's like saying the Governor of Florida has space policy experience because they launch the space shuttles from Cape Canaveral. To include that under "Military Policy" misleads readers into thinking she commands troops in battle, which is completely inaccurate. Because of that, I've removed the section. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:21, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::: We don't allow deletions like that. Palin is commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard. There's no denying it, and that fact should be included.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm not denying it, I'm just saying that prominently including it under "Military Policy" implies that it gives her some sort of military experience when it flat-out does not. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 22:49, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Well, maybe you don't think Obama needs any military experience to be Commander-in-Chief either. But the fact is that the position of Commander in Chief does mean something. It means she has some responsibilities, some leadership, and some authority over troops.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:54, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I didn't say anything about Obama. This has nothing to do with Obama. No governor can claim that they have military experience because of their role as commander-in-chief of their state National Guard unit because that's not how they work. When they are used in combat overseas they aren't under the command of their Governor, they're under the command of the United States Army and they're treated as reserve units. That's an entirely separate function from their role as domestic natural disaster relief workers. Saying that she has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the Alaska National Guard (which is completely honorary when it comes to military functions) is akin to saying [[Elizabeth II]] has military experience because she's commander-in-chief of the British Army. It's misleading and needs to be corrected. (And yes, I know the Queen actually served during World War II.) --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:06, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Eldest Daughter Pregnant ==
Palin's response "We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby." Proud to be a Grandmother. Unlike Obama's response of his children "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

===Gossip?===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=508671&oldid=508669 It can hardly] be "gossip" if the facts of the matter are plainly seen in the official [http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/PressReleases/ab547fc8-d96d-4f87-aa8a-2e52be2b66fc.htm statement.] What '''is''' gossip is that fairy tale that was reported on the daily kos over the weekend. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 14:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
::I wasn't trying to gossip. I got that from yahoo news. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter Palin says 17-year-old daughter pregnant]. This is likely to be a big issue for a conservative campaign. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 15:04, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::: Folks, you're clueless about the meaning of [[gossip]]. Newspapers and press releases do print gossip all the time. We do not and have had that in our rules since our beginning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: What's the difference between [[gossip]] and CP's article [[Hollywood values]]? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:07, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: What are you referencing specifically? Publicly charged crimes are not gossip, and neither are deaths of public figures.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:19, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Well, to my knowledge, an underage pregnancy, like Palin's daughter, is not a publicly charged crime nor a death. Ergo, I would think that Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy would fall into the same category. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:22, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Spears is a public figure who profits from public attention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Yes, but it's neither a crime, nor a death, but rather talking about is "idle talk or rumor, esp. about the personal or private affairs of others." It seems she was just as public initially about the pregnancy as Palin has been about her daughter. Both of them brought the topic into the public eye on their own, with the GOP campaign issuing a statement providing the news.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:28, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Jareddr, this is my final response to your senseless comments. Palin's daughter is a private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity. Respect her privacy, or leave.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:37, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, perhaps then the entry on Barack Obamas half brother should be removed then. Using your logic its also gossip. He didn't seek public attention either. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 17:58, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

: What are you specifically referring to? I did a quick look and didn't see any details about Obama's half-brother in his entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

[http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Hussein_Onyango_Obama Here]. It is a whole page about him. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:29, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

==Palin's "Liberal" Critics==

In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I wanted to point out that several of the key critics of Palin's handling of the Gravina Bridge project were prominent Alaskan Republicans, not "liberals". If one reads the referenced article this would be clear, but I've added in the names, titles and supporting quotes from these individuals so I'm not accused of anything unprofessional. I've also left in the comment about earmark money not being returned as common practice, which was unsupported by any reference, but left anyway. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:49, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Personal Background ==

Are we going to include information about her daughter being pregnant or not? I don't think it is necessary, as Aschlafly said she is a "private figure (and a minor) who sought no publicity". Currently, there is mention of this in the article. Any thoughts? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:48, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:I say take the high road and leave it out as much as possible. It's a challenge, though, because of new stories like [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot this one], where Palin is shown to have used her line-item veto to cut funding for teen-pregnancy programs. How can you be credibly pro-life, and at the same time cut funding for the very programs that offer teens an option to abortion? I'm starting to question her judgment more and more. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:53, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:: You can say she cuts funding for teen-pregnancy problems as part of a discussion of her record as governor, and still leave out mention of her daughter. While it's nice we're having a conversation about it, as Henry mentioned, Aschlafly has made his opinion clear and any attempt to add it will just be reverted, so might as well just skip it entirely. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:: Dinsdale, you keeping pushing your point of view at the expense of the daughter's privacy, even on the [[Talk:Main Page]] and you should stop it. There is nothing about the simple fact of the daughter's pregnancy that supports your point of view, so stop exploiting it. She was probably in public school where she received all the indoctrination that you support.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:04, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not out to exploit her daughter for the sake of making a political point. While I said that it's a challenge, my very next point about Palin was to contrast one of her policies (against funding pregnant-teen programs) with another (pro-life), and no mention of their family's situation was required to do so. Meanwhile, you immediately start making assumptions about what her daughter did or didn't learn in public school. Which of us was sticking to the Governor and her policies, and which was pulling her daughter into a shot at public schools and accusing her of being "indoctrinated"? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:02, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Also, there are multiple news reports tonight that the baby's father is being flown to the convention to attend with the Palins. The Governor's children should be left alone, and people can reach their own conclusions about parents who feel a need to pull young teens "facing the challenge of parenthood" even further into the media spotlight. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:10, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion Explained ==

Don't delete history or try to cover up how wrong it has been for liberals on the internet to mock Palin over the founding father's remark.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:You should try to explain in what way they are wrong then. If you just claim 'liberals are wrong' then liberals are going to ignore you, and there is little point in preaching to the choir. Besides, her claim appears dubious to me. 'Under God' really wasn't in the pledge until long after the founding. It was added in the 50s. It doesn't matter if it came from a different founding document, she was refering explicitly to the pledge, and demonstrated she is ignorant of a very minor piece of historical trivia. It may be best to keep quiet on this one until the historical arguments are worked out here. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 20:52, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== Drug Use? ==

