Obama, McCain Community Service Forum Transcript (9-11-08)

Both John McCain and Barack Obama were interviewed before an audience at a forum sponsored by TIME and hosted by Columbia University. The topic related to the question of national service and how they further it during their presidencies if elected. Read the full transcript.
Obama:

Well, look, the— the— I— I think— those are old arguments. Let— let’s look to the future. The fact is that we have to have government. When— a hurricane strikes, as it did— with Katrina— we have to have a FEMA that works, which by the way means that we should be encouraging young people, the best and the brightest, to get involved as civil servants, to pursue careers of public service, so we’ve got people who are trained in fe— federal emergency management who are able to take on the job.

Now, that does not crowd out the Red Cross. That doesn’t crowd out the thousands of church groups that’s went down there. What it means is, is that each— area has a role to play. The Peace Corps— does not crowd out opportunities for— service overseas.

You’ve got churches— and synagogues and mosques all across the country that are per— deeply involved in— efforts to deal with HIV/AIDS and malaria and— all sorts of public health issues. And yet this is a matter where George Bush I think appropriately said we’re gonna make a commitment as the wealthiest nation on earth to deal with the devastation of AIDS.

And his PETFAR (?) program has been highly successful working with not-for-profits, working with governments, working both public and private in order to solve a problem. So there are more than enough problems out there to deal with. And it— what is true is we— we don’t need to set up bureaucracies. So I would— I would distinguish between a government assist in providing people avenues for service and a government bureaucracy in which the notion is, is that the only way that you can serve is through some defined government program.

McCain:

RICHARD STENGEL:

Senator, as recently as this past Sunday you talked very openly about the fact that Americans should have been asked to do more than go shopping or traveling. What would you have done as president in those circumstances to make people aware of what they should do as Americans after 9/11?

JOHN MCCAIN:

Well, first all, I would have a— called them to serve. I would have created organizations ranging from neighborhood block watch, to making sure that our nuclear power plants are secure, to— immediately proposing the Congressional legislation such as Senator Evan Bayh and I— proposed of service to country to create additional organizations, to expand Americor, expand the Peace Corps, expand the military. Obviously we were facing a new threat.

Obviously we needed to, at that time, take advantage of the unity in the United States of America. We weren’t Republicans on September 11th. We weren’t Democrats. We were Americans. And I think that if we had asked for a concrete plan of action, both on the part of federal, state, and local governments, as well as by the Congress of the United States, as well as, frankly, talking directly to the American people— yeah, the need for us all to— to serve this nation. I think perhaps we—

But, you know, I gotta tell you something, Rick. I— when I travel around this country, that spirit is still there in America. Today we’ve seen Americans respond in a way that only Americans do. And I don’t say that with any sense of superiority over any other group of people.

But I do believe we’re a unique nation and blessed with certain inalienable rights that we wanna extend to the rest of the world. But I think that— (NOISE) that we— we probably still have that opportunity. And when I say this I don’t want you to take it the wrong way. But Americans are so frustrated now with our government. Eight-four percent of the American people think the country’s headed in the wrong direction.

The approval rating is— of Congress is down to nine percent, I believe, down to blood relatives and paid staffers. (LAUGHTER) And— and this is an opportunity. This is an opportunity to lead the nation and talk to the American people and reform our government and ask for more service.

Obama Dover, New Hampshire Speech Transcript (9-12-08)

Read the full transcript of Barack Obama's speech in Dover, New Hampshire Friday.

The good news is that in 53 days, the name George Bush will not be on the ballot. But make no mistake: his policies will. A few weeks ago, John McCain said that the economy is "fundamentally strong," and a few days later George Bush said the same thing. In fact, Senator McCain has said that we made "great progress economically" over the last eight years.

And here's the thing. I think they truly believe it. After all, my opponent said just last night, "It's easy for me to go to Washington and frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have." So from where he and George Bush sit, maybe they just can't see. Maybe they are just that out of touch. But you know the truth, and so do I.

For eight years, we've failed to keep that American promise that if you work hard you can live your American Dream. Under the Bush economic policies that my opponent supported and promises to continue, the average family has seen their income drop by $2,000-a-year, while the cost of everything from gas to groceries has gone up. We have the highest unemployment rate in five years. Home values have plummeted. It's harder to save and it's harder to retire. Those are the day-to-day challenges that people have.

We can't afford four more years of this so-called "progress." We can't afford another President who is so out of touch that he thinks the economy is strong and that change is doing the exact same thing as George Bush.

That's what Senator McCain is offering. More of the discredited theory that if you shower benefits on big corporations, special interests and the wealthiest of the wealthy, it will all come trickling down to the middle class. Well, Dover, how much of that has trickled down to you? How much has trickled down to the Americans who have lost their jobs and their homes? How much has trickled down to the family that can't afford to pay next month's bills or the kids who can't afford college? We've tried this for eight years, and we can't afford to keep trying it for another four.

We can't afford to keep spending $10 billion a month in Iraq while the Iraqi government sits on a surplus. We can't afford more of the same addiction to oil. More of the same health care policy that only works for the healthy and wealthy. More of the same Washington lobbyists who run John McCain's campaign. More of the same Bush-Rove-McCain politics that tries to distract you from policies that are destroying the middle class.

We've tried that way. It won't work. And yet Senator McCain stubbornly holds to it. The only change he offers is completing the Bush agenda. Privatizing your Social Security. Taxing your health benefits. And another $200 billion of budget-busting tax breaks for corporations like Exxon-Mobil that have just turned in the greatest profits in history, while you can barely afford to fill up a tank of gas.

Sarah Palin 20/20 Interview Transcript (9-12-08)

This is part 2 of Governor Palin's interview with ABC's Charles Gibson, but as part of a profile done on the '20/20' news program. Read the full transcript.

GIBSON: I -- I saw you quoted somewhere as speaking rather admiringly of -- of Mrs. Clinton, Senator Clinton, during the primary campaign. Do you think Obama should have picked her?

PALIN: I think he’s regretting not picking her now. I do. What determination and grit and even grace through some tough shots that were fired her way. She -- she handled those well.

[...]Governor John McCain and you are now talking about the GOP as a party of change. We’ve got a very sick economy. Tell me the three principle things you would do to change the Bush economic policies.

PALIN: And you’re right. Our economy is weak right now, and we have got to strengthen it. And government can play an appropriate role in helping to strengthen the economy.

We need to put government back on the side of the people and make sure that it is not government solely looked at for all the solutions, for one.