Sarah Palin has admitted in the past that she use marijuana, though it was legal in Alaska from 1975-2006. Should this be added into her biography? Granted, it wasn't illegal, but nevertheless I believe conservatives may find it disconcerting to participate in drug use. Reference for the story [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/29/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4397109.shtml?weed here]. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 20:35, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:Nah, that just doesn't seem needed. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:36, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::If someone does something legal in their private life, then it's private and should be left alone. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:03, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Then may we remove references to drug use in all politician pages? --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
::::The key issue is "legal". If politicians are breaking the law in private it may still rate mentioning. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
:If it's included, it should note that (A) marijuana was legal back then, (B) she was in college at the time, and (C) she has since denounced her experimentation. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:16, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
:I'd only include it if she did it while in office. Other than that it's kind of irrelevant. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 18:11, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
::Its irrelevant because it was legal at the time. If she didnt break any laws then it matters not. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:13, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
:It may have been legal on a state level like medical marijuana is today in some states but it certainly was not legal by federal law. Some may consider that bad judgment which is relevant for a politician. --[[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 09:18, 13 September 2008 (EDT)
::Liberals might, who would wish, by employing their [[Liberal tricks]], to smear a Conservative politician by implying illegality where none existed. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:13, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==Political Background==
This section list non-political items; hockey, marathons, NRA. Move or delete required.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:24, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers==

What documents are being referred to in the statement "and all the Founding Fathers embraced reference [sic] to God in the documents that established the United States."? God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but that great document didn't establish this nation or its government - it was the colonies' statement of secession from British rule. The only document that actually established the United States of America as an entity and defined the operating framework for its government is the Constitution, and God is not mentioned once in it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:38, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
::the Declaration established a new nation in 1776, and called it the "United States of America," so July 4 is indeed the right birthday. The new nation had been in operation --with a national congress, diplomats, army, and national debt--for years before the current Constitution was adopted in 1788. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:26, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You're right to identify 7/4/1776 as the point at which the colonies began to stand apart from England as an independent entity. However, the government in operation at that time was a temporary one, and there was some doubt as to whether a permanent union could be forged given the diverse nature of the former colonies. At Ed Poor's suggestion I started a debate page, [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]] to discuss whether the Founders incorporated the concept of "a nation under God" in the actual formation of the United States from its nascent beginnings. I'd look forward to your contributions there. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:26, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

It seems to me that we're missing the argument here. It wasn't that the Founding Fathers said "Under God" at some point, but whether the original writing of the Pledge contained that phrase. It did not. And not all Founding Fathers were quite as up-standing Christians as George Washington was. We can and will continue to debate whether "Under God" should be in the Pledge, but as to whether Ms. Palin was correct in her comment, I believe debating is a moot point. She meant (and I think it is clear, though many I'm sure will disagree) that when George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and John Hancock stood up and placed their hands over their hearts and recited the Pledge of Allegiance, they said it with an "Under God." They did not.

==Wasilla Bible Church==
Would it be worthwhile to have an article on Sarah Palin's home church?--[[User:Nowa|Nowa]] 15:39, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

==Other Criticism==
I am removing this section which was cited by WaPo for misleading statements. Read the counter post [http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/09/sarah-palins-expenses-as-governor-scandalous/ Sarah Palin's Expenses As Governor Scandalously...80% Lower Than Her Predecessor's!]-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:I'm going to restore that section with some modification. First off, Palin took the per diem ''on top'' of the airfare spent to fly between Juneau and Wasilla - it was not to cover the cost of an 18-hour drive, because she didn't drive. Second, you can compare Palin's expense record to her predecessor's, but since that person was the corrupt Republican she was fighting to replace on a reform platform, it's not all that surprising she'd look better. What's a better comparison is to compare Palin's use of the per diem allowance for stays at her home to those of the Democrat who preceded Murkowski, Tony Knowles. Knowles was against such expenditures and issued an executive order barring commissioners on his staff from taking the per diem reimbursement when staying at their own homes instead of the capital. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:23, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Also, please do not remove the new post about Wasilla charging rape victims for their forensic kits unless proven false with equally valid evidence. I was skeptical of this one too when I first read it, but the source was the local paper, and contained quotes from Palin's Sheriff confirming that the policy was in place to save taxpayer money. I'm appalled that someone who was willing to raise sales taxes to build a hockey rink & recreation center and hire lobbyists to secure federal earmarks for the town couldn't find a few thousand dollars a year to pay for the forensic tests required to do effective police work. To then go and tell a victim of sexual assault that she had to pay for her own test - words fail. I only hope this comes up in an interview with Palin so she has a chance to answer to this in her own words. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 01:28, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Ridiculous manufactured liberal smears. I am sure WP will list it. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:::Review link to the made-up controversy, rape kit. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:58, 30 September 2008 (EDT)[http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080926141845.aspx]

::::As the citations showed, these are not ridiculous internet rumors like the supposed "list of banned books" that are going around; these are statement--[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)s of fact, drawn from reputable news sources. In the case of the rape-kit issue, the article includes a quote form the sheriff she appointed complaining that the new state law was going to increase the cost to taxpayers (instead of victims). That's her guy making the statement, so there's no unfair smear going on. The simple truth is that even if Palin didn't create the policy, she could have changed it at any time while mayor. Unfortunately it took action from the Democratic Governor to force Wasilla to bring change.

::::These stories may not be flattering, but they are true and backed by reputable sources. They should not be removed unless equally reputable evidence is presented to the contrary; otherwise it's censorship of the truth. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:58, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: I stand my assertion, ridiculous. WaPo may be reputable to you, but not conservatives. The counter from redstate is clear to the stupidity in the story. Where there is no wrong, make it seem as wrong. She acted proper and Alaskains agree.

::::: As for the rape-kit. Why is this an issue that she be tagged to as mayor of Wassila? Trying to demonize her is stupid. If it took the gov of that era to straighten it out, how did Palin as mayor act so evil? I am sympathetic with victims of any crime. Insurance companies are the source of the problem for they get to choose to pay or not pay the costs associated. What percentage of false rapes were reported and kits paid for? I stand by my claims and am sick of deleting this crap. I leave to others.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:37, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: Wrong. We do not blast people for sins of omission. Somewhere buried in the books is a bad law -- and Palin didn't change it. No. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

So JP, what you are basically saying is that any source that does not explicitly promote the conservative agenda is unreliable? By that logic, Fox News, the de-facto conservative news haven, is not reliable because it reported Ted Steven's indictment. How is it that to the conservatives, some 85% of the mainstream media is unreliable but then obscure little internet blogs serve as sources for news articles? As DinsdaleP said, denying the validity and credibility of a source just because it shows unflattering details, for any candidate or public figure, is a sign of indoctrination and a complete lack of objectivity. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

The Wasilla policy towards having victims of sexual assault was ''' ''not'' ''' a "sin of omission". If you read the New Frontiersman article I had referenced (the local paper there, not the "liberal Washington Post", it states that Wasilla ''was the only town actively following such a policy''? It fails any credibility test to pretend Palin didn't know of the policy when the sheriff she appointed knew about of it and defended it, and the state had to pass a law to get Wasilla to change their practice since they were the only town still doing it.