Let me tell you what I did here in the city of Wasilla and then as governor of Alaska. What I did as a city council member then, and then as mayor, was come in, and we cut personal property taxes in Wasilla. We cut small business inventory taxes.

GIBSON: You raised the sales tax.

PALIN: No, well, we had a two percent sales tax. And when people came to local government and said, “We want a sports arena here,” I said, “That’s fine, and I want a sports arena also, but we’re going to have to pay for it.”

GIBSON: I didn’t want to get off into Wasilla, but you came into the city with a debt-free city and left it with considerable millions of dollars of debt, didn’t you?

PALIN: A $13 million sports arena that we bonded for, but, see, we put government on the side of the people by asking them if that’s what they wanted. It was a question on the ballot, and they got to vote yes or no. So that’s what we did.

We eliminated small business inventory taxes. I eliminated things like business license renewal fees on our small businesses. Those economic indicators of success on a local level should provide to America that worldview that I have of what we can do on a local level, and then a state level, where we just suspended our fuel tax in our state also.

Get taxes under control, but at the same time we’re cutting taxes, you got to reduce the growth of government.

GIBSON: Well, I want to come back to the question. I want to know, because you’ve advertised yourselves now as the party of change. I want to know what you would change in the Bush economic principles.

What you said to me at the beginning I don’t think anybody in the Bush administration would disagree with. What do you change in the Bush economic plans?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that we reform the oversight also of the agencies, including the quasi-government agencies like Freddie and Fannie, those things that have created an atmosphere here in America where people are fearful of losing their homes.

People are looking at job loss. People are looking at unaffordable health care for their families. We have got to reform the oversight of these agencies that have such control over Americans’ pocketbooks.

McCain on 'The View' Transcript (9-12-08)

John McCain appeared on the TV talk program, 'The View' friday. Here is a partial transcript and videos. (2nd transcript) (FOXNews analysis) (Huffington Post)

Whoopi: Do you believe in the Separation of Church of State?

McCain: Sure, but God has a plan for the world and people can believe want they want. I happen to be spiritual. P.S. In God We Trust.

[...]ELISABETH HASSELBECK: There has also been a question burning amongst voters and actually our viewers, and that is the question of Roe v. Wade. And as president, if you were, no softballs coming from me, even though you have my vote. Would you as president work to overturn that? And then would Sarah Palin be working to overturn Roe v. Wade?

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): I think what we would be doing is appointing or nominating justices to the United States Supreme Court and other courts who strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States. We would not impose a litmus test on any issue because that’s not fair to the American people. But they would have to have a clear record of strict interpretation.

BARBARA WALTERS: That’s kind of the other way of saying people who would want to overturn Roe v. Wade.

McCAIN: That, that, well, that is saying that, I believe Roe v. Wade was a very bad decision, Barbara. [audience groans] I think it was a bad decision. I thought other, I thought other decisions of the United States Supreme Court were bad decisions. But I want people on the Court who, quote, "do interpret" and not just on the issue of Roe v. Wade, but on other issues.

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Do I have to be worried about becoming a slave again?

McCAIN: My interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is that the United States Supreme Court enforces the Constitution of the United States and does not legislate nor invent areas that are responsibilities, according to the Constitution, of the legislative branch.

HASSELBECK: So it was in how the law came up, it was in how Roe v. Wade came apart was the issue. You, you want it to be through the Constitution from the people not from the bench.

McCAIN: And I believe that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, then the states would make these decisions.

GOLDBERG: Sir.

McCAIN: Yes?

GOLDBERG: Can you just, and I don’t want to misinterpret what you’re saying. Did you say you wanted strict Constitutionalists? Because that, that-

McCAIN: No, I want people who interpret the Constitution of the United States the way our founding fathers envision-...

Palin ABC News Interview Transcript (9-11-08)

Sarah Palin in an interview with Charlie Gibson contends we might need to go to war with Russia. Read the full transcript: Update:(part 2, 20/20 transcript)

GIBSON: Let's start, because we are near Russia, let's start with Russia and Georgia.

The administration has said we've got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep...

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals.That's why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

Sarah Palin on Russia:

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We've learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?


PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

Sarah Palin Sought Earmarks for Wasilla, Alaska: Transcript

This CNN report describes how as mayor and governor Sarah Palin became the queen of pork. She sought and got earmarks for her city of Wasilla for the State of Alaska.

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Three little words, a clue as to where Sarah Palin once stood on earmarks, scrawled in the margin of this memo to the Wasilla City Council, back when Palin was mayor: "We did well." It was June 14, 1999, when Palin wrote, "This does not include our nearly $1 million from the feds for our airport paving project." Then added those three words: "We did well."

LARRY PERSILY, WORKED FOR PALIN: She was hungry for funding from the federal government that could help her community.

KAYE: Longtime journalist Larry Persily worked for the governor for several months but doesn't believe she has the judgment or qualifications to be vice president. As to earmarks, he says...

PERSILY: When she was mayor of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002, she was in there, looking for federal earmarks from Congress just as much as anyone.

KAYE (on camera): As Mayor Palin hired a lobbyist to help funnel federal dollars to her hometown, and not just any lobbyist but the former chief of staff for Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, who at the time was chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, which doles out federal cash.

(voice-over) The lobbyist helped Palin secure $600,000 for a new bus facility, $1.75 million for dispatch center technology, $2.4 million to upgrade water and sewer facilities.

STEVE ELLIS, TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE: Wasilla did pretty well, once they got into the earmark game.

KAYE: In the last four years Palin was mayor, the city of Wasilla, with a population of just about 5,000, scored $27 million in earmarks, says the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense.

The state was doing pretty well, too. Perhaps Alaska's most egregious earmark? The Bridge to Nowhere, the target of Senator John McCain.

In 2006 Palin ran for governor, promising to support the now infamous Bridge to Nowhere, but after being elected governor, she rejected it. McCain and watchdog groups were already targeting the Bridge to Nowhere by then. Palin said the price tag had become too high and the money could be better used for other projects.

GOV. SARAH PALIN (R-AK), VICE-PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: I told the Congress thanks but no thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere.

PERSILY: She is telling only half the story as far as the earmarks.

KAYE: In fact, Palin was securing earmarks just as John McCain was fighting to slash them. Years ago, he even identified some of her projects. But that was then.

Since becoming governor, Palin has cut the earmarks the state asks for. But this year, Alaska had more earmark requests per person than any other state.

Alaska's lieutenant governor, Sean Parnell, defends Palin's record.