I'm not out to mock or smear Palin - just to search for the truth about her, both positive and negative, and put those truths in the article to improve its value to readers seeking to learn about her. I had added the initial positives about her pro-life stance, and the comment that despite having fundamentalist personal views, she has kept her pledge to keep those views out of public policy. I'm balancing those edits by adding some others that are not flattering, but just as based on truth.

I can accept Conservapedia having a policy to filter its "news" stories to only publish those that are flattering to conservatives and disparaging to non-conservatives, but that standard can't apply to encyclopedia articles if they are to be trustworthy. I'll recast these points as "Controversy over Positions" instead of "Criticisms", which is more neutral, end encourage both sides of these controversies to be presented. If anyone can find evidence from reputable sources that Palin positively did not know of the rape-test policy, or presents her reasoning for why Wasilla held onto that policy until the state law was passed, then please add it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:31, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

: Not newsworthy, the truth according to whom? New Frontier, Drudge, far left websites and most likely WP are the only places listing story. Should we include Obama snorted cocaine and smoked weed? He admitted it but we have not and assume, we will not. Some things just don't get posted. It should not be placed within this page. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::I'd be careful with that line of reasoning. We use a lot of conservative websites to back positions that won't show up anywhere else. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:47, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This isn't about it being newsworthy or not - this is an encyclopedia article, and the edit is appropriate in that context. It's the truth according to two valid references. The first is the local paper, the ''Frontiersman'', which has been around since 1947 and is not a biased source like HuffPost or something I would hesitate to use here. Second, the passage of the state law is in the public record. It comes back to passing a reality check - why would it have been necessary to pass a state law unless local governments were refusing to change this policy on their own. The final credibility comes in the statements from the Wasilla sheriff. Palin appointed this person because he supported her policies and views, unlike the sheriff he replaced who was from the prior administration. This edit is not about Palin's personal life - it's about the policies her administration supported in her capacity as an executive. This is entirely appropriate because the McCain/Palin ticket stresses Palin's "executive experience" as a key qualification, so objective stories about her record as an executive and the policies enforced by her appointed staff are important and deserve to be published. If you don't agree with this, then refute it wth evidence, don't censor it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::
::Whatever, I said earlier I will not delete it, again. Mark my words, it will be deleted. Conservative sources take preference. We report true stuff here not made up criticism. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:54, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm all for truth, and as I said, I added two pro-Palin contributions to this article before I added any criticism. In the case of the rape-kit story, tell me what I've made up about it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:06, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I am not going round and round on with you on this one. I didn't add Obama snorts cocaine to his page, I guess that makes it righteous too. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:08, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Whether you added it or not, the Obama article does mention his cocaine use. [[User:BrianH|BrianH]] 11:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Just want to mention this concept. The fundamental difference between JP's Obama example (although if you want to put it in his article that he experimented with pot and cocaine, have at it. He publicly admitted it. It's in the public domain) and this issue is that this has to do with her policies as a politician. That has every merit of being openly discussed and published considering that it is her policies that will ultimately effect the country were she ever to become president. The problem is that people don't seem to see the difference between personal smear (this candidate did drugs, that candidate had an affair) versus abuses of power (this candidate used his position as mayor to get his son out of jail for DUI, that candidate used government money to buy a playstation). The former really has no importance, what is private is private (hence no-one discussing Palin's daughter. That's her personal life, not important in the election) while the latter has every bit of importance. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== "Troopergate" ==

[[Image:branchflower.jpg|thumb|400px|right|three Democrat legislators in charge of investigating Palin]]
The new addition to the "troopergate" (if that's what it's actually being called) reads much too much like a news headline (see: "something you will hear more from the McCain campaign as the investigation continues"). I think it should be removed. If not removed, it should at least be edited to fit within the whole paragraph. Who is French? What is Branchflower? For that matter, what is "Troopergate?" These all need to be introduced before they are used familiarly. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:46, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:It shouldn't be that hard to understand but if you want to explain further, go ahead and edit without removing.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

::Since you were the one who wrote it, why don't you be the one to make it up to standard? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:55, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

==Stop censoring truthful, cited edits==

I hate edit wars, so I'm making this case again in the hope of resolving this issue professionally. People may not like the fact that when Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the policy in place was to charge the cost of rape-test kits to the victims, and it continued until state law banned the practice in 2000 while she was still mayor. This is not a liberal smear, it's a fact. Her administration knew of the victim-pays policy, and her hand-picked sheriff defended it in the article. The cited news article doesn't come from a fringe source, but from the local Wasilla newspaper. The story was published in 2000, so it's not a smear pulled together in September 2008 because she's now a VP candidate.

The simple fact is that this is part of her record, and it's proper for any candidate's record to be published for the public to assess, especially the policies she supported as an executive when her "executive experience" is being touted as central to her qualifications.

I'm challenging the editors who find this truth about her record unflattering to stop dealing with it through censorship, and to respond with research and evidence instead. If they believe that Palin was unaware of this practice even as her sheriff publicly defended it, then find the evidence. If you want to claim that this was only about policy because no women were actually charged for rape-kit tests while Palin was mayor, then find the evidence instead of assuming that was the case. I'm not out to smear Palin - I've added two positive edits two this article before adding this negative one. That's not attacking her character - it's being open-minded, balanced and sticking to the facts when editing an encyclopedia. Hopefully I won't get 90/10 blocked for this, but I want the Palin article to be informative and fair, unlike the joke that is the [[George W. Bush]] article here. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:08, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

:The simple fact is she did not put in the law, did not campaign for it, did not even discuss it. It was one of many, many, many laws that was on the books. I asked you how many times, if any, a victim had to pay for her own kit testing. You ignored it and merely reinstated the information.

:Her sheriff specifically said the new law would make it so they couldn't bill the insurance companies or the perpetrators of the crime. He never said wow, I wish we could bill the victim. The information you are trying to force in was and is a red herring and your continued reinsertion hoping that people will see it as they come to our site is inappropiate - and you know it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Request for an edit to this full-protected page ==

Hi, I ran the article through MS Word's spell checker, and it found one minor grammatical error. I would appreciate it if a sysop could correct this in the article.