LT. GOV. SEAN PARNELL, ALASKA: She's a fiscal hawk. I'd say that she has worked to reduce the number of earmarks.

KAYE: Palin asked for $256 million in earmarks her first year in office; $187 million her second year. Why the apparent change of heart?

PERSILY: She turned against earmarks when she saw the nation turning against earmarks.

KAYE (on camera): Did the governor change her tone on earmarks because they became unpopular?

PARNELL: I don't think so. I think she saw them for what they were. As you're in office longer, you begin to see the cumulative effect of earmarks, from Wasilla to Pensacola to, you know, all across America, the thousands of earmarks and to see the corruption that can come from those.

KAYE (voice-over): For 2008 and 2009, her office has asked for nearly $8 million federal dollars to upgrade a remote airport after it was handed over by the Navy. The FAA says it handles only eight scheduled flights a month.

Also, $4 million to research sea crab stocks.

(on camera) Why is studying sea crab and rockfish worth more than $5 million?

PARNELL: Well, because they're found in federal waters and state waters, and they impact federal commercial fishing interests, as well as state.

Palin ABC/Gibson Interview Transcript (9-11-08)

VP candidate Sarah Palin was interviewed by ABC News' Charlie Gibson. Read the full transcript. Update:(Part 2, 20/20 interview transcript)

GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"

PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.

GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?

PALIN: I -- I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink.

So I didn't blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.

GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it's about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

GIBSON: I know. I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.

PALIN: It is, but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security. It's that important. It's that significant.

[...]GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.

That's what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It's an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.

Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

Obama on David Letterman: Transcript (9-10-08)

Barack Obama appeared on the 'Late Show' yesterday to talk to David Letterman. Read the full transcript.

Dave: “Let me ask you a question here. Have you ever actually put lipstick on a pig?”

Obama: “You know,” (audience laughs) “the answer would be no. But I think it might be fun to try.”

Dave: “I know the reaction to that was, ‘You were overreacting.’ You stand by that?”

Obama: “Absolutely.” (audience applauds) “Look, this is - if you - this is sort of silly season in politics - not that there’s a non-silly season in politics.” (Dave, audience laugh) “But it gets sillier. But, you know, it’s a common expression in at least Illinois, I don’t know about New York City. I don’t know where you put lipstick on here.” (audience, Dave laugh) “But in Illinois, the expression connotes the idea that if you have a bad idea, in this case I was talking about John McCain’s economic plans, that just calling them change, calling it something different, doesn’t make it better, hence, lipstick on a pig is still a pig.”

Dave: “Now what I like about this scenario is because they demanded, the Republicans demanded an apology.”

Obama: “Yes, they did.”

Dave: “So that means there had been a meeting at some point somewhere along the line.”

Obama: “All of them.”

Dave: “Yeah, they got together and they said, ‘You know what? He called our vice presidential candidate a pig.’” (audience laughs) “Well, that seems pretty unlikely, doesn’t it?”

Obama: “It does. But keep in mind that, technically, had I meant it that way, she would have been the lipstick, you see?” (audience, Dave laugh) “But now we’re…”

Dave: “I don’t know, you’re way ahead of me.” (audience laughs)

Obama: “Yeah, the failed policies of John McCain would be the pig.”

Dave: “Now, do you feel like for the last week and a half, last two weeks, that the campaign - ”

(audience laughs, Obama laughs)

Obama: “Now, I mean, you know, just following the logic of this illogical situation.”

Dave: “The fact that we’re talking about this now, do you feel like within the last week and half or so, there’s been - you’re derailed a little bit and now you’re campaigning against, not necessarily the Republican ticket, but John McCain, not him, but Sarah Palin?”

Obama: “Well, I - look, there’s no doubt that she’s been a phenomenon. I mean, you know, as somebody who used to be on the cover of Time and Newsweek, you know.” (audience, Dave laugh)

Dave (laughs): “Those were the days.” (audience applauds)

Obama: “Those were the days. I had a recent offer with Popular Mechanics.” (audience laughs)

Dave: “Take it, take it.” (audience laughs)

Obama: “Said they had a centerfold, yeah, with a wrench, you know.” (audience, Obama laugh) “But, no, look, she’s on a wild ride and there’s no doubt that she’s energized the base. But ultimately what we’ve seen over the last week is a concession on the part of the McCain campaign that this election is going to be about change. You’ll recall, you know, for the last two years, we’ve been talking about needing to change how Washington works, how the country is managed and people were saying, ‘No, it’s about experience, experience, experience,’ and over the last week and a half I think they recognized that, no, the American people want something fundamentally different and for a good reason. Because when you travel, it doesn’t matter whether you’re here in New York City or a tiny hamlet somewhere in the Midwest, what you find is people are just having a tough time right now. The economy is not working for middle class families, incomes have gone down, people don’t have healthcare, you’ve got foreclosures all across the country, and so people want something different, and whoever makes the better case that we have had enough of the last eight years, we need something fundamentally new, whoever makes that case to the American people will be the next President.” (audience applauds)

U.S. Government Employees Paid in Drugs, Sex, and Bribes

This video only reinforces the fact that we have a lawless government. The people whom run our country have public service last on their minds. The scandals are caught only when it gets out of hand. Don't want to over do it, after all.

U.S. Interior Department employees who oversaw oil drilling on federal lands had sex and used illegal drugs with workers at energy companies where they were conducting official business, an internal government report said on Wednesday.

Employees at the department's Minerals Management Service "socialized with, and received a wide array of gifts and gratuities from, oil and gas companies," according to the department's inspector general, Earl Devaney.

"When confronted by our investigators, none of the employees involved displayed remorse," Devaney said.

The alleged activities occurred between 2002 and 2006 and involved 19 former and current workers at the Minerals Management Service's offices in Denver and Washington. Devaney recommended that those still on the job be fired.

McCain, Palin Fairfax, Virginia Speech Transcript (9-10-08)

This partial transcript of a speech given by McCain and Palin while in Fairfax, Virginia, Today.

Americans, this is a time when principles and political independence matter a lot more than just a party line. He doesn't run with the Washington herd. He's willing to shake things up in Washington. And that is only one more reason to send the maverick of the Senate to the White House.

(APPLAUSE)

So I don't mind at all. The senator has called us a team of mavericks. And I'm honored to be considered on this team of mavericks, because he knows -- the senator knows that we've done some shaking up, up there in Alaska.