The error is in the third paragraph of the section titled "State Economy",
The second sentence of that paragraph reads:
::''These '''critic''' include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money'."
It should say
::''These '''critics''' include her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money".

Thanks!

[[User:Samtheman|Samtheman]] 11:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

==Reversions regarding the Troopergate investigation==

I'm not goint to re-insert anything, but wanted to respond here as to why I added the comments about partisan criticism. The current lawsuit to stop the investigation is being brought by five Alaskan state Republicans who claim that the investigation is "unlawful, biased, partial and partisan" [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jOTk11gvqDAgD0cY3i4WjI_2YOxwD937V32G1]. What's more important, despite an initial pledge by Palin to cooperate fully with the investigation, the current official statement from her campaign is that she is now "unlikely to co-operate" with the investigation. Palin campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan has said the Alaska state legislative probe had become "tainted" by partisan Democratic politicians seeking to target the Alaska governor. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7618524.stm]

Since accusations of Democratic-driven partisan bias are coming from the Palin campaign, and not just Alaskan Republicans with a grudge, I felt it was important to objectively point out the bipartisan nature of the panels guiding the investigation. Republicans are in the majority on some of them, and joined in unanimous votes for some aspects of the investigation. What then, is improperly biased about showing the factual breakdown of the votes by party as I did? That's the official record, not spin. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:55, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:Palin asked the probe to acknowledge a rule of law before they began, and they refused. We all know what is going to happen from a legal standpoint - nothing. She is well within her right to do what she did. The question is how much innuendo outside of legal issues will be presented to attempt to hurt her. With the pictures with the Obama campaign and the "October Surprise" comment made by Palin's opposition her concern is certainly understandable. It has long been acknowledged that Palin has a feud with the entrenched Alaska GOP who are not happy with her exposing their corruption. That makes your count of Republicans and Democrats meaningless. When you are someone who exposes corruption in government regardless of party, that can happen. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::Well, if you're correct in figuring that the inquiry would be a witch hunt at this point because both parties in Alaska have a grudge, then she's got problems, all right. If she goes ahead it could get ugly, and if she tries to kill, delay or withhold info from it then she loses a lot of the reformer/maverick image she's cultivated. It'll be an interesting couple of months between now and the election, that's for sure. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:47, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Ethics Violation? ==

According to the report, she was found in violation of a state ethics law that prohibits the the use of a public office for personal gain, but was also "proper and lawful." [http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/10/panel-palin-abused-power-firing-commissioner/ STORY] Should this section be updated to include this? I have the full report here if someone would like to use that as the reference, or I can do it. The PDF is 260+ pages, though:( [http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/DOWNLOAD.pdf REPORT] --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 16:37, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

: This is silly. I doubt we want to waste time on it. Executives can and should fire people. It should happen more often than it does. Your "was found in" doesn't say who did the finding and what their political views are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::The "finding" was done by a bipartisan committee charged by the Alaskan State Legislature with investigating improprieties of this nature. The investigation concluded that while Palin has the authority to fire executive-branch staff, she abused the responsibility to fire for just cause, since the investigation also found committee found that Palin's firing of Walt Monegan was based in part on a personal grudge and vendetta against her former brother-in-law, who Monegan refused to fire without cause. Conservatives are supposed to support hiring and firing on merit, and when Palin abused the powers she was entitled to use for personal reasons, she crossed an ethical line even if she didn't commit an illegal act. Considering how some people on CP obsess over Obama's "alleged birth" in Hawaii or the non-Christian nature of his name as "legitimate" issues, Palin's ethically questionable conduct as an elected official is absolutely relevant to an assessment of her candidacy for national office. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:01, 11 October 2008 (EDT)

::: I agree with this post, and what I think should be included are 1) the partisan breakdown of the committee, 2) the second portion of the finding (that her actions were also "proper and lawful") with '''equal''' importance, and 3) the issues raised by the campaign over the committee and the campaign's proposed (and still ongoing, I believe) alternative. I didn't mean to imply that I just wanted something added about her being found in violation of state ethics law, but maybe a section explaining the context and the rest. Sorry if I gave you that impression. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 12:03, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

The conclusions at the end of the section don't strike me as accurate. The report showed that the ethical issues were in the pressure that Palin allowed to be brought on Monegan to fire Wooten. It contained substantial evidence in the form of testimony from Todd Palin and others that clearly showed a pattern of abuse by permission, rather than direct acts by Palin herself. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:12, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

:Show me one person who said that Sarah Palin told them to take any steps at pressure that they did. Quite the contrary, all documentation shows that she was not involved. The report decided that didn't matter -- Palin herself needed to be censored anyway. Is it any wonder she wanted to be investigated by a group of Democratic appointments by the former governor believing that even they would be more fair than the posse that was put together? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:21, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

::Well, for a start there's the sworn testimony of former Alaskan State Trooper Colonel Julia Grimes. In volume I of the [http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20081010_TROOPER.pdf investigation report], pages 10-11, there are statements from her as to how she was contacted by both Todd and Sarah Palin on separate occasions. The Palins recounted examples of what they considered discipline-worthy conduct on the part of Trooper Woten (Palin's brother-in-law). Todd Palin had no official right to make calls like he did on behalf of the Governor, and Colonel Grimes cited Alaska Statute AS.39.25.080 to Mr. Palin, as part of explaining why state employees are prohibited from discussing personnel issues with anyone else. It was cutting off the conversation with Todd Plain that led to the follow-up call from Sarah Palin, in which Gimes testified of Palin: "Her questions were how can a trooper that behaves this way still be working and was concerned that we were taking this seriously and that we cared". I'm not going cut-and-paste additional excerpts of the report since it's available via the link, but anyone who reads it can see the pattern of additional improper questioning and intervention by Todd Palin and pressure by Governor Palin. Sarah Palin is politically smart enough to avoid breaking the law (which the report properly concluded she didn't), but the pattern of her actions was a violation of her trust per the Alaskan Statutes. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:45, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

::: I fully agree with Dinsdale here. I think the article reflects what he has said, I have said, and what the report has said with adequate documentation as to who authored it and the campaign's issues with the handling of the investigation. To be honest, this was not really an "October surprise" and I doubt it will come to much as the findings were relatively mild in the scheme of things. Dinsdale provides more than enough sufficient commentary on this subject. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 19:25, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

== Suspect sentence ==

This was added to the last paragraph of the Personal Background section before the page was protected:

"After given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child."