As the mayor of a small town, I shook up the old system. I took on the good old boys. And I reminded people that, no, government is not always the answer. In fact, too often government is the problem.

(APPLAUSE)

So what we did, simply, we put government back on the side of the people. What I did there was eliminate personal property taxes.

(APPLAUSE)

I eliminated small business inventory taxes and business license renewal fees. Those things that were getting in the way of the private sector, being able to grow and prosper and to thrive.

Property taxes were too high, so every year I cut that each year that I was in office. And those reforms worked, and our community was able to grow and to thrive. We really took off.

As governor then, I brought that same agenda of positive change to the state level. We took on the old politics as usual in Juneau.

I broke the monopoly that had controlled our state, and that was the lobbyists and the special interests that had controlled big oil. See, we had come to office promising major ethics reform to end the culture of closed doors and self-dealing, and today that reform, because it works -- that reform is the law of the state of Alaska.

(APPLAUSE)

And you know, as mayor and as governor, I tried to lead by example. So as mayor, I took a voluntary pay cut which didn't impress my husband at all. He wasn't thrilled. And then as governor, I eliminated the governor's personal chef position from the budget, which didn't thrill my kids at all. And I put the state's checkbook online for all the world to see, how we were spending the people's money.

(APPLAUSE)

Of course, that didn't thrill all the bureaucrats.

And then finally, that luxury jet that came with the office, it was a bit over the top. So I put it on eBay.

I had come to office promising to control spending, by request if possible, ideally, but by veto if necessary. And today our state budget is under control and we have a surplus. I had to put the veto pen to nearly half a billion dollars in reckless spending.

(APPLAUSE)

We suspended the state fuel tax, and we have a surplus. So what I'm doing with that surplus, I'm taking a big chunk of it and I'm returning it right back to the people where it belongs. They can spend it better than we can spend it for them.

We gave that money back to hard working Alaskans. And in these tough times, I'm ready to join John McCain in Washington. And we're going to do the same for you, tax relief for all Americans.

I championed earmark reform, also, to help Congress stop wasting money on those things that do not serve the public interest. I told Congress thanks, but no thanks for that Bridge to Nowhere. In Alaska, if we wanted that bridge, we'd build it ourselves.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, just the other day, our opponent brought up earmarks. And frankly, I was surprised that he did considering his record on earmarks. I didn't think he'd want to go there.

In just three years, our opponent has requested nearly a billion dollars in earmarks. That's about a million dollars every working day.

We reformed the abuses of earmarks in our state, and it was while our opponent was requesting a billion dollars in earmarks as a senatorial privilege. What I was doing was vetoing half a billion as an executive responsibility.

(APPLAUSE) And now, here again, I'm ready to join John McCain in Washington so we can end the corrupt practices of the abuse of earmarks once and for all. We'll do that.

Through competition as governor, I got agreements to build a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline. That's going to help all of you. It will help free America from foreign suppliers, as we're dumping so much money into some countries that don't really like America.

AUDIENCE: USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

PALIN: In a McCain/Palin administration, we are going to expand new energy resources, the development of, and expand our alternative uses of energy, also. We're going to tap into the wind and the geothermal and the hydro and the biomass. Those things that God has blessed our country with also, those renewables. We're going to start plugging those in and funding those projects that will be good for America. We are going to make this nation energy independent.

-Related Post:
Palin's ABC News interview with Charlie Gibson: Transcript (9-11-08)

Is Venezuela the New Cuba?

Not only is Venezuelan strong man, Hugo Chavez, Anti-American, he is also erratic. This can make him very dangerous. He makes every effort to try and weaken the U.S. The Bush gang has contributed to the problem by antagonizing Chavez, just as they have Russia. Miscalculation could create a very dangerous situation.

Two Russian strategic bombers landed in Venezuela on Wednesday as part of military maneuvers, the government said, announcing an unprecendented deployment to the territory of a new ally at a time of increasingly tense relations with the U.S.

Could we have a new missile crises in the not too distant future?

Russia's Defense Ministry said the two Tu-160 bombers flew to Venezuela on a training mission. It said in a statement carried by the Russian news wires that the planes will conduct training flights over neutral waters over the next few days before heading back to Russia.

Also Wednesday, NATO said it ended a routine exercise by four naval ships in the Black Sea. Russia had denounced the exercise as part of a Western military buildup sparked by the Georgia conflict.

And it ain't just the Venezuelans Bush is antagonizing. It almost seems this neo-fascist administration is bent on war with everyone and everything. Will we survive until January?

President Evo Morales said Wednesday that he is expelling the U.S. ambassador in Bolivia for allegedly inciting violent opposition protests.

Morales' announcement came hours after his government said a pipeline blast triggered by saboteurs forced the country to cut natural gas exports to Brazil by 10 percent.

"Without fear of the empire, I declare the U.S. ambassador 'persona non grata,'" Morales said in a speech at the presidential palace. He said he asked his foreign minister to send a diplomatic note to Ambassador Philip Goldberg telling the American to go home.

The war of words just worsens along with intrigue.

President Hugo Chavez on Wednesday derided as a "show" a U.S. trial of a Venezuelan man accused of acting as a foreign agent in a scandal over an attempt to smuggle $800,000 into Argentina in a suitcase.

The comments by Chavez came a day after a Venezuelan businessman testified in a Miami federal court that Chavez had personally ordered the head of his intelligence service to handle fallout from the incident, which sparked an international scandal.

"The North American empire is again attacking Venezuela," Chavez said, dismissing the trial as an American attempt to embarrass his government.

Like I said, the war of words just gets worse.

White House drug czar John Walters said Tuesday that Venezuela President Hugo Chávez' policies toward the cocaine trade represents a ''global threat'' that puts Europe, especially, at risk.

Venezuela has rejected U.S. requests to resume cooperation in the war on drugs, insisting it has made progress despite an alleged fourfold gain in the amount of Colombian cocaine passing through its territory.

Walters said most of the cocaine passing through Venezuela ends up in Europe via Africa and that Chávez's policies therefore were a big threat to both continents.

McCain's "Lipstick on a Pig" Sexist Ploy

The McCain campaign wants to change the subject from the economy, the war, and Bush. So how do they do it - by making ridiculous allegations which the media plays up. The same press that decries negative campaigning is busy promoting every fatuous comment attack made by each side.

Last October, asked about Sen. Hillary Clinton's health care plan, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was blunt. McCain said Clinton's proposal was "eerily" similar to the ill-fated plan she devised in 1993. "I think they put some lipstick on a pig," he said, "but it's still a pig."A common expression, right? McCain surely wasn't calling Clinton a pig. After all, McCain's former press secretary, Torie Clarke, wrote a book called "Lipstick on a Pig: Winning in the No-Spin Era." Elizabeth Edwards told some health journalists that McCain's health care plan was like "painting lipstick on a pig."

Tonight Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said of McCain painting himself as a change agent, "You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." ... "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called 'change,'" Obama continued, "it's still gonna stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing! It's time to bring about real change to Washington. And that's the choice you've got in this election."

The press is to blame here. Our country is in crisis and they focus on this sensational stupidity.

The media seems to find all of this fascinating, as if use of an old American expression, utilized by all kinds of political candidates from both parties for generations, might be some kind of sexist insult -- not when McCain used it to slam Hillary Clinton, but only when Obama used it to criticize the Republican campaign in general.

It's honestly like being stuck in a "Twilight Zone" episode in which reality has no meaning at all.

If you want to talk about Palin, let's talk about her less than "maverick" governing practices.

Responding to criticism from Democrats, campaign aides to Gov. Sarah Palin on Tuesday defended her practice of billing Alaska taxpayers for more than 300 nights she spent at home in her first year-and-a-half in office.

Ms. Palin received a “per diem” expense allowance for 312 nights she spent at her home in Wasilla, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

The $60-a-day allowance is available for state employees when traveling on official state business to cover meals and other sundry expenses. Ms. Palin’s per diems, which included some charges for partial days, totaled $17,059, from Dec. 4, 2006, when she took office, through June 30, 2008, the most recent data available, according to Sharon Leighow, a spokeswoman for the governor’s office. Ms. Palin’s salary is $125,000 a year.

Ms. Palin was able to receive the allotment while she was at home because her official “duty station” is listed as Juneau, the state capital, aides said. That allowed Ms. Palin to file for per diems while she was working out of her Anchorage office and commuting from her home about 45 miles away in Wasilla. Juneau is nearly 600 miles away.

Ron Paul: Vote Third Party

I have new found respect for Ron Paul. He is doing the right thing in calling for his followers to vote against the two parties that are running this country into the ground.

Libertarian-leaning congressman Ron Paul is urging voters to reject John McCain and Barack Obama and support one of the third-party candidates for president.

Paul, a Republican who abandoned his White House bid earlier this year, is gathering some of the candidates, independent Ralph Nader among them, on Wednesday to make his plea.

Send a message now to two parties that busy only mouthing words of "change." How can you change a system that you've created. The people who run America aren't interested in change. Politicians always talk about "changing" things but always do the bidding of those whom write the checks.

"The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two party system," Paul said in prepared remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment, principled candidates."

And don't be fooled by this nonsense about spoiling by the third parties. You can't spoil something that is already rotten.

Some Republicans have been concerned Paul could siphon votes from the party in the same way Democrats accused Nader of doing in 2000 when he ran under the Green Party banner.

But when Nader ran in 2004 as an independent, he garnered just 0.3 percent of the vote from 34 states. The Constitution, Green and Libertarian candidates received even fewer votes. Nader claims he has enough signatures to get on the ballot in 45 states this year.

You can bet that a year from now when the economy completely tanks people will want to hang the Republicans and Democrats.

Nader predicted the gathering of third-party candidates would "raise the eyebrows" of pundits who are skeptical of the viability of independent presidential campaigns. The candidates will agree on several common issues they believe are being ignored by the major parties.

"This is the beginning of the realignment of American politics," Nader said.

McCain, Palin Pennsylvania Speech Transcript (9-9-08)

Read the full transcript.

"GOV. PALIN: Now, to win, to reform Washington, to help reform our country, Senator McCain and I are going to take our case for reform to voters of every background, in every party, or no party at all. And with your vote, we're going to Washington to shake things up. (Cheers, applause.)

See, John McCain is a guy who's been through a few tough battles before, and he has served America in good times and in bad. (Cheers, applause.) He knows what it takes to overcome great challenges. And for the job of leading our country, he's the only man in this race who's got what it takes. (Cheers, applause.)

Remember it was just about a year ago when the war in Iraq looked very bad.

And the consequences of failure would have been terrible for our country, for our troops. Defeat at the hands of al Qaeda in Iraq would have left millions to a violent fate and would have left our own nation much less secure.

Some in Washington at the time said that all was lost. All was lost in the war, they presumed -- they assumed. There was no hope for victory. (Boos.) And they said there was no hope for the candidate who had said he would rather lose an election than see our country lose a war. (Cheers, applause.)

But the pollsters and the pundits, they forgot one thing when they wrote him off. They forgot the caliber of the man himself, the determination and the resolve and the sheer guts of Senator John McCain. (Cheers, applause.)

But you all knew better. You all knew better, Americans. The American people understand that there is a time for politics and a time for leadership, a time to campaign and a time to put our country first. (Cheers, applause.)

AUDIENCE: (Chanting.) Country first! Country first! Country first! Country first! Country first! Country first! Country first!

GOV. PALIN: John McCain is a man who wore the uniform of this country for 22 years. (Cheers, applause.) He refused to break faith with the troops who have now brought victory within sight. (Cheers, applause.)

And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief. (Cheers, applause, chanting.)

Now, for his part, our opponent, he still just can't bring himself to acknowledge the coming victory in Iraq. He couldn't just the other day in an interview. He says he's for change, but look there in Iraq. Change happened, and that's a great thing for America, Senator. (Cheers, applause.)

Here's how I look at the choices that we have in this election. In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers, and then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change. (Cheers, applause.)

Americans, this is a moment when principles and political independence and those things that this man will bring to the office -- those things that are going to matter a heck of a lot more that a party line --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yeah!

GOV. PALIN: He doesn't run with the Washington herd. He's willing to shake things up in Washington, and that is only one more reason to bring the maverick of the Senate -- put him into the White House. (Cheers, applause.)

Senator McCain has called the two of us a team of mavericks, and he knows that we've done some shaking up up there in Alaska. As mayor, I shook up the old system and took on the good old boys. (Cheers, applause.) I reminded people that government is not always the answer. In fact, too often government is the problem. (Cheers, applause.)

So -- so we got back to basics, and we put government back on the side of the people.

What I did was eliminate taxes on personal property and -- (cheers, applause) -- I eliminated taxes that were hurting small business. And property taxes were too high, so every year in office, we cut the mill levy. We cut that rate. And these reforms worked and our community took off. We started prospering.