This does not match what Gov. Palin has said about Bristol's pregnancy. In fact, it seems to be a subtle attempt to falsely introduce the idea that abortion was considered. This seems even more likely considering that the editor who put the sentence in was just caught posting false information. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:09, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:I don't think it's editorial license to discredit the Palins, just reporting of story-lines from the time. Back on 9/2, a CNN [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.daughter/ report] stated that "The McCain aide emphasized that Bristol decided to keep the baby, a decision "supported by her parents." This was also described as "A brave choice" in a 9/1 [http://sacredscoop.com/?p=1392 story] on the Christian site SacredScoop. The point is taht when this was first announced in the official statement from the Palins, it was characterized as matter where Bristol decided to keep the baby and marry the father, with the family's support. The rest remains the family's private business, but while the campaign has not hesitated to use this as an example of Palin being true to her pro-life values, it's never been described as anything other than a choice Bristol was able to make for herself. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:19, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

==Problem==
I uploaded a picture of Sarah Palin meeting with members of the National guard. The section on foreign policy says "the governor is not briefed on situations." But the picture I put in has Palin being briefed by the troops (or at least that's what it said on the governor's website). Which is true? [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008
:What this images [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ftwainwright_govp_05s.jpg] implies at the very least is that, as governor, she is being briefed on the troop movements of her state's national guard brigade relative to an excersize going on at the time the picture was taken. But standing behind her is someone with the rank of colonel; senior officers in all branches of the military are trained in foreign policy, and to think she's not being briefed about the subject at any time is just plain wrong. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:27, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

I think that a Sysop needs to take out that part on Sarah Palin not being briefed about the National guard. Some liberal probably added that. It's clearly false. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008
:I think it is safe to assume she isn't being briefed on foreign policy. They aren't under her command once they've been federalized. Also, you should double check that rank, Karajou. [[User:LilyWinston|LilyWinston]] 17:08, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

According to the Governor's website she is briefed on the actions of the state national guard. The reference for the statement that she isn't isn't even there. It should be taken down. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 22 September 2008

==Founding Fathers' Christian faith==

"George Washington was indeed a Founding Father, and all the Founding Fathers made no secret of their Christian faith and unfailing belief in God in the documents that established the United States." This sentence is simply false as-is, and the "all" should be changed to "most" or "many" to amend this. Several of the Founding Fathers were certainly not Christians. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 21:06, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:Actually the sentence is mostly true, although I would agree with you that a case could be made that it was not true in all cases. While I am not aware of any Founding Fathers who were not members of Christian churches, I can think of a small number whose belief in core Christian doctrines could be questioned. They are, however, the minority. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:53, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

::I won't get into the debate of whether "most" of the Founding Fathers were Christian, but yes, there were at least a few who definitely were not, and in any case, there were certainly many of them who did not openly express it in their private life (and very few of them wrote Christianity into the founding documents of this country). While the passage preceding the one I'm referring to is also extremely shaky (is there '''any''' evidence Sarah Palin was referring to George Washington and not the widely-held misconception that the Founding Fathers wrote the Pledge as-is, and why are we giving her the benefit of the doubt?) I'm mostly concerned with the use of the word "all", because as it stands that sentence is very clearly and obviously '''false''' and it smears this site's reputation. [[User:Egen|Egen]] 10:54, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

::The changes you made bring this page closer to accuracy. Thanks! [[User:Egen|Egen]] 19:37, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

== Pronunciation ==

While helpful I feel the current pronunciation may be difficult for non-English speakers who are unfamiliar with the given name "Lynn." Shall we include the IPA pronunciation as well (/ˈpeɪlɪn/)? [[User:TexasEx|TexasEx]] 22:42, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

==Liberal Sources==
Since when does CP start using liberal hate sites and pathetic liars Huffington Post as a source? ref # 39. This needs to be replaced with a ref from elsewhere and also needs to appear in a timeline of events, not at the end of the headlined paragraph. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:53, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:53, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Completed the above. It is interesting to note that this sentence taken word for word ''"The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 and the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-0"'', listed Conservapedia number 11 (number one on page two) on Google (English only search). -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 02:02, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

==Good Rip of Obama Today==
Speaking at a rally in Pa., she says "Barack always talks of change with [I will] but when it comes to his record, he can never say [I did]."-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:48, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

:She's good at delivering scripted lines, but her ability to appear Vice-Presidential in news interviews, let alone potentially Presidential, keeps trending worse. Even key conservatives were disappointed in her performance with Katie Couric, who was more than fair to her. Palin's performance in the debate this week will be interesting to watch. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:16, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::Considering that the "impartial" moderator wrote a book praising Barack Obama, how fair do you think the questions are going to be? Should we count on another Gibson "interview" where she is chastised for using a definition of the Bush Doctrine that Gibson himself used years earlier? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:00, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree - she's about as appropriate for this as Hannity would be. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:06, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::One additional observation, though - I think Gibson is going to be very sensitive to any criticism of her impartiality and professionalism, and that will temper any inclination to be pro-democrat. Her credibility as a journalist is being evaluated tomorrow as well, and she's not going to ruin it over this. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:10, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:Now that the debate is over, how impartial was the moderator (Gwen Ifill)?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:32, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

::It is my understanding that she was considered to have been fair by the majority of the people watching, myself included. There can always be some points of differences and contentions, but, ironically, she came across as far more even-handed than most of the 'impartial' moderators or news anchors giving political interviews. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:19, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

:::I found her to be fair as well - I don't think either participant would be justified in claiming otherwise. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:18, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

==Polling Information==
This section needs deleted. It is not encyclopedic, more or less stats.--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:39, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

: I disagree, but would understand if it should be relocated to the 2008 Election article instead. My point in adding it was not to insert an anti-Palin shot, but to add two relevant points to the article to describe the impact Palin is having on the GOP ticket. First, the stats were added to the section of the article dealing with her VP candidacy - it's entirely relevant and encyclopedic to add objective stats there showing how the public perceives her VP candidacy over its first month. If she starts trending better after the debate that should be shown as well - I'm not out to get her, despite what you may think.