And as governor, then, I brought that same agenda of positive change. We took on the old politics as usual in Juneau and we broke the monopoly that had controlled our state. And that was the lobbyists and the special interests behind Big Oil. (Cheers.) We came to office promising major ethics reform to end the culture of closed doors and self-dealing and today that ethics reform is the law of the state. (Cheers, applause.)"

Obama Dayton Education Speech Transcript (9-9-08)

Read the full transcript of Obama's speech on education given in Dayton, Ohio.

I believe the day of reckoning is here. (Cheers, applause.) Our -- our children and our country can't afford four more years of neglect and indifference. (Cheers, applause.) At this -- at this defining moment in our history, America faces few more urgent challenges than preparing our children to compete in a global economy. The decisions our leaders make about education in the coming years will shape our future for generations to come. They will help determine not only whether our children have the chance to fulfill their God-given potential or whether our workers have the chance to build a better life for their families, but whether we as a nation will remain in the 21st century the kind of global economic leader that we were in the 20th century.

And the rising importance of education reflects the new demands of our new world. In recent decades, revolutions in communications and information technology have broken down barriers that once kept countries and markets apart, creating a single, global economy that's more integrated and interconnected than ever before. In this economy, companies can plant their jobs wherever there's an Internet connection and someone willing to do the work, meaning that children here in Dayton are growing up competing with children not only in Detroit or Chicago or Los Angeles, but in Beijing and Delhi as well.

What matters, then, isn't what you do or where you live, but what you know. When two-thirds -- (applause) -- of all new jobs require a higher education or advanced training, knowledge is the most valuable skill you can sell. (Applause.) It's not only a pathway to opportunity, but it's a prerequisite for opportunity. Without a good preschool education, our children are less likely to keep up with their peers. Without a high school diploma -- (applause) -- without a high school diploma, you're likely to make about three times less than a college graduate. And without a college degree or industry certification, it's harder and harder to find a job that can help you support your family and keep up with rising costs.

It's not just that a world-class education is essential for workers to compete and win, it's that an educated workforce is essential for America to compete and win. (Applause.) Without a workforce trained in math, science and technology, and the other skills of the 21st century, our companies will innovate less, our economy will grow less, and our nation will be less competitive. If we want to outcompete the world tomorrow, we must out-educate the world today. (Cheers, applause.)

Let me -- let me be more specific. If we want to keep building the cars of the future here in America, then we can't afford to see the number of Ph.D.s in engineering climbing in China, South Korea and Japan even as it's dropped here in the United States. We can't afford a future where our high school students rank near the bottom in -- in math and science among industrialized countries, and our high school drop-out rate is one of the highest in the industrialized world.

Olbermann Obama Countdown Interview Transcript (Part 2)

This is part 2 of of Keith Olbermann's (MSNBC's Countdown) interview of Barack Obama. Read the full transcript (Part 1).

OLBERMANN: Let me switch over to Iraq and people's reaction to you and Iraq and Iraq as a subject in general. Your predictions about the surge, your language about the surge, seem to have turned out to be just about 100 percent on the spot. Simple facts: whatever is done to lessen violence against American troops and others in portions of that country, the Iraqis are still not paying for this war fully, either with money or personnel. And Mr. Bush has just been advised not to bring any more of our troops home this year.

If you are right, why have the Republicans and the conservative media been so effective in suggesting that you were wrong and somehow you need to atone for that?

OBAMA: Well, you know, it's interesting. It's not just the conservative media. I think that a lot of the mainstream media has picked up on this. Partly, I think, it is a legitimate surprise on the part of a lot of people that the immediate violence went down so significantly. And I think our troops deserve all the credit in the world for that happening, along with the Sunni awakening that occurred, the Shia militias standing down. There was a convergence of forces that have reduced violence in a way I think many of us didn't anticipate, including me.

What has not changed at all is the underlying fact that, No. 1, Iraq was a huge strategic blunder that strengthened Iran, took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, let al Qaeda off the hook, and we've got to make a strategic shift.

The second thing that hasn't changed is the Iraqi government still hasn't taken responsibility, that they aren't spending their own oil revenues. They've got $80 billion parked in New York banks while we're spending $10 billion a month. And I believe, and continue to believe, that until we send a clear signal that we are going to withdraw in a phased, systematic way, that they're not going to start getting their act together.

Now, Prime Minister Maliki has suggested that a timetable now makes sense. Even the Bush administration has been discussing a time horizon. John McCain is the only guy who still is trying to figure out ways to stay, instead of ways for us to go.

And it is important for us to understand that, unless we start putting more responsibility in the hands of the Iraqis, we are going to be hamstrung in dealing with the larger battle against terror that is so critical to our long-term security.

Obama O'Reilly Factor Interview Transcript (part 2)

This is part 2 of Bill O'Reilly's interview of Barack Obama as shown 9-8-08. Read the full transcript. (part 1)(part 3)

O'REILLY: You and Hillary both, you just want to take my money, and you can have it. I mean, I don't care if I live in a hut. Under President Bush, the federal government derived 20 percent more revenue than under President Clinton. Did you know that?

OBAMA: Well…

O'REILLY: Did you know that?

OBAMA: ...the economy grew, Bill.

O'REILLY: It grew, that's right.

OBAMA: The economy grew, so of course, the…

O'REILLY: Under President Bush, the economy grew 19 percent more than Clinton. See, this is what I'm not getting with you Democrats.

OBAMA: No, no, no. Hold on a second, Bill. Wait, Bill, hold on a second now. I mean, you know the famous saying about there are lies, damn lies, and statistics?

O'REILLY: Yes.

OBAMA: Well, you and I can — we can play a statistics game.

O'REILLY: I know it's bull. I know it is.

OBAMA: So let's be clear on the record, OK? The — during the Bush administration…

O'REILLY: Yes.

OBAMA: ...there was economic growth. Not as fast as during the 1990s, OK, but there was growth during the Bush administration. But what happened was that wages and incomes for ordinary Americans, the guys who watch your show…

O'REILLY: Yes.

OBAMA: …the guys who you advocate for and you speak for on this show…

O'REILLY: Right.

OBAMA: …their wages and incomes did not go up.

O'REILLY: Why?

OBAMA: They went down.

O'REILLY: Do you know why?

OBAMA: And the reason they went down…

O'REILLY: Yes.

OBAMA: ...is because most of the corporate profits and increased productivity went to the top, not just one percent, but the top one-tenth of a percent.

O'REILLY: Well, let me submit to you that you're wrong.