:Second, I paired up the stats with the pro-Palin comment by Mitt Romney where he supports her, but criticizes how the McCain campaign has manager her VP candidacy. The stats emphasize his key point - she started off with a great public perception and favorable ratings, but the forced isolation from the press has led to the perception that she's not up to scrutiny. When you've only done less than a handful of news interviews in a month, all the media can do is repeatedly analyze those same performances over and over. Biden makes many gaffes, but he's done over 80 interviews in September, so they get downplayed because he's put out a high volume of content to analyze. I'm firmly in the camp that says that for better or worse, any candidate for high office needs to be accessible and open during a campaign, and the statistics I was adding aren't there to attack Palin, but to show what her isolation in September did to the public's perception of her. If this is removed for a falsely perceived anti-Palin bias, I'm not going to fight it. It would be a shame, though, because I'm trying to add a constructive insight, not anti-Palin spin. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:06, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
::I agree with DinsdaleP. (And I rhyme!) Opinion polling is important to an election, and nobody would call for removal if she improved in the rankings. (Nor would they call for removal had these been the results of opinion polls about one of the Democratic candidates). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:12, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::: If you notice, polling numbers not on Biden's page, nor Obamas nor McCains. Regardless if she is up or down, these stats are for 2008 Presidential election results.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 13:31, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::::I'm okay with pulling the statistics-tables from this article, and will do that now. My intention was to use them to document the change in opinion over Palin through the month of September. I'd still like to leave the main text of the section intact, because I still believe the examination of how her accessibility has correlated with her polling in September is relevant, as is the observation from Romney. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:37, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

== Given the choice? ==

"In September of 2008, Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant. After given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child. Palin stated "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."[10]. "
What does "given the choice" mean? Would Sarah and Todd have let her kill the baby? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 22:32, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Depending on when Bristol's birthday is, they might not have had a choice. If she turned 18 during her first or second trimester, she could legally decide on her own. I think the phrase "given the choice" was used to emphasize that she actually had a choice. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:44, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==Alaskan Independence party==

there should be something about the aip. if there is in depth speculation about obama's ties to bill ayers, a man whom he has denounced, we should be fair and talk about how palin told the aip, an extremely anti american group, to "keep up the good work".

:What is accurate and fair to state is that Palin's husband Todd was a registered member of the AIP from 1995 to 2002, per the Division of Elections in Alaska. Republicans are misleading in trying to connect Obama with actions Ayers participated in decades before they met, given that the context in which they met had nothing to do with Ayers' earlier activities. Sarah Palin, by contrast, knowingly consented to her husband's participation in a pro-separatist party for a 7-year period that included her time as Mayor of Wasilla. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:34, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

I agree DinsdaleP. From my own perspective, McCain's decision to pick Palin as his running mate was a bit rapid fire and a bit impulsive, if you ask me. I'm not sure he knew as much about her past when he chose her as he retroactively learned.

:I disagree with Dinsdale, misleading trying to connect Obama with Ayers? The only misleading on the subject is by Obama. The decision to pick Palin was brilliant and satisfied nearly all who didn't like Romney or Huckabee, Pawlenty offered nothing. What we've learned about Sarah is that the left can't stand her and there is nothing to bring her down beside innuendo and smears. --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 11:42, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
::Obama met Ayers when the latter was on a board working to improve schools, decades after his involvement with the Weather Underground. For Palin to claim that this is "palling around with terrorists" makes it sound like Ayers is still active in that regard (he's not) or that Obama and Ayaers have a close relationship outside of their collaboration on the Annenberg project (they don't). So if she's making stump-speech claims based on falsehoods, that's misleading in my book, and poor behavior for a Christian. It's also interesting that while Ayers' activities with the Weather Underground took place when Obama was a child, Palin ''as an adult'' chose to condone her husband's participation in a separatist group, and made presentations to the same group herself as a politician. Her adult associations with the AIP and its active members is a lot more relevant than trying to create a connection between Obama and the actions Ayers took place in decades ago.
::Oh, and when I learned something about Palin and found it disturbing, I ''did'' the fair thing and researched it to make sure it was factual and not innuendo and smears. The response (not from you, Jpatt) was to be blocked and have the findings removed, instead of their truthful nature being challenged with evidence. That's a real shame, when the truth is supposed to matter here. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:07, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

== Maverick ==

Here's what I'm bothered by. Palin tosses the concept of her and McCain as "Mavericks" around quite liberally...yet she fails to explain what she means by this self-identification. In the VP debate, she referred to herself and McCain as "a couple of Mavericks" six times (at least that's what I counted). What does it mean to be a Maverick???!?!?! Yet, she never went further with her explanation... [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 10:38, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

:Maybe not a maverick in Wasilla, but definetly as Governor. She has explained her stance, liberals refuse to listen. Must she explain the definition of Maverick to satisfy the left?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 11:45, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

== Image ==

In the section "Vice-presidential candidate" there is a redlinked image. I would remove it, but the page is protected. Could someone with protect rights remove it? Thanks. --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 12:15, 7 November 2008 (EST)

== 2012 ==
Is it too soon to mention 2012 on this page? According to Townhall (here: http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2008/11/11/palin_puts_brutal_2008_behind_her,_looks_to_2012 ) Gov. Palin has said she would "plow through that door" (ie become the nominee) if it's God's will and conditions are right.
:If you wish to include a tasteful entry that is fine. I should point out though that the way many of the news organizations reported it was basically a lie. The part about doing it only if it is God's will is important -- and was often left out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Unless she has a telephone to God I think wording reflecting that she will do it if ''she feels'' it is God's will would be more appropriate for an encyclopedia --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:30, 15 January 2009 (EST)

==Russia and Alaska==
I have an idea about an article showing the contemporary and/or historical influence of Russia and Alaska. I have been to Russia before. Over the past 300 years, I have read that Russian traders constructed several [[Russian Orthodox]] churches, now in the State of Alaska. These still stand, I have read. Does anyone have or can take a picture of one and give it to '''CP'''?

I think a simple, factual article like that (mentioning Saint Herman of Alaska, a Russian Missionary to Alaskian Eskimos) would help people to understand what Palin means when she cites Alaska's ongoing invovlement with its neighbor. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 09:55, 4 December 2008 (EST)

: Sounds great. You can create new entries, and I look forward to learning from your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 4 December 2008 (EST)

==The Future==

I'm not removing this section, but it needs some sourcing for the opinions that are being expressed. If not, I'd suggest that they be relocated to an essay because they currently appear to be a set of pro-Palin comments with no encyclopedic basis. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

*I added a citation for the item, Dinsdale. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 16:24, 19 December 2008 (EST)

== My last edits ==

"a typical example" rather than "an example" is editorializing and unnecessary padding, as worded with "an" it is still written in a very conservative way, a professional conservative way. Also Palin is criticized for hunting, its a stupid reason to criticize someone, and reveals the ignorance of some of her detractors, but it does happen and since it is true and relevant it probably belongs here. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:27, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Bad Links ==

#47 and #48 link to articles that no longer exist so there would seem to be no basis for statement made in the sentence that refers to them. Can anyone find the articles?

Talk:Bobby Jindal

2009-02-27T19:32:04Z

Kschroe:

==Name concerns==
In the interest of pre-empting any kind of finger-pointing over consistency issues, I believe it is absolutely necessary to include information about WHY he hasn't legally changed his name. There are all kinds of statements in the [[Barack Obama]] article which try to illustrate some percieved Muslim agenda because he hasn't changed his Afro-arabic name to something more...Anglo-Saxon. Now, before you try to tell me that he is known as "Bobby": Aren't there plenty enough examples of Obama going by "Barry" for his high-school and some portion of his college days? I mean, come on. To say that Jindal gets a check-mark off the "'weird' religion's Manchurian candidate watchlist" but Obama doesn't is patently unfair, and not in line with being trustworthy or encyclopedic. Either changes must be made to this article, or to Obama's article. Thank you. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 10:19, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

: Barack Obama has not been known as "Barry" for at least 20 years, and perhaps never.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:42, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:: [http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/Barry-Obama-sm.jpg] Here's an image from his yearbook. Regardless, even if you believe this image is doctored, liberal propaganda, or a product of the Minitrue, why the double standard? Why is it okay for one man not to ''legally'' change his name (which is the precise accusation leveled against Obama on his article), while another gets blasted for it? While the job Obama's seeking surely requires much more serious scrutiny of the candidates running, why is it that a man must be condemned because his name sounds kinda' sorta' reminiscent of something familiar to people we're engaged in conflicts with? Is it only Muslim names that ensure the candidate is a sleeper agent of terrorists? I do not seek any kind of politically-motivated changes to these articles, only consistency-promoting ones. If we're going to do this to Obama and not others, then why not do it to Asian senators? Following the logic employed here, shouldn't ''they'' have known to change their names after Pearl Harbor, or the Boxer Rebellions? Why doesn't this site embrace the individualism of a man who didn't hide behind a safe, sunshiny name like "John Smith" merely to get elected? Shouldn't that be rewarded in America? I know you're a reasonable man, and I know you'll give me a reasonable answer. Thank you.[[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 18:28, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Wow. I guess that fortune cookie of easily-disproven garbage is all I get from a coward. Great. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 01:14, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

We may want to add some other links regarding the reasons Jindal wants to reject the stimulus money to provide balance and fairness. He has stated that the labor department projected additional costs after the stimulus money ended, but that would need to be based on what the unemployment picture would be at the time. If the stimulus worked and people got back to work in Louisiana, then they might have to pay LESS for unemployment insurance. --[[User:Kschroe|Kschroe]] 14:32, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Bobby Jindal

2009-02-27T19:17:14Z

Kschroe: Added a section on some of the criticisms of Jindal

{{Officeholder
|name=Bobby Jindal
|image=Bobby Jindal.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Supriya Jindal
|religion=Roman Catholic
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|state=Louisiana
|terms=January 14, 2008 – Present
|preceded=[[Kathleen Blanco]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Louisiana
|district=1st
|terms=January 3, 2005 – January 14, 2008
|preceded=[[David Vitter]]
|former=n
|succeeded=Steve Scalise
}}
}}

'''Piyush "Bobby" Jindal''' is the governor of [[Louisiana]]. He was elected October 20, 2007 and sworn into office January 14, 2008. He is the youngest American governor in office.<ref>"Jindal ... made history in 2007 when, at 36, he was elected the nation's first Indian-American governor and became the youngest governor in office." [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/24/sotn.jindal.speech/index.html?iref=mpstoryview (CNN)]</ref>

Jindal was born in Baton Rouge on June 10, 1971 to recently arrived Punjabi Indian immigrants, Amar and Raj Jindal, who were attending graduate school. His family is of Punjabi ancestry, his father left [[India]] in the 1970s and his ancestral family village of Khanpura. Jindal was raised a [[Hinduism|Hindu]] but converted to [[Catholicism]]. Jindal adopted the name "Bobby" after watching ''The Brady Bunch'' television program at age four. He has been known by that name ever since, as a civil servant, politician, student, and writer. Legally though his name remains Piyush Jindal.

He graduated from Baton Rouge High School in 1987 and went on to attend [[Brown University]] where he graduated with honors in biology and public policy. Following his graduation from Brown he attended [[Oxford University]] in the [[United Kingdom]] as a Rhodes Scholar, having turned down admissions to medical and law schools at both [[Harvard University|Harvard]] and [[Yale University|Yale]].

In 1994, Jindal went to work for McKinsey and Company as a consultant for Fortune 500 companies before entering public service. In 1996, he was appointed Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH). There were many issues that needed resolving during his tenure, not the least of which was the growing deficit in Louisiana's Medicaid program. During Jindal's tenure as DHH Secretary, he rescued Louisiana's Medicaid program from bankruptcy, childhood immunizations increased, Louisiana ranked third best nationally in health care screenings for children, and new and expanded services for elderly and disabled persons were offered.

In 1998, Jindal was appointed Executive Director of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. As Executive Director, he was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Commission, whose work continue to be the driving force behind much of the ongoing debate on how to strengthen and improve Medicare.

At the conclusion of the Commission's work, Jindal was appointed President of the University of Louisiana System, the 16th largest higher education system in the country. While serving as President, Jindal worked to establish areas of excellence at each individual institution.

President [[George W. Bush]] appointed Jindal to serve as Assistant Secretary for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2001. In that position, he served as the principal policy advisor to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. He later resigned from the position in 2003 to return to Louisiana and run for Govenor. In that race, Jindal went from being a relatively unknown candidate for Governor, to receiving the most votes in the primary election. However, with 48 percent of the vote in the runoff, he lost the election.

In 2004 he was elected to the 109th United States Congress representing the First District of Louisiana. In Congress he was elected Freshman Class President and served on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, the House Committee on Homeland Security, and the House Committee on Resources. Bobby also served as Assistant Majority Whip.