OBAMA: And part of…

O'REILLY: OK. We've been studying this issue because we want to be fair and balanced and give all sides.

OBAMA: Right.

O'REILLY: T he reason that wages have been depressed — and they're not that much. It's about $400 or $500 for the Bush administration, real wages up, and about $2,000 under the Clinton administration — is because there are 10 million immigrants, new immigrants in the workforce, most of whom are illegal aliens.

OBAMA: Bill…

O'REILLY: Those 10 million…

OBAMA: I totally disagree.

- Related Post:
Sarah Palin's ABC News interview with Charlie Gibson: Transcript (9-11-08)

Obama Olbermann Interview on Countdown: Transcript (Part 1 & 2)

Read the full transcript of Barack Obama's interview by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's Countdown program. (update: Part 2 transcript)

OLBERMANN: And Governor Palin hired a lobbyist to get earmarks to the tune of $27 million for a 6,000-person town which is — in its own scope, is kind of a neat trick, but it does seem to counterbalance the basic platform of the Republican Party.

You said that they're not telling the truth here, but when the stuff is a gross distortion, whether it's about their own positions or yours, or facts in your history or whatever, what can you do about it? And why do people hesitate to use the word "lie" about these things?

OBAMA: Well, look, we have been very clear about the fact that this argument John McCain and Sarah Palin are making, that they are agents of change, just won't fly. It defies their history and their background. And we saw it in the convention that they wouldn't talk about the basic issues that are really going to make a difference in the lives of middle class families.

So you know, I'm happy to have legitimate policy debates with them on where we want to take health care, what we want to do about energy, what we want to do about education, what are we going to do about the war in Iraq.

But you know, for them to run an ad that basically doesn't present an accurate record of their positions on issues I think should raise some questions about how they would approach an administration.

OLBERMANN: To something from your own convention, maybe the most compelling moment of your acceptance speech in Denver was that one strongly voiced word, "enough." A lot of people who have felt angry about what has been done to this country in the last seven or eight years have that same sense of urgency and simplicity to it.

Have you thought of using on the campaign trail and in your speaking engagements, more exclamation points? Have you thought of getting angrier?

OBAMA: Well, I'll tell you what, with two months to go, I think everybody needs to feel a sense of urgency. You know, when I hear John McCain suggest that he is going to bring about change, I am reminded of the cartoon that Tom Toles did in "The Washington Post" where he has McCain say: "Watch out, George Bush, with the exception of the economy, tax policy, foreign policy, health care policy, education policy, and Karl Rove politics, we're really going to shake things up in Washington."

You know, the fact of the matter is, is that not only has John McCain agreed with George Bush 90 percent of the time, this is the party that has been in charge for eight years. And they're now trying to run against themselves despite a few months ago having argued that — John McCain saying that, listen, I've been supportive of George Bush, boasting about it.

You know, I said, I think on Saturday in Indiana, the American people aren't stupid. They are going to get it. But we've got to make sure that we are being clear, not only that they will not bring about change, but the very specific kinds of changes we want to bring, in terms of green technology jobs in America, investing in our education system, making college more affordable, making health care accessible to every American, that contrast, if we go into November, with that contrast on the minds of the American people, I think we're going to do well.

White House/Dana Perino Daily Press Briefing (9-8-08)

Read the full transcript.

Q Dana, on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, you've outlined the risk to taxpayers and the economy if these companies were to fail. But what about the risk to taxpayers now that the government has taken them over and assumed that debt? Is that a risk that the White House is concerned about?

MS. PERINO: President Bush thinks that the move that Secretary Paulson worked on is the right move at the right time. And this is not action that we wanted to take, it's action that we needed to take. The goal is to prevent additional risk to the taxpayers, and in this plan Secretary Paulson has moved forward to make sure that the taxpayers would be paid back first. If you're a shareholder or you're top management of these companies today, it's not a very bright day for you. And taxpayer money will be safeguarded to the greatest extent possible.

Secretary Paulson and others made the determination in working through the options, and then finally talking with the President, that this was the best way to prevent a broader financial problem for our capital markets here in the United States, but also globally.

Q And just to follow up on that, about the administration not being anxious to take that step, why is that? Could you flesh out a little bit more what the concern is or why this is a step that the administration was hesitant to take?

MS. PERINO: Well, going back years, this administration has advocated for reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has been reluctant to move forward on those for many years, and in fact, didn't even take it real seriously until this crisis emerged -- and we finally got some of that legislation I think in early August or late July.

The reason that we're -- we didn't want to have to take this action is we prefer for Congress to take care of its own business. Remember, these are congressionally chartered companies, and it's appropriate that Congress have a role in saying how they're going to move forward in the future. And that's why Congress will have a chance when they get back over this next period and also into the next administration to decide how to move forward with them.

Q Dana, could you expand a bit, in terms of the President's sort of philosophical underpinning -- this is not exactly limited government, this takeover. So how concerned was he -- just in terms of conservative political ideology, how concerned was he about doing something that seems to be sort of the opposite of all of that?

MS. PERINO: Well, it's again -- President Bush initiated a call years ago to try to reform this system because he did not want the status quo to continue. Unfortunately, Congress didn't act on that. And the systemic risk that was posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to our entire economy was one that the President felt it was more important to deal with now, and start to work on now, so that the next administration would be able to work with the Congress and figure out a way to make sure that this would not be allowed to happen again. And so far, cooperation with Congress since this announcement has been very good.

Q But, I mean, I imagine it's -- there are -- does this mark a change in the President's thinking, in terms of there are times where you do need big government action and intervention?

MS. PERINO: Remember, these are congressionally chartered companies, so the government is involved in these companies whether we've liked it or not.

Q There's a difference between charger and take over.

MS. PERINO: It became clear that these companies were not going to be able to continue to function the way that they were, and that the whole system was at risk -- not only here in our country, but also affecting global markets. And so given that they were already part of a quasi-federal government agency, it's only appropriate that the President take this action. And Secretary Paulson, he believes, came up with the right mix with this conservatorship -- which I'm not an expert in, but Secretary Paulson has spoken about it today.

Q Was there ever -- or to what degree were you hearing, was the White House hearing from opponents of the idea? How much push back was there about doing something like a big takeover?

MS. PERINO: As I said, I think that the cooperation we've had from members of Congress and from the companies, themselves, is emblematic of the fact that people recognized that the status quo was not going to suffice anymore.

And the turmoil that would have resulted from a failure of these two companies would have directly impacted households everywhere -- household wealth, our buying power, our ability to save for college or our savings for retirement, ability to get loans -- not just home loans, but auto loans -- everything that makes our economy work. So the President thought it was absolutely appropriate that we move forward. And as I said, the cooperation so far has been very good.

Q It's up to about $200 billion that's being guaranteed by this. What's the expectation of the administration about how much will -- how much taxpayer money will actually have to -- you'll actually have to come up with to help secure these companies?

MS. PERINO: I'll refer you to Secretary Paulson, who said this morning that -- he said it would be as little as possible, and I think the initial request was for $5 billion, but up to $200 billion. He said he doesn't know yet what that would ultimately be. But what he does know is that as soon as these companies start to turn around, it is the taxpayers who will be paid back first, not the shareholders.

Q And the money, however much it ends up being, is just going to be borrowed or is there another way to --

MS. PERINO: I'll refer you to Treasury for details; I don't know.

Q And what happened -- about six weeks ago, toward late July you said that there was not an expectation that you would have to do this. What happened in the interim that made it necessary for this to occur?

MS. PERINO: I think -- I would refer you to Treasury for details as to what they were looking at. But remember, we asked for a strong regulator who would go in and be able to look at the books in a full, transparent way. And over the past several weeks it became clear that they were not going to be able to continue to function and that this action was necessary.

Go ahead, Sheryl.

Q Just sort of following on Jim's question, you talked about the next administration would determine what the appropriate role is for these companies. Was the President uncomfortable at the outset with even the idea of these as quasi-governmental agencies? Is there a philosophical uneasiness with having the government play even a limited role? And I'm wondering is this kind of a bitter pill for him to have to swallow, that now the government has to take over the whole thing?

MS. PERINO: Well, look, he didn't create government-sponsored entities, these were -- he inherited them.

Q Right. Was he uneasy with that?

MS. PERINO: Well, he was uneasy with the whole system, which is why in 2002, I think it was, that he first recommended wholesale changes of GSEs -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- because he fundamentally thought that it didn't work.

But it's not something he invented, and so he was trying to work best with the Congress to figure out a way to reform it so that we wouldn't have to take such actions. As I said, this is not action that we wanted to take, it was action that Secretary Paulson and others, working with the President, determined that we needed to take.

So I would refer you back to what he had -- years ago he and members of his administration thought that we needed to make some changes. We do believe that the best way for this to move forward is to have Congress look at how they really want to be involved in the future. This was allowed to get out of control. And President Bush believes that however Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are addressed by either this Congress or the next administration, it is crucial that they not be set up in the same way as they were before.

Q Can you talk to us about some of the steps the President took since 2002, other than simply saying he wanted Congress to reform, to actually --

MS. PERINO: We proposed legislation -- we proposed legislation. We tried to move forward. I mean, there's lots of different ways, but there's only so much in our system that an executive branch can do when these are congressionally chartered agencies. You have to have congressional buy-in, you have congressional action.

And just the intrinsic nature of the way that the housing industry was woven into the fabric of inside the beltway was hard to break loose. But I think that, going to Jim's question, as you said, the fact that we have had good cooperation since this announcement was made, I think is symbolic of the fact that everyone releases that this was not a game that could continue to be played. And it had to be changed fundamentally.

Transcript: Rick Davis on 'FOX News Sunday' (9-7-08)

Read the full transcript of John McCain's campaign manager's interview with Chris Wallace.

WALLACE: Well, as a matter of personal privilege, I'm going to give you the opportunity to respond to David Axelrod, who said, you know, for all this talk about wait till we come in and shake the lobbyists, but the campaign team of McCain is filled with lobbyists or, in your case, former lobbyists. How do you respond?

DAVIS: Oh, I think that, you know, it's just more of the same from David Axelrod. I mean, they've been running against ghosts of the past all along. And I think it just shows that they don't really have anything to talk about.

If they want to run against Rick Davis or our campaign staff, let them. I think it's hilarious. I think it's a wonderful distraction from the real issues that we're trying to debate.

WALLACE: But aren't you vastly exaggerating her record as a reformer? Take a look. As mayor of Wasilla, she hired a Washington lobbyist and got $27 million in earmarks.

And in her less than two years as governor, Alaska has asked for $589 million in pork barrel projects. Her record as a reformer, particularly on the issue of earmarks, is far from clean.

DAVIS: Well, let's be clear about this. When she was mayor of Wasilla, there were already people in place who were getting those grants from the federal government. And small towns do a lot of that kind of activity because mayors...

WALLACE: She hired a Washington lobbyist who was supposed to...

DAVIS: ... mayors...

(CROSSTALK)

DAVIS: ... already involved in that, and so...

WALLACE: She hired a — she...

DAVIS: But let me also point out these...

WALLACE: ... she did hire a lobbyist.

DAVIS: ... these pork barrel projects that you talk about — these were not projects that she tried to get. These were projects that the Republican establishment in Alaska, who she campaigned against and beat many times over — were the ones picking those grants up.

Let me remind you, she vetoed more bills. She cut back on more pork barrel spending in the state legislature than any previous governor. She converted that legislature into reform because she passed ethics reforms and corruption reforms.

She railed against the establishment in Alaska and was able to accomplish great things like passing a significant energy bill that allowed them to create a natural gas pipeline.

These are all things that a true reformer is able to accomplish. So you know, I don't disagree with the fact that these — there were pork barrel projects coming to Alaska, but not from her. Within the state legislature, she beat back those efforts.

WALLACE: Wait a minute. First of all...

DAVIS: She's not a federal...

WALLACE: ... as governor, Alaska — during her 1.5 years, 2 years as governor, Alaska continued to get more federal money for pork barrel projects per capita than any state in the country.

DAVIS: Yeah.

WALLACE: And she was...

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: This works better...

DAVIS: Sure.

WALLACE: ... if I get to ask the question.

DAVIS: OK.

WALLACE: And she supported the "bridge to nowhere," and it was only after the federal government dropped it out and killed it, the Congress killed it, that she then opposed it. And in fact, she still got the money for the approach, the ramp, to the "bridge to nowhere."

DAVIS: Congress didn't beat back the "bridge to nowhere." That funding...

WALLACE: I know, but she accepted the money.

DAVIS: That funding was in the grant, and she said, "I'm not spending that money." And what they did — they took a $500 million bridge and she turned it into a $2 million ferry. And that's what she did on her own without any help from anybody else.

WALLACE: Well, actually, it was Congress that killed the money for the "bridge to nowhere."