In his first term he passed a number of notable pieces of legislation and played an instrumental role in Louisiana's recovery from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. His noteworthy accomplishments include the passage of legislation to bring significant offshore energy revenues to Louisiana for the first time and legislation that keeps Federal Emergency Management Agency from taxing certain recovery grants as income.
[[Image:Jindal2.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|Governor Jindal with his wife]]
Jindal was re-elected to Congress in 2006 with 88 percent of the vote majority. On January 22, 2007, Jindal announced his candidacy for governor. Polling data showed him with an early lead in the race, and he remained the favorite throughout the campaign. He defeated eleven opponents in the jungle primary held on October 20, including two prominent [[Democratic Party|Democrats]]. He went on to win the gubernatorial election with 54 percent of the vote in the jungle primary, winning in 60 of the 64 parishes.

'''Criticism'''

A rising star in the Republican Party, Jindal has not escaped criticism. His desire to reject stimulus money to extend unemployment benefits<ref>"Jindal rejects unemployment money in stimulus" [http://www.nola.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/news-46/123517585334490.xml&storylist=louisiana&thispage=1 (AP Louisiana News)]</ref> would seem to violate Christ's teaching of mercy for the poor<ref>"Sermon on the Mount" [http://conservapedia.com/Sermon_on_the_Mount ]</ref>. Also, it is unclear whether he believes in exorcism<ref>"Jindal's Exorcism" [http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/06/11/jindals_exorcism/ (Time)]</ref>, and Jindal was criticized for a speech he gave in which he mocked the funding of volcano monitoring.<ref>"Geologist Erupts at Jindal's Volcano Question" [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,500267,00.html (FOX News)]</ref>

==Notes==
<references />

==External links==
*[http://www.gov.state.la.us/ Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal] '''official state site'''

{{DEFAULTSORT:Jindal, Bobby}}
[[Category:Louisiana Governors]]
[[Category:Christians]]

Talk:Religion of Barack Obama

2009-02-27T18:45:13Z

Kschroe:

Why are we repeating liberal falsehoods of Newsweek here??? Just a quick glance shows misuse of the word "secular" and the implausible claim that Obama's biological father was an atheist, for starters.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 25 February 2009 (EST)
:Taking a step back, may I suggest that with a proper debunking of their falsehoods, we can show that they don't have much of an argument at all? It's important to not give these falsehoods any sense of validity, but I think such analysis can be done successfully and this would be a strength to the article. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 12:07, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Andrew- The items that I took out were opinions, which clearly goes against your editorial policy. I am undoing your change. This article should be trustworthy and not filled with snark. --[[User: kschroe|Kurt Schroeder]] 3:59, 25 February 2009 (CST)

This article contains many statements that are purely unsubstantiated opinion. As such the article should be considered factually inaccurate until the issues are resolved. --[[User: kschroe|Kurt Schroeder]] 11:40, 27 February 2009 (CST)
:Try it this way, Kurt: write a complete test article and post it on this talk page first. The main question should be "what is Obama's religion", then provide answers to it. Divide the article in three; the first part provides answers and citations based on his Christianity (if any); the second part likewise for Islam; the third part for his secularism/atheism. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)

::I'm interested in facts, so if you can convince me I'll add them to the article. Please be patient with us. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:37, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::"[correction: "Christian story"? No real Christian refers to the faith that way.]" Statements like this are opinion, and once we start saying "real" Christian we are not only breaking the Conservapedia Commandments, but we're dividing Christians. If there was a link to a person who was reported as saying that, then we could reference it, but even then what good would it serve. There is a difference between truth and snark. --[[User:Kschroe|Kschroe]] 13:45, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Religion of Barack Obama

2009-02-27T18:35:47Z

Kschroe:

Talk:Religion of Barack Obama

2009-02-27T18:34:01Z

Kschroe:

Why are we repeating liberal falsehoods of Newsweek here??? Just a quick glance shows misuse of the word "secular" and the implausible claim that Obama's biological father was an atheist, for starters.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 25 February 2009 (EST)
:Taking a step back, may I suggest that with a proper debunking of their falsehoods, we can show that they don't have much of an argument at all? It's important to not give these falsehoods any sense of validity, but I think such analysis can be done successfully and this would be a strength to the article. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 12:07, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Andrew- The items that I took out were opinions, which clearly goes against your editorial policy. I am undoing your change. This article should be trustworthy and not filled with snark. --[[User: kschroe|Kurt Schroeder]] 3:59, 25 February 2009 (CST)

This article contains many statements that are purely unsubstantiated opinion. As such the article should be considered factually inaccurate until the issues are resolved. --[[User: kschroe|Kurt Schroeder]] 11:40, 27 February 2009 (CST)
:Try it this way, Kurt: write a complete test article and post it on this talk page first. The main question should be "what is Obama's religion", then provide answers to it. Divide the article in three; the first part provides answers and citations based on his Christianity (if any); the second part likewise for Islam; the third part for his secularism/atheism. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)

Whether or not Barack Obama is a Christian has nothing to do with the fact that this article breaks the commandments by offering opinions instead of hard fact.

Talk:Religion of Barack Obama

2009-02-27T17:40:55Z

Kschroe:

User:Kschroe

2009-02-25T22:12:43Z

Kschroe:

'''Kurt Schroeder''' 
kschroe@us.ibm.com

'''Interests:''' 
* Science
* Religion
* Politics
* Homeschooling

After being a reader of this site since shortly after its inception, I felt the need to join.

Viewers of this website should be able to read articles that are free of snark and personal opinion, and I believe authors should abide by the Conservapedia Commandments, especially #1 and #5. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments].

Talk:Religion of Barack Obama

2009-02-25T22:12:13Z

Kschroe:

Talk:Religion of Barack Obama

2009-02-25T22:00:42Z

Kschroe:

User:Kschroe

2009-02-25T21:00:10Z

Kschroe:

'''Kurt Schroeder''' 
kschroe@us.ibm.com

'''Interests:''' 
* Science
* Religion
* Politics

After being a reader of this site since shortly after its inception, I felt the need to join.

Viewers of this website should be able to read articles that are free of snark and personal opinion, and I believe authors should abide by the Conservapedia Commandments, especially #1 and #5. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments].

User:Kschroe

2009-02-25T20:59:51Z

Kschroe: New page: '''Kurt Schroeder''' kschroe@us.ibm.com '''Interests:''' * Science * Religion * Politics After being a reader of this site sincle shortly after it's inception, I felt the nee...

'''Kurt Schroeder''' 
kschroe@us.ibm.com

'''Interests:''' 
* Science
* Religion
* Politics

After being a reader of this site sincle shortly after it's inception, I felt the need to join.

Viewers of this website should be able to read articles that are free of snark and personal opinion, and I believe authors should abide by the Conservapedia Commandments, especially #1 and #5. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments].