Democrats & Liberals Archives

Palin By Comparison

Sarah Palin would be fine as stunt-casting, if we were talking about the keynote speech in the upcoming convention, and not as running mate for McCain. She could have been at least given the national stage before somebody shoved her out as a candidate for VP. To my mind, her selection represents the depth of Republican misunderstanding as to why Democrats are willing to run with a nominee like Obama, or a candidate like Hillary, even.

Obama's inexperience is not a factor people took lightly. Only when he trounced much more experienced operators did people sit up and take notice, treat him as more than a novelty. But his main opponent was nobody to be trifled with. Hillary played sustained hardball with the Democratic Party's prodigy. Had her Super Tuesday strategy been better, she might be the nominee instead. As it is, she fought her Democratic rival through 5 months, through all the states and territories (literally all of them) She earned her 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling.

Palin? Palin has been a governor for less than half a term. Mayor of a town of 8,000 souls at best, who left her town twenty million dollars in debt. You would perhaps want to give her some time to actually build a record, if you were looking to field a qualified candidate. Obama has four times the state level experience that she has, and developed quite a volume of bills and legislation to his name. With Biden as his Running mate, Obama's relatively brief tenure at the national level is balanced by a history in Congress every bit Mcain's equal.

And you know, if the worst should happen, the person serving out Obama's term would be qualified right then and there. Biden is Obama's insurance policy, as a Vice President should be. Palin is merely McCain's gamble. A gamble on what?

The choice itself, though, seems a bit obvious in its implications. I mean, it doesn't take Hillary's law degree to know why a woman who never competed in the primaries, and who is barely known at all in national politics is chosen. The nakedness of the appeal could very well confound it. Her stance on abortion will become quite an issue with many of them, if we're talking about the older generation of feminist voters for whom Hillary's gender really was the main draw.

The inexperience, youth, and reform movement credentials were obviously meant to resemble Obama's. But we have not seen her lead a nationwide movement like Obama's, or see her compete in a primary. Her inexperience is not balanced by a truly excellent resume with strong academics and prestigious positions. Obama's achievements and experience before he was elected are an important aspect of why his post-election inexperience doesn't scare many Democrats.

Palin lacks much of that kind of strength. Her introduction as Vice President is not unlike all those movies made in the late sixties where the relatively older generation stars made groovy, psychedelic pictures. Otto Preminger's Skidoo is one example. You've got people who've looked at the superficial surface of a cultural phenomenon, of works by younger artists who have organically developed their style and material, and they decide that if they mimic certain aspects of that culture, they can be with it, hip, and more to the point, richly rewarded by the folks they're marketing to.

And it is marketing for the most part. She's not going to have any real power unless McCain allows it. Palin is an arch conservative, a choice meant to play well to the Church Republicans, The Neocons, the Wall Street Republicans, the Movement Republicans. And that means, she represents everything about the party that has taken over Washington, that has gotten us into this mess in the first place.

All we need to know about Palin is that she serves one purpose: Making McCain look good to other people. She's the first trophy running mate.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at August 30, 2008 6:37 PM
Comments
Comment #260433

A bit late to talk about experience isn’t it? Obama was in the middle of his campaign before he found out the correct number of states we have! If Obama got elected (less and less likely now) his VP would have to run the country for him! Sara Palin has a 16-year record that shows she’s a reformer and will even go up against her own party when needed. She will have plenty of time to learn the intricacies of national issues while McCain is President. Obama, on the other hand, has spent most of his time in the Senate running for president. He would have to learn this stuff on the fly with Biden pulling the strings from the background Cheney-style.

Palin has already been good for the ticket. Baseless attacks on her and her family from left wing nuts have already forced the Obama camp into damage control mode just a few days before the Republican convention. That, plus the fact that she has helped McCain solidify his base, is going to make it hard for Obama to win this thing.

Posted by: Republicwin at August 30, 2008 8:23 PM
Comment #260438

Stephen,

One of the issues that I am finding so baffling about this is the ongoing ethics investigation in Alaska.

What stumps me is was this something the McCain campaign didn’t know about (I find that hard to believe because *I* knew about it), didn’t care about or that this investigation was a closet skeleton that could either be a) managed or b) wasn’t as bad as something other short list candidates had in their closets?

I do think these are all sort of side show issues because the election won’t be about Palin but about the policies of the last several years. Once the newness wears off this pick, I imagine that will come back to the front.

Posted by: Donna at August 30, 2008 8:46 PM
Comment #260439

Like I said in another blog, she has more executive experience than McCain, Obama, and Biden combined. I think you Dems were cought with your pants down with this call.

Posted by: KAP at August 30, 2008 9:09 PM
Comment #260441

This is all over for John McCain
Polls: Voters Doubt Palin’s Qualifications While Obama Expands Lead

Read full article at
http://art-of-politics.blogspot.com

Posted by: John at August 30, 2008 9:19 PM
Comment #260443

“Sara Palin has a 16-year record…”

“… She has more executive experience than McCain, Obama, and Biden combined…”

Uh huh. Most of her “executive experience” in those 16 brutal years came as a city council member and mayor of a small town. Guess that explains her clenched jaw and thousand mile stare. She’s a grizzled veteran who has seen too much, and done too much in her time. Things no one should ever see. Things no one should ever have to do. Ah yes. The tough decisions that no one wants to make, yet someone must make, in that veritable cauldron, that perpetual firestorm, that political meatgrinder that some of us call:

Wasilla

Posted by: phx8 at August 30, 2008 9:42 PM
Comment #260447

Enough with the stupid executive experience meme. Every political site I go to conservatives bring it up ad nauseam. It’s like they have nothing else to say about her other than that. Anyone who could argue that her time spent as mayor of a town of 6000 people, basically a part time job, is equal to the President of the USA is fooling themselves.

Mayor of Wasilla does not equal mayor of New York City.

Governor of Alaska does not equal Governor of California.

There are no state sales taxes, or state income taxes in Alaska. There aren’t the huge populations that require enormous police and emergency services, and a large bureaucracy to manage like any normal sized state. She would almost be the equivalent of a half term mayor of Fort Worth, Texas. So her executive “experience” is a joke compared to any other Governor in the USA.

The current President had 6 years of executive experience of one of the largest states in this country, and look what a mess he made of things. John McCain has no executive experience, so does that mean she will be running things from behind the scenes like Cheney? President Lincoln had less experience than Obama prior to office, and no executive experience, and he is considered one of our greatest Presidents. So the executive experience trumps all other experience argument is laughable, and it is down right dangerous someone so unqualified could be a heartbeat from the Presidency.

Posted by: pops mcgee at August 30, 2008 9:52 PM
Comment #260448
Mayor of Wasilla does not equal mayor of New York City.

Governor of Alaska does not equal Governor of California.

And your point is?

Does community-organizing in Chicago—which Obama trumpets so much—equal Mayor of New York City and Governor of California, in your view?

A better question is this. Does an absentee one term Senator who spent his whole term running for president equal the experience of a state governor who was doing her job? And doing it so well that she has a 80% approval rate?

it is down right dangerous someone so unqualified could be a heartbeat from the Presidency.

If that’s how you feel, then your choice is clear. Don’t vote for the ticket with the less experienced candidate at the TOP instead of the bottom.

This constantly repeated claim that Obama, who otherwise has accomplished nothing, deserves to be president because he defeated Hillary Clinton is ridiculous.

Obama’s so-called “achievement” is being a black man who was at the right place at the right time. Nothing more. This caused 90% of black Democrats to vote for him, forming a coalition with the extreme left wing of the Democratic party, drowning out and defeating the moderates. Getting liberals to vote for you is not in itself a qualification to be President of all Americans. And THAT, my friends, is the only thing Obama has ever done of note.

Palin is TEN TIMES more qualified than Obama, and she isn’t even heading the ticket!!!

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 30, 2008 10:04 PM
Comment #260449

I was fairly happy with the Palin pick from the beginning, but what has reassured me beyond measure is the reaction of Democrats, who have begun squealing like stuck pigs in the media and elsewhere over this nomination.

An often-repeated element of their response is a fantasy (which takes various forms) in which Palin will be forced to withdraw her candidacy for one of a number of reasons.

Now, if she weren’t EXACTLY the perfect nominee, would the Democrats spend so much time trying to convince us that McCain should get rid of her and choose someone else? I think not.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 30, 2008 10:09 PM
Comment #260451

I’ve already explained in my post LO that Obama has more experience than Lincoln had, and EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE ALONE DOES NOT TRUMP EVERY OTHER TYPE OF EXPERIENCE.

Why is it so hard for conservatives to understand that? Unlike Obama who has a degree in international relations, and a constitutional law degree, she has a degree in journalism and wanted to be a sportscaster. While she was winning beauty pagents Obama was a community organizer. Unlike Obama who has worked on legislation that affects millions of people, she has only governed a state of 680,000 people for 20 months, and prior to that a town of just 6,000 people.

Answer me this one question LO:

Do you think her 20 months executive experience of the 4th least populated state compared to John McCain, who has no executive experience, makes her more qualified to be President?

That seems to be the argument from the right, that executive experience no matter how small, trumps any other type of experience.

Posted by: pops mcgee at August 30, 2008 10:23 PM
Comment #260457

pops

That seems to be the argument from the right, that executive experience no matter how small, trumps any other type of experience.

You are correct pops. That is the argument. An argument they are making about a person who has been in the national spotlight for 1 day. I think this all says more about the mindset of right wingers. I would be embarrassed to lay claim to the notion that I could instantly form a complete foolproof assessment of an individual I or virtually anyone posting here or anywhere in this country knew very little about before yesterday.

I replied in another post that their claims of her credible qualifying experience are akin to comparing a little league game to the world series. They expect us, like them in their knee jerk reactions, to instantly accept that she is the right person for the job. What could possibly be more irresponsible or ludicrous. Especially after nineteen months of their asking us, telling us, and making ridiculous implications as to just who Obama is and what he represents, a man who has been in the national spotlight for probably six years now.

A vote for Palin, is a vote for a person who’s character, positions, credabilities, qualifications and abilities have not yet been vetted by the American people. A process that will take much more than 1 day.

Posted by: RickIL at August 30, 2008 11:08 PM
Comment #260458

The Palin nomination accomplished one positive for the GOP: it took attention away from Obama’s acceptance speech, which attracted 38 million viewers, and it took attention away from the indisputable fact that the Democrats conducted a flawless, highly successful convention, and came away united.

The McCain campaign lied to the public about announcing a VP after Obama’s Berlin speech, in order to take attention away from him. Now the announcement has been made, and the GOP can only count on the attention their convention generates, along with hamfisted October surprises delivered by Bush administration.

But the GOP convention is being undermined by a hurricane, and the irony of a huge hurricane showing up on the anniversary of Katrina, right in the midst of the GOP convention, is too rich for words.

And taking attention away from Obama might be a good idea, except there’s good attention, and there’s not-so-good attention. The polls are showing Obama with a huge boost from the convention, and the initial polls are showing Sarah Palin is a bust with most of the public.

What a stupid nomination for VP. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving political party. It’s just hilarious. The right wing is actually cheering for the nomination of a grossly unqualified VP, as if winning the election is a matter of getting more anti-science and more anti-environmentalist and more inexperienced and even further to the right of the political spectrum. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

I’m loving this.

Posted by: phx8 at August 30, 2008 11:15 PM
Comment #260459

I have the same question as a few others have asked, why are the dems so upset about this woman? She is not running on the BHO ticket. Let it rest. If the American people do not accept her, McCain will loose.

I know you elitist can’t understand this, but she rings true to the conservatives and there is nothing you can say that will change this. She is pro 2nd amend, pro life, against taxes, for drilling, good looking, and hunts and fishes. What more could you ask for?

Now this is the way I see it, the Republican Party will get on fire for McCain and Palin.

The Clintons will secretly do all they can to see that BHO looses so that Hil can run in 4 years on the “I told you so” platform.

BHO will be exposed as the product of the corrupt Chicago Dem machine.

And Biden will loose it and say something stupid (again).

And last of all, when the dems get behind the little curtain in the voting booth, where no one can see what they are doing, they will vote for the white guy.

One of the advantages of being old is, you have learned how people think!!!

Posted by: Oldguy at August 30, 2008 11:18 PM
Comment #260460

pops

One other thought I think I should mention. These folks who are so sure that she is the right person are not basing their opinion on logic. The fact that she emerged on the scene so fast and in such an obscure way really gave them no chance to form an opinion before hand. Since they had no chance to voice their opinion before the selection, they really have no choice but to back her and support McCain on his choice. For hard core repubs twisted logic says that a lack of time to make a fair assessment has lead to desperation in an effort to push her worth on the republican base, regardless of evidence to the contrary.

Posted by: RickIL at August 30, 2008 11:26 PM
Comment #260462

RickIL,

I agree they are acting out of desperation. Maybe some of the evangelicals wanted her and her crazy christian dominionist policies, but it looks like the rest of the conservatives are just going through the motions and echoing the talking points to save face. I doubt any sensible conservative had her at the top of their VP list. This pick is absolute political pandering, whether the target was women voters or evangelical voters. It’s just a shame that McCain is willing to risk our country for a lame political hail mary.

Posted by: pops mcgee at August 30, 2008 11:39 PM
Comment #260463

oldguy

You are welcome to form an opinion of what us liberals think of McCains choice. I can assure you it is not based in fear that he made the proper choice. I really could not give a rats ass who he chose. To be perfectly honest, from a left viewpoint, I could not be happier with the choice. What astounds us is the fact that he chose a person who we feel has not been properly vetted and has no real experience dealing with anything at the national or international level. The other thing that astounds us is that right wing hypocrites who have consistently challenged Obama’s perceived lack of experience for 19 months now view it as not particularly important. That and the fact that in 1 day you can determine her worth with respect to the position at hand. That notion really is preposterous to say the least. It says much more about the workings of the republican mind than it does about liberals.

And on a lighter note, you are not the only old dude around here. Yes as an old dude I too have learned a bit about how people think, but very seldom what they think.

Posted by: RickIL at August 30, 2008 11:43 PM
Comment #260464

The modern liberal mind:

But the GOP convention is being undermined by a hurricane, and the irony of a huge hurricane showing up on the anniversary of Katrina, right in the midst of the GOP convention, is too rich for words…

And then:

I’m loving this.

How many will have to die for you to REALLY be beside yourself with glee? Oh goody—the potential for death and destruction that liberals can play politics with. How typical.

RickIL, believe it or not, when McCain announced Palin as his VP choice, it was not the first time anybody had ever heard of her. Don’t assume that your own ignorance about her was shared by everyone.

She’s been discussed as a possible VP pick for some time now, and being a governor if any state is not exactly a low profile job. I’ve known about Palin only a little less time than I’ve known about Obama. Unlike Democrats, I guess, I don’t happen to think that unless you’re from a big city somewhere in the east, your accomplishments in life don’t matter. Put it down to typical left-wing elitism and contempt for regular people.

Her profile was certainly not as obscure as somebody who was “community organizing” for radical America-hating churches in Chicago. Or setting records for voting “present” as a state senator to avoid ever having to make difficult choices.

I’d suggest that the Democrats stop bashing a VP candidate who is superior to their presidential candidate and get back to praying for that hurricane to be as destructive as possible.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 30, 2008 11:48 PM
Comment #260465

pops

It’s just a shame that McCain is willing to risk our country for a lame political hail mary.

It is a shame, but I would expect nothing less from the desperate party. It is only a matter of time before even the republican base will see through this plunder. I have to believe there are already some who have decided that enough is enough and either will not vote or will switch over. It is but one of many reasons, the largest being the state of our nation and its relation to republican policy why McCain imo will not win in November. I just don’t see it happening.

Posted by: RickIL at August 30, 2008 11:50 PM
Comment #260466

Republicwin-

A bit late to talk about experience isn’t it?

It is for your side. You’ve made a compelling case with her selection that experience really isn’t of importance when it comes to selecting a CINC for our nation.

What is it that Palin brings to the equation? Knowledge of small town politics? Running one of the least populous, most rural states in the nation, for just a little over a year and a half? Leaving a town twenty million dollars in debt? Is that your idea of reform, because that sounds all too familiar.

I know you’re going to bring up the Bridge to Nowhere, but for her, it was a bridge to somewhere, until the federal government cut funding for it.

Is being dependent on porkbarrel your idea of reform? Under her, Alaska is still number one in per capita bacon. But don’t mind me, I’m just doing a little critical thinking about the claims you bought without checking.

She will have plenty of time to learn the intricacies of national issues while McCain is President.

No, she may not. She may end up like Teddy Roosevelt or Harry Truman, forced in a relatively short time to face up to an awesome responsibility.

Assuming that every State Senate District in Illinois, of which there are 59, divides the population equally, Barack Obama spent the first eight years of his career representing the interests of 215,485 individuals, a community size more than twenty-five times what Sarah Palin served as Mayor of Wasilla, at best. His district was smack dab in the middle of America’s third largest city.

With her first term not even half over, we’re left with a disquieting question: has she truly been a success in her first and only state level elected office? The fact that she’s the subject of an ongoing investigation into abuse of power should give you pause.

Obama has managed, despite a lack of political executive experience, to put together and keep together a campaign that’s essentially reshaped the Democratic party from the bottom up and from the inside out.

As for solidifying McCain’s base, that’s a losing strategy. Two times before, the Republican scraped by with heavy appeals to the base. This time, though, the base is down by ten points from last time. Moreover, state by state, Obama is winning. How Palin miraculously changes this is unclear. I’m not sure you folks are quite on the ball with her as far as coordination of message. She’s an unknown to most of your people, including McCain himself. Biden, by contrast is known to many Democrats, and known to Obama as a colleague. The probably coordinated with him long before debuting him.

You should not underestimate just how well the Obama campaign has its stuff together. Palin herself is damage control, trying to deal with a contentious, divided party that is far less enthusiastic for its main candidate than their rivals are.

KAP-
Most of her executive experience comes from being the mayor of a small town.

To give you an idea of how small, my zipcode in the Houston suburbs, which occupies about the same area, has approximately 28000 people in it, which is 20,000 more than her entire town.

Now she can say she was governor for less than two years, of course. Well, the precinct I live in, one of four in Harris County, has 900,000 people in it.

That’s 300,000 more than live in all of Alaska. There are 500 people in this country for every one she’s been governor of.

I hope these numbers give you a little perspective on the issues.

LO-
Sometimes you go for a track record, sometimes you take a risk on somebody who seems to have newer, better ideas. Now you can try and turn that around for Palin, but on what grounds? She’s not lead any grassroots efforts during this election cycle, fought her way through a fifty state primary, raised huge amounts of small donations, or put any cracks in that ceiling herself. Obama’s worked and organized to get where he is, and he’s shown himself a cool customer and an effective manager.

Those are his achievements. That he’s black, as things go, is secondary. What he’s done would be extraordinary for anybody.

As for your demographic assumptions? The moderates have been shifting liberal since 2005. His coalition includes both sides. Many of the people you said would never join him, have. Most Hillary supporters, especially the working class folks have gone with him, no problem. And this was before the convention.

It’s McCain who’s gone to the immoderate side of his party. Sarah Palin is a literal Pat Buchanan Republican, a supporter of his. McCain has enlisted her help to solidify the far right base.

Obama can get people to vote for him without relying on such cheap tricks as stunt-casting. He picked somebody who wouldn’t be stuck doing on the job training if he keeled over a month into the term.

Obama earned his way to the nomination. Palin was given her position. Clinton campaigned her heart out to get as close as she did, to gain the loyalties of women voters. Palin was dropped into position by a candidate cynically looking to exploit that loyalty.

Palin is not qualified. She’s window dressing, to cover McCain’s weak spots.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 30, 2008 11:56 PM
Comment #260469

I have been seeing a lot of the “not been vetted” or various forms there of thrown about by multiple posters. Makes me wonder if this is possibly the new Talking Point and marching orders from the Obama campaign. Things that make you go hummm.

Anyway, I know little about Palin so have not gotten excited about here candidacy.

Not all that excited about McCain either. However, I do no that he will get my vote come November. Because no matter the fact that he stands well to the left of where I would like him to be on several issues, I am positive he will be far to the right of Obama / Biden (the 1st and 3rd most liberal members of the Senate).

Posted by: Kirk at August 31, 2008 12:01 AM
Comment #260470

Stephen:

She’s not going to have any real power unless McCain allows it.

Yet she’d get it automatically if McCain died while in office. Which is not at all out of the question, due to the fact that he already had a malignant melanoma — a cancer which accounts for the vast majority of deaths associated with skin cancer. And this woman is completely and totally unprepared if she ever had to take over! She’s even admitted she doesn’t know what the vice president’s duties might be! And knows nothing at all about the war and occupation of Iraq! Can you imagine how pleased anyone contemplating an act of terrorism on the United States would be looking at this ticket? They’d really relish the idea of a McCain/Palin win, would they not?

We’re talking an intellectually unimpressive, tempermentally unstable, doddering old man who is clearly dimwitted and reckless enough to pick a woefully inadequate, totally unprepared political novice simply because she’s woman, who is against abortion, wants to drill in the Arctic, and will appeal to the gun lovers and the far-right anti-science Christians!!!

All we need to know about Palin is that she serves one purpose: Making McCain look good to other people. She’s the first trophy running mate.

It’s the truth. And it’s a bad joke that it isn’t funny at all. Palin might look good to McCain and some Republicans for certain reasons, but must look fantastic to Al Qaeda for other reasons entirely. The McLame/Flailin’ ticket actually endangers this nation.

Btw Stephen, here’s a good article:
The Worst Vice-Presidential Nominee in U.S. History

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 31, 2008 12:07 AM
Comment #260472

Kirk-
No, I think its one of those things where people all get the same idea pretty much spontaneously. My zipcode has more people than the town she was mayor of, my County precinct more people than in the entire state she was governor of for the last twenty months.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2008 12:15 AM
Comment #260473

LO

Most people knew she was a possibility and in name. Very very few knew or know little about her actual ability to fill the position of VP. As I said she must be vetted with the American public. There is no getting around it. Sorry LO that is just the way it is. I am being nothing less than practical here. One day simply is not enough. I do not know how to be any more simplistic in presenting that fact.

As I said earlier we all have had 19 months to assess Obama. You, or to be fair I should say the vast majority of us have had 1 day to assess Palin.

There really is no need to be so defensive. I am not saying she is not capable. I just don’t have enough time proven evidence to indicate otherwise. I don’t hate the woman. I certainly think she is way over the edge in ideology. But truth is I am not voting for her so I really don’t care what she thinks. What I am saying is that the vast majority of us simply have not had enough time to make a credible determination. Pretty simple really.

As for the Katrina thing. Please give us a break here. The hurricane is coming whether we like it or not. No one is wishing any harm to anyone. It was your party that abandoned them last time. Not ours.

Do you have a sense of humor? If so we as liberals do have an inside with Obama. You repubs are well aware of his god like abilities. Perhaps a donation to his cause could get the hurricane redirected. ;-)

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 12:15 AM
Comment #260474

One Alaskan’s point of view on her first campaigns.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2008 12:18 AM
Comment #260475

Stephen it’s no more informative or telling to read a so-called “progressive” Alaskan’s view of Palin than it would be to read an Illinois Klansman’s views on Barack Obama.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 31, 2008 12:23 AM
Comment #260476

LO,
“How many will have to die for you to REALLY be beside yourself with glee? Oh goody—the potential for death and destruction that liberals can play politics with. How typical.”

Gee, for a person who has enthusiastically cheered on a war that has resulted in over 1,000,000 dead people, you’re surprisingly sensitive at the prospect of a few American citizens dying in a hurricane, and being connected with the GOP, just because of cronyism and incompetence and Katrina and all that stuff.

1,000,000 dead people in an unnecessary war in Iraq, and you cheered it on. Like most Republicans, you’ve got a lot of blood on your hands, buddy, and it will take a lot more than a hurricane to wash it away.

If you want to take shots at me, and suggest I am gleeful about people possibly dying in an impending storm, have at it. I can take it, and I can dish it out too.

Posted by: phx8 at August 31, 2008 12:29 AM
Comment #260477

RickIL:

Perhaps a donation to his cause could get the hurricane redirected. ;-)

Funny! Did you know that the Far Right “Christians” were praying for it to rain on Obama on the night he accepted the Democratic nomination? I guess these folks see no irony in the idea of praying for bad luck for someone? The fact that a Category 4 Hurricane has just postponed their convention does indeed seem like poetic justice.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 31, 2008 12:33 AM
Comment #260478

Kirk

I have been seeing a lot of the “not been vetted” or various forms there of thrown about by multiple posters. Makes me wonder if this is possibly the new Talking Point and marching orders from the Obama campaign.

I am a supporter of Obama’s. I have never in my life received a marching order from anyone other than in boot camp.

Vetting is a practical and necessary process to make determinations about the character and possible conflicts of an individual. It is a necessity when determining a persons worthiness and credabilities with regard to filling an important position. It is a process that all of us regardless of party should expect take place before a person is presented for a position. It is a timed process that we as individuals must go through in order to form a fair judgment of that person. It is something that every person in this country who will be placing a vote in November should be concerned about.

Voicing our concern is not an offensive tactic. It simply is a process that must be done and we recognize this. Anyone who does not go through this process with their candidates will be viewed as nothing more than impulsive voters.

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 12:35 AM
Comment #260479

phx8:

1,000,000 dead people in an unnecessary war in Iraq, and you cheered it on. Like most Republicans, you’ve got a lot of blood on your hands, buddy, and it will take a lot more than a hurricane to wash it away.


Damn. That is very well put!

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 31, 2008 12:38 AM
Comment #260480
Kirk- No, I think its one of those things where people all get the same idea pretty much spontaneously. My zipcode has more people than the town she was mayor of, my County precinct more people than in the entire state she was governor of for the last twenty months.

So? Do you think that very competent leaders can not come from small towns or small states (population wise)? Since she is from a small town in a small state whe can have no forward thinking, new ideas, or leadership abilities? Last time I looked Hope, Arkansas is a pretty small town in a pretty small state and you folks on the left seem to love it’s number one son.

Posted by: Kirk at August 31, 2008 12:43 AM
Comment #260481

VV

Funny! Did you know that the Far Right “Christians” were praying for it to rain on Obama on the night he accepted the Democratic nomination? I guess these folks see no irony in the idea of praying for bad luck for someone? The fact that a Category 4 Hurricane has just postponed their convention does indeed seem like poetic justice.

Glad you got a chuckle out of that. I think a bit of levity helps one keep the human aspect of all this in perspective.

I did not know they were praying. Not surprised though. I am all for social groups that teach moral values and help people organize, get help etc. But some of these religious groups are just too far out there for me. No doubt that is another great argument for the separation of church and state. I am sure there is a message in there somewhere for them though. Maybe they weren’t donating enough on Sunday mornings. ;-)

This is the first I have heard of the convention being canceled. I would have thought that those folks down that way would have learned how to get by on their own after the last hurricane. ;-)

Seriously though, from what I have seen it doesn’t look like there will be anyone left in New Orleans to worry about. I think they may have gotten it right this time.

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 12:53 AM
Comment #260482

I know as much about Palin as Obama and putting their records side by side she, by far, has the more impressive of the two. I’ve been rooting for her to be the selection since I first heard her name as a possibility. I figured he would go with Romney and lose, Palin brings a new dynamic that gives us a real shot.

Obama was a state rep who rubbed elbows with corrupt Chicago politicians and sometimes showed up to vote - Palin worked hard to rise from nowhere and did her best to rid Alaska of corruption.

Obama wrote a book to further his career - Palin read her children books at bedtime.

Obama surrounded himself with people who were less than proud of the country he now feels he deserves to lead - Palin has always loved her country.

Obama makes money on land deals at the cost of his consticuency - Palin rejects/sells her private airplane and cooks for her family to save for her consticuency.

Obama is deeply spiritual and was mentored by Rev. Wright - Palin is deeply is spiritual and was not mentored by Rev. Wright.

Obama has accomplished next to nothing in his time in office except the ability to bring in cash - Palin enjoys an 80% approval rating as governor of Alaska.

Obama resides in Washington - Palin is a Washington outsider with very few ties.

You guys can say what you want but I am very excited for the pick. I figure even if they lose at least I can vote knowing there is a voice on the ticket I want. Obama may be a decent VP pick for some, but Palin is my choice.

Posted by: andy at August 31, 2008 12:55 AM
Comment #260483

phx8

Good stuff. I see you aren’t pulling any punches tonight. Give em hell!

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 12:56 AM
Comment #260485

VV & RickIL,
Thanks for the props! Given an earlier comment, it needed to be said.

I don’t think it’s official yet, but delaying the GOP convention seems pretty. Supposedly McCain and Palin are going to MS to review preparations, which would take them away from MN. Also, it’s hard to imagine Bush giving a speech at the convention, with live film of a Gulf Coast hurricane bracketing his introduction and conclusion.

Who knows? Perhaps the GOP will find some way to make make hay from this hurricane. ‘Hey, we only allowed one 9/11, and we only allowed one botched response to a hurricane.’

Andy,
Don’t get too attached to Palin. I suspect she’ll step down in a matter of a few weeks.

Posted by: phx8 at August 31, 2008 1:09 AM
Comment #260486

By the way, they are definitely ahead of the curve in NO with Hurricane Gustav. I was NO when Katrina approached, in the Garden District, and I left in the evacuation. My wife and I left about 30 minutes before the evacuation became official, on the day before the storm hit. As we were driving away, the police were going door to door, knocking and instructing people to leave their homes.

Posted by: phx8 at August 31, 2008 1:15 AM
Comment #260488

I think we are all forgetting that we have had much longer to assess Obama and consider him as President than we are really citing here. How many of us watched him, listened to his speech at the last Dem convention? How many of us thought, if even just briefly, that we had heard an incredible young man speak, and that we would just probably hear from him again!?! So realistically, he has been under the spotlight for a few years, not just a few months.
And VV, the link you gave was great…. if you didn’t read the rest of the sources that were on there, go back and read them. The People interview was short, but telling. When asked if she had thought about the possibility of stepping into the Presidential position and how difficult she might feel it to be…her answer was a snappy “Yup, yup…..”
Oh well, tomorrow is another day…. yawnnnn

Posted by: janedoe at August 31, 2008 1:26 AM
Comment #260489

phx8…it’s too late for me I’m already hooked, this is bad isn’t it? She could blow up any time I guess but I’m hoping she’s the real thing.

Like I said even if we lose, which is a definite possibility, at least they are trying to bring in new blood to Washington. And even if it is a ploy as you think, it’s a ploy he played because the voters made him. To be honest when I looked into her I never saw what her religion was or her abortion position. The things I found and liked were that she was a Washington outsider, has always been driven/successful and was a conservative.

Posted by: andy at August 31, 2008 1:39 AM
Comment #260490

Andy,
She could have been very effective in a few years. But putting her in the VP slot now is like starting an all-star high school basketball player on an NBA team without a scouting report. She should have been allowed to finish her term as governor, been highlighted with a keynote address at a GOP convention, followed by a high level appointment at the federal level, maybe a cabinet post. Instead, she’s being thrust into the VP slot with virtually no preparation and no experience with government at the federal level. She’s about to undergo a critical investigation of her background by the opposition in a way she has never experienced, and it’s going to be a shock to her and her family. That’s a lot to ask of anyone. You can bet the National Enquirer is going to make the family’s life a living hell for the next two months as the reporters chase the pregnancy rumor.

Maybe the GOP is bringing a Kobe Bryant phenom onto their starting team. You can always hope. I can understand why some conservatives would be enthusiastic about her potential. When it comes to presidents and vice presidents, personally, I prefer more of a sure thing.

As I have said in another thread, I’m not crazy about Biden. I don’t think many Democrats are crazy about him. Biden has run several times and received relatively few votes. He has some shortcomings and I flat out disagree with him on some issues and some past votes, as I’m sure many Democrats and liberals do. Having said that, Biden does represent more of a sure thing. If something awful happens, Biden could step into the presidency and cover the position with some competence.

I really don’t think the same can be said for Sarah Palin. That might have become true in 8 or 12 years…

Posted by: phx8 at August 31, 2008 2:15 AM
Comment #260491

phx8, I’m more of a Garnett fan for that analogy but I get it.
But sure, if she claims she’s been to all 57 states I’ll be depressed and look to 2012. But really I can’t see a situation where my trust level for her is lower that that of Obama’s. I guess if it does than you will be right.

Posted by: andy at August 31, 2008 2:48 AM
Comment #260498

LO-
If the claims are so outlandish, why don’t you debunk them on the merits?

Kirk-
There are surely plenty of competent folks at those levels. But there is a big difference between running a town of 5-8 thousand, as opposed to a nation of 300 million.

At the very least they could have left her around for a few years or more to see whether her leadership of the state was worth a damn. In Republican circles and the media sometimes, it seems to be some sort of power-up related to the mushrooms in Super Mario Brothers.

But really, she’s never been tested at much of anything, and the signs out of Anchorage aren’t that encouraging.

We need somebody who had more experience. There were plenty of Women of similar character who McCain could have picked from.

andy-
Palin JUST rose from nowhere. And nobody knows much of anything about her, even her running mate! This is her first political contact with a national audience, period. She didn’t make some big speech at the last convention, nor did she raise her national profile by working on behalf of her party’s candidates during the course of the previous mid-term elections.

Obama was a state rep who rubbed elbows with corrupt Chicago politicians and sometimes showed up to vote - Palin worked hard to rise from nowhere and did her best to rid Alaska of corruption.

It’s a mark of Obama’s integrity that even faced with bulldog prosecutor like Patrick Fitzgerald, he came out without a scratch. He was able to satisfy hometown newspapers, during two marathon question and answer sessions where he refused no question, that he was fairly clear of that.

More to the point, She hasn’t exactly rid the place of the corruption in question. She accepted Ted Steven’s endorsement, oh he of several indictments. It’s a mark of both her level of honesty and her real character that she only killed the Bridge to Nowhere when the Federal government, you and I, decided not to pay for it. Before that, she came out clearly in favor of it. In essence, she was taking credit for corruption-fighting in Washington.

Obama wrote a book to further his career - Palin read her children books at bedtime.

I’m sure Obama’s read his kids bedtime stories. The fact that he can write not one but two books, and write them himself well should hardly be held against him. Writing a full-length book, and writing them himself shows discipline, a work ethic. By contrast, Mark Salter had to help McCain with his work.

Obama surrounded himself with people who were less than proud of the country he now feels he deserves to lead - Palin has always loved her country.

You folks have no business judging people’s pride in their country, or why they feel even more proud of it now. The voters didn’t behave like everybody feared. Turnout was amazing! People got involved to a degree the never had before. Why not be more proud of your country?

Patriotism has gotten the bad reputation that it has nowadays because people use it as a bludgeon against their fellow American, rather than as a reason to rise to whatever occasion the country requires.

Obama makes money on land deals at the cost of his consticuency - Palin rejects/sells her private airplane and cooks for her family to save for her consticuency.

Did she reject it or did she sell it?

As I recall, she left her town, as mayor, 20 million in debt. Is that saving for your constituency?

Obama never made a dime for any real estate transaction. He was the paying party for both, and he payed market value.

Obama is deeply spiritual and was mentored by Rev. Wright - Palin is deeply is spiritual and was not mentored by Rev. Wright.

In real Christianity, there is no division. Obama has made his views on race clear, and they are much more forgiving than his mentors.

Obama has accomplished next to nothing in his time in office except the ability to bring in cash - Palin enjoys an 80% approval rating as governor of Alaska.

He’s voted on hundreds of measures, including substantive ones on ethics, on Nuclear Weapons, and others. She may have helped clean up Alaska, perhaps, but he definitely did something to clean up Washington, and that has affected all of us.

Obama resides in Washington - Palin is a Washington outsider with very few ties.

McCain reside in Washington, and has for 26 years. Palin is a Washington Outsider, but so were many of the freshman class of 1994, who quickly became the corrupt bastards we voted out in 2006. Outsider status is no guarantee of purity, especialy given what we’re finding out about Governor Palin, and her abuses of power.

It’s not enough to bring new blood to Washington, you must bring new thinking there. You have to go beyond her lack of a single certain gaffe (McCain, after all, makes his share), and look to her thinking. And what is her thinking? Mainline Republican thinking. She’s little different in her politics than dozens of people who claimed that they would be cleaner than their predecessors, and who Americans have generally chosen to reject.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2008 8:08 AM
Comment #260499

I don’t think she is ready to be VP and certainly not president. But putting aside the experience issue what do we have here.

We have a woman who is conservative and IMO to the extreme. So what is her purpose on the ticket to bring in some Hillary voters? I don’t think she will do that. Those sitting on the fence will more then ever probably fall onto Barack’s side because of her politics. The others who were only voting for Hillary because she was a woman would have gone for McCain no matter who his running mate just to be childish and punish the democratic party. IMO they are few and really won’t help McCain and won’t hurt Barack.

Will she help shore up the religious right probably but they would have more than likely voted for McCain anyway or not voted at all. So she brings in a few more votes. Big deal

Ms. Palin is a blip on the political scene. McCain will lose and she will go back to eating moose, carrying her gun, and preventing women who have been raped from having an abortion. When said women have the unwanted babies and put them up for adoption-will Ms. Palin and her husband step in and adopt them?-doubt it.

Ms. Palin will go the way of that guy what’s his name-couldn’t spell potato or is it potatoe-oh yeah-Quayle. Where is he now -maybe in alaska- as mayor of a small town with about 4 people.

Posted by: Carolina at August 31, 2008 8:12 AM
Comment #260504

All you Dems are doing the same as the Reps, complaining about experience. One thing I can say is the Kuchnich and Obama are alike Obama gets elected to the Senate and spends all his time running for President instead of doing the job he was elected to. Kuchnich the same thing every other term. At least Palin was DOING HER JOB even though it wasn’t a state like California or a city like New York. And like you Dems have said on other threads WE NEED PEOPLE WITH VERY LITTLE TIES WITH THE WASHINGTON INSIDERS.

Posted by: KAP at August 31, 2008 9:26 AM
Comment #260505

Kirk,

++I have been seeing a lot of the “not been vetted” or various forms there of thrown about by multiple posters. Makes me wonder if this is possibly the new Talking Point and marching orders from the Obama campaign. Things that make you go hummm.++

I dunno, but I rather doubt it. I know that for me, the vetting question came up with me before I ever got online, and I can’t imagine I was the only one. I also don’t think there’d been any response from the Obama campaign at the point when I did get online. And again, I can’t imagine I was the only one.

Posted by: Donna at August 31, 2008 9:31 AM
Comment #260507

KAP-
Palin is agreeing to a national campaign not even two years into her first term. Obama actually waited a little longer than that

You’re being sold a bill of goods on this Angel from the North. She’s a trophy running mate, picked in a panicked rush to step on the buzz from Obama’s Speech. But I tell you what: more people paid attention to and saw his speech than cared or tuned in to find out who McCain had picked as VP, and most people’s response to learning of his choice was “Sarah who?”

The trick of how Obama overcame the question of inexperience is that he wasn’t truly inexperienced. His experiences is just compressed. He learned a lot very quickly. While some say that the office of the Presidency is a job where nobody can afford a learning curve, it’s one where most people are forced to deal with one anyways. Obama is a quick learner. Nothing in Palin’s resume shows here to be equally aggressive in becoming informed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2008 10:06 AM
Comment #260509


Two inexperienced candidates, one a trophy, one a token. At least the Republicans put the inexperience in the proper slot.

Vote for change, vote for Nader.

Posted by: jlw at August 31, 2008 10:58 AM
Comment #260515

phx8

Just got on the computer. I see Bush has canceled. Hell I figure that is a plus for McCain. Seriously, the more Bush is not present in the presence of McCain the less people can associate them. On the other hand I think him speaking at the convention would have been good for us.

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 11:55 AM
Comment #260516

Steven D

It’s a mark of Obama’s integrity that even faced with bulldog prosecutor like Patrick Fitzgerald, he came out without a scratch. He was able to satisfy hometown newspapers, during two marathon question and answer sessions where he refused no question, that he was fairly clear of that

I might add that it is virtually impossible for anyone involved in state government here to not at some point at least have acquaintance with a less than savory person. This is not something I am particularly proud of but it is what it is. I think the same could be said of most states. But Illinois and probably Florida are two of the worst.

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 12:04 PM
Comment #260518

RickIL,
I saw about the Bush/Cheney cnx for the convention. That’s a stroke of luck for the Republicans. On the other hand, from purely political perspective, the hurricane will certainly put a crimp in the convention’s ability to give McCain the usual bounce in the polls. For most people, the big draw will be to see Sarah Palin speak to a large crowd. Given her background, it’s possible she has never even seen a telepromptor before.

Posted by: phx8 at August 31, 2008 12:25 PM
Comment #260520

Speaking of Illinois and unsavory people… There is a classic photo of Nancy Reagan posing with a great big smile next to John Gacy, the serial killer.

Of course, it means nothing, except that there are some of bad characters out there. If Nancy decided to advocate serial killing, or similarly, if Obama decided to advocate terrorist bombings of the capitol or whatever, well, that’s a problem. Otherwise, we just have to shrug off those kinds of guilt by association stories.

Posted by: phx8 at August 31, 2008 12:31 PM
Comment #260523

Just reading over these comments again, and there are several regular, “old comfortable shoe” posters who make me think, laugh and be thankful for the fact that they are on the blue side of the choices.
Pops, RickIl,phx8,of course Stephen and VV….dude hasn’t been around much the last couple of days, womanmarine, too.
This is such an intense subject, highly personal and sensitive, which has become compounded now by a woman figuring in, bringing out those issues related closely to us.
I just want to thank you all for supporting our party and candidates with strong, substantial, factual points, without all the caustic, nasty, vicious comments from those across the aisle. It isn’t going to get better with time, so please continue to bite your tongues (and pinch those typing fingers)and keep those senses of humor while delighting some of us with your knowledge and wisdom.

Posted by: janedoe at August 31, 2008 12:50 PM
Comment #260533
Ms. Palin will go the way of that guy what’s his name-couldn’t spell potato or is it potatoe-oh yeah-Quayle. Where is he now -maybe in alaska- as mayor of a small town with about 4 people.

Dan is doing very well, not that you are concerned about him.

And, maybe I’m misremembering, but didn’t he win after being nominated?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 31, 2008 2:37 PM
Comment #260534

janedoe

Back at ya! I can’t remember ever being accused of having knowledge and wisdom before. Kind of scary to be honest. :-) Seriously though my knowledge level is no where near most here. I pretty much learn and form opinion as I go along. I rely on the knowledge and great history attributes of you folks to educate me. I hated history when I should have been learning it. Love it now and am envious of you folks who can spit it out at a moments notice. Nothing wrong with that I guess. It just means I can’t get over zealous in my approach to matters. As for the wisdom thing, well we all have it and it is always evolving always growing. I see it as being the result of a combination of age, mistakes and life experiences. I attempt to control my emotions because I know it is the only way I can think clearly plus I know that not giving too much indication of bursting sometimes pisses some of these sanctimonious asses off more than anything I could possibly say.

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 2:41 PM
Comment #260535

Btw, Sarah Palin must have some experience with a teleprompter- early in her career she was a sportscaster or weatherwoman or some such thing a tv station.

Posted by: phx8 at August 31, 2008 2:42 PM
Comment #260536

Rhinehold

Glad to see you back already. Looking forward to your irritations. They tend to keep my blood pressure up a little. ;-)

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 2:45 PM
Comment #260538

phx8

Otherwise, we just have to shrug off those kinds of guilt by association stories.

So true. Politicians especially consort with wealthy people, probably every day of their careers. They really don’t have any choice and sometimes they may have no idea or maybe just suspicions. But until someone is proven guilty of some sort of wrongdoing they just have to continue to deal with them. It must be tough trying to tip toe around all that money and the corruption it begets on a daily basis.

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 2:54 PM
Comment #260560

You know, I wasn’t going to say a word about this Palin rumor that’s going around — about her daughter possibly being the one who gave birth to the fifth child — since it seemed so unbelievable, not to mention kinda National Enquirer-ish.
But I decided to go check out the Kos diary on this rumor (phx8 had mentioned the rumor in another thread), because you know, when there’s smoke, there can sometimes be real fire. And after all, there certainly was smoke followed by fire about John Edwards and his affair and the questions surrounding a supposed child — and folks on the right didn’t have any qualms about focusing in on that story with a laser, did they?

So, I started reading the diary, and looking at the follow-up postings. Someone eventually posted a picture of the teen daughter when she would have been approximately six months along (if the child were hers instead of her mothers). Here it is:

Daughter looks a little thick in the waistline to me.

Here’s a photo of Palin when she would have been six months along:

Looks remarkably slim for a woman who is supposed to be carrying her fifth child. The fact is, the elasticity of a womans stomach just disappears with each successive child she has, as well as with the womans age.

Here’s a picture of her at supposedly seven months along:

Still doesn’t look like a 43-44 year old lady carrying her fifth child to me. And seriously, wearing a skirt with close fitting tights with an elastic waistband up around your waist? When you’ve got yourself a baby bump?! And have to go to the restroom about every 20-30 minutes?! The older woman standing next to Palin in the photo is actually dressed more appropriately for a woman in the seventh month…

All seems very eyebrow raising, indeed.

And remember Palin is a far-right fundamentalist, against high school kids learning about birth control, and who has pushed abstinence-only education on her state.

Maybe she isn’t as much of trophy as McCain thinks? There are all the ethical questions that have already been raised, and now there is this smoldering little rumor. Makes me wonder whether McCain’s team bothered to vet this woman at all? Seems like a lot of questions are being raised about Palin in such a short amount of time…

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 31, 2008 4:07 PM
Comment #260563

I was in shock read this article
Palin: Surge? What Surge?

http://art-of-politics.blogspot.com

This is the end for for McCain

Posted by: John at August 31, 2008 4:26 PM
Comment #260565

You know, I wasn’t going to say a word about this Palin rumor — about her daughter possibly being the one who gave birth to the fifth child — since it seemed so unbelievable, not to mention kinda National Enquirer-ish.
But I decided to go check out the Kos story on this rumor (phx8 had mentioned it another thread), because you know, when there’s smoke, there can sometimes be real fire. And after all, there certainly was about John Edwards and his affair and the questions surrounding a supposed child he had with his mistress — and the righties didn’t have any qualms about focusing in with a laser on that story, did they?

So, I started reading the diary, and looking at the follow-up postings. Someone eventually posted a picture of the teen daughter when she would have been approximately six months along (if the child were hers instead of her mothers). Here it is:

Daughter looks a little thick in the waistline to me.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 31, 2008 4:28 PM
Comment #260566

Continuing…

Here is a photo of Palin when she would have been six months along:

Looks remarkably slim for a woman who is supposed to be carrying her fifth child. The fact is, the elasticity of a womans stomach just disappears with each successive child she has, as well as with the womans age.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 31, 2008 4:29 PM
Comment #260568

Continuing…

Here’s a picture of Palin at supposedly seven months along:

Still doesn’t look like a 43-44 year old lady carrying her fifth child to me. And seriously, wearing a skirt with close fitting tights with an elastic waistband up around your waist? When you’ve got yourself a baby bump?! And have to go to the restroom about every 20-30 minutes?! The older woman standing next to Palin in the photo is actually dressed more appropriately for a woman in the seventh month…

All seems very fishy, indeed.

And remember Palin is a far-right fundamentalist, against high school kids learning about birth control, and who has pushed abstinence-only education on her state.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 31, 2008 4:32 PM
Comment #260574

VV,

I didn’t really want to write about that story because it seems like an episode of Desperate Housewives, but the part about the birth is troubling to me. Her water broke and she started experiencing contractions one month premature while in Texas. She went on to give a speech, then flew home to Alaska with a stop at Seattle, and then drove to her small home town to give birth. She spent 11 hours from the moment her water broke travelling back home, when the baby was one month premature and she knew the baby had downs syndrome. Whether or not the daughter story is true, that alone is poor judgement. Why would she put her child at risk like that?

Posted by: pops mcgee at August 31, 2008 5:01 PM
Comment #260575

VV,
There is more to the rumor. While in Texas and supposedly 8 months pregnant, she started leaking amniotic fluid. Yet she insisted on delivering a speech before boarding a plane for a 12 hour flight, then riding in a car, not to the nearest hospital, but to one 45 minutes away. There, she delivered a Downs baby, and was back at work just three days later.

Think about that. Leaking amniotic fluid, yet jumping on a 12 hour flight.

As you know, leaking amniotic fluid is a serious matter. Normally, a woman would proceed to the nearest hospital available. In the case of Palin, this was her fifth pregnancy, and babies from later pregnancies can come fast. In addition, she was delivering a Downs baby a month early, which meant hospital care would probabably be necessary for the newborn, since some pretty horrendous problems can occur with Downs children after childbirth, and many die not long after being born.

It is a National Enquirer type of story. It is possible Sarah Palin is the mother. However, a lot of circumstances indicate that it simply isn’t so, and the rumor might prove true.

Posted by: phx8 at August 31, 2008 5:11 PM
Comment #260577

I know Pops, and I agree. From any angle you look at Palin’s pregnancy story, it’s fishy/damning as hell.

And for me, all of this begs a few questions:
1. Was this woman seriously vetted at all by the McCain team? Since she doesn’t have much real experience to speak of, or to look into, the kind of mother she is would greatly increase in importance, would it not?
3. Palin supposedly gave birth to her child prematurely at exactly eight months into her pregnancy. Why did she seem to go out of her way to have her child in a rural hospital that didn’t have any special care facilities for emergency births and preemies? Especially when she had been informed in her fourth month that she was carrying a child with Down Syndrome.
2. Is falsifying a birth certificate a felony? And how easy would doing something like that be for the governor of the state?

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 31, 2008 5:22 PM
Comment #260579

pops -

Like you, at first glance I wouldn’t give the pregnancy story a second thought…except for the bit about her water breaking and yet she still wanted to fly to a different state to have the baby even though there were high-quality hospitals nearby.

That is not good.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 31, 2008 5:23 PM
Comment #260580

phx8:

Think about that. Leaking amniotic fluid, yet jumping on a 12 hour flight.

As you know, leaking amniotic fluid is a serious matter. Normally, a woman would proceed to the nearest hospital available. In the case of Palin, this was her fifth pregnancy, and babies from later pregnancies can come fast. In addition, she was delivering a Downs baby a month early, which meant hospital care would probabably be necessary for the newborn, since some pretty horrendous problems can occur with Downs children after childbirth, and many die not long after being born.

It’s absolutely ridiculous. No reputable doctor would have ever let her leave the ground in an airplane after her water broke. NONE. But supposedly Palin saw one doctor in a Texas hospital, flew to Washington State, saw another doctor in Seattle, and then got on another plane and flew home to Alaska — to a rural hospital without an emergency preemie care facility.
This sounds like pure BS.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 31, 2008 5:28 PM
Comment #260582

A clear sign that Governor Palin was a fantastic pick is how much ugliness has poured out of Democrats… undoubtedly a response to their own fear and desperation.

Not surprisingly, many of the responses reek of sexism… but like racism, it doesn’t really count (to Democrats) if it’s being directed toward Republicans.

Questioning the parentage of Governor Palin’s children is simply absurd and beyond the pale. Do you also wonder about the paternity of Obama’s children? Do you think they and he should take paternity tests?

Those making these smears can’t even get their stories straight. On one hand, she looked pregnant… but many didn’t notice until relatively late in the pregnancy. Meaning—presto—that she wasn’t pregnant at all! Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Also she was “leaking amniotic fluid”—wow! The Governor is REALLY good at faking pregnancy! So either she was pregnant, in which case she “showed poor judgment” or she wasn’t—and her, along with her doctors and hospital were all part of some elaborate ruse… and for what? Democrats claim that we should stay out of politicans’ private lives, but then they pull this nonsense.

Diminishing the accomplishments of Governor Palin by calling her a “trophy candidate” is rank sexism and contemptuous of women. You would never dare say such a thing about a man. Was John Edwards a “trophy candidate” for John Kerry? He had fewer accomplishments than ANY of the four people running in this cycle.

With Governor Palin, you’re talking about a mother of five, a woman who rose from obscurity and meager means to the governorship of her state, in large part by TAKING ON corruption in her own party.

Sexist smear-peddling seems to be all the Dems can think of as a response to this smart, inspiring female Governor.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 31, 2008 5:42 PM
Comment #260584

Okay, here is some more to go along with what some of you have just added:

I found this on a blogsite (which doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t true ;)) because the posters were saying that the daughter had just come from a medical center immediately prior to the accident. Supposition?? maybe she had heard some unnerving news..?


Wasilla Police Department
On February 8, 2008, at 1737 hours, Wasilla Police responded to two vehicle collision at Seward Meridian Parkway and Fireweed Drive . Investigation revealed that Bristol Palin, age 17 of Wasilla, was driving a 4-door sedan and attempted to turn into a business when she struck a 2-door sedan driven by Joshua Moffet, age 19, of Wasilla. Palin was issued a citation for Failing to Use Due Care to Avoid a Collision. Moffet was issued a citation for an expired registration and no proof of insurance.

There are pictures galore out there now of both Sarah (1) and Bristol(2), looking (1)not pregnant, and (2)very pregnant….

And speaking of pictures, check these out.

http://thebruceblog.wordpress.com/

Posted by: janedoe at August 31, 2008 5:56 PM
Comment #260585
Not surprisingly, many of the responses reek of sexism…

Well, you can’t throw that one at me, chief. I’m a woman and a feminist.

Those making these smears can’t even get their stories straight. On one hand, she looked pregnant… but many didn’t notice until relatively late in the pregnancy.

I think you’re going to need to get your own story straight if you’re intent on defending Palin.
In fact, she didn’t look pregnant.
Here’s what was reported when she announced she was having her fifth child:

Palin said she’s already about seven months along, with the baby due to arrive in mid-May.

That the pregnancy is so advanced astonished all who heard the news. The governor, a runner who’s always been trim, simply doesn’t look pregnant.

Even close members of her staff said they only learned this week their boss was expecting.



Here’s the link:
SEVEN MONTHS ALONG: Even her staff was unaware that the first family was expecting a fifth child.
Also she was “leaking amniotic fluid”—wow! The Governor is REALLY good at faking pregnancy!

Well, she claimed she was leaking amniotic fluid, anyway. But the fact is, no reputable doctor would have ever let her fly if her water was breaking.

So either she was pregnant, in which case she “showed poor judgment” or she wasn’t—and her, along with her doctors and hospital were all part of some elaborate ruse… and for what?

To cover for the Republican Governor of Alaska. For a Fundamentalist Christian Governor who doesn’t believe in abortion for any reason, who is against teaching birth control and is all for abstinence only education — whose young daughter was pregnant.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 31, 2008 5:58 PM
Comment #260587

Veritas, this entire absurd and yes, sexist, speculation about Governor Palin’s reproductive history would never be directed toward either a man or a Democratic candidate of any gender.

You can’t be excused for indulging in such smears by simply claiming to be a feminist. No more than you could be excused for accusing Obama of robbing a watermelon patch on the basis of your support for racial equality.

The double-standard here—which actually consists of Democrats holding themselves to no standards when they feel like lying and smearing—is absolutely sickening.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 31, 2008 6:20 PM
Comment #260592

Not that I care one way or another - but most airlines won’t let someone past their 8th month fly on a plane some will. I have been through this process twice with my wife and if she got on a plane after her water broke - that is just nuts - I don’t think there is an ob/gyn that would approve such a thing especially with an older mother who has had 4 babies already - it just doesn’t sound right. Though, a Down Syndrome baby is a lot more common in a woman Sarah’s age not her daughter’s so that doesn’t really add up. It still seems kind of irresponsible.

Though, if she is trying to protect her daughter - go ahead. I don’t think that doing so is that big of a deal - though it is dishonest and is going to come back and bite her family if it is true. There are better reasons to think that she was a bad choice for McCain and smacks of desperation. Just as McCain’s choice sends a bad signal for his decision making process. Getting on a plane from Texas to Alaska after her water broke is a signal of bad decision making on her part.

One thing that has not really been mentioned in the qualification debate on who is more ready Sarah Palin or Barack Obama is education. Obama has a law degree from Harvard, was the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, was a Constitutional Law professor. You can’t get a better education than that. Not only that, he excelled and stood out as a top performer amongst the best students in the country. It shows he can do the intellectual heavy lifting required to be president. Palin has a BA in Communications/Journalism from the University of Idaho - while I’m sure it is a fine school, her studies can hardly be compared to Obama’s and for that matter neither can McCain’s he wasn’t a standout student at the Navy Acadamy. Not that education is the end all and be all but it is another line in the checklist that goes solidly to Obama. I know you righties like to have fun with the more than 50 states thing but you can’t possibly believe that someone with this educational background actually believes that do you? Or does every time a candidate misspeaks (he meant the 50 states plus territories) it is what they believe? - do you concede that McCain doesn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shiite?

Posted by: tcsned at August 31, 2008 6:42 PM
Comment #260593

LO:

Veritas, this entire absurd and yes, sexist, speculation about Governor Palin’s reproductive history would never be directed toward either a man or a Democratic candidate of any gender.

This kind of speculation and investigation is what happens to all political figures Left and Right when they come out of nowhere like Palin did, and especially when they lack serious credentials for the presidency, as she does. I suggest you start dealing with that, rather than whinging and screaming about sexism where none exists.
Btw, most women are fully aware that if Palin was a man with such a serious lack of credentials, she would NEVER have been chosen as the VP pick in a million years. Sarah Palin is nothing but a pretty young token of a VP choice made by a desperate old man running for president. (And likely to lose.) She is trophy as Stephen so aptly put it in the above article — and don’t think the majority of American women don’t fully understand that this is the case.


All,

Here is yet more proof that Palin wasn’t carefully vetted by the McCain team:

McCain Camp Didn’t Search Palin’s Hometown Paper Archives

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 31, 2008 6:43 PM
Comment #260595

Stephen
All the smear and BS I’ve been reading on this blog is rediculous, you Dems must really be affraid now. By the way no matter if the town that she was mayor of had a population of 20 she still has more executive experience than McCain, Obama, and Biden combined, plus the fact that she is Govenor of Alaska.

Posted by: KAP at August 31, 2008 6:55 PM
Comment #260596
Though, if she is trying to protect her daughter - go ahead. I don’t think that doing so is that big of a deal - though it is dishonest and is going to come back and bite her family if it is true.

If this is true, it doesn’t sound like protecting her daughter to me at all. It sounds like Palin was selfishly protecting her own career, and her fundamentalist stances, and her and her families “good reputation.”
In fact, it is cruel and often psychologically damaging to a child when a parent chooses to pass that daughter’s child off as their own. Knowing that you are secretly the mother of your own child while being forced to act like their sister is not only a lie, but treated like a buried shame in such instances. There are plenty of terrible stories like this from out of the past — maybe that’s why it’s so shocking to think that this kind of thing is still going on.
It’s positively Victorian — in a way that only the most over-the-top Christian Fundies still are in this day and age.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 31, 2008 6:57 PM
Comment #260598

VV, this adds a little more feul to the fire. This woman, who is so adored, and close to the small town life around her, either failed, or rejected the idea of publishing the birth of their son. Here is the hospital (where she supposedly delivered) listing of the two births that day. Trig, is not one of the two.

http://www.matsuregional.com/nursery/nursery_name.php?start=60&step=30&count=504

Posted by: janedoe at August 31, 2008 7:16 PM
Comment #260599

oops…fuel..

Posted by: janedoe at August 31, 2008 7:18 PM
Comment #260600

Well, you can’t throw that one at me, chief. I’m a woman and a feminist.

Which follows Farakan’s contention that he can’t be a racist because he is black. Yeah right.

who is against teaching birth control and is all for abstinence only education

Abstinence IS birth control. In fact it is the only 100% effective form of birth control.

Posted by: Kirk at August 31, 2008 7:20 PM
Comment #260605

I don’t want it to look like I’m piling on Palin, but I just read a new story about her time as mayor of Wasilla and how she was almost recalled.

Apparently she has a history of using power for personal vendettas.

This ties into the recent story of troopergate that is being investigated by the Alaska legislature as we speak, where she allegedly pressured the public safety commissioner to fire her ex brother-in-law, who was fighting for custody with her sister. The commissioner refused, and was fired. It also turns out that the new commissioner she appointed had to step down for sexual harassment, but that’s another story.

This new story is about how she fired the Wasilla police cheif and library director because they didn’t support her during the mayoral election. She was nearly recalled, but the board called it off.

Posted by: pops mcgee at August 31, 2008 7:40 PM
Comment #260606

c’mon Kirk - while it is true that abstinence is the only 100% effective BC method - none of that abstinence only education has worked - it’s stupid to not give information to people who are at an age to make a good or a bad choice. Lying to them, or misleading them, or just hiding information from them is a surefire way to fail. They are going to get information somewhere and learning it from a teacher is much better than the internet. I heard a report that the districts that got abstinence only education had pregnancy rates go up.

Abstinence is the only 100% effective method but the only one you can guarantee that most will not follow.

Posted by: tcsned at August 31, 2008 7:46 PM
Comment #260608

McCain picking Palin says a lot about all the other female Republicans in the country. Place this on their foreheads - “L”

Posted by: Mike Wrona at August 31, 2008 7:52 PM
Comment #260617

LO

Questioning the parentage of Governor Palin’s children is simply absurd and beyond the pale. Do you also wonder about the paternity of Obama’s children? Do you think they and he should take paternity tests?

Listen to yourself. You folks set the stage for this sort of vetting as soon as you started what we considered some pretty absurd implications and accusations against Obama, long before he was even the official candidate. Why is it acceptable for you guys to question blow out of proportion every absurd detail, but not us? I don’t understand. Is what is good for the goose, no longer good for the gander? Is turn about no longer fair play. Exactly why is your idea of acceptable standards different for your party than they are for mine? Please, I really don’t understand. I smell a lot of hypocrisy in your ideas with respect to the different parties and your views of just how they should be required to operate.

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 8:31 PM
Comment #260618

We all have to remember the bullies on the playground when we were kids. As long as they had the ball, or the rope, or one more guy (gal) on their team, they were the top dogs. But level out the conditions a little bit, and they went off squealing like little stuck pigs.
I guess what my mom used to tell me all those times all those years ago, is really true….what goes around, comes around, but with a vengeance.

Posted by: janedoe at August 31, 2008 8:40 PM
Comment #260619
You folks set the stage for this sort of vetting as soon as you started what we considered some pretty absurd implications and accusations against Obama, long before he was even the official candidate.
Exactly why is your idea of acceptable standards different for your party than they are for mine? Please, I really don’t understand.

Let’s start with the fact that you are blaming Republicans for the actions of your fellow Democrats.

None of us gave a rat’s ass about Obama until he became the nominee… and any “absurd implications and accusations against Obama” began not with Republicans but with the Hillary Clinton camp. You know this—you MUST know this.

Just look at what you’re doing. Using the past actions of a DEMOCRAT to justify sexist smears and the spreading of vicious unsubstantiated rumors against a female Republican Governor. It would be reprehensible if it weren’t so absurd.

You say that you “really don’t understand?” The sad thing is that I believe you.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 31, 2008 8:52 PM
Comment #260620

jane, good link.

There is a picture on this Kos diary showing what Palin looked like when she was actually pregnant:

Babygate: Explosive Details

Maybe I should care more about whether it’s precisely fair to dig into Palin’s private life over this issue, but I don’t. Not at all. Maybe that’s the natural result of having the kind of Republican leadership that feels no remorse about lying to America about so much for eight long, agonizing years.

Sarah Palin is the mother of four children, and the Granny of one. And despite all her religious posturing, she appears fully capable of lying her ass off whenever it suits her purposes.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 31, 2008 8:59 PM
Comment #260622

LO, I’m sure that I’m not alone in saying that when Obama made his speech at the last Democratic Convention, he made an impact on many of us. I think it was then that many saw distinct possibilities for him in the future. Perhaps the time frame in which it happened was a bit of a surprise, but not THAT it happened.
And I beg to differ with you that WE are DOING SOMETHING awful. First of all, the minute Gov. Palin accepted McCains invitation, she opened the doors to the world. If she didn’t clean her house before she did that, then oh well…..just means that you guys couldn’t sweep it under the rug fast enough.

Posted by: janedoe at August 31, 2008 9:14 PM
Comment #260623

Veritas, you and that Daily Kos blogger make it abundantly clear that you think no ethical considerations, morality, or even fundamental decency should stand in the way of a vicious lie if that lie might offer even some slight political benefit.

The Kos poster you link to labels one of the photos, “And now later during Bristol’s (Bristol being Governor Palin’s daughter) pregnancy:”

But the same photo can also be seen right here, and includes the label “Sarah Palin at home with her family in Wasilla, Alaska in 2006.”

But don’t let this stop you. Just change your story to say that Governor Palin’s daughter was pregnant with this child for two years!

Or to put it differently: have you no shame?

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 31, 2008 9:21 PM
Comment #260626

Just in case anyone thinks the picture of Palin obviously pregnant posted on Kos is a fake, or someone else entirely, here’s another link:

Sarah Palin: Family Photos.

They must have released these photos to the press after the VP choice was made.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 31, 2008 9:24 PM
Comment #260627

VV, there are pictures and comments in almost every blogsite, newsite and website out there, and it seems about 99% conclusive that she did not have a baby a few months ago. Within just a few hours of McCains announcement of her as a running mate, dam near everything started to disappear. As someone mentioned last night, even Wikipedia had been scrubbed and more flattering information had been put in.
You just don’t go around sterilizing something if it’s clean to begin with.

Posted by: janedoe at August 31, 2008 9:30 PM
Comment #260629

LO, it is the same photo and nobody said anthing different. Bristol is the daughter and the poster was pointing out that she, standing next to her mother who was supposedly the pregnant one, had the unmistakable “baby belly”! It is the family at home. Try to keep up now.
And don’t you suppose that if there were irrefutable evidence out there to show that Sarah did have that baby, that it wouldn’t be out now? Hasn’t happened..
Part of this is a little bit sad…not that it happened, they deserve all they get for trying to pull such a cheap shot, but because it proves that she is way out of her league wanting to play with the big kids.

Posted by: janedoe at August 31, 2008 9:37 PM
Comment #260631

LO,

Palin’s daughter was absent from school for 5-8 months before Trig was born — they say because she had “mono.” Does mono lasting that long sound very plausible to you? Is it possible that it was a cover story for a young teen’s pregnancy?

In any event, Palin is definitely NOT seven months pregnant in those pictures, despite her claim that she was.

Jane, I agree.
These Republicans must think we’re all idiots.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 31, 2008 9:39 PM
Comment #260633
Bristol is the daughter and the poster was pointing out that she, standing next to her mother who was supposedly the pregnant one, had the unmistakable “baby belly”! It is the family at home. Try to keep up now.

I don’t think you understand my point. That picture is from 2006. The baby was born in 2008. The Kos blogger is using that photo to say that Bristol (the daughter) had a “baby belly” two years before the baby was even born! Don’t you see a problem there?

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 31, 2008 9:49 PM
Comment #260634

VV, in some of those same comments about the daughter being away from school with mono…it stated that more than one of her classmates said Bristol had talked about being pregnant. I know, that is third and fourth party, but kids talk and their stories were consistant.

Posted by: janedoe at August 31, 2008 9:52 PM
Comment #260635

Oh, this is priceless. McCain’s campaign has reserved eight hotel rooms in Wasilla. Apparently it’s for staffers to do some vetting. It also turns out NO ONE has checked the electronic archives of the local newspaper.

Someone didn’t do their job. She hasn’t been properly vetted, not at all.

Palin will be off the ticket by mid-September.

Posted by: phx8 at August 31, 2008 9:58 PM
Comment #260636

The picture is from 2008, in March.


http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/03/09/01/815-3504039.highlight.prod_affiliate.7.jpg

Posted by: janedoe at August 31, 2008 10:01 PM
Comment #260637

phx8, that’s what we’ve been trying to tell everyone.. ;) ..and again it all leads us back to Forrest Gump’s wisdom: “stupid is as stupid does”.
Eight rooms??? All in one hotel?

Posted by: janedoe at August 31, 2008 10:06 PM
Comment #260640

phx8:

Someone didn’t do their job. She hasn’t been properly vetted, not at all.

Nope. Which demonstrates that Mr. McGoo is an incompetent and extremely reckless old man, with absolutely no respect for the American people.
In other words: McSame.

Palin will be off the ticket by mid-September.

Poor Granny Palin. She should have told the truth about her little grandson, but I guess that’s asking too much from a Fundamentalist Christian Republican.

I wonder who they’ll give the slot to if she goes. Maybe the Mittster?

Whoever they give it to, I believe we’re now looking at an Obama presidency! :^D

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 31, 2008 10:24 PM
Comment #260641

LO-

A clear sign that Governor Palin was a fantastic pick is how much ugliness has poured out of Democrats… undoubtedly a response to their own fear and desperation.

No, it’s a clear sign of how little crap the Democrats want to take from the Republicans this year. We’ve lost two elections in the face of vicious campaigns from your side. The Democrats have decided to hit back, and hit back hard.

I’m familiar with the story. Absent any hard evidence, a father coming forward or a doctor, I’m dubious about the whole thing. However, this is what you can expect having set the bar for respect of a person’s claims where you have. Democrats are going to give your candidate for Vice President the vetting the Republicans seem to have neglected to carry out on her.

The Democrats have come to expect that the Republicans will slime them, and burn them if given half the chance, and have come to believe that if they are not as quick on the draw on laying down the fire on their opponents, they will lose, and Bush’s two terms have done much to motivate the Democrats to not want to lose.

Given all the scandals which have erupted, concerning the morals of moralizing, self-righteous religious conservatives, many are going to give her life story a thorough checking out to see if there are any signs of hypocrisy.

Did you expect that you could hit the Democrats the way you have, for as long as you have, as hard as you have, and not one day see Democrats get just as aggressive in return? They don’t want to lose elections.

They, though, means only some. The debate over this issue on Kos is pretty fierce. Some take the view that since she’s made this child’s birth a political asset for herself, that any irregularities with her story need to be given extra scrutiny.

Others take the view that going in this direction is reprehensible, indefensible.

Yet others take a view that while something may be up, it’s a terrible angle of attack, based on little more than speculation and innuendo.

My view is that all too often intriguing narratives come from unsound factual sources. It sounds plausible, but plausibility for me is rarely very satisfying as a criteria. I’ve read and written too much fiction to find that sufficient. What I’d wait for if this scenario was real was the real father coming forward. Until something like that happens, I’m not buying into it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 31, 2008 10:39 PM
Comment #260642

VV,
Yes, this should seal the deal. The McCain team at the Wasilla hotel is probably doing the investigations they should have done before now, damage assessment, and if possible, damage control. In an odd turn of events, the GOP got lucky with the delay of most convention activities. McCain’s people have a day, maybe two, to make some calls & do some interviews & investigate the local records.

I also think it’s interesting the Palin is not appearing in the national media. Part of that could be attributed to the hurricane, and part could be attributed to a desire to maximize her impact at the convention, but there another explanation is that she may have to be yanked from the ticket very quickly.

If that’s the case, the McCain camp can act attempt to pull their bacon out of the fire by nominating a properly vetted nominee & bringing him onto the ticket the last day of the convention. In any case, Palin seems almost certain to need a replacement in a very short period of time, so it will have to be a known quantity.

I’m sure a lot of GOP people will want to replace McCain for screwing this up so badly, but I don’t see that as an option. More likely, Palin will announce her inability to serve due to personal reasons, and the replacement will be…

Who knows? Probably Huckabee or Lieberman. Romney and Pawlenty are reportedly too ticked off at McCain to accept a pity Vice Presidency.

Posted by: phx8 at August 31, 2008 10:40 PM
Comment #260643

It’s going to be interesting to see who will be “desperate” enough to go in as an afterthought…when having been slighted the first time around.

Posted by: janedoe at August 31, 2008 10:47 PM
Comment #260645

Stephen:

What I’d wait for if this scenario was real was the real father coming forward. Until something like that happens, I’m not buying into it.

Stephen,
Palin is not seven months pregnant in that picture. She just isn’t. But she is definitely pregnant in the other picture. And ANY woman who has had four children would not be able to around fly for 11-12 hours after their water breaks, and when they’re going into premature labor.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 31, 2008 10:50 PM
Comment #260647

phx8 and jane,
I think maybe it’ll be Huckabee? Won’t they need someone really GOP-likable after this complete disaster? Droopy Dog isn’t going to cut that mustard.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 31, 2008 10:56 PM
Comment #260648

Janedoe, that picture is from October of 2006 and couldn’t possibly show someone who gave birth in 2008.

It was taken by the photographer Marc Lester and published in the Anchorage Daily News. You may have found it archived under a different date elsewhere, but that’s not when the picture was taken. Follow my link above and it’s very clear. If you still don’t believe, look at the next photo in the series—also dated 2006 and clearly on the same day (Governor Palin and her husband are clearly wearing the same clothes in both photos).

So congratulations—you’re not only repeating a lie about her mother from the hate site, the Daily Kos. You’re smearing a teenage girl. I hope you enjoy what your party has become.

Stephen:

The pity-me persecution complex that causes Democrats to feel mad-as-hell and decide they’re not gonna take it anymore is a cliche of every election. They invent all manner of fictional abuses that they claim they’re suffering at the hands of Republicans and then snivel and whine about it in a most unmanly fashion.

But it’s all a pretext for casting off any decency or inhibitions and climbing down into the gutter.

You’d think, listening to Democrats, that it was Republicans who tried to infiltrate and disrupt their convention, or Democrats who saw their candidate lied about with forged documents in the media.

No, Democrats whine and moan about how their patriotism is being questioned (bull crap), or how they’re being censored and persecuted by the government (more bullcrap—if true they wouldn’t be running their mouths so much, now would they?).

I suspect that much of it comes down to the actual political philosophies of modern leftism—the sense of victimhood, the refusal to take responsibility for ones own decisions, the moral relativism, the disconnection from reality.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 31, 2008 11:00 PM
Comment #260649

Stephen
This is a clear sign of ugliness on the part of the liberal branch of the Democratic Party. I googled downs syndrome and found a sight that stated women over 40 yrs of age have a 1 in 60 chance of having a downs baby while women 30 yrs have a 1 in 1000 chance and that is the youngest they went. I work with a young lady who looks like she has been pregnant for the last 4 yrs and she is only 22 now. You could say Palin’s daughter has a case of baby fat or maybe to many Moose burgers.

Posted by: KAP at August 31, 2008 11:02 PM
Comment #260650

If this all plays out the way it looks,don’t you just imagine that the father would have been paid off pretty well to just disappear? I mean gramma has the $ and the status to scare the bejeezus out of a kid that (presumable) age.

Posted by: janedoe at August 31, 2008 11:03 PM
Comment #260651

VV,
You’re right, Lieberman won’t be an option. McCain reportedly wanted him, but the GOP establishment reportedly nixed the idea.

I always thought Huckabee was the GOP’s best choice for president, and he’d make a great replacement VP if they had to move really fast. Perhaps General Petraeus would be available on short notice? The second go around there won’t be any margin for error, though. No Hail Mary nominations, no rolls of the dice.

No matter how we cut it, the Palin nomination and withdrawal will seal the doom of the McCain campaign. It will be extremely difficult to recover from such a gross error in judgment. I still can’t believe McCain nominated an unvetted, unqualified unknown. What a dumbass!

Posted by: phx8 at August 31, 2008 11:06 PM
Comment #260652

KAP,
YOu’re right, Downs Syndrome occurs most often in older women. It’s an awful thing. However, over 80% of Downs births occur with teenagers.

Posted by: phx8 at August 31, 2008 11:10 PM
Comment #260653

LO, that picture is the same one that VV posted hours apart from me, and with the same information. Don’t know where you got yours.

Posted by: janedoe at August 31, 2008 11:19 PM
Comment #260654

This is ridiculous. I’ll post just this last once more about it and then I’m wading out of this cesspool.

Here’s a photo of Governor Palin from March 18. She’s wearing a black jacket over a black top, but look carefully between the folds of her jacket. You can clearly see the swell of her abdomen. Satisfied?

Now, I realize that you’re angry, that you hate Republicans, that you’ve suffered a lot of imaginary slights at their hands that have hurt very badly. But playing dirty is NOT a winning formula. Especially when you play this dirty. It’s just going to come back on you, make you look silly, bring your motives and honesty into question.

Try not to go there. Just admit that you’re angry that McCain picked as VP someone more qualified and more appealing than your PRESIDENTIAL candidate and that you’re afraid, desperately afraid, that the Obamamessiah might lose!

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 31, 2008 11:25 PM
Comment #260656

I wouldn’t get too carried away with this baby story until more evidence is presented. The pictures aren’t very compelling unless the dates can be verified.

But this whole story is based on the daughter being absent from school for 5 months with mono. I haven’t seen any sources for this information other than every blog repeating that they heard it from somebody who heard it from a classmate. Unless someone gets her school info, an admisssion from her family, or an on the record interview with a classmate, it is nothing more than a rumor.

If it turns out the daughter was out of school at the same time her mother was pregnant, then the story would get more compelling, but that still doesn’t prove anything. The story about her labor is documented, and it does raise questions, but it’s still not enough. So let’s not get too worked up about this yet.

Posted by: pops mcgee at August 31, 2008 11:42 PM
Comment #260660

Anyone surprised? One more oil company schill. Governor of the great state of Exxon.I mean Alaska. She also solidifies Mac’s base. That is another way of saying she is a rightwing crackpot. The notion that she will draw HC’s supporters is just silly. Palin opposes abortion even for rape victums. In other words,if a woman gets raped,gets impregnated, has an abortion, Ms. Palin wants to put her in jail.

Posted by: BillS at September 1, 2008 12:09 AM
Comment #260661

Pops,
The rumors surrounding the pregnancy are only the most interesting of the various issues being raised. The bottom line is that Palin has not been properly vetted. She has never been exposed to a national campaign, and she has never held a federal position. She’s never undergone a rigorous background check. A number of other stories are coming out of the woodwork as investigations progress, but the pregnancy rumors attact the most interest. In the meantime, Palin is being sidelined. The GOP establishment is remarkably silent. I know, I know, there’s a hurricane, and maybe they just want to jazz up the convention…

But the fact is, the GOP establishment has a political nightmare on their hands- an unvetted unknown is now being aggressively vetted by the opposition before the GOP can thoroughly check her out. It’s a race. Its happening right now. Can the GOP make sure all of the bases are covered before Democratic investigators uncover something devastating?

This is one of the most interesting political developments we’ve seen in a long time. The race is on-

Posted by: phx8 at September 1, 2008 12:16 AM
Comment #260663

Babygate:

It simply can’t be true. However, it should be questioned. She herself has brought up her pregnancy as a major reason to vote for her ticket. Everything can be questioned now, and that’s not sexist, rather it’s treating her as any man would be.

Posted by: Max at September 1, 2008 12:19 AM
Comment #260665

LO:

Here’s a photo of Governor Palin from March 18. She’s wearing a black jacket over a black top, but look carefully between the folds of her jacket. You can clearly see the swell of her abdomen. Satisfied?

No, not satisfied. Because that photo is from March 19, 2005

And you knew that, and tried to fool everyone who has been reading this thread.

you’re afraid, desperately afraid,

I think you must be to have tried to pull that little stunt.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 1, 2008 12:22 AM
Comment #260667

BillS:

In other words,if a woman gets raped,gets impregnated, has an abortion, Ms. Palin wants to put her in jail.

Yeah. It is Sick, Sick, Sick.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 1, 2008 12:28 AM
Comment #260668

Btw, phx8, Stephen Daugherty, Rick IL, and others - great, great comments in this post!

Posted by: Max at September 1, 2008 12:29 AM
Comment #260669

I guess the thing that gets me is that some seem to think that having a choice to make the decision to not abort a down’s syndrome child means that choosing to abort one is equivalent to murder.

If that logic holds, then isn’t having a child in your 40’s, which vastly increases the risk of down’s syndrome, child abuse? Is it heroic to have unprotected sex for either ideological beliefs or carelessness, and then not care if you’ve imposed a life of dysfunction and dependence on a child? It’s great that you may choose to care for the child yourself, or be rich enough to pawn it off on a paid service, but why do you get points for doing something stupid to start with? Of course most will require special state services, at taxpayer expense, to deal with their little mistake.

Perhaps this will get some to see the absurdity of their stance. It is a deeply personal choice that only a parent and her conscience can make. The state has no place in that choice.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 1, 2008 12:33 AM
Comment #260673

LO,

This is the reason for the creation of ‘babygate’

ST. PAUL, Minnesota (CNN) — On the eve of the Republican convention, a new national poll suggests the race for the White House remains even.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Sunday night shows the Obama-Biden ticket leading the McCain-Palin ticket by one point, 49 percent to 48 percent, with the statistical margin of error.

It’s similar to the ‘crying wolf’ syndrome that I cautioned against a few years ago…

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/003083.html

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 12:52 AM
Comment #260674

VV,

That photo couldn’t be from 2005 because her 2nd youngest child Piper is 7 years old. Obviously if she was faking a pregnancy she would wear a fake belly or something, I don’t know. The whole story is very strange, and I don’t want to jump to conclusions, but there’s not enough evidence.

phx8,

I agree that there are other issues, and she wasn’t properly vetted, but we shouldn’t get too worked up over this story until some solid evidence is found.

Posted by: pops mcgee at September 1, 2008 12:57 AM
Comment #260679

The pregnancy rumor should be very easy to debunk. It’s been floating around since March 2008. As someone commented on the Huffington Post, the GOP could debunk the rumor by posting documentation of the Dec 2007 amnio when she was told of the Downs, or documentation of the birth at the family hospital, or documentation confirming the daughter’s mono.

No such documentation is available. That is remarkable enough to fuel a lot of questions.

Posted by: phx8 at September 1, 2008 1:25 AM
Comment #260680

phx8,

There’s no reason to do it now, if the left wants to fester this story for a while let them. When it gets embarassing that it is starting to be taken seriously, then just provide the proof and explain how ridiculous the whole thing was, and get instant points.

It’s like you guys WANT to give the election to McCain…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 1:31 AM
Comment #260684

For the record, I can’t imagine this is true, and it’s going to play right into the hands of the right.

For one thing, all presidential candidates must submit medical records. No one could think they could hide something like this.

This is the kind of carnivalesque atmosphere that is created when a candidate is not vetted. Rumors abound. This one is pretty silly, in my opinion. If true, it would be astounding hubris on her part to think she could get away with it.

Posted by: Max at September 1, 2008 1:48 AM
Comment #260685
The whole story is very strange, and I don’t want to jump to conclusions, but there’s not enough evidence.

It is all very strange indeed, and there is probably a good chance that Uncle Karl Rove orchestrated this whole story about her not being the one who actually had the baby, simply to make us look bad.
But what there is enough documented evidence for us to agree on is that here we had a 44 year old woman on her fifth pregnancy who knew she was having a Down’s baby — but who thought it was a great idea to fly in her 8th month to Texas to give a freaking political speech — and that after her water broke, well naturally a 12 hour flight with a stop over in Seattle wasn’t at all out of the question.

No matter how this story is sliced, that’s some horrifically crappy-ass judgment. And I’m actually content to leave it right there.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 1, 2008 1:52 AM
Comment #260691
YOu’re right, Downs Syndrome occurs most often in older women. It’s an awful thing. However, over 80% of Downs births occur with teenagers.

phx8, you can’t have it both ways. If Downs Syndrome most often occurs with older women then over 80% of Downs Syndrome births can’t occur with teenagers. Which is it? Old ones or young ones?

Posted by: Kirk at September 1, 2008 3:13 AM
Comment #260692

Here is your answer Kirk, just as phx8 stated:

Maternal age influences the chances of conceiving a baby with Down syndrome. At maternal age 20 to 24, the probability is one in 1562; at age 35 to 39 the probability is one in 214, and above age 45 the probability is one in 19.[14] Although the probability increases with maternal age, 80% of children with Down syndrome are born to women under the age of 35,[15] reflecting the overall fertility of that age group. Recent data also suggest that paternal age, especially beyond 42,[16] also increases the risk of Down Syndrome manifesting in pregnancies in older mothers.[17]

Taken from Wikipedia

Posted by: janedoe at September 1, 2008 3:46 AM
Comment #260695

Stephen:

The Democrats have come to expect that the Republicans will slime them, and burn them if given half the chance, and have come to believe that if they are not as quick on the draw on laying down the fire on their opponents, they will lose,

You often speak with great eloquence, and while I disagree with your overall outlook, I find you intelligent. Yet your comments above show you have slipped.

Your candidate of choice—Barack Obama—has campaigned consistently on being different, on offering change, and on not slinging the dirty mud of past political campaigns.

You, on the other hand, use the elementary school complaint of “Well, he did it first!!!!” You use the fact that there has been mud slung in the past to justify slinging mud yourself. Some proponent of change you are!

While you perhaps can support your candidate’s actions and positions, I doubt he could possibly support yours.

We know that both sides sling mud at the others. We also know that Democrats (ie Hillary) were vicious in their attacks on other Democrats (ie Obama) just this year. By the way, the same is true on the right side of the aisle (see Bush v McCain). Stand by your candidate’s position or at least admit the cowardice of not being able to do so.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at September 1, 2008 7:05 AM
Comment #260696

Stephen

I suggest that the Democrats continue with the pregnancy thing for a few more days. Afterwards, perhaps they can investigate hair plugs and the signifigance of them to elected political office.

Or, they can try to discuss a real issue for a change.

Anyway, I have a question for you that I would like answered:

Did Barak Obama ever pass the bar exam? I have tried checking on the Illionois Bar Examination site, but I haven’t found anything.

I know that he was an adjunct prof at U of Chicago Law School, but one doesn’t have to be a member of a bar to teach at a Law School…only a grad of a law school.

Nowhere have I seen the year that he passed the exam. Or did he?

Can you enlighten me please?

Posted by: sicilian eagle at September 1, 2008 7:08 AM
Comment #260698

Stephen

Looks like I found the info I wanted on the Supreme Court site in Illionois.

Full Licensed
Name:
Barack Hussein Obama
Full Former
name(s):
None
Date of
Admission as
Lawyer
by Illinois
Supreme Court: December 17, 1991
Registered
Business
Address:
Not available online
Registered
Business
Phone:
Not available online
Illinois
Registration
Status:
Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law - Last
Registered Year: 2008
Malpractice
Insurance:
(Current as of
date of
registration;
consult attorney
for further
information)
In annual registration, attorney reported that he/she does not
have malpractice coverage. (Some attorneys, such as judges,
government lawyers, and in-house corporate lawyers, may
not carry coverage due to the nature of their practice setting.)
Public Record of Discipline
and Pending Proceedings: None

Thus, he is an attorney but since he decided to run for president, he voluntarily gave up practicing law as he decided not to get malpractice insurance.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at September 1, 2008 7:36 AM
Comment #260699

I think the pregnancy questions are quite appropriate given the Republican use of it as a banner of heroism. I have no idea about the daughter issue, but the poor judgment issue and burdening a child with her poor decisions, and her political choice to remove choice from other mothers is.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 1, 2008 7:57 AM
Comment #260702
Here is your answer Kirk, just as phx8 stated:

No, that is not just how phx8 stated it.

phx8 said,

YOu’re right, Downs Syndrome occurs most often in older women. It’s an awful thing. However, over 80% of Downs births occur with teenagers.

Don’t think phx8 was trying to deceive anyone with the statement just had the wording off, and it is 80% occur with women under the age of 35 not teenagers.

Posted by: Kirk at September 1, 2008 9:50 AM
Comment #260703

I think that whatever happened with her pregnancy whether it taking the fall for her daughter (which I doubt) or making a bad choice to make a long flight after her water broke with a premature baby with Downs Syndrome (more likely) just shows her poor decision making skills and how little her child mattered to her in comparison with her career.

While being a politician and doing what it takes can make you an absentee parent and the ego of most of our leaders who desire to be president can lead to making selfish choices and neglect parenting, when you do this and run as a “family values” candidate as Palin is creates some cognitive dissonance.

Posted by: tcsned at September 1, 2008 10:06 AM
Comment #260704

This is what we should be looking at since it has moved past rumor to a full blown federal law suit.

Philip J. Berg, Esquire, [Berg is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania; former candidate for Governor and U.S. Senate in Democratic Primaries; former Chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery County; former member of Democratic State Committee; an attorney with offices in Montgomery County, PA and an active practice in Philadelphia, PA, filed a lawsuit in Federal Court today, Berg vs. Obama, Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083, seeking a Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction that Obama does not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States.

Philip J. Berg, Esquire stated in his lawsuit that Senator Obama:

1. Is not a natural-born citizen; and/or

2. Lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia; and/or

3. Has dual loyalties because of his citizenship with Kenya and Indonesia.

Berg stated: “I filed this action at this time to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated.

There have been numerous questions raised about Obama’s background with no satisfactory answers. The questions that I have addressed include, but are not limited to:

1. Where was Obama born? Hawaii; an island off of Hawaii; Kenya; Canada; or ?

2. Was he a citizen of Kenya, Indonesia and/or Canada?

3. What was the early childhood of Obama in Hawaii; in Kenya; in Indonesia when he was adopted; and later, back to Hawaii?

4. An explanation as to the various names utilized by Obama that include: Barack Hussein Obama; Barry Soetoro; Barry Obama; Barack Dunham; and Barry Dunham.

5. Illinois Bar Application – Obama fails to acknowledge use of names other than Barack Hussein Obama, a blatant lie.

If Obama can prove U.S. citizenship, we still have the issue of muti-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegance to other countries.

He clearly shows a conscience of guilt by his actions in using the forged birth certificate (verified by three independant document experts) and the lies he’s told to cover his loss of citizenship. We believe he does know, supported this belief by his actions in hiding his secret, in that he failed to regain his citizenship and used documents to further his position as a natural born citizen. His very acts proves he knew he was no longer a natural born citizen. We believe he knew he was defrauding the country or else why use the forged birth certificate of his half sister?

Posted by: Kirk at September 1, 2008 10:14 AM
Comment #260705

So is this the “truth” or is this more like the photos of the half bat, half boy that grace the covers of rags like “Globe”.

If, and that is a big if, any of this is true, by waiting until after the convention to make a big deal of this shows me that these folks are more interested in winning an election by any means possible, than they are about the actual truth.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at September 1, 2008 10:47 AM
Comment #260707
No, not satisfied. Because that photo is from March 19, 2005

Sometimes you need to take a half a second to process information… even if that information doesn’t square with the story you’re trying to tell.

Did Governor Palin have a child in 2005? Was she even “Governor Palin” in 2005? Look at the other photo in that same Flickr series. It’s clearly identified as Governor Palin on the last day of the AK 25th Legislature.

So for anyone not keeping up, here are the two bits of evidence that can put this nasty underhanded Democratic smear to bed once and for all.

A pregnant Governor Palin at the AK legislative session in March of this year.

Proof that the 25th AK Legislative Session ended in 2008—despite the erroneous year someone attached to that picture.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 1, 2008 10:54 AM
Comment #260709

Stephen,

Excellent article as usual. She is a trophy, but she is dangerous none the less. She is personable and she is a woman. Anyone who has ever argued with a wife knows that woman can be tough to handle. If you get tough with her you will be seen as a bully. If you handle her with kid gloves, she may get away with murder. She will challenge us / Obama to be respectful but assertive - to walk a fine line. Your article here strikes a pretty good tone. Woman could flock to her defense if it appears that she is being unfairly attacked. Still she wants to be President. We must come at her hard. You Wrote:

And it is marketing for the most part. She’s not going to have any real power unless McCain allows it.
She won’t have any real power unless McCain dies - 2 malignant melanomas, (that is bad kind, the real bad kind).


Posted by: Ray Guest at September 1, 2008 11:21 AM
Comment #260710

More fun! Don’t you just love it when a party nominates an unknown, unvetted candidate?

It looks like Palin used to be a member of the Alaska Independence Party, the AIP. Their goal is to secede from the union.

Nice VP, guys!

Posted by: phx8 at September 1, 2008 11:24 AM
Comment #260711

BabyGate is apparently old news in Alaska, where Palin has already addressed the question. It’s an old rumor. Personally, I am glad this one was put to bed quickly.

So - distraction over. She’s still a terrible pick for VP.

Posted by: Max at September 1, 2008 12:02 PM
Comment #260713

LO,
I think it’s probably better to stick to newspaper stories and their accompanying photos.

goog:

I think the pregnancy questions are quite appropriate given the Republican use of it as a banner of heroism. I have no idea about the daughter issue, but the poor judgment issue and burdening a child with her poor decisions, and her political choice to remove choice from other mothers is.

Agree completely. Palin’s baby with Downs is being held up as some sort of feat of heroism, and it is sure to be mentioned ad nauseum in the same way that McCain has mentioned “POW.” And, just as McCain lied about his “cross in the sand” life-altering moment as a POW, we now see that part of Palin’s story is that she seriously endangered the child she was carrying at 8 months in order to give a political speech in Texas.

tcsned, good comment.

Max:

BabyGate is apparently old news in Alaska, where Palin has already addressed the question. It’s an old rumor. Personally, I am glad this one was put to bed quickly.

How did Palin address the question? Got a link? If this rumor has wrongly persisted it probably has a lot to do with the fact that her and her child’s name never appeared on the roster as a birth that took place in that hospital. Did she ever clarify why she would choose to travel so far after her water broke to a rural hospital where they didn’t even have an NICU?

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 1, 2008 12:42 PM
Comment #260714

VV-
I’m fairly distrustful of video or image evidence because my degree is in film and electronic media, and I’m quite familiar with how things like lens choice can affect the look of a shot.

Last election, somebody distributed a shot of John Kerry seemingly close to Jane Fonda in a shot. When I looked at it, it became obvious to me that it was shot with a telephoto lens across a number of rows of people and at an oblique angle to those rose. Probably through no fault of the photographer, Kerry looked closer than he actually was.

People do stupid things all the time. They screw up, operate on incomplete information, see things from different, subjective angles. Knowing this, I get skeptical whenever somebody offers images as proof of something. Like my professor in college said, the Camera ALWAYS lies.

Which is why I’m more inclined to believe this if a prospective father comes forward. When he does, DNA testing can confirm or deny it. Video and photographic evidence can be misleading. Physical evidence is much more ideal You can misinterpret or fake a photo. DNA is simply there.

LO-
From their perspective, they’re not lying, nor are they really trying to smear her. They are trying to hold to account a politician that they think may be playing fast and loose with the truth.

This is the kind of scrutiny you guys invited with your techniques last time around.

I’m not saying they’re always right, but the Democratic party has millions of people in it, among whom some believe that we need to be every bit as brutal in our campaigns, every bit as unmerciful as the Republicans have been at a national level.

So some are going to support it, and others are going to take a different approach

In case you hadn’t noticed, I effectly said I don’t buy it and I won’t endorse the story until some hard evidence comes along.

So where’s your hard evidence that people are universally in favor of this story on Kos. I bet if you took a look, you’d find that this rumor is highly controversial. Kos, though, is a relatively free-booting site. But to treat everybody as if they believe these things is just not accurate.

No, Democrats whine and moan about how their patriotism is being questioned (bull crap), or how they’re being censored and persecuted by the government (more bullcrap—if true they wouldn’t be running their mouths so much, now would they?).

Your candidate has a slogan, “Country First”, and has publically stated that this is not what Barack Obama has done, in promising that he will remove our presence from Iraq. Why are you afraid to directly confront him? Call him unpatriotic if you believe him to be so. You had no problem in attacking his wife. I’m sure I could dig up plenty of quotes from you questioning her love of country. Why not be so blunt with him?

I’m glad I’m not a Republican. Being a Democrat is comparatively simple to justify. I know what I believe in, I know what I want out of my government, and I’m not afraid to ask for it, and my candidate is not afraid to be asked.

Rhinehold-
The Republicans have no problem in letting rumors fester. There is nothing new about the BS that Kirk is offering, or others. It’s what the Republican did last time with Kerry. There will always be reactionary elements. Some of those in our party have decided that even if their candidate is unwilling to do certain things, they are fully willing to pour through documents and news stories, and even photos to dig up dirt.

The Democrats are quick to moderate them, on the sites I frequent. We’re not all interested in wagering our credibility on these things. But if there’s hard evidence, there’s plenty of hard feelings on our side to motivate a degree of payback.

Personally, I like to have backup. I don’t like to go out on a limb and have it sawed off by inconvenient facts.

Joe-
Nice to see you around.

Personally, I don’t like much being reactionary. I much prefer, as I just said, to have back up. I don’t believe in doing tit for tat, but I do believe in having a quick defense, and a willingness to strike back on substantive grounds. This, for me, is a strategic decision.

But it’s not made because I have nothing to believe in with my candidate, but because I have plenty to believe in, plenty that I agree with in the party platform, and in the candidate himself.

The whole purpose of the announcement was to blindside the media and my party. The whole point of digging up all we can on Sarah Palin is to quickly counter a set of talking points about her that were made more pungent by her sudden arrival on the scene.

From what I understand, the Obama campaign is going to wait to push on her until the news media has a chance to inspect her past.

I think somebody may have found something fairly significant. What do you guys think of the Republican Party making a vice president of somebody who believed in the secession of one of our biggest states from the union?

The DailyKos Article has three bits of information: one is a video Sarah Palin addressing this secessionist party in a direct address.

Two, that the party indeed finds the statehood of Alaska to have been an illegal action. And three, that Sarah Palin was a member of this party. Now, it might not be true, but there’s an easy way to find out: check her records. Check for stories. Check for witness who have seen her act as part of that party.

I mean, when we ask Sarah Palin what “Country First” means, is she referring to America, or Alaska?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2008 12:47 PM
Comment #260715

Janedoe

I guess what my mom used to tell me all those times all those years ago, is really true….what goes around, comes around, but with a vengeance.

So very true. I worked for a couple of supervisors during my career as a state employee who were totally manipulative and arrogant asses. They both got their jobs because they knew somebody as did most of us. The difference being that most of us had enough good sense to leave it at that. Both of the people I am talking about liked to throw the protections of their influence around and use it to treat anyone they had a bone with like sh-t. Once governorships changed those two were among the first to go. And we all waved them away with a one finger salute as they walked out the door. They came from nothing, were given everything because of who they knew, and left just as suddenly with nothing, not even so much as a slap on the back. Needless to say we all had to get together and enjoy a few beers in celebration after work that night.

Sometimes there is sweet sweet justice in this world.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 12:48 PM
Comment #260716

phx8:

It looks like Palin used to be a member of the Alaska Independence Party, the AIP. Their goal is to secede from the union.

Ha! Hey, could you share your link to that?

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 1, 2008 12:49 PM
Comment #260717

As for Babygate, nobody else has posted this, but I think I can definitively say that whether or not Bristol Palin was pregnant then, She is pregnant now, and this is more than a rumor.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2008 12:51 PM
Comment #260718

Yeah, she’s pregnant now—which means, of course, that she couldn’t have given birth a few months ago.

Have fun attacking a teenage girl and trying to convince yourself and others that there’s some political advantage in it for you. Hey, do you suppose there’s any truth to those rumors that the Obama daughters have genital herpes? Apparently this is the kind of gutter speculation and sick innuendo you’re trafficking in these dasy. And good luck with that ugliness you call Democratic “hope” and “change.”

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 1, 2008 1:00 PM
Comment #260719

Unbelievable……

It’s now apparent why her daughter looked um, pregnant. It’s because she IS.

Palin’s 17 year old daughter is pregnant.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/palins-17-year-old-daughter-is-pregnant/?hp

And McCain knew before he took her on… How much time is she going to have to be VP with a new baby with Down’s Syndrome and a 17 year old daughter giving birth?…. Is she really expected to do any work at all?

Also, why introduce a bombshell like this into a national campaign? The last thing I want to be debating about with Republicans is… anything connected to this, like, whether or not Palin’s position on sex education (she doesn’t believe in it) is right. I wanted this campaign to be about issues, and now it’s clear that at least a part of it will not be.

What a drag. I guess now if Democrats don’t chearlead Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy we’ll be demonized. Unfortunately, there are real questions here. If Palin couldn’t handle her current responsibilities and keep an eye on her kid at the same time, how much more difficult is it going to be now that she’s commander in chief?

The choice of Palin seems more and more like some monkeywrench decision engineered to distract from real issues. What a shame.

Posted by: Max at September 1, 2008 1:00 PM
Comment #260722

How in the world will this woman have time to be VP? A new baby with Down’s Syndrome and a 17 year old daughter giving birth?

Why was she selected, since McCain knew about this? He must have known this explosive non-issue would be a real distraction from talking about issues that matter.

LO - there was a longstanding rumour in Alaska that Palin’s child was not hers. It’s the campaign’s responsibility to address stuff like that. It’s sad, but understandable because she hid pregnancy for a long time, probably to not politicize it and be second-guessed for her decision making at the time.

I wonder if Palin still believes that sex education is not a good idea…

Posted by: Max at September 1, 2008 1:06 PM
Comment #260723

LO

You say that you “really don’t understand?” The sad thing is that I believe you.

Please LO the slams and insinuations started as soon as he declared his intent.

And yes I guess that now I do understand more clearly. You have just verified a denial of reality and substantiated my implications of hypocrisy on your part.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 1:13 PM
Comment #260724

Stephen:

but I think I can definitively say that whether or not Bristol Palin was pregnant then, She is pregnant now, and this is more than a rumor.

Very interesting. Just like her mother was pregnant with her first child before she got married, too.
While I’m sure Granny Palin is very proud that her seventeen year old daughter is five months pregnant, I personally think that teaching Bristol about birth control (rather than “abstinence”) would have been a whole lot smarter.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 1, 2008 1:13 PM
Comment #260726

All this complaining from the right wing about the left smearing Ms. Palin. Turn about is fair play. The right has significantly smeared many a democrat-John Kerry, Barack (the antichrist, the muslum)so don’t talk to me about smearing. She is fair game just as John Kerry who was an American hero.

I think Ann Richards said it best “any woman who votes for this ticket is like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders”. I think the sentiment still applies.

As for Ms. Palin and her baby. She is obviously putting her political ambitions first. Her baby is only 4 months old and has a significant developmental disability. I am retired from my job working with families of children with disabilities many of which had down syndrome. This baby will need significant early intervention which requires parental and family involvement. The VP is not a regular 40 hour a week job and if she should have to step in as president-we know that job isn’t 40 hrs aweek. This family (siblings included) haven’t had time to deal with the emotionl impact of this on the family let alone understand the nature of this disability or the time commitment that loving and supporting this infant will take. If this son was older it would be different but he is only 4 months old. I would think that the religious right would be foaming at the mouth over this one. Can you imagine if Barack had picked a woman who had a 4 month old with a disability-the attack dogs from the coporate owned media would be all over it. Condemning her for not turning down the VP job so she could focus on her child. Hypocrisy big time!!!

Posted by: Carolina at September 1, 2008 1:39 PM
Comment #260727

VV

Maybe I should care more about whether it’s precisely fair to dig into Palin’s private life over this issue, but I don’t. Not at all. Maybe that’s the natural result of having the kind of Republican leadership that feels no remorse about lying to America about so much for eight long, agonizing years.

It is fair, proper and responsible. I have to believe that McCain was hoping that people would see a good looking soccer mom who just happens to also be a spunky little governor in hopes that that first impression would stick.

To be honest after seeing some of those pictures from Janedoes’s link, Yousa! I sure have formed a different opinion. I particularly like the one in which she is dressed in the American colors bikini holding the hunting rifle up high while the dude behind her sips on what appears to be a Shlitz at the edge of the pool. I mean come on, Shlitz! There is no way I could vote for someone who goes to a party where they are actually drinking Shlitz let alone the fact that they stand around the pool with their rifles held high. I didn’t even think they made Shlitz anymore. Hmm, maybe they are bootlegging the stuff or I suppose it could be possible that they stockpiled a couple thousand cases of the stuff being that far north and all.

And then there is that shot where she is dressed up in that cocktail waitress outfit with the heels, short leather skirt and open blue silk top. Yousa yousa Yousa! Just having a little fun here of course. ;-)

But still these types of shots raise a lot of questions about the character of this woman. I am not quite sure what they say, except that they are not particularly presidential images. That is unless of course we were considering voting for GW again. In that case they would fit the mold perfectly.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 1:47 PM
Comment #260730

Stephen

Some folks believe that when a gal is pregnant, they have get married and have the baby…instead of using abortion as a birth control device.

This one works for her…watch the miles this gets

By the way, her husband was busted in 1984 for an OUI. That’s right around the time Barry was smoking weed…what to make an issue of that too?

Posted by: sicilian eagle at September 1, 2008 2:00 PM
Comment #260731

LO-
I’m not attacking her. I really never had a beef with her to begin with. In fact, if you read back through what I’ve written, you’ll see that without evidence, I had no interest in pushing this rumor at all.

But you know what? To get your President and your representatives and Senators elected, you folks pretty much used the same exact tactics, that you’re decrying now. I cannot help it as a liberal, and nor can Obama, if some Democrats think that turnabout is fair play.

But to our credit, many of us had your same exact response, and wanted to leave Bristol Palin out of it. I can’t say that I didn’t sympathize.

However, in this political environment, you have to be prepared for people to examine your life. If you’re throwing stones as a politician, in this day and age, you had better not live in a glass house.

On this issue, you’re surrounded by all the panes you have taken to build these kinds of attacks on others. Did you, or anybody else on the Red Column attack Graeme Frost during the fight on S-Chips? Did you, or anybody else join in the beating up of various soldiers who dissented on the war? Did you, or anybody else here join in rationalizing Rush Limbaugh’s claim that those soldiers who came home opposing the war were “phony soldiers?” And don’t tell me none of you beat up Cindy Sheehan over her protests and advocacy? Or helped join in that crap over Max Cleland, trying to portray him as a drunk idiot who dropped a grenade, then tried to look like a War Hero for it? And what about that CIA agent your favorite political consultant did his absolute best to out?

If the Republicans are willing to make family lives, children, soldiers who served and sacrificed for their country, and the mothers who mourned them into effigies to be burned on national television, then they shouldn’t be surprised when such corrosive attention is turned on them. They also should not be surprised aside from that if those in politics who elevate their party’s support of virtues, are tested on those virtues themselves.

If the Republicans and Palin in particular were not so intent on telling Women what to do with their bodies, and families what to do with their children, you would see much less attention paid to Bristol Palin. It wouldn’t be newsworthy, or at least, as newsworthy. If she teaches abstinence only, then naturally, news organizations will pay attention to whether her children abide by that teaching. If they oppose abortion, you better believe people will look into their past.

If the Republicans allowed people greater privacy to make these decisions, they would have it themselves. If they respected others in their right to speak their mind and not be turned into monsters in the media for doing that, then they would see less of the corrosive attention that so bothers them.

You cannot expect to be able to attack people as self-righteously as you do, and not expect attack in return.

Pete-
Is her name actually good? Your folks did a poor job of vetting her. They’re only now going back to her hometown to look in the newspapers to examine her record. I mean, come on.

And by the way: it’s not fear. It’s not panic. It’s what some Democrats are going to do to Republicans: search for the Macaca moments. They are going to search out the truth on your candidates, whether you like it or not.

The best policy is to know these things before they become known, and to select candidates appropriately.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2008 2:03 PM
Comment #260733

SE-
I might not, but your people just might. In case you hadn’t noticed, I wasn’t on board that particular rumor to begin with, and thought it was too thin to be given merit. Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas essentially thought the same thing. I agree with his take: a discussion of safe sex would have served her well.

Obama himself never commented, and I bet if asked, he’ll say he respects the decision and hopes for the best for the kids.

The thing to understand about DKos is that it’s essentially a Democratic Democratic Party site. Your comments, if particularlly offensive, can be hide-rated by others, but for the most part, all kinds of people offer all kinds of opinions. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people posting to that site.

Go see for yourself what people said on the threads relating to Palin’s daughter. You’ll find many people agreeing with you, and many people taking the other side, and me perhaps taking the more diplomatic view.

If you are willing to paint people as evil and bad with such a broad brush, you cannot expect people to swallow their pride forever. If you stop trying to impose your beliefs on people, the degree of your consistency with those beliefs will become an non-issue.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2008 2:20 PM
Comment #260740

Stephen, you can spend every post lecturing about how you feel that Democrats have been badly treated in the past, that “turn about is fair play,” etcetera. But you really don’t get it, do you? This kind of thing is NOT hurting Republicans. It’s hurting Democrats.

It’s as if to get revenge on Republicans for kicking Democrats in the shins, the Democrats have decided to bash themselves in the groin. I find it bizarre and offensive, but if anything, it HELPS rather than hinders the effort to elect John McCain. If you don’t think so, keep it up. See how deep you can dig.

Going after a teenage girl, poring over the details of mother’s pregnancy… basically holding a witch trial and Inquisition into the birth of a Down syndrome baby based on photos and internet rumors (many of which have already been disproven) is not some great boon for the Democrats.

If your side wants to make themselves look like a pack of gutter-dwelling hyenas, that can can only do one thing: repulse anybody who is not a hard-core Moveon.org/Daily Kos left wing fanatic.

If you’re not a Moveon.org/Daily Kos left-wing fanatic yourself (and I don’t believe you are), you should have enough good sense to realize this. “Standing up to Republicans” is not effective when done crudely, to poor affect, and in such a way that the mud being tossed at a teenaged girl lands on you.

Also, FYO, this rumor about Palin not having been vetted or only being vetted now is false. She was very well vetted, and the Republican workers who have gone to her home town recently are not “investigating” her except to conduct interviews and film for campaign videos (one of which will reportedly be shown tomorrow—kind of like those biographical films shown at the Democratic convention last week). There may also be, as I understand it, a book that will come out about her life between now and the election. All of this involves research.

Democrats seem so terrified of Palin that they’re clinging to and magnifying every little detail and rumor that they catch wind of. But sorry—it’s not working. It’s merely sad.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 1, 2008 2:35 PM
Comment #260747

LO-
I never said that turnabout was fair play myself. I just said that unless you’re naive, this is what you should expect when you use the kind of aggressive rhetoric against people.

I’m not going after any teenaged girl. I posted that thing about her to essentially end the debate, and end it on a factual note.

As far as vetting goes, did you know before hand about her connection to the secessionist Alaska Independence Party? Did you know that she was the director of now-indicted Ted Steven’s 527 group, and that he had endorsed her?

Earlier, I said that Obama would likely come down against this kind of inclusion of family members as collateral damage in the campaign. Looks like I had him pegged correctly.

I have said before and I will repeat again: People’s families are off limits,” Obama said. “And people’s children are especially off-limits. This shouldn’t be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin’s performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. So I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18 and how a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn’t be a topic of our politics.

He effectively said that if he found out anybody in his campaign was part of that, they would be fired.

This is the Obama I support.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2008 3:09 PM
Comment #260748

LO

“Standing up to Republicans” is not effective when done crudely, to poor affect, and in such a way that the mud being tossed at a teenaged girl lands on you.

The double standard here again. I guess from here on we are expected to present all our arguments, observations and questions in an eloquent manner. Please no cynicism folks because that is effective only when used against liberals and reserved solely for republican use. Please remember that it is unethical to pursue suspicion and doubt where conservative values and questions of ethic are concerned and, or, it may hurt someones feelings. Please, by all means follow the rules of argument which the republicans have laid out for us. Anything to the contrary will indeed be deemed inappropriate, ineffective and give cause to bring forth the wrath of the righteous right down upon our cause.

I don’t know about the rest of my fellow liberals here, but I for one am shaking in my boots and am cowering behind my life size poster of Sara Palin in hers stars and stripes bikini holding that high powered rifle high.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 3:18 PM
Comment #260749

Stephen,

You may think that it was unwise to have brought up this rumor without having all the facts, but in my view, bringing it forward and discussing it did a few things very successfully.
First, we now know that Palin endangered her child by flying in the eighth month and even after her water broke — a thing so unbelievable to most women (and many men) that we thought it might mean she was actually lying about having been pregnant.
Palin’s reasoning and judgment is now in serious question as a result.

The other thing it did was force Palin to dispel rumors about her seventeen year old daughter being pregnant, which we now know were in fact, valid. Again, this calls Palin’s judgment into question, since she is completely against children being taught about birth control, and has pushed abstinence-only education on her state.

I feel sorry for the daughter for two reasons. She should have known about using birth control, and since she didn’t, she’s a child who is now bearing a child. It’s also unfortunate that she never asked for the attention she’s getting, but is now standing in the spotlight. However, since her mother is being publically vetted for the vice presidency her views and the result of her leadership — even at the parental level — make it absolutely necessary.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 1, 2008 3:28 PM
Comment #260750

LMAO RickIl !
No, seriously… ;)..check this…(chuckle)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qnba1AKwmxE

I figure if this thread can bring both Siceagle and Joe out of retirement, then the least we can do is entertain them.

Posted by: janedoe at September 1, 2008 3:29 PM
Comment #260751

RickIL-
Don’t get me wrong. I have no problem with playing hardball with the Republicans on these matters, but I see the use of too much unsubstantiated rumor as a problem. An unsubstantiated rumor, in my view, is like a blunted blade or a jammed bullet. The most effective research to use against an opponent is that which they can’t deny without lying or becoming disingenuous.

Republicans can’t deny the size of the town she was mayor of, or the fact that she sent a video greeting to the opening of the Alaska Independence Party (a secessionist group looking to separate Alaska from the US). They can’t deny the fact that she was head of a 527 group that supported very corrupt Sen. Ted Stevens, that she was endorsed by him, that they appeared in a campaign commercial together, or that she supported the Bridge to Nowhere before the loss of federal funds for it convinced her to drop it, and that she never cancelled the access road to this bridge which now will not be built.

So, I don’t mind much leaving the unsubstantiated rumors behind. There’s plenty of ugly truth that the Republicans will be forced into rhetorical pretzels to defend.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2008 3:31 PM
Comment #260752

VV, I would agree with your comments about her daughter being dragged into the limelight once, and now again.
IF all of this shakes loose the truth, then it should also show absolute greed and selfishness on Sarah’s part. It should show that she has the most incredible lack of common sense at the least, and the lack of morality as well. Both those missing qualities alone should take her out consideration. But, given McCains track record, it would seem that she would fill out the ticket and fall into (lock)step by his side.
Can’t see how the party of holier-than-thouness can actually take pride in either one of these people.

Posted by: janedoe at September 1, 2008 3:44 PM
Comment #260753

I think a mother of a 5mth old baby with a disability and a 17 year old pregnant daughter should have her priorities with her family. As a vice president what quantity and quality time will Sarah Palin have for her family. It gives me the impression that what comes first in Sarah Palin’s life is Sarah Palin. The breakdown in the American family is in part to self-centered parents who meet their needs before their children. As a high school teacher everyday I see students who suffer from this type of parental behavior.

Posted by: Karla at September 1, 2008 3:46 PM
Comment #260754

This rumor about Palin not having been vetted or only being vetted now is false.

Then why were none of his staff aware of Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy?

And - seriously, why wasn’t this brought up to begin with, when she was being introduced and her pro-life credentials were being explained?

Also, why did they say she was against the bridge to nowhere when very clearly she was not? Had she been vetted, it would have been clear this was a very problematic claim to make.

Anyway, I almost feel like I am giving McCain the benefit of the doubt by thinking maybe he didn’t know any of these things. Even the stuff I know he knew, like that she’s under investigation for abuse of power and might have to leave the campaign to go to jail seems like unbelievably bad judgement to me.

I am sorry, I have been on this carnival ride for the last 8 years and I want off….

Posted by: Max at September 1, 2008 3:48 PM
Comment #260757

VV-
I’m at least somewhat familiar with martial arts, and one insight I’ve drawn from them is that it helps to have your feet in the right places when you defend and throw your punches. You can talk about all the issues you can bring up, but I’d rather bring mine up in such a way that I keep my footing on the evidence no matter how much my opponent bitches and moans about it.

A lot of times, when I make a claim or take a shot at somebody on these matters, I jaunt over to some site or wikipedia to do the research. I check sources, check information. So, I’ll go with the Alaska Independence Party connection, rather than the Trig Van Palin parental issue, because one seems more a matter of speculation, while the other one has a hard nugget of truth at its core. We’ve got actual video connecting her to the secessionists, a greeting she recorded for their convention! Then we got video of a major figure in the party claiming her as a member. True or untrue, it’s an allegation that is testable, and difficult to squirm out of.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2008 3:54 PM
Comment #260759

Stephen D

I think you may have meant to direct that last post at VV. If not my apologies. I am in total agreement with your ideas of approach. Much more can be accomplished via research and the presentation of fact. And to be honest you are among the best here in that regard.

If you will notice I also have not offered an opinion with regard to the baby gate issue. That is because I am waiting for some verifiable truth either way to come out of the situation. I think the team of blue column researchers on this matter have been doing a fine, if not a bit overzealous job of tackling that task. However I would suggest to them that in order to protect their own credibility they need be careful while skirting the edges of accusation.

I have two sons. They are grown now, but not so far away from their teens. I could not imagine the stress and heartache involved with being subject to national rumor at the hands of the blogosphere. Information is instantaneous now days as is innuendo and accusation. There is no longer anywhere for information to hide. I do seriously hope that young girl is beyond reproach on this issue.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 3:57 PM
Comment #260761

Max, you hit the nail on the head.
IF this 9th. inning vetting is done honestly and correctly, then we should have answers to those very questions you’re asking.

Posted by: janedoe at September 1, 2008 3:58 PM
Comment #260762

Another one. Palin’s husband has DWI arrest

http://art-of-politics.blogspot.com/2008/08/polls-voters-doubt-palins.html

Posted by: John at September 1, 2008 3:59 PM
Comment #260764

janedoe

That is hilarious! Thanks for the humor, it sure does make all this mind numbing back and forth a lot easier.

I know I am going to sound like an idiot on this one but what does LMAO mean. I am going to guess laughing my ass off.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 4:06 PM
Comment #260765

RickIl….. bingo!

Posted by: janedoe at September 1, 2008 4:10 PM
Comment #260766

Sarah Palin was not properly vetted. She never participated in a nationwide campaign. Too bad McCain chose her without doing enough checking.

In only a few days, what have we found?

The rumor about her pregnancy appears to be false because it turns out her 17 year old daughter is, in fact, pregnant. Obama states that families should be off limits in a political debate, and I think that’s appropriate. The children should be left out of it. However, Palin advocates abstinence and she opposes abortion in all cases, even rape. Yet her current family situation certainly reflects upon Sarah Palin’s “family values.” She is living her philosophy. She is the mother of a DS child, and her daughter is unmarried and pregnant.

Voters will draw their own conclusions. Enough said.

But wait! There’s more!

The AIP story is especially interesting. Did our all-Anerican-binikin-flag-gun-toting Republican candidate for Vice President belong to a political party that advocated secession?

Too funny.

Troopergate? We’ll see. She was already under investigation, so that movie is already in progress.

Is she a stalwart opponent of her party’s corruption? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

She favored the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, and headed a 527 for Ted Stevens.

Who knows what else will turn up? The rumors will be chased down. It’s like opening Christmas presents. Some packages turn out to contain a lump of coal. Some are joke gifts. Others contain amusing items and pay unexpected dividends.

Posted by: phx8 at September 1, 2008 4:13 PM
Comment #260767
Then why were none of his staff aware of Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy?

Do you read anything besides DailyKOS?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/01/palin-told-mccain-about-baby-last-week/

And - seriously, why wasn’t this brought up to begin with, when she was being introduced and her pro-life credentials were being explained?

Because her daughter is her own person and they didn’t want to drag her through the process if they could help it.

Sort of like why people for the most part leave Obama’s kids and Chelsea Clinton, et al, alone. They mean very little to most thinking individuals when selecting a president.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 4:13 PM
Comment #260769

Stephen:

one seems more a matter of speculation, while the other one has a hard nugget of truth at its core.

You seem to be missing my point. The speculation over this rumor did deliver a few hard nuggets of truth to add to all the others that are right now piling up.
One nugget is the fact that Sarah Palin’s reasoning and judgment is obviously very poor. Another nugget is that her ambition to go make a political speech was clearly more important to her than the health of the child she was carrying. A child she is now using as a political tool to display her own supposed heroism. Another is nugget is that her brand of leadership in forcing her own personal views on her state in the form of a religiously motivated insistence on abstinence-only education for teens — spells failure. A failure that reaches even to her own family, with her now pregnant seventeen year old daughter who is currently five months pregnant with her grandchild.

Are you saying you don’t think any of those things have been important to look at and acknowledge?

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 1, 2008 4:18 PM
Comment #260771

I don’t know how, but the new talking points are trying to say the pregnant daughter shows Governor Palin’s family values because she didn’t force her to get an abortion. That’s totally ridiculous, it means that the daughter (hopefully without pressure from her mom) chose to have the baby.

I don’t see how they can swing this into a positive. Are they trying to say that pre-marital sex is OK for teenagers, that abstinence only education works, or birth control is bad? I think they’ve just thrown out the family values argument in this election, after already eliminating the experience argument by her selection as VP nominee.

Posted by: pops mcgee at September 1, 2008 4:24 PM
Comment #260772

Stephen, your patience along with determination is helping to diffuse a lot of the acidity on here. I know full well that you understand our position, but seems the righties need to be reminded.
It’s the frustration of feeling like we have to continue living with double standards. We have (collectively) been lied to, raped and pillaged, led into an unnecessary, unfounded and unsubstantiated war which has decimated thousands of families (Iraqui as well), have had our treasury drained to support that lie, which is going to cripple all our children for years to come, have watched our Constitution ignored and trampled on. Now, we are being attacked for fighting to keep a carbon copy of Dubya and Dork out of the White House. How the hell dare we?????
I can deal with mellowing out a bit and letting the vetting process take place, but don’t ! tell me that I don’t have the right to be suspicious, and leery and to question every snippet the Repugs throw out.

Posted by: janedoe at September 1, 2008 4:25 PM
Comment #260774

Who cares about Palin? What is really revealing is what this pick says about John McCain. When I heard that he had picked her I could only think of two things: 1. He really didn’t want to pick her, and was forced to by his campaign insiders. This in itself basically says that he does not run his campaign and if elected would not be accountable because he did not make real decisions himself. (Now there’s a real maverick!) Or 2. He really doesn’t care what happens to this country if he is willing to hand over the reigns to someone who he has met twice. Either way, any respect I had for the man is now gone.

Posted by: Tom at September 1, 2008 4:49 PM
Comment #260775

ST. PAUL (Reuters) - The 17-year-old unmarried daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said on Monday in an announcement intended to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child.

Well at least she responded.

Posted by: napajohn at September 1, 2008 5:03 PM
Comment #260776

MSNBC has just released information that says Palin has hired a private attorney to defend her in the “Troopergate” incident.
Going to be more things brought into the public spotlight and will be interesting to watch the McCain campaign spin now.

Posted by: janedoe at September 1, 2008 5:24 PM
Comment #260779

I wonder what kind of damage control is going on inside the McCain camp. This hurricane might actually prove to be a help as it not only took the lead story of the day away from Palin’s family issues but it kept Bush & Cheney away from the festivities.

Posted by: tcsned at September 1, 2008 5:30 PM
Comment #260781

More about Palin’s role in the 527 Group “Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.”

ROTFLMAO!

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 1, 2008 5:42 PM
Comment #260782

I agree with L.O. you on the left jump before you get all the facts straight and it is going to hurt you in the upcomming election. With Democrats like the ones on this blog it’s no wonder I turned independent. I can’t stand the liberal left nor the far right Reps.

Posted by: KAP at September 1, 2008 5:46 PM
Comment #260783

This episode with Palin’s daughter will hopefully highlight what a disaster abstinence only education has been. If it doesn’t prevent the daughter of a governor and leading proponent of these programs what does it do for people without such involved, concerned parents as the Palin’s. Maybe if she had been given a fact-based sex ed class instead of being lied to about contraceptive fail rates, STDs, and abortion consequences she might have taken steps to protect herself and her future. It is sad that she will be thrust into the spotlight because of this. She did not choose her parents and didn’t ask her mom to get involved in this campaign and expose something that should be a family matter to the whole world. Not a very good way to prepare a very young person to become a parent.

As someone who waited until later in life to have my children, I shudder to think of what I would have done had I become a parent in my 20s much less as a teenager. I sometimes wonder about my parenting ability now in my early 40s. As a friend told me “it’s the toughest job you’ll ever love (borrowed from the Peace Corps).” Not something that teenagers are prepared to deal with. The Bush administration has done a huge disservice to America’s teens with a program that doesn’t deal with reality but proposes a fairy tale that no one can live up to not even the children of the religious right. I do not look forward to having this conversation with my kids but they deserve to be told the truth and I hope my kids get a proper education at school - that combined with honest parenting will hopefully prepare my children to make conscious choices based on facts. I feel for the poor girl - she is undoubtedly scared to death about her future and horrified at the publicity she has gotten because of her mother. I was dubious of the initial rumor but there was and is something that doesn’t add up with this long plane flight after her water broke.

I have to say that at least publicly the Palin’s are being supportive of their daughter. I hope they follow through.

Posted by: tcsned at September 1, 2008 5:50 PM
Comment #260784

janedoe-
Confronted by the unfairness, I let all the fear and anger condense in resolve. I let my heart become like a blade, as the character in one show I watch put it.

In Martial arts, it’s very necessary to move the right way, if you don’t want to get hurt. Block badly, and you can break an arm. Punch wrong, and you can break fingers or your wrist. Kick wrong and its your leg you might lose the use of.

With the wrong stance, you can be pushed over, or you might not generate the hoped for power.

In the tension between passion and discipline, cuts the blade of my heart. That is my way of doing politics.

The challenge in politics is persuasion, and the sharing of subjective viewpoints and objective understandings is important for symmetry in communication- that is, that the people on each side of the conversation come to see the same or similar things. Whatever makes it easier for me to build that bridge, I embrace: rhetoric, logic, evidence. Whatever gets in that way, I let go. That’s my approach.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2008 5:50 PM
Comment #260786

This is kind of weird — it seems Palin mislead her press secretary.

When the Anchorage Daily News did report the news today, it pointed out: “The Daily News had asked Palin’s press secretary, Bill McAllister, over the weekend to address rumors that Bristol was pregnant. ‘I don’t know. I have no evidence that Bristol’s pregnant,’ he said on Saturday.” Reporter Kyle Hopkins updated that later: McAllister said he found out this morning along with everybody else. I said people might find that hard to believe. ‘I guess they can call me a liar then, but that’s the truth.’ Again, he said the only time he talked to Palin about it was when she approached him and said rumors about Bristol weren’t true.”

Makes me wonder if she was going to try to keep this fact buried as long as she possibly could?

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 1, 2008 6:05 PM
Comment #260788

Because her daughter is her own person and they didn’t want to drag her through the process if they could help it.

No Rhinehold, she is not her own person. She’s 17 years old, and will need her family’s help with the baby.

It has been widely reported that only McCain’s very senior aides knew about the pregnancy. This is because obviously no one else knew, including his staff that could not hide their astonishment. I find it very hard to believe the “plan” here was to slowly let the daughter become more and more pregnant on national tv. This is not how adults behave.

Sort of like why people for the most part leave Obama’s kids and Chelsea Clinton, et al, alone.

You mean like when McCain asked his audience at a speech he was giving why Chelsea is so ugly? His answer was that she’s Janet Reno’s daughter. He’s a peach your candidate.

I have nothing against the decision. I just think it’s odd it’s coming out like this. If this was the plan, then that’s still odd to me. What else don’t we know?

Posted by: Max at September 1, 2008 6:07 PM
Comment #260789

KAP,
No one jumped. A rumor was out there since spring about Palin’s pregnancy. The rumor was investigated. Sarah Palin presented a fact which put the rumor to rest. The facts are straight.

Compare that to something Loyal Opposition has said before: that e-mails attacking Obama in the most scurrilous terms originated with Hillary Clinton. This is a baldfaced lie. I have repudiated that lie with facts, on this blog. I personally know one of the people who writes that trash, a retiree in Florida who used to work for CBS, oddly enough, and I also know the identity of another. They are right wing Republicans, and most people on the mailing list are the same. Yet Loyal Opposition will continue spreading a maliscious, unsourced lie about Hillary Clinton.

That is how most Republicans operate.

If it makes you feel better, the vetting process of Palin will generally speaking be fair. Rumors will be identified as rumors. When proven to be rumor, that will be the end of it.

But be assured, no matter how many rumors and lies about Obama are proven false; no matter how many times despicable attacks suggesting he and his wife are unamerican, unpatriotic, uppity Islamic terrorist celebrities are proven wrong; be assured most Republicans will continue spreading the attacks, or sit by in silence and allow it to happen.

Well, I can’t speak for liberals or Democrats, but personally, I know I have had enough. Game on.

Posted by: phx8 at September 1, 2008 6:08 PM
Comment #260792

Rhinehold,

You’ve said this should be a private matter, but it’s Republicans who want to rob people like Palin’s daughter of her private choice.

Posted by: Max at September 1, 2008 6:36 PM
Comment #260793

phx8, you’re not taking the field alone !!
VV…would’t it be too weird if this pregnancy now is being made up to cover the first lie??? You know, kind of like the old Mad magazine’s spy vs spy thing?
I’m starting to get dizzy!!

Posted by: janedoe at September 1, 2008 6:39 PM
Comment #260794

Am I getting this correct? Palin claimed Trig as her 5th son in her acceptance speech? Trig is actually her grandson?

Is this still “rumor” or is it fact yet? It’s news (meaning new)so I can’t find anyone saying it’s certain.


Posted by: bandman at September 1, 2008 6:45 PM
Comment #260795

bandman, you can’t find anyone for sure to say whether it’s certain or not, because there seems to be only a handful of people who truly know that.

Posted by: janedoe at September 1, 2008 6:50 PM
Comment #260796

VV,
Great comment earlier…

Janedoe,
You Betcha!
Another example:
I wouldn’t mind if the GOP advertised Sarah Palin as a great new talent, someone so amazing that her inexperience doesn’t matter. Fine. I would criticize the inexperience, of course, but at least it is a straightforward justification for vaulting an obscure 20 month governor into the VP slot.

Instead, Republicans try to piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. Somehow she supposedly has more “experience” than any other candidate because she was mayor of Wasilla.

That’s total crap. Everyone knows it.

The economy?
‘Greastest story never told.’

The War in Iraq?
‘The surge worked! We’re winning! No, really. This time I mean it, for sure.’

Global Warming? ‘Drill, drill, drill!’

Posted by: phx8 at September 1, 2008 6:53 PM
Comment #260797

Rhinehold,

You castigate the left for invasion of privacy, but it was this woman that chose to knowingly and very selfishly drag her daughter’s pregnancy into the international limelight. What little respect I had for the Republican go-go booting, American flag bikini wearing, gun toting, non-science believing, self-righteous VP is rapidly disappearing.

The Alaskan newspapers are reporting that this was a “one-time” thing, not a relationship. If true, it means Palin is suggesting her daughter have a shotgun wedding with a man she probably does not know that well, and that is truly sad.

At least they have money and healthcare.

Posted by: Max at September 1, 2008 7:04 PM
Comment #260799
He’s a peach your candidate.

Well, I wouldn’t call him a peach. Barr does have some good qualities though, although I’m not sure why you brought him up.

You’ve said this should be a private matter, but it’s Republicans who want to rob people like Palin’s daughter of her private choice.

And you think it is ok to stoop to that level then? How does that make your side any better?

You castigate the left for invasion of privacy, but it was this woman that chose to knowingly and very selfishly drag her daughter’s pregnancy into the international limelight.

? Are you even paying attention to what is going on Max? She had no intention of bringing this pregnancy out in the open until the liberal bloggers, those oh so righteous ones who want us to hate Republicans and then emulate them, are the reason it was brought out to the public.

The Alaskan newspapers are reporting that this was a “one-time” thing, not a relationship. If true

I’ve also heard all kinds of ‘other’ rumours that were proven false in the past 3 days, Max. Excuse me while I let them be examined before I start accusing anyone of anything.

At least they have money and healthcare.

Quick, beat them up and take it from them now, before they get to their guns too. That is the liberal modus operandi, isn’t it? The majority imposing their views onto the minority? What a lovely message of hope.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 7:26 PM
Comment #260800

All

A few things are for sure at this point. Number one is that the McCain campaign is doing damage control. Number two is that this is not how they hoped to present their VP pick.

McCain’s campaign organizer was just on CNN saying that of course they knew her daughter is pregnant. And that they felt it better to leave it a family issue than bring it forth. If in fact they did know, McCain and Palin would have been much better off announcing that fact well before it was ever allowed to become an issue. Now that it is known to the right they are of course responding with love and support which imo is proper. What imo is not proper is the fact that if they did indeed know before hand, as they claim they did, they showed incredibly poor judgment by not making it known to the general public. In not doing so they chose to embarrass and humiliate this young lady on a world wide level. Had they done it when they should have they could have presented it in a dignified manner leaving no room for the hours of speculation, innuendo and false accusation that surely has traveled to every corner of the civilized world by this time.

If we accept McCain’s claim that they knew before hand, and that the vetting process was complete and accurate, it is then by way of reason, fair to contend that he and his running mate are not exhibiting the type of good judgment and ability to reason, necessary to run a country.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 7:31 PM
Comment #260801
‘The surge worked! We’re winning! No, really. This time I mean it, for sure.’

You know that the US handed over control of the Anbar province over to the Iraqi government today, right?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 7:32 PM
Comment #260803
Number one is that the McCain campaign is doing damage control. Number two is that this is not how they hoped to present their VP pick.

Actually, I think the right comes off better, they were able to deflate the convention bump by Obama and now have the Obama campaign on defense, first retracting their original statement about her experience and then telling his supporters to lay off the family, admitting that his followers are rabid partisan lefties. Now he has to be careful about saying ANYTHING about her for a while so that it doesn’t appear that he is piling on or changing his position.

If in fact they did know, McCain and Palin would have been much better off announcing that fact well before it was ever allowed to become an issue.

It shouldn’t have been an issue so there was no reason to ‘announce it’ beforehand.

In not doing so they chose to embarrass and humiliate this young lady on a world wide level.

It is not the McCain campaign that has embarassed the girl on national tv. If the left had not invented a story about Trig being Sarah’s granddaughter, no one would have went looking at Sarah’s daughter. In fact, the left trying to lay all of this at the feet of the McCain campaign is not going to sit well with anyone on the fence, not that they were going to get away from their religion and guns long enough to consider it anyway…

fair to contend that he and his running mate are not exhibiting the type of good judgment and ability to reason, necessary to run a country.

Oh, there is bad judgement going on, but it isn’t being committed by the Obama or McCain campaigns…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 7:43 PM
Comment #260804

Rhinehold-
He brought McCain up because when your arguments use Republican talking points and every other sentence contains an excoriation of liberals, people will confuse you with one.

I do think that the rumors about pregnancy forced them to reveal the real pregnancy. But the truth is, if she was concerned about keeping these things confidential, she should have said no to the job. There was no way, even without the rumor, that this was going to remain secret for long. You simply cannot become a Vice Presidential candidate, and expect attention not to fall on your family over these things. Even twenty years ago, that would have been an unrealistic expectation.

The fact that McCain knew about this when making the selection is problematic, because that means Palin, knew, too. Both candidates failed to consider the inevitable consequences for Bristol Palin, of her mother suddenly being elevated in media profile, and the young woman’s pregnancy inevitably becoming public knowledge.

Additionally, McCain failed to adequately research or interview Palin, or else, failed to consider the negative consequences of information about her inexperience, her political connections to Alaska pork and corruption, and her connection to extremists in Alaskan politics.

Given that the choice of Vice President is the first decision of a President, and one of the most important, this royal mess of a running mate selection should not give voters much faith in him as a nominee for President. I mean, he could have at least found somebody who wasn’t under investigation for misuse of power. And no, I don’t care whether the man she was trying to get fired was unsympathetic, because the law was the law, and that person who said no to her was doing his job.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2008 7:44 PM
Comment #260805

Rhinehold states:
Are you even paying attention to what is going on Max? She had no intention of bringing this pregnancy out in the open until the liberal bloggers, those oh so righteous ones who want us to hate Republicans and then emulate them, are the reason it was brought out to the public.

Rhinehold, Are you saying that it would have never come out that she was pregnant? If she really wanted this not to come out and save the privacy of her daughter, then she could have easily told John McCain no when he asked her to be his running mate. She knew that by accepting his request it guaranteed that her daughter’s privacy regarding this matter would be brought to the general public. So please spare us the idea that she is being persecuted by liberals.

Posted by: tom at September 1, 2008 7:47 PM
Comment #260807
He brought McCain up because when your arguments use Republican talking points and every other sentence contains an excoriation of liberals, people will confuse you with one.

Right, because I counter the absurdity of the liberal viewpoint when I see it, that makes me a Republican… I had better get my flight ready for the convention.

It is the intellectual lazy method of debate, Stephen, that is prevalent here. If I am agaisnt Obama, I must be a Republican and a racists (I’ve been called both on here in the past few days).

Here’s the deal, Stephen. If I notice something that the Republicans notice as well, just because they say it AND I say it doesn’t make me a Republican. *YOU* know I’m not a republican yet you still make the arguement, which is even worse, IMO.

And no, I don’t care whether the man she was trying to get fired was unsympathetic, because the law was the law, and that person who said no to her was doing his job.

You don’t know the whole story there, Stephen. The man who was being pressured was not the one who complained, it was the Trooper. And the Trooper is still employed, hardly a good job of firing him for not firing the Trooper just to leave him on the job, isn’t it? The man fired does not think he was fired for not firing the Trooper.

Trust me, this is another one you want to go through investigation before making assumptions on one way or another, or you might find yourself grasping at Fitzgerald threads with just a Scooter in them again…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 7:57 PM
Comment #260809
Rhinehold, Are you saying that it would have never come out that she was pregnant?

No, I am saying it would have come out when the mother and her grandmother WANTED it to come out, not because of a sleazy innuendo on the internet. Now that it is out, it is out, you should all do as Obama emplores you to do, just let it go.

Of course, you can’t, can you? So much for Obama’s ability to create unity. By unity, I mean everyone accepting that the liberals are right.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 7:59 PM
Comment #260811

Rhinehold,
“You know that the US handed over control of the Anbar province over to the Iraqi government today, right?”

Right. Saddam Hussein’s people are back in charge, sans Saddam, and we armed them. I think the polite term for the former ‘terrorists’ who became ‘insurgents’ is ‘Awakening Councils.’ They kill Sunni fundamentalists just as well as Saddam’s Baathists used to kill them. What a coincidence!

Posted by: phx8 at September 1, 2008 8:02 PM
Comment #260817

Rhinehold

Actually, I think the right comes off better

I was not my intent to prop up the left on this issue. The intent was to introduce evidence by way of reasoning, of poor judgment by McCain. Obama was quite clear and succinct in the fact that he did not nor does support bringing the family into a smear situation. I agree with him. However that does not exclude Sarah Palin from fair examination and drawn conclusions based on perception of judgment.

It shouldn’t have been an issue so there was no reason to ‘announce it’ beforehand.

It was an issue no matter how you look at it. It existed in reality making it so. Even before it became a media talking point. If indeed McCain knew this before picking her and presenting her, it would have been incredibly naive and irresponsible to not think that this would enter the arena by way of the internet or any media for that matter. Anyone with half a brain knows there is no hiding place for rumor or fact in this day and age.

It is not the McCain campaign that has embarassed the girl on national tv. If the left had not invented a story about Trig being Sarah’s granddaughter, no one would have went looking at Sarah’s daughter. In fact, the left trying to lay all of this at the feet of the McCain campaign is not going to sit well with anyone on the fence, not that they were going to get away from their religion and guns long enough to consider it anyway…

McCain created this situation indirectly via poor judgment as to whether or not to make what would surely become public sooner or later known to the public at the onset of her presentation bio. It would without a doubt have come to the forefront sooner or later. If it had been made public before hand in the proper manner, there would have been no cause for rumor and speculation. He chose that path, he chose to hide what they had to know would be a kink in their campaign. It was his and Palin’s judgment on the matter that allowed it to evolve into what it became.

I am not attempting to exonerate anyone of anything. This is what modern day politics has become. It seems no party is beyond or above the practice of malicious insinuation and accusation. I do not support the practice of marketing false accusation. However Sarah Palin is not immune to fair assessment or question of character. All things questionable must be validated one way or the other where she is concerned.

And to be fair here to both sides of the political spectrum, if this had been one of Obama’s daughters the sanctimonious right wing assess would have been on it like a fly on you know what. That can not be denied while keeping a straight face.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 8:34 PM
Comment #260819

Rhinehold

No, I am saying it would have come out when the mother and her grandmother WANTED it to come out, not because of a sleazy innuendo on the internet. Now that it is out, it is out, you should all do as Obama emplores you to do, just let it go.

If they had waited until they wanted it to come out it would have had the appearance of deception in an effort to mask a situation. A situation that for all intent and purposes may very well alter the vote choice of many people.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 8:43 PM
Comment #260820

It’s confirmed in the mainstream media. Palin belonged to the AIP, which advocates secession and “Alaska first.” Well, hopefully the United States of America ranks highly in her loyalties.

I told you so. She will be gone in less than two weeks. This is what happens when an unknown, insufficiently vetted, unqualified person is thrust into the national spotlight.

McCain is such a dumbass. What horrible judgment!

Posted by: phx8 at September 1, 2008 8:49 PM
Comment #260821

Interesting.

Maybe if she were more mom than politician, she would have elected not to run at this time to afford her daughter some privacy. Guess we know which job is number one in her household.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 1, 2008 8:53 PM
Comment #260822
LO
“Standing up to Republicans” is not effective when done crudely, to poor affect, and in such a way that the mud being tossed at a teenaged girl lands on you.

The double standard here again. I guess from here on we are expected to present all our arguments, observations and questions in an eloquent manner.

My point is not about eloquence. It’s about being effective. What you people are doing is not even effective as sleazy underhanded politics—not when people on your side come out looking worse than the girl and her mother. Even if we put aside all ethical considerations about hounding a girl and her mother with false accusations until you finally do manage to squeeze out something that is true—that the girl is pregnant—whose reputation suffers more? Yours or hers? Even Obama knows this is bad politics for his side and is trying to get as far away from it as possible. Congratulations! You’ve managed to publicly out and humiliate a seventeen year old girl! Now let’s see what your prize will be!

Phx8:

Compare that to something Loyal Opposition has said before: that e-mails attacking Obama in the most scurrilous terms originated with Hillary Clinton. This is a baldfaced lie. I have repudiated that lie with facts, on this blog. I personally know one of the people who writes that trash, a retiree in Florida who used to work for CBS, oddly enough, and I also know the identity of another.

Phx8, I’m ever so sorry that the entire world pays more attention to things widely reported in the media than what you personally have written on this blog. Also, I’m ever so sorry if the world isn’t interested in a). who you know personally and b). your characterizations of those persons. You want to use innuendos spread about Obama during the primary season as justificaton for attacking a young woman and her mother, but everyone knows damn well that during the primary season the Republicans had no reason whatever to spread rumors about Obama, while the Hillary camp had every reason to spread them. Further, any credibility and benefit of the doubt that might otherwise be given you about what you claim to “know personally” is pretty much shot to hell after you’ve spent a full day clinging to and defending this now totally debunked faked pregnancy fairy tale.

In fact, if Republicans had information about Obama being a closet Muslim, we sure as well would have waited until AFTER Obama was the nominee to let it out.

That’s because—you see—when we go after one of your candidates we do it SMART. In a way that works… and that it works is why you people are so besides yourself with frustration over it. Attempting to “even the score” somehow, by showing how fiercely you’re willing to fight back gains you nothing when you choose the wrong battles and then fight them badly.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 1, 2008 8:59 PM
Comment #260823

Rhinehold-
The real question is whether or not Anbar Province wants to be controlled by the mainly Shia central government.

I have long advocated an approach where the outstanding issues of sectarian division are taken care of, for this very reason. The Iraqi Government has been very plain about not wanting the Awakening Movement militias to remain active. Without them, though, the Sunnis feel unprotected. Maliki’s government is arresting leaders among them, and the real question here is the level of forbearance the Sunnis are willing to maintain.

This puts us in a lousy position, to be sure. What do we do if the Anbar Awakening starts killing soldiers from the Maliki government, or whatever Shia militias fight as proxies? Or, put in the terms of one of our soldiers, who the hell do we shoot?

Are we going to oppose the Maliki government, which relies on our support, and which gives our occupation its legitimacy? Are we going to start shooting members of the Sunni Awakening, who up until their desire to make money and destroy al-Qaeda interlopers became greater, were killing our people on a regular basis?

And how will all this shape up, given all the nice, new, powerful weapons we’ve given both sides? Weapons that may end up pointed at our own soldiers?

This is why people like me have our doubts.

That’s why people like me think the surge failed: it’s stated purpose was to resolve these conflicts, to prevent things from coming to these impasses. Given the manpower strain that this war has put on us, especially the surge, there is no feeding troops back in to this fight to calm things down, should the peace turn out to be as fragile as these unfortunate facts seem to make them out to be.

Actually, I think the right comes off better, they were able to deflate the convention bump by Obama and now have the Obama campaign on defense, first retracting their original statement about her experience and then telling his supporters to lay off the family, admitting that his followers are rabid partisan lefties. Now he has to be careful about saying ANYTHING about her for a while so that it doesn’t appear that he is piling on or changing his position.

Please reference his comments above in one of my previous comments. Did you note any place where he called his followers “rabid partisan lefties,” where he even referenced them?

He won’t need to talk about this issue, the media will talk about it plenty. As for deflation of the Convention bounce, Not only is the USAToday Gallup Poll Registering one, his numbers all the way up to 50 right now, but the Sarah Palin selection seems to have underwhelmed voters, and I have a feeling things will get worse.

Right, because I counter the absurdity of the liberal viewpoint when I see it, that makes me a Republican… I had better get my flight ready for the convention.

You’re such a hero! Countering the absurdity of the Liberal viewpoint!

But wouldn’t you be better able to do that if you didn’t rely on the absurdity of Republican viewpoints? You take their word for things on all kinds of different issues. I would think that the value of being an independent is escaping such narrow, partisan viewpoints.

People don’t confuse you with a Republican because of who you oppose, rather, how you oppose it. People are familiar with Republican arguments, and there are plenty of GOP supporters around whose arguments can be compared to yours.

You can’t merely say you’re not a Republican, and then chuck out the very same talking points they use, and not get people thinking that you’re an independent in name only.

Step back, analyze things for yourself. Distinguish your arguments from theirs, and you will distinguish yourself from the Republicans.

As for the trooper? The story is, while Walt Monegan was never directly told to fire the man, the pressure from those around the governor was clear. There’s hard evidence for the communications involved.

Then, having not fired the man, Monegan himself ends up fired. And no, it’s not liberals alleging this, but a former Republican and now independent rival of hers. The evidence is building that something was going on, but of course an investigation is needed to clear things up.

McCain must have been aware that this was going on. Was he even concerned that it might look somewhat bad to have an ongoing investigation, especially one that requires lawyering up, be in the current list of concerns for a VP candidate? Even if not true, McCain should have fulfilled the basic ethical obligation for a President, which is avoiding the appearance, not merely the reality, of impropriety.

I know more about these things than you think.

By the way: ABC News has confirmed that Palin was once a member of the Secessionist Alaska Independence Party. She even attended the 1994 convention.

If the Republicans spin this choice, it will be the first time in its history that the Party of Lincoln will have supported a secessionist for Vice President.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2008 9:01 PM
Comment #260824

I know this is off thread, but this thread is about worn out anyway.

Cindy McPain said, at the RNC Convention today, “It’s time we took off our Republican hats and put on our American hats”.

Remember how much of a fuss there was about Michelle ‘O’, when she said that for the first time she was proud to be an American? Remember how she was immediately depicted with an automatic rifle on her shoulder. Now Cindy says she just became American, all the rest of the time she’s been just a Republican…does that mean Republicans are not, as a rule, American???

Just asking…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 1, 2008 9:31 PM
Comment #260825

LO

Even Obama knows this is bad politics for his side and is trying to get as far away from it as possible. Congratulations! You’ve managed to publicly out and humiliate a seventeen year old girl! Now let’s see what your prize will be!

Please visit these comments in response to your ever so sanctimonious reply.
Comment #260800
Comment #260817

In fact, I made no insinuations anywhere that accused her daughter of anything. You will find that I was interested in outing no one other than perhaps a mother who happens to be the republican VP candidate who did not have the good judgment to present a possible vote altering fact. She chose instead to accept a position of absolute transparency and instead tried to hide what would most assuredly alter the views of many voters by simple way of obvious deception. If she were truly concerned about her daughter being outed she should never have agreed to accept the position. She in essence chose politics over her family. In any event it showed either poor judgment or incredible naivete and probably both.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 9:33 PM
Comment #260827
As for deflation of the Convention bounce,

CNN and Rasmussen disagree with ABC, in every group of polls I see ABC about 5 points out of whack with everyone else for Obama. If you want to rely on their polling, fine, but CNN has it now even statistically again, Rasmussen has it a 3 point margain, both under 50%.

Like I said in another article, whatever helps you sleep at night I suppose.

Step back, analyze things for yourself. Distinguish your arguments from theirs, and you will distinguish yourself from the Republicans.

I have on many occassions. Are you suggesting that I have to now, before every comment I make, say something negative about a Republican in order to be able to say something negative about a Democrat?

Oh, this must be that Fairness Doctrine I’ve heard so much about, one that is not only unconsitutional IMO but makes the absurd suggestion, as do you, that there are only two sides to the debate.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 9:37 PM
Comment #260828

dude

It did come across as kind of an absurd statement didn’t it. I heard her husband say the same thing this morning or last night. Can’t remember. I don’t know what context Cindy was using it in. But I think her husband meant it was time to drop the politics and come together as Americans in a time of need, in reference to the hurricane.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 9:46 PM
Comment #260829

Poor Rhinehold…please everyone, please, please, please, quit jumping on him for his right leaning comments, and making those false accusations against him as if he is a Republican. We all know he is independent. And, if you keep it up, he’ll hate Democrats even more and vote for McPain in a fit af pique.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 1, 2008 9:48 PM
Comment #260830

Is there any basis for comments that Gov Palin may withdraw from being nominated VP to spare her family and her husband any further intense scrutiny?

Posted by: n9949y at September 1, 2008 9:50 PM
Comment #260831
As for the trooper? The story is, while Walt Monegan was never directly told to fire the man

Good admission

the pressure from those around the governor was clear. There’s hard evidence for the communications involved.

The hard evidence is the transcript of a phone call that, as the aide admitted, could be taken as pressure if read a certain way. She says it was not intended that way. That is for the courts to decide, but that wasn’t Gov. Palin, it was an aide.

Then, having not fired the man, Monegan himself ends up fired.

Yes, and Gov Palin gave several reasons why. In fact, he was offered another job.

And no, it’s not liberals alleging this, but a former Republican and now independent rival of hers.

Yes, in an environment where she had angered and went against her own party. You know, the whole change thing in actual action, not just talk? You don’t think that the party was wanting to get revenge on her in the least little bit?

The evidence is building that something was going on, but of course an investigation is needed to clear things up.

Yes, there was. The Trooper was making death threats to her sister, her family and herself. Her husband spoke to Monegan to make him aware of the issue going on. He did not ask for the Trooper to be fired, but did want to make sure Monegan knew about it. Other aides were making sure of the same thing. Palin says she never talked to Monegan about the Trooper at all, though it appears she may have mentioned him in passing on the courthouse steps after talking about other things, we do not know.

McCain must have been aware that this was going on.

Most likely, yes. It wasn’t hidden from anyone…

Was he even concerned that it might look somewhat bad to have an ongoing investigation, especially one that requires lawyering up, be in the current list of concerns for a VP candidate? Even if not true, McCain should have fulfilled the basic ethical obligation for a President, which is avoiding the appearance, not merely the reality, of impropriety.

First, even if she is 1000% innocent, you’re suggesting that she should not have a lawyer? That would patently stupid, I hope we can agree she is not that.

Perhaps he has the evidence or belief that this is an attempt by a clearly unstable Trooper making accusations against someone for revenge? Should he use his judgement in feeling she is innocent or play it safe and let a good VP (in his view) pick not be allowed to go through the campaign with him just because of accusations without merit?

The only person who thinks that Monegan was fired for not firing the Trooper (who STILL has his job) is the Trooper and his union rep (well, he may not believe it but he is going to make political hay of it).

I know more about these things than you think.

That assumes you know what I think.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 9:50 PM
Comment #260832

RickIL,

Yeah, that’s why she made the statement. I was just trying to show how a similar statement was abused so strongly when Mrs. ‘O’ made it.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 1, 2008 9:50 PM
Comment #260833

dude

Does that mean us liberals have to take something off to be considered Americans to. I hope not. My feet stink, I am about half bald, my figure isn’t exactly desirable and my shorts probably have a faint brown streak in them by this time of day. :-)

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 9:53 PM
Comment #260834
And, if you keep it up, he’ll hate Democrats even more and vote for McPain in a fit af pique.

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/006137.html#260338

RickIL, again, thank you and there is a difference between saying that I may do something in a fit of anger and actually doing it.

No, I have no real desire or plan to vote for McCain. He as at odds with my views as much as Obama is so it would make no sense. But the way that many Obama’s supporters are acting just infuriates me, especially when they acted indignant for being treated almost as bad by Bush supporters four years ago. You would think they would have remembered how that felt…

Let no one say that the left has no problem speaking before knowing all of the facts.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 9:53 PM
Comment #260835

Palins experience makes Obama look like a novice. She has taken on corruption, fought her own parties corruption, run a state, national guard, small town.

And Obama gave a speech and his big hope is that a woman who has far more experience than him can be smeared as having no experience?

Obama has turned into just another radical left wing socialist promising the world and we know if he gives it, it will cost us all a fortune. Oh that’s right, he’s going to massively expand government and give everyone a tax break too! LAUGH.

Sorry, Plain makes Obama look too inexperienced to run.

Posted by: Stephen L at September 1, 2008 9:55 PM
Comment #260836

Investigation of what? That she fired someone who refused to do their jog? LAUGH. Investigation over. But good for smearing her character by pretending she did something horrible until the election is over right? So much for “change” and “hope” it’s just the same old, dishonest, smearing, far left grab for power.

Posted by: Stephen L at September 1, 2008 9:57 PM
Comment #260837

dude

I know what you were implying. I am tired and my head hurts so I just couldn’t come up with a good lead for you. Sorry. Have you checked out the links to the Sarah pictures. There is one in which she is standing beside a pool in an all American bikini holding a hunting rifle above her head with a huge smile on her face. There is a fella standing behind her sipping on a beer and another sitting at the pool with a rifle on his lap. It is pretty hilarious and descriptive. The links if I remember correctly are somewhere in this thread.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 10:00 PM
Comment #260838

Rhinehold

Anytime. ;-)

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 10:03 PM
Comment #260839

>Sorry, Plain makes Obama look too inexperienced to run.

Posted by: Stephen L at September 1, 2008 09:55 PM

Stephen L,

You are oh, so right…Mrs. Palin has a LOT of experience…I just wish it was the kind a world leader could use.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 1, 2008 10:03 PM
Comment #260840

>The links if I remember correctly are somewhere in this thread.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 10:00 PM

RickIL,

I’ll probably be gone a week, looking for your links…have you seen the number of entries in this thread I have to research through? See ya later…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 1, 2008 10:07 PM
Comment #260842

Rhinehold

But the way that many Obama’s supporters are acting just infuriates me, especially when they acted indignant for being treated almost as bad by Bush supporters four years ago. You would think they would have remembered how that felt

I think that is part of the cause. They do remember how it felt. It has been simmering for four years. They are human just like yourself. You must remember there is a lot of pent up age old anger there that has to be released. Top that off with a big dose of directional right wing sanctimonious indignation and you have created a melting pot of malicious insinuation spewing forth from both sides. I have no idea when it will end. It is not pretty and it is mostly non productive. But no one side is any less guilty than the other. It is like arguing with a wife. The argument will never officially be over and the wife may be the loser, but the husband will never admit it.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 10:16 PM
Comment #260843

dude

I found the link Bikini Hunter

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 10:23 PM
Comment #260844

BTW, this is a link to the phone call that is the ‘evidence’. Don’t listen to what others say, just listen to yourself and decide for yourself.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Data/Wooten.mp3

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 10:26 PM
Comment #260845

and I just came back to give you the links, too…dude.

http://thebruceblog.wordpress.com/

Posted by: janedoe at September 1, 2008 10:27 PM
Comment #260846
The Republicans have no problem in letting rumors fester. There is nothing new about the BS that Kirk is offering, or others. It’s what the Republican did last time with Kerry.

The Republicans have come to know that the leftists will slime them (as proven by phx8, VV, tcsned, janedoe et. al. in this thread) and burn them if given half the chance, and have come to believe that if they are not as quick on the draw on laying down the fire on their opponents, they will lose, and Democrats sliming of Bill’s victims, and Rathergate only prove to strengthen these beliefs

So, I provide information on a Federal Law Suit filed by a past Chairman of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party and it is BS. Yet the leftists here run with rumor and innuendo and I see nothing from you telling them it is BS which it has been proven to be. I know you will point to the fact that you have been very careful about how you comment on this and I appreciate that. It is good to see someone show some restraint for once. However, showing restraint and telling people to stop the BS until the facts are know are two different things.

Posted by: Kirk at September 1, 2008 10:28 PM
Comment #260848

A secessionist for VP? Well, we’re on new ground here. I’m not even sure where to go with that. Normally, Republicans seem so very, very concerned with patriotism and loyalty to the United States of America. And Loyal Opposition informs us that Sarah Palin has been thoroughly vetted! What conclusion can we possibly draw about this? After all, we all know what Loyal Oppostion’s credibility is worth. Goodness, I’m confused. Nominating a candidate who was, say, a socialist or a communist, well, that would be pretty controversial. But while socialists and communists may want to change the economic system, Sarah Palin goes one step farther. It’s confirmed that Sarah Palin participated in the AIP. She has belonged to a group that wants to leave the US altogether. Gosh! It takes all kinds, I suppose. I just never thought I’d see a major political party nominate a secessionist for high office. It’s not illegal, I supposed. Just different.

Posted by: phx8 at September 1, 2008 10:34 PM
Comment #260851

Rhinehold-
Rasmussen, Gallup, and CBS all have his numbers within the same range. The rise is real. Even in the poll you site, the numbers are an improvement. the marks on the convention, the speech, and all it intended to do are fairly high. It did its job.

In the Monegan case, you’re employing an ad hominem reponse, without considering another possibility: if you wished to screw another politician, what better way to screw them than with the truth?

As for the party that was wanting revenge, I think if you browse the comments, you’ll find references to her work LEADING a 527 that supported now indicted Sen. Ted Stevens. You’ll also find, if you do some research, that as Mayor, she sought out porkbarrel projects for her community, in the election, she advocated for the Infamous Bridget To Nowhere, and only dumped it once it became clear the feds weren’t going to fund it.

As far as the sister goes, that stuff may or may not be true. As one blogger put it, you have be very careful about the accusations coming out of a bitter divorce proceeding, especially with custody as a question. There are legal, legitimate means of dealing with personnel who have real problems. Unless you want to pave a path for the corrupt to exploit at the expense of the innocent, due process must be kept.

As far as how this affects McCain, that’s mainly a political question, but I don’t see how he can successfully part ways with the corrupt Republican leadership if his VP pick is under investigation, even if it really is nothing. It used to be that politicians in the Republican party exercised the good sense to avoid people with such problems.

Stephen L-
The experience that got her in the Governor’s mansion was running a 527 for Ted Stevens, the corrupt Senator just recently indicted.

She ran a small town. Into the ground, as I understand it, leaving it twenty million in debt (no mean trick for a town of only 8000 people). As for the National Guard, that was never really so much under her control, and she was never briefed by them.

She didn’t fire somebody who refused to do their job. Some guy told her that he couldn’t fire a particular somebody under the laws of the state, that it might look funny if they waited for an opportunity to do so.

This is her experience: small town politics run amok, firing people left and right for not being team players with her, emphasizing loyalty over things getting done.

Obama has her beat, and McCain with her.

By the way, did you get the news? It’s been confirmed that Palin belonged to a party that favored the Secession of Alaska from the United States, or at the very least, the vote to allow that to be done.

When did the party of Lincoln start recruiting from the ranks of Secessionists?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2008 10:36 PM
Comment #260853
the numbers are an improvement.

Erm, CNN had it statistically a tie and now they have it statistically a tie. Rasmussen had it as a 1 point advantage for Obama and now it is a 2-3 point advantage.

Is this really the kind of bump you were looking for?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 10:41 PM
Comment #260854

Stephen D

When did the party of Lincoln start recruiting from the ranks of Secessionists?

I am curious, has this been reported in any national news media?

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 10:43 PM
Comment #260856

dude

Just thought it would be appropriate to point out that it was janedoe who originally provided the link. She deserves the credit.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 10:47 PM
Comment #260858

RickIL, janedoe,

Thanks a bunch for the link…what a hoot. I just placed it as my wallpaper with a caption ‘Our Next Vice President’.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 1, 2008 10:49 PM
Comment #260859

>Is this really the kind of bump you were looking for?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 10:41 PM

Rhinehold,

In todays world we’ll take any bump we can get. It just makes it harder for McPain to catch up. If he was down a point or two, and lost three or four more, he now has to bounce six or so just to come out even, and even probably won’t cut it with all that’s going on at this time. How long until the election???

Posted by: Marysdude at September 1, 2008 10:54 PM
Comment #260860

RickIL-
It’s right here.

Rhinehold-
He’s got six point leads in a number of the tracking polls. Polls are statistical samplings, and unless you have some statistical background that will allow you to tell me which are better than which, just selecting one poll is an exercise in cherrypicking. All polls have Obama nearer to fifty, within about two or three points. McCain’s support seems much more variable, fluctuating six points between polls. If you look at the Gallup Tracking poll, you’ll see that he’s opened up and kept a significant lead since the convention has begun. The fact that he’s finally gotten to fifty in a polls should give you pause.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 1, 2008 10:54 PM
Comment #260863

dude

No problem, we do need to be able to see the more humorous side of things here once in a while. Did you see the cocktail outfit pic? A fella could apply a lot of euphemisms to that one. But I won’t go there, at least not here in public. ;-)

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 10:56 PM
Comment #260865

McCain’s campaign came out with a slogan, “America First.” The slogan of the Alaska Independence Party is “Alaska First— Alaska Always.” Maybe the new slogan of the McCain/Palin campaign could be “America: A close second!”

Posted by: phx8 at September 1, 2008 11:00 PM
Comment #260866

All of a sudden I am getting a message that my posts are being held because I am a first time poster and will be approved when convienent.

Posted by: Kirk at September 1, 2008 11:01 PM
Comment #260867
He’s got six point leads in a number of the tracking polls

Read: 1

unless you have some statistical background that will allow you to tell me which are better than which, just selecting one poll is an exercise in cherrypicking

Well, in the last two elections, and then some, rasmussen has been the most accurate. I would think that they would be the ones setting the standard until they are proven wrong, don’t you think?

The fact that he’s finally gotten to fifty in a polls should give you pause

Why?

Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry emerged from his national convention with a small lead over President Bush in the race for the White House and improved his standing against the president on the economy and who is better qualified to serve as commander in chief, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The poll showed Kerry with the support of 50 percent of all registered voters, compared with 44 percent for Bush, with independent Ralph Nader at 2 percent. On the eve of the convention, Bush led Kerry 48 percent to 46 percent.

It’s like you’re telling me that it’s all over and the landslide is coming. I seem to remember something simliar a while back…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 11:05 PM
Comment #260868

Oh drat, the McCain slogan was “Country First.” Ok, how about: “Alaska First, America- er, not so much.”

Or even better: “America- for the time being.”

Posted by: phx8 at September 1, 2008 11:06 PM
Comment #260869

Stephen D

Thanks. This is very telling. I am going to post a bit of the article here in an effort to see what kind of response it gets. I am tired and this ol brain is cutting in and out, so I am not quite sure what to make of this other than it goes in direct opposition of what she now states with respect to her support of republican ideology.

“Earlier this year, Palin sent a video message to the AIP for its annual convention, where AIP vice chair George Clark told the small crowd that Palin “was an AIP member before she got the job as a mayor of a small town –- that was a non-partisan job. But you get along to go along -– she eventually joined the Republican Party, where she had all kinds of problems with their ethics, and well, I won’t go into that. She also had about an 80 percent approval rating, and is pretty well sympathetic to her former membership.”

Lynette Clark says that Palin is “a fine individual. She’s forthright and she puts Alaska first.”

She is not a fan of McCain.

“I can’t understand why in God’s name she has aligned herself with a candidate who opposes the development of our republic and Alaska’s resource wealth,” Clark says.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 11:06 PM
Comment #260870

>McCain’s campaign came out with a slogan, “America First.” The slogan of the Alaska Independence Party is “Alaska First-Alaska Always.” Maybe the new slogan of the McCain/Palin campaign could be, ‘America: A close second!”

Posted by: phx8 at September 1, 2008 11:00 PM

phx8,

Now, that’s funny…and maybe the reason Cindy McPain thinks that during the bad weather situation Republicans should change into Americans.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 1, 2008 11:08 PM
Comment #260871

that tape of the guy calling the cops is hilarious.

That must be what the “liberals” here sound like to you. The difference is that this guy is real!

Posted by: bandman at September 1, 2008 11:13 PM
Comment #260873

I wonder how Obama is going to deal with Biden though…

First, he says he is not going to be doing any campaigning for president today (a gaffe, that’s ok, expect more though).

Then he starts … campaigning.

I am not sure I understand the logic there. Obama and Biden both say that today was going to be free from campaigning but there he was, blasting the current administration and McCain.

I guess who know who Biden puts first.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 11:26 PM
Comment #260874

VV posted:

It’s absolutely ridiculous. No reputable doctor would have ever let her leave the ground in an airplane after her water broke. NONE.

and

But the fact is, no reputable doctor would have ever let her fly if her water was breaking.

Wow VV, a doctor would not allow her? What ever happened to a woman having choices over her reproductive organs?

Karla posted:

I think a mother of a 5mth old baby with a disability and a 17 year old pregnant daughter should have her priorities with her family. As a vice president what quantity and quality time will Sarah Palin have for her family. It gives me the impression that what comes first in Sarah Palin’s life is Sarah Palin. The breakdown in the American family is in part to self-centered parents who meet their needs before their children. As a high school teacher everyday I see students who suffer from this type of parental behavior.

So Karla, would this be the same kind of neglect suffered by Joe Biden’s kids after their mother was killed in an auto accident and their dad still carried out his Congressional duties? Or like the neglect that Obama’s girls will suffer if their father becomes president? I would venture to say that being president would be even more demanding on ones time than being VP.

Max posted:

Also, why did they say she was against the bridge to nowhere when very clearly she was not? Had she been vetted, it would have been clear this was a very problematic claim to make.

Max, I will take it that I can expect to see you questioning why Obama said that he would have voted in favor of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act if he had been in the US Senate when it came to a vote, when records show that he voted against a nearly identical bill 3 times while in the Illinois Senate. Once after the federal bill had already been passed.

We have (collectively) been lied to, raped and pillaged, led into an unnecessary, unfounded and unsubstantiated war

You know this would be laughable if not so blatantly revisionist history. Never and I repeat never during the debate on this issue did the Republicans have the votes needed to pass the authorization bill on their own. Those on the left seem to forget that many Democrats (including the vast majority of the Democratic leadership) said the same things said by the Republicans before, during and after the votes. If you are going to lay blame be honest enought to lay it at the feet of everyone who supported the bills not just the Republicans.

For those of you who keep harping on maybe Palin’s daughter would not be pregnant if she had only had sex ed in school. Please see below taken from the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development listing the approved Sex Education curicullum.

The Get Real About AIDS program was first developed in 1988 to help prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, and AIDS among high-school-aged young people. It was updated in 1992 and further revised in 1994 when the curriculum was designated by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as a “Program That Works.” The 14-session program includes training in basic sexuality, abstinence, and contraception education as well as training in behavioral skills.


SAFER CHOICES (SC) is a comprehensive intervention to reduce the number of students engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse by reducing the number of students who initiate or have sex during their high school years, and by increasing the use of latex condoms and other birth control methods among those students who do have sex.


The Making A Difference! curriculum has three major components focusing on goals Making A Difference! An Abstinence Based Approach to Prevention of STDs, HIV and Teen Pregnancy is an eight-module curriculum that provides young adolescents with the knowledge, confidence, and skills necessary to reduce their risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), HIV, and pregnancy by abstaining from sex.


Making Proud Choices! A Safer Sex Approach to STDs, Teen Pregnancy, and HIV Prevention is an eight-module curriculum that provides young adolescents with the knowledge, confidence, and skills necessary to reduce their risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), HIV, and pregnancy by abstaining from sex or using condoms if they choose to have sex.


Respecting Healthy Sexuality This publication is part of the Teenage Health Teaching Modules, a comprehensive health education curriculum for middle and high school students. The six sessions for grades 9 and 10 focus on assessing sexuality-related messages, using values to draw the line in relationships, and exploring the rights and responsibilities of healthy sexuality. The six sessions for grades 11 and 12 focus on essential skills for developing healthy relationships, dealing with challenging situations, and thinking about intimacy in relationships. The module emphasizes abstinence and refusal of unprotected sexual intercourse. It also provides guidance for teachers in developing a comprehensive approach to sexuality education by integrating exemplary curricula on pregnancy prevention, HIV/AIDS, and other sexuality topics.

All but one of the curriculums do indeed teach contraception and safe sex. The last one listed is a publication used in conjunction with the other curriculum.

Posted by: Kirk at September 1, 2008 11:27 PM
Comment #260876

VV posted:

It’s absolutely ridiculous. No reputable doctor would have ever let her leave the ground in an airplane after her water broke. NONE.

and

But the fact is, no reputable doctor would have ever let her fly if her water was breaking.

Wow VV, a doctor would not allow her? What ever happened to a woman having choices over her reproductive organs?

Karla posted:

I think a mother of a 5mth old baby with a disability and a 17 year old pregnant daughter should have her priorities with her family. As a vice president what quantity and quality time will Sarah Palin have for her family. It gives me the impression that what comes first in Sarah Palin’s life is Sarah Palin. The breakdown in the American family is in part to self-centered parents who meet their needs before their children. As a high school teacher everyday I see students who suffer from this type of parental behavior.

So Karla, would this be the same kind of neglect suffered by Joe Biden’s kids after their mother was killed in an auto accident and their dad still carried out his Congressional duties? Or like the neglect that Obama’s girls will suffer if their father becomes president? I would venture to say that being president would be even more demanding on ones time than being VP.

Posted by: Kirk at September 1, 2008 11:29 PM
Comment #260877

Max posted:

Also, why did they say she was against the bridge to nowhere when very clearly she was not? Had she been vetted, it would have been clear this was a very problematic claim to make.

Max, I will take it that I can expect to see you questioning why Obama said that he would have voted in favor of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act if he had been in the US Senate when it came to a vote, when records show that he voted against a nearly identical bill 3 times while in the Illinois Senate. Once after the federal bill had already been passed.


Don’t recall who posted the following:

We have (collectively) been lied to, raped and pillaged, led into an unnecessary, unfounded and unsubstantiated war

You know this would be laughable if not so blatantly revisionist history. Never and I repeat never during the debate on this issue did the Republicans have the votes needed to pass the authorization bill on their own. Those on the left seem to forget that many Democrats (including the vast majority of the Democratic leadership) said the same things said by the Republicans before, during and after the votes. If you are going to lay blame be honest enought to lay it at the feet of everyone who supported the bills not just the Republicans.

Posted by: Kirk at September 1, 2008 11:30 PM
Comment #260882
A secessionist for VP? Well, we’re on new ground here.

Phx8 and others who are now changing the subject to this fresh absurdity, I hope you can do better with proving that Governor Palin is a “secessionist” than you’ve done with the absurd claim that she faked a pregnancy.

Your desperate attempts to move from one disproven laugh-attack to the next only shows how much fear you have for Governor Palin.

First of all, can you point to even ONE SINGLE statement or decision in Palin’s political career which even hints at the idea that she wants Alaska to secede from the union? No? I didn’t think so. As an elected official, she’s been nothing but a Republican and has never said anything—ever—about wanting to secede.

Futhermore, the AIP, contrary to what you folks are uncritically saying—because you’ve read it, along with a lot of other fake garbage on the Daily Kos—is not simply a “secession party.”

A previous governor of the state of Alaska was even a member of the party, and he didn’t want, believe in, or work for Alaskan secession, and not everyone in the AIP does want that. Some merely want the option to VOTE for that, as was part of their charter when they joined the United States. This is actually something that’s also the case with Texas, as some might know. They entered the union under the stipulation that they could opt out, and the subject occasionally comes up—more, really, as a point of state pride than an actual goal. But I digress…

The AIP’s platform contains the following:

“The Alaskan Independence Party’s goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:

1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.”

They are not demanding independence. They simply want to preserve that as one of four options.

But all of that is irrelevant as Governor Palin is NOT a member of that party and has never said that she wants to secede. And even if she HAD been a member of that party, that is NOT the only view held by members of that party… as evidenced by a former Alaskan governor who was a member who didn’t want to secede.

But whatever. You guys are seriously becoming a parody of desperation at this point with all of these absurd and far-fetched allegations.

Just TRY to make this stick.

Barack Obama has FAR closer affiliations with known and unapologetic terrorist bombers and members of the Nation of Islam than Palin has with the AIP. And frankly, even if Palin was a member of the AIP ever—which is vaguely substantiated at best—nobody in the country is going to freaking CARE.

Just go on believing that one possibility in a list of four on that party’s platform is as potent as the Reverend Wrights statement of “God Damn America!” Honestly, I’m starting to feel sorry for you guys.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 1, 2008 11:48 PM
Comment #260889

Well LO, you had one comment correct in your last post, and that is that I, for one, am afraid of Sarah Palin. She scares the hell out of me, and I didn’t think anyone could move into that position because McCain was in it!!

Posted by: janedoe at September 2, 2008 12:10 AM
Comment #260890

LO

While I find the contention that Palin is a secessionist probably a bit absurd, in Texas, the right of Texas to secede is a bragging right, if not a serious position. The pregnancy story was founded somewhat in fact. It was off target a little, but she WAS hiding her daughter’s pregnancy. Apparently the press knew something about a daughter’s pregnancy, but it was still being denied up until today. So we do know she started out lying to the press. Oops.

At least you’ve admitted the absurdity of Obama’s anti-American terrorist rumors spread by the right.

I guess this is your way of a mea culpa.

I guess a right wing light weight will make a great VP for a senile candidate.

The Dems just have the best speaker since Kennedy and a seasoned senator.

I’m sure the Dems appreciate your sympathy. I’m sure it’s completely sincere.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 2, 2008 12:11 AM
Comment #260892

Hey dude, hope you enjoy that new desktop!
I wish I had gotten the one that I found at about the same time….of her sitting in the snow showing off a freshly killed caribou, complete with the blood all over everything.
I don’t understand the blood lust, I guess, and I used to hunt! Was never a threat on the deer population, but loved the scenery and was a good blocker. Grew up around pheasants…in the field and on the table, so the first one of those I bagged wasn’t too traumatic, but my first dove…was my last! If I went out after that, it was only to sit in the truck, listening to music and drinking coffee. I think the only time I could kill without second thought or remorse, would be to protect my family.

Posted by: janedoe at September 2, 2008 12:20 AM
Comment #260893
Apparently the press knew something about a daughter’s pregnancy, but it was still being denied up until today. So we do know she started out lying to the press. Oops.

Googlumpugus, that is total BULL CRAP. When was it ever DENIED that Bristol Palin was pregnant?

That is just despicable beyond the pale. Who ever told such a lie, and since when is a candidate for office supposed to proactively give a laundry list of every potentially embarrassing fact about their family members, even their teenage family members, to the press within the first hours of their candidacy? Lest they be accused of “lying.”

What a freaking joke.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 2, 2008 12:26 AM
Comment #260898

Rhinehold-
He was as good as his word. The only big speech he gave was about fifteen minutes long. And what a speech to give in that time. I think you’ll hear the term “quiet storms”, and that ending in a lot of places.

Take a look at my newest post if you want to see the Republican’s version of respectful solemnity.

Kirk-
When a woman’s water has broken, that baby’s ready to come out. It’s no time to go up in a plane. At that point, the woman’s right to choose yields to a woman’s reflex to give birth.

As for Biden, He was sworn in from his kid’s hospital bedsides. He took the train back to his home on a four hour commute every day Congress was in session.

The Born Alive Infant Protection Act is a waste of time. They don’t kill a child born live after an abortion attempt. I believe in such late term abortions, a doctor is present for that eventuality. But you should understand that such events are exceedingly rare. First, most abortions are performed in the earliest weeks of development. The number done later in the term, at the thresholds of viability are rare themselves. Second, many late term abortions deal with fetuses that are stillborn, or nonviable, so healthcare won’t exactly be helpful.

As for the authorization bill? Let me put it plainly: the Bush administration got that authorization by less than honest means, manipulating public sentiment with expert opinions bought and paid for, manipulating intelligence to make a case for their predetermined policy position, and making the authorization a political issue in an election held not much more than a year after 9/11. Some Democrats may have voted for it, but nearly all Republicans did the same, and they led they charge.

Not just that, but they continued and continue to push it. Wrong with company is still wrong.

LO-
I can tell when the facts have hit a nerve with you. The adjectives start multiplying. The Party’s platform does offer multiple options, but the point of that, if you listen to the core party members is that they think the vote will be for independence. Not everybody who joins is for secession, but the party can be gently described as a nationalist party without a nation.

Still, that she was part of a party where that was a major position is a problem. Your party is the party of Lincoln, a President who fought to prevent states from Seceding from the union.

You might bring up Ayers, but there’s no indication that Obama was ever part of the Weather Underground, much less could have been a part of it. They worked together on a non-profit organization’s board, working on education, working with Republicans and bankers and other prominent members of the community.

Obama has no direct connections to the Nation of Islam. He protested his pastor’s giving an award to Farrakhan.

The relevant question arises: When Sarah Palin says “Country First”, which country is she speaking of?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 2, 2008 12:47 AM
Comment #260901

LO
lesse, Palin introduced 29th, questions being asked the 30th, the first an admission. Lying by Omission is still lying. No one considered this might be a question? Stupid or Dishonest? Didn’t we end up having to ask this about Bush? I think Senile or Dishonest was the Reagan question. Did McCain know or just not care? Ahh…. The family values team.

What amazes me is the retinue of Republicans telling the press to lay off the daughter. Why didn’t anyone advise Palin to not accept the nomination? Doesn’t that seem like a wise choice? Oh I forgot, we’re not supposed to talk about her bad choices. I think the daughter is off limits. The stupidity , “Barracuda” like aggression, and spin machine of a power driven, shallow mother isn’t.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 2, 2008 12:56 AM
Comment #260911

Well, it’s been a fun political weekend. Within days of announcing Palin as the GOP VP nominee, it has become obvious she was not vetted (there are several articles on the failed process already, and why it failed- google away and choose your poison, fascinating stuff), and a handful of scandals are already bubbling away.

Troopergate is developing nicely. Palin has lawyered up, and supposedly there are some interesting e-mails coming into play in the next day or two. However, the legal nature of the problem will make the development of the scandal slow. Stay tuned…

That Palin served as a Director for a Ted Stevens 527 is odd. Now it also turns out Palin managed a few earmarks. And of course, she was all in favor of the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. As of now, these seem more like gotchas which undermine her political reason d’etre, and not much more.

The newest mess is her participation in the Alaska Independence Party. That strikes me as a career killer. We’ll see.

Will Palin resign? There is a lot of heated discussion on the internet tubes. I think she will resign, but McCain will have to punt quickly if there’s any hope of recovering.

There are some good arguments for keeping her, no matter how embarrassing the vetting becomes. The fundamentalist right loves Palin, and if McCain dumps her, his chances of winning will decline. The longer he waits, the less chance there is of recovering from the embarrassment. Then again, it would be in keeping with the character of the fundamentalist right to attempt to gut it out, and ‘stay the course,’ no matter how painful and humiliating it becomes. Fundie rightwinger, Fundie rightwinger, Terry Schiavo is holding on line two.

Personally, I think McCain will behave like a politician. He won’t get reliable advice from his campaign because they’re too invested in this mistake. It will be a circular firing squad. However, his wife Cindy and the big money allied with her are capable of being more flexible, and it should be easier for them to obtain a perspective. If they dump Palin fast enough, a new VP nomination might save the campaign bacon. If it’s bold enough, say someone like Lieberman, it would dominate the news cycle and keep Obama off the radar… sort of a ‘bad publicity is better than none’ approach, which is actually a pretty good idea when the opponent is as charismatic and dominating as Obama.

Furthermore, I think McCain will dump her because there is enough time left, a proverbial two month political eternity. There are three presidential debates, and Bush might oblige with an October surprise as well. McCain barely knows Palin. He’s not as emotionally invested in her as many others around him, and McCain doesn’t strike me as the passive type…

Posted by: phx8 at September 2, 2008 1:13 AM
Comment #260914

phx8:

She will be gone in less than two weeks. This is what happens when an unknown, insufficiently vetted, unqualified person is thrust into the national spotlight.

McCain is such a dumbass. What horrible judgment!

I’ll have you know that suggesting that McCain is a dumbass with horrible judgment just because he made a hasty decision without a single shred of actual information about Palin, other than ogling a picture of her wearing an incredibly tight skirt (and following a panic attack while watching Obama’s acceptance speech), must be viewed as a base attack on his record of service to this country!!!

:^D You’ve been having such fun since I last checked in, that I just had to join you!

Ok, how about: “Alaska First, America- er, not so much.” Or even better: “America- for the time being.”

How about: “Alaska First, America — Well… If It’ll Further My Career.”

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 2, 2008 1:23 AM
Comment #260916
Lying by Omission is still lying.

WTF?

So, should she come out and detail that her other daughter just got her period last week? I mean, someone might find out and report it so let’s make sure to put it out there now!

What a joke…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2008 1:24 AM
Comment #260919

Honestly, there have been so many revelations today about Palin that it’s been almost like watching an episode of the Jerry Springer Show!

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 2, 2008 1:33 AM
Comment #260920

VV,
Oh year. I forgot. He was a POW.

McCain’s predicament is really something.
The resolution will tell us a lot about the future of the GOP. If McCain sticks with Palin, it tells us the right wing fundamentalists are in firm control. If McCain dumps her, it tells us the relatively moderate corporatist fascists still control the money strings and the real power.

My guess? Money talks. And Cindy McCain is all about money, and she is removed enough from the donnybrook to give clear advice. But her faction’s money had better talk fast.

Posted by: phx8 at September 2, 2008 1:34 AM
Comment #260921

How about:

“Country on first, with one out.”

Posted by: phx8 at September 2, 2008 1:37 AM
Comment #260922

No, it isn’t a joke, but realistic.

If you were a campaign director for a national campaign, would your advice be to hide it?

If so, you would make a joke of a campaign director.

It could have been proactively handled. She chose to accept this nomination. Time to have a discussion with daughter about the consequences of mommy’s move. A sympathetic interview could have been set up.

I don’t think this will hurt her, she responded fairly quickly. But it was a dumb omission. It was a dumb attempt to lie about and hide this.

What I think the worst consequence of this will be, is that her daughter will likely resent her for this decision. We won’t see this consequence for a few years.

The smart back story is going to be how she ignored her family’s needs, but she’ll likely fade like Quail after her loss.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 2, 2008 1:39 AM
Comment #260924

For those of you who keep harping on how maybe Palin’s daughter would not be pregnant if she had only had sex ed in school. Please see below taken from the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development listing the approved Sex Education curicullum.

The Get Real About AIDS program was first developed in 1988 to help prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, and AIDS among high-school-aged young people. It was updated in 1992 and further revised in 1994 when the curriculum was designated by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as a “Program That Works.” The 14-session program includes training in basic sexuality, abstinence, and contraception education as well as training in behavioral skills.


SAFER CHOICES (SC) is a comprehensive intervention to reduce the number of students engaging in unprotected sexual intercourse by reducing the number of students who initiate or have sex during their high school years, and by increasing the use of latex condoms and other birth control methods among those students who do have sex.


The Making A Difference! curriculum has three major components focusing on goals Making A Difference! An Abstinence Based Approach to Prevention of STDs, HIV and Teen Pregnancy is an eight-module curriculum that provides young adolescents with the knowledge, confidence, and skills necessary to reduce their risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), HIV, and pregnancy by abstaining from sex.


Making Proud Choices! A Safer Sex Approach to STDs, Teen Pregnancy, and HIV Prevention is an eight-module curriculum that provides young adolescents with the knowledge, confidence, and skills necessary to reduce their risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), HIV, and pregnancy by abstaining from sex or using condoms if they choose to have sex.


Respecting Healthy Sexuality This publication is part of the Teenage Health Teaching Modules, a comprehensive health education curriculum for middle and high school students. The six sessions for grades 9 and 10 focus on assessing sexuality-related messages, using values to draw the line in relationships, and exploring the rights and responsibilities of healthy sexuality. The six sessions for grades 11 and 12 focus on essential skills for developing healthy relationships, dealing with challenging situations, and thinking about intimacy in relationships. The module emphasizes abstinence and refusal of unprotected sexual intercourse. It also provides guidance for teachers in developing a comprehensive approach to sexuality education by integrating exemplary curricula on pregnancy prevention, HIV/AIDS, and other sexuality topics.

All but one of the curriculums do indeed teach contraception and safe sex. The last one listed is a publication used in conjunction with the other curriculum.

Posted by: Kirk at September 2, 2008 1:43 AM
Comment #260925

I agree completely, googlumpuugus! Very well put!

I’ve always admired how when Bill Clinton first announced his candidacy for the presidency back in the old days, practically the first words out of his mouth were a list of all the women besides Hillary he’d slept with. And the fact that he’d raped Juanita Broaddrick. Admirable, admirable!

That set a standard for disclosure that politicians for ever more should try to emulate! Yes indeed!

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 2, 2008 1:46 AM
Comment #260928

Goog,
Revealing the pregnancy of her daughter was cold, but it served a political purpose. The rumors about the faked pregnancy had been floating around since the spring. They were a known quantity for McCain and Palin. It would have been easy to stop the rumors by releasing documentation. But the daughter was pregnant, and that was going to become obvious by November. What to do?

They chose to kill two birds with one stone: stop the false pregnancy rumor, and get out the daughter’s pregnancy now, rather than later.

It’s a pretty cold calculation. Palin could have refused the nomination, and spared her daughter the humiliation of becoming a poster child for what is wrong with abstinence. Instead, she chose her career over her daughter. And although it sounds harsh, I think a lot of people would have made the same choice, namely, career over family.

Posted by: phx8 at September 2, 2008 2:01 AM
Comment #260931
When a woman’s water has broken, that baby’s ready to come out. It’s no time to go up in a plane. At that point, the woman’s right to choose yields to a woman’s reflex to give birth.

Stephan, absolutely not. Accoding to everything coming from the left, until it is a kicking, screaming new born infant it is still a choice.

As for Biden, He was sworn in from his kid’s hospital bedsides. He took the train back to his home on a four hour commute every day Congress was in session.

I think a widower father of 2 hospitalized children under the age of four should have his priorities with his family. He should not spend the next 5 years as a single parent and a Senator. As a Senator who commutes 4 hours per day in addition to his Senate duties, what quantity and quality time did Joe Biden have for his family? It gives me the impression that what comes first in Joe Biden’s life is Joe Biden. The breakdown in the American family is in part to self-centered parents who meet their needs before their children. As a high school youth worker everyday I see students who suffer from this type of parental behavior.

Stephan, I do not hold that against Biden nor would I have posted the above except to show the blatant double standard that was shown by Karla. At least Palin would have a spouse who is also her childrens parent to offer support and unity to her family. Unfortunately Biden and his children did not have that luxury.

Personally, I can not even begin to imagine what Biden went through losing a wife and daughter, then trying to raise to small inujured sons on his own while carrying out his Senate responsibilities. Nor can I imagine what his sons went through.

Posted by: Kirk at September 2, 2008 2:19 AM
Comment #260933
The Born Alive Infant Protection Act is a waste of time. They don’t kill a child born live after an abortion attempt.

A waste of time?

You are correct, they do not kill the baby, they let it lay there to die. Taking up to several hours for the baby to finally die. Killing the baby would be much more humane. Just read the congressional testimony of Jill Stanek who exposed the live birth abortion practice in and Illinois hospital no less.

Since I have never been able to get the whole link thing to work I have just copied it below.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/stanekbakercongress.htm

As for the authorization bill? Let me put it plainly: the Bush administration got that authorization by less than honest means, manipulating public sentiment with expert opinions bought and paid for, manipulating intelligence to make a case for their predetermined policy position, and making the authorization a political issue in an election held not much more than a year after 9/11. Some Democrats may have voted for it, but nearly all Republicans did the same, and they led they charge.

You on the left seem to forget that the Democratic leadership was making statements about WMDs, connections to terrorism and the overall dangers posed by Iraq before Bush ever took office. Hell Clinton even made it official policy of the US for regime change in Iraq. So, again if you are going to blame and blast the Bush administration on the lead up to Iraq, at least have the intellectual honesty to do the same with both Clintons, Kerry, Biden et. al. To do anything less proves your blind bias and lack of integrity.


Posted by: Kirk at September 2, 2008 2:57 AM
Comment #260934
It’s a pretty cold calculation. Palin could have refused the nomination, and spared her daughter the humiliation of becoming a poster child for what is wrong with abstinence. Instead, she chose her career over her daughter. And although it sounds harsh, I think a lot of people would have made the same choice, namely, career over family.

phx8,

If you truley believe this then what is your take on Biden taking the oath of office at the hospital bedside of his two critically injured sons who had just lost their mother and sister in a fatal auto accident?

Posted by: Kirk at September 2, 2008 3:11 AM
Comment #260939

LO and Kirk, Thanks for your fantasy interpretations of history. And you guys wonder why the Dems call you liars? Really?

Why bother with anything related to facts? You guys don’t really seem to like them.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 2, 2008 7:47 AM
Comment #260943

Rhinehold-
Do you believe that this was going to remain a secret for the rest of the election? Bristol’s baby was going to become a story regardless of what the liberal bloggers did. They, meaning the people around Palin, knew that people were going to find out, soon enough; it was no secret in her hometown.

Kirk-

Stephan, absolutely not. Accoding to everything coming from the left, until it is a kicking, screaming new born infant it is still a choice.

No, that’s according to people from the Right, speaking about the Left.

As for Biden, he’s not the only fellow who did those sorts of commutes. My father did similar jaunts, as did my mother, to get back and forth from work. I’ve done them. But you do it, so you can get back to your family. He could have just as well stayed in Washington until the work-week was done, but he didn’t.

But this is different from knowingly risking the life of a newborn child by waiting to get proper medical care, or knowingly exposing your child to the relentless spotlights of the media by accepting a position bound to bring attention to you.

The Republicans don’t seem to be thinking through things. That’s not a good sign for you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 2, 2008 9:01 AM
Comment #260944
Do you believe that this was going to remain a secret for the rest of the election?

No, but it should have been left to the family to inform the public when they felt it was right, not because of a sleazy slime attack by dailyKOS bloggers.

Bristol’s baby was going to become a story regardless of what the liberal bloggers did.

Well hell, let them do what they want then with no remorse, of course. I wonder if Obama can fire them? Or at least not attend any more of their conventions or give them any more power than they deserve…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2008 9:13 AM
Comment #260946

Kirk & Rhinehold,
Are you suggesting Biden should have chosen not to work after the accident? He was not a rich man.

Palin, on the other hand, was already a governor, and she already owns three houses. She went for the promotion, and volunteered her daughter to become the national poster child for the failure of abstinence only sex education.

The two situations really don’t compare. Try again. You’re desperate to defend her, and, lucky you! You’re getting lots and lots of opportunties!

Posted by: phx8 at September 2, 2008 9:45 AM
Comment #260948

kirk

Biden returned home each and every night via train to raise his children.

The point here is that Palin having known before accepting the position to run had to know her daughter would be subject to all this scrutiny. McCain makes claim that he knew of this by way of the vetting process. It is obvious that he and Palin chose to hide what would surely become national news sooner or later. It raises questions of judgment and ethics. Were they hiding this to protect the child or were they hiding this in hopes that it might not surface before the actual election in an effort to protect the vote.

If indeed McCain knew ahead of time then he showed incredibly poor judgment in choosing to hide it. If he did not know ahead of time then it was apparent that the vetting process was poor and is a direct reflection on the capabilities of he and his staff.

They, Palin and McCain had to know that this would surface. Instead of addressing this head on they showed incompetence and little concern for the young lady by allowing this to evolve into what must be a horrible situation for Bristol. They either exhibited poor judgment and carelessness or were incredibly naive and possibly were being intentionally deceptive.

At any rate none of this adds up properly and the result is a mother that has in essence chosen politics over her family and in the process inadvertently made a decision that has led to the humiliation of her daughter on a national, if not world wide level.

Posted by: RickIL at September 2, 2008 9:53 AM
Comment #260950
had to know her daughter would be subject to all this scrutinyNo, I don’t think anyone thought the left would be so callous as to go after a candidate’s daughter like that…

I guess they learned that lesson.

Were they hiding this to protect the child or were they hiding this in hopes that it might not surface before the actual election in an effort to protect the vote.

Well, considering that Palin herself didn’t tell anyone about her pregnancy until the 8th month, it is most likely their view that it isn’t anyone’s business but the family’s. Perhaps they wanted to let the kids get married first before making the announcement, or even deal with it on their own terms, not have it thrown out as a defense from a sleazy left wing…

You know what, nevermind. Keep up the good work that is going on in the left, I’m sure it will play well with the independant and middle american voters that Obama is desperately hoping to pick up.

The left isn’t coming off as unhunged elitests who can’t even respect the wishes of their candidate, not at all!

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2008 10:24 AM
Comment #260956

Should this poor girl’s privacy been invaded? No.

Should we have even been discussing this on this thread? No.

Does a mother who has a career necessarily ignore her family and is a bad mother? No.

Am I sorry for participating in such a discussion? Yes.

Is this nonsense par for the course in a political campaign? Absolutely and it should have been expected by Palin and McCain. She made the mistake by not getting out in front of this issue to begin with. It’s always the case that if you spell this kind of stuff out to begin with it pretty much kills the story. If the press finds out before you admit it you look like you were hiding something.

There are plenty of real issues that make McCain/Palin a bad choice for the next Pres/VP. Let’s move on to more important topics.

Posted by: tcsned at September 2, 2008 11:23 AM
Comment #260960

Well, considering that Palin herself didn’t tell anyone about her pregnancy until the 8th month, it is most likely their view that it isn’t anyone’s business but the family’s. Perhaps they wanted to let the kids get married first before making the announcement, or even deal with it on their own terms, not have it thrown out as a defense from a sleazy left wing…
Rhinehold

Please Rhinehold use a bit of common sense here. Let me ask you this. What would this look like if it just happened to surface say a few days after the vote. Would it have been fair to the voters who it may have changed their vote. This isn’t a county election going on here. In which case it still would not be right, but certainly much much less significant. Considering the level of the position being pursued it could very well change the views of millions of people. It is a factor that will most assuredly be used in forming opinion of the mother. A mother who is running for a very powerful position of authority in this country. She is the one who chose to accept the position. When you do that it is best to disclose these things up front to avoid the perceptions I have outlined. Yes there still would have been perceptions, but those perceptions would have been less in number and not have aroused suspicions of deception to creep into the fold. It is too bad this had to happen. It is imo something the voters needed to be made aware of. It was just handled the wrong way.

Posted by: RickIL at September 2, 2008 11:44 AM
Comment #260961

LO-
As a public figure, privacy is not as strong of a legal right for her. As a public figure advocating socially and religiously conservative views on sexuality and abortion, she cannot expect that portion of her life to remain unexamined by people inside and outside of the MSM. Not with Larry Craig, or that Fossella guy in New York. Hypocrisy is news.

The Republicans were the main driving force behind much of the news about Clinton’s real and imagined peccadilloes. Otherwise, Clinton’s love life would have been fairly uninteresting to people. If folks were really so outraged about it, why was their so little clamor in the general public to get rid of him?

Republicans are vulnerable on issues like this because they feel themselves entitled to lecture people on the conduct of their private lives and the things they do with their own bodies. This makes anything they do in contradiction to their public rhetoric newsworthy.

Kirk-
Jill Stanek believes that aborted baby is a delicacy in China. She claims that Barbara Bush’s emphasis on fighting illiteracy was her motivation for being pro-choice, on the logic that illiterate poor people have more abortions, and this weeds out more people who can’t read.

The woman exhorts people to fund billboards set up in Africa equating condom use with death. I think she safely qualifies as a loon.

She claims doctors in Indiana can legally leave a fetus to die if it survives abortion, when actually the law prohibits such neglect. I believe a doctor is on hand to prevent that death, should they be needed.

But how often are they needed? Put simply, late term abortions are exceedingly rare, and survival of the fetus extremely rare itself. In the meantime, the law itself, which still permits abortion as legal, nonetheless is so poorly written that a doctor who fails to save such a baby, despite his best efforts, could be held criminally liable.

Poorly written laws, no matter what the good intentions are, only screw things up.

Rhinehold-
It was never going to be their choice. You couldn’t hide it forever. At some point, you would have had the daughter of a presidential running mate entering the hospital to give birth. Keeping it secret longer would have been even more dumb, because keeping such secrets, especially if the principles knew about them all along, intensifies the backlash and confusion surrounding the deception. It’s a blessing in disguise to see such secrets out early, because it allows people to get use to it.

That is, if you survive the controversy.

Communications and information theory are two of my areas of interest, and one thing I’ve learned is that while you can control the message, you can’t necessarily control meaning, and if you try to hard to control it, your interference itself will turn the situation chaotic.

The wishes of the candidates are secondary to the needs and interests of the people, and they are irrelevant to the curiosity and fact-finding ability of people surrounding these events. Real events radiate meaningful information like a hot chunk of iron radiates heat.

Bristol Palin’s pregnancy had radiated information to most people around her town. It would be naive to suppose that when her mother became a VP candidate, that it would stop there.

You can curse the people at Daily Kos, but they were simply doing what most politically interested people would do nowadays, when confronted with a surprise move like this: find out more information. The rumor wasn’t concocted by us, but filtered down from the north, where we were focusing our attention. Many people thought it was thin, little better than conspiracy theory, or an immoral direction to go. But then, some people thought it was a perfectly legitimate direction to go, given the expectations that Palin would have of women just like her daughter.

They reasoned that if you decided you were entitled to tell people how to run their lives in this manner, the way you ran your life, and your family followed these precepts should be subject to scrutiny. The people who Palin said had sawdust in their eyes wanted to see whether she had a roofbeam in her own.

In their eyes, it is only justice to expose hypocrisy, to expose those who would tell people to live their lives one way, but contradict their words with their own actions. Is that truly unhinged?

Such is the character of moral disagreements.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 2, 2008 11:57 AM
Comment #260962

Rhinehold:
Obama now leads Mccain 51 to 45 in the latest Rasmussen poll.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 2, 2008 11:58 AM
Comment #260968

Thank you Stephen !….for both posts ;)

Posted by: janedoe at September 2, 2008 12:51 PM
Comment #260987
LO and Kirk, Thanks for your fantasy interpretations of history. And you guys wonder why the Dems call you liars? Really?

OK, now this one I have got th hear.

googlumpuugus, please oh please, list my “fantasy interpretations of history”. If you don’t let me know where you believe I have lied I can’t give you the proof required to show the mantle of fabrication rests squarely on your shoulders and not on mine.

Posted by: Kirk at September 2, 2008 2:19 PM
Comment #260991
It was never going to be their choice. You couldn’t hide it forever.

Who said that they wanted to hide it forever? Who even said that were going to hide it past the election (which I don’t think anyone was considering). But what is something that should be told on day one and what should be told when the young couple has had time to be introduced into the spolight for a day or two and possible get a wedding under the belt before making the announcement.

The fact that the left, in all of it sleezy glory, forced the hand of the Palin family because of their disgusting rumormongering is something you are defending? really?

Color me shocked.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2008 2:28 PM
Comment #260992

Stephen,

Yes, today’s poll shows him, when leaners are included, at 51. Congratulations, you are at just the same point that Kerry was 4 years ago.

Didn’t you say it was going to be a landslide victory?

Did you also see in that same poll that the number of people calling themselves republicans increased and the electoral college is now down to 264-247? House of Representatives anyone? that should be good.

BTW, I am not saying that Obama is going to win or lose. My only warning is not rest on your laurels and assume that your party can act like disgusting guttersnipes and not be noticed by a large independant group, who have not make up their mind yet. And having not made up their mind for Obama yet is worrisome, or should be, to the left…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2008 2:32 PM
Comment #260994

Stephen, phx8, Rick

Yes, Biden returned home each and every night via train to raise his children and I commend him for doing so.

Makes me wonder if your failure to see the double standard exhibited by your remarks is blind devotion to the liberal Obama agenda or willful neglect of facts to further the same liberal Obama agenda.

Last time I checked the VP is provided with a home in the DC area where their whole family can reside. As I said in a previous post, Palin has a husband who is also the parent of her children. Both Palin and her husband would be available to offer support and child rearing. Albeit Palin’s time would indeed be limited by her duties as VP.

Now lets look at Biden’s situation. Biden had just lost both a wife and daughter to a terrible auto accident that also critically injured his two young sons both under the age of 4. That in and of it self would have taken a heavy emotional toll on a man and the sons. Add to that, the fact that Biden then took the oath of office at the bedside of his two hospitalized sons and began a Senate career that required him to spend countless hours on Senate duties on top of 4 hours of daily commuting. Even if the Senate were simply a 9-5 job which we all know it is not, that is a minimum 12 hours per day that Biden was not with his two recovering sons. Unfortunately for Biden’s sons they did not have the the support and rearing of another parent as Palin’s children would have as their mother was killed. It was 5 years before Biden would remarry.

Now fast forward to today and from what little I have seen of Biden’s sons, it appears that he did a mounmental job or raising them despite the obviously challenges he faced. To suggest that Palin should have refused the nomination or is incapable of doing the same with what I see as better circumstances than Biden found himself in is at best disingenuou and at worst sexist.

Posted by: Kirk at September 2, 2008 2:47 PM
Comment #260995

tcsned, there are no more “real” issues more important that who could just possibly be the next President of the United States!!!
Is this issue getting old….perhaps, but age doesn’t change the severity of its details. The McCain campaign, which is more and more appearing autonomous from the candidate, chose to try and ram through a virtually unknown, unproven, candidate of questionable political history who had not been properly and thoroughly vetted and then expect the public to just sit back and play nice. Ain’t gonna happen. The more dirt you dig up trying to cover up s**t, the more you uncover.

Posted by: janedoe at September 2, 2008 2:48 PM
Comment #260996

Rhinehold-
There are many who believe that Kerry and Gore lost because they lacked the steel in their spines to play dirtier. There are also those who believe that there are ways to have steel in your spine that don’t require such moves towards excessive expedience. There was a huge debate about this on Daily Kos, with large numbers of people taking both sides.

Would you be so open-minded as to take my word for it, go to that site, and search out the truth about this controversy? Or will you continue to insist on this black-and-white moral outrage which fails to consider the complexities of the issue? There’s no use being independent if you’re just going to rely on a partisan, anti-Democrat point of view.

The truth is, people range in their beliefs, range in their willingness to entertain certain options, and range in the stress, strain, and anger at the way events have gone. I’ve maintained relative balance, but not everybody is so enchanted with being emotionally neutral on the evidence. They are impatient to put an end to the Republican’s mismanagement and misrule.

The Palin choice is going to be fraught with controversy. What else can we expect when the Republican Party does a hairpin turn on the issue of experience, associations, and appealling to the center, and comes up with a pick like this?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 2, 2008 2:49 PM
Comment #261001

One “hairpin turn” deserves another.
Obama doesn’t have the experience, has questionable associations and his move to the center does not match his past actions.

You guys are more worried about the experience of who may have to replace a President than you are of the experience of who may be President. Talk about putting party before country.

Posted by: kctim at September 2, 2008 3:09 PM
Comment #261006

kctim-
You know what really bugs the s*** out of me about the rhetoric surrounding Sarah Palin? A little something called the tu quoque fallacy. Logically speaking, your defense for Sarah Palin’s inexperience is that Obama is inexperienced, too.

But doesn’t that still mean she’s inexperienced? Oh no, folks say. Look at all the experience she has!

Mayor of a town of 8000 for eight years. Governor of Alaska, a state of 650,000 for less than twenty months.

Compared to Obama:
State Senator for about 215,000 people in the heart of Chicago for eight years.
Senator of Illinois, a state of 12,000,000 for four years. Was in office two years before he began running, largely due to popular appeal among Democrats.

Since then, he campaigned intensely, built an organization of 1500 employees with a budget larger than Ms. Mayor every handled, and effectively overturned the political order in the Democratic Party. People describe his political operation as one of the best run they’ve ever seen. Even his former rivals have kind words for it.

Sarah Palin is a politician, more than a leader. She jumped on some popular bandwagons, but a closer look at her actual actions, such as hiring a lobbyist to get millions of pork dollars going her way, such as her cutting the bridge to Nowhere only when the Feds decided not to pay the money for it, undercuts the image she tries to give.

Obama’s changed the equation on the ground.

As for putting party before country? Are you aware of the evidence that Sarah Palin was part of a Secessionist Alaskan party whose motto and philosophy are “Alaska first?”

The question for Palin, when we talk of McCain’s slogan of “Country First”, is which country Palin’s thinking of.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 2, 2008 3:30 PM
Comment #261007
You guys are more worried about the experience of who may have to replace a President than you are of the experience of who may be President. Talk about putting party before country.

I’d say that IF in the event Palin were to end up in the Presidential position, our worries would see fruition.
I don’t think “we” have any concerns about our choice as President, and his choice as Vice President. Yours on the other hand, lend credence to vast concerns, all of which are being discussed in about 7 threads on here.


Posted by: janedoe at September 2, 2008 3:31 PM
Comment #261009
Please Rhinehold use a bit of common sense here. Let me ask you this. What would this look like if it just happened to surface say a few days after the vote. Would it have been fair to the voters who it may have changed their vote. This isn’t a county election going on here. In which case it still would not be right, but certainly much much less significant. Considering the level of the position being pursued it could very well change the views of millions of people. It is a factor that will most assuredly be used in forming opinion of the mother. A mother who is running for a very powerful position of authority in this country. She is the one who chose to accept the position. When you do that it is best to disclose these things up front to avoid the perceptions I have outlined. Yes there still would have been perceptions, but those perceptions would have been less in number and not have aroused suspicions of deception to creep into the fold. It is too bad this had to happen. It is imo something the voters needed to be made aware of. It was just handled the wrong way.

1) If the gestinational status of a candidates child is enough to change the mind and vote of millions of people, Jay Leno need not worry he has a lifetime supply of Jay Walking material.

2) You are unfortunately correct that some will indeed use this to form their opinion of the mother, but should the perception of the fitness for office be lowered by actions of her daughter? Should perception of your or my mother be placed into question because of the stupid things we did/do even thought they told us not to (sometimes on multiple occassions)? Note to self, call mom tonight and beg for forgiveness. Note 2 to self, set my daughters down tonight and demand an apology.

3) This did not have to happen, just as the charges filed in the Duke Rape Case did not have to happen. This was simply a case of playing gotcha in which a minority of people (term used loosly) blasted innuendo and rumor across the world trying to scuttle the competition. Just as in the Duke Rape Case where those young men’s reputations are forever scared despite being completely cleared, months and years from now there will still be those who will claim that Palin’s son is actually her grandson.

4) So both McCain and Palin should have made the daughter’s pregnancy known up front? I can see it now: McCain at the lecturn I would now like to introduce the next VP of the United States Sara Palin and her pregnant daughter!

APPLAUSE-APPLAUSE-APPLAUSE

Palin takes the mic: Thank you!! Thank you!! I wanted to thank John McCain for this opportunity and to let you all know that my husband and I are so proud of our wonderful daughter Bristol who just couldn’t keep her pants on, despite all that we have taught her over the years and the fact that she was fully aware of the potential consequences and dangers involved with her actions. Oh and just to head off all the degenerate KOS bloggers, my son Trig is indeed my son, not my grandson. I just wanted to get all the facts out there before hand knowing that there are sleazeballs crawling out of the woodwork who will post malicious rumors and innuendo as fact with no regard for the truth or a childs well being.

Thank you and I will appreciate your vote come November.

1/2 the confetti flies, the band plays (sounding more like they are warming up) the audience stands in utter shock, and the mainstream media gleefully reports on the nutcase choosen by McCain as a running mate.

I guess either way your side gets the slash and burn victory they are looking for, it just depends on who you want to do the slashing and burning.

Posted by: Kirk at September 2, 2008 3:36 PM
Comment #261016

Kirk-
1) The real question that an unruly child raises is whether the parent can keep their own house in order, which some would assume, right or wrong, would extend to their capability of managing a nation.

2)Sarah Palin has used family values to raise the perception of her fitness for office. As she raises those perceptions, some in politics will naturally seek to undercut it. It’s easier to ask for forbearance concerning these issues if you give it. It’s easier to tell people to mind their own beeswax if you mind your own.

3) It’s awful kind of you to point this out. Awful kind considering what lengths the Republican party has gone to slime people’s reputations, including our last three nominees for president. How can you expect people not to pursue these avenues of intrusive attention, if your people feel its perfectly alright to rip open people’s lives and question their virtues and vices down to the core? You can’t have it both ways.

4) There are two ways to go about this. The first, and easiest, is to vet the person ahead of time to see whether there are any nasty surprises. That way, you’re not playing catch-up while rumors spread that might just have a grain of truth in them, or facts arise that damage your candidate. The other way, once the dumb facts start to come out, is to get the ugly stuff out of the way in a hurry and hope you can get past it. McCain and Palin DID know up front, so a real question arises of what kind of judgment these people made as to the attention this would bring down on the poor kid.

This was an avoidable disaster for the McCain Campaign. They were too interested in scoring points in the media to look closely at who they were choosing.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 2, 2008 4:24 PM
Comment #261020

Speaking of Avoidable Disasters…

Palin’s husband, according to Alaska voting records, was a registered member of the Secessionist Alaska Indpendence Party from 1995 to 2002.

Previous reports have:
1) video of Sarah Palin greeting the 2008 convention.
2) Recent videos of Party insiders claiming that the newly elected governor was one of their own, and that they were encouraging members to sign up for other parties to “infiltrate” them.
3) Two separate reports from members of the party that have the Palins showing up at the 1994 and 2000 conventions.

The reports have established the Alaska Independence Party as an organization that favors secession of Alaska from the US, the highest figures even favoring a complete break of Alaska from the union as an independent nation. They have labelled US troops in the state as occupiers.

In short, the Party of Lincoln, the President who fought to preserve the Union, is about to nominate a running mate who belonged to a party favoring the breaking away of a state from that union, and may still sympathize with its views.

I know some of you rake Obama over the coals for being even associated with a former radical, or with a Preacher who occasionally said radical things, but what’s that compared with being a member of those kinds of radicals yourself?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 2, 2008 4:36 PM
Comment #261021

Stephen
“Logically speaking, your defense for Sarah Palin’s inexperience is that Obama is inexperienced, too.”

I have not defended Palin’s inexperience, only stated that Obama is to inexperienced to be President. Logically speaking, the only fallacy is in you comparing your Presidential candidates experience with the experience of the oppositions pick for Vice President.
Why? Because you are trying to discount the fact that Obama isn’t really the most qualified to be President. But since he shares your views, his inexperience doesn’t matter.

Let’s see, being part of a Secessionist Alaskan party or being part of an America is bad and white people are evil group? I don’t know Stephen, being a typical white person who clings to things and is ignorant, I may wait until I know more about this secessionist party and compare it to the rantings I’ve heard from the other group.

You know what the worst thing about all this is Stephen? If Palin isn’t qualified, I’ll admit it. Something you would or could

Posted by: kctim at September 2, 2008 4:38 PM
Comment #261024

janedoe
You are worried because she may end up there, others are worried because he will end up as President if elected.

IF you don’t have any concerns about your choice as President, you are playing silly partisan politics. Even if he is more experienced than she is, he still is not experienced enough to be President.

“Yours on the other hand, lend credence to vast concerns, all of which are being discussed in about 7 threads on here”

That is because the concerns about Obama’s experience have already been aired in the past and the fact that you guys are defending his inexperience by comparing him to the #2 on the other ticket tells the story of who is really concerned.

Either way, they are not really my picks. I’ll probably be voting 3rd Party.

Posted by: kctim at September 2, 2008 4:48 PM
Comment #261026

You seriously discount Gov Palin as McCains Pick. Mccain made a pick that showcases his ability to think outside the box and kicks wide the doors for women within his own Party. This should be the launchpad for a future Palin Presidential Bid and that is saying something for both of them.
In additiona, Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. It’s on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units.
As governor of Alaska, unlike nearly all other States, Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. She’s also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security’s counterterrorism plans.
Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country’s defense. She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.

Posted by: smokedsalmon at September 2, 2008 5:13 PM
Comment #261028
Jill Stanek believes that aborted baby is a delicacy in China.Whe clearly states at the beginning of the post the “if this is happening” then goes on to tell of reports of two other publications reporting that this is happening. She also show that there are some questions about the sources of the reports. She then says that the picture looks real. I guess she may have fallen for the same “Look at the Picture, Palin isn’t pregnant” stuff that the KOS fell for.
She claims that Barbara Bush’s emphasis on fighting illiteracy was her motivation for being pro-choice, on the logic that illiterate poor people have more abortions, and this weeds out more people who can’t read.

I’m with you on this one.

The woman exhorts people to fund billboards set up in Africa equating condom use with death. I think she safely qualifies as a loon.

No, John Mallon was the one who wrote the post and asked for support not Stanek. It was on her site, but just as posts on the Obama site can’t be attributed to him, if she didn’t write it don’t attribute it to her.

She claims doctors in Indiana can legally leave a fetus to die if it survives abortion, when actually the law prohibits such neglect. I believe a doctor is on hand to prevent that death, should they be needed.

No, that is Illinois but anyway, the current law that Obama pointed to as a crutch for not voiting for BAIPA had ambiguities as to the definitions used for exactly what and when infants had to be treated. The existing law used terms such as “in his medical judgement”, “when there is a reasonable possibility of sustained survival of the fetus”. The BAIPA made a clear and hard definition of what an infant was. The law Obama said required treatment left it up to the physicians opinion of the viability of the infant.

But how often are they needed? Put simply, late term abortions are exceedingly rare, and survival of the fetus extremely rare itself.

Once is too many

In the meantime, the law itself, which still permits abortion as legal, nonetheless is so poorly written that a doctor who fails to save such a baby, despite his best efforts, could be held criminally liable.

Total Poppy-Cock

Poorly written laws, no matter what the good intentions are, only screw things up.

Posted by: Kirk at September 2, 2008 5:16 PM
Comment #261036

Get To Know Joe Biden
In September 1987, Joe Bidens Presidential campaign ran into problems when he plagiarized a speech by Neil Kinnock, who was then-leader of the British Labour Party.
It was also discovered that, when he was a law student at Syracuse Law School, he had plagiarized a law review article. While the then-dean of the law school, as well as Biden’s former professor, played down the seriousness of the incident, they did find Biden drew “chunks of heavy legal prose directly from” the article in question. Biden said it was unintentional due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation, (after 4 years of college one should know the rules of citation) and Biden was permitted to retake the course after receiving a grade of F, which was later dropped from his record.
When questioned by a New Hampshire resident about his grades in law school, Biden had inaccurately recalled graduating in the “top half” of his class when he actually graduated 76th from a class of 85, and he also falsely stated that he had received a full scholarship, and had earned three degrees. The truth is that he had received two majors, History and Political Science, and a single B.A degree ., as well as a half scholarship based on financial need not academic achievement .
When he was confronted with these truths, Biden withdrew from the nomination race on September 23, 1987, saying his candidacy had been overrun by “the exaggerated shadow” of his past mistakes.

Posted by: Joe Bidens Dark Past at September 2, 2008 5:32 PM
Comment #261039

Oh, smokedsalmon, what a hoot!!
Can’t wait for mooseburger, or caribousteak to show up with more rhetoric.

Posted by: janedoe at September 2, 2008 5:40 PM
Comment #261040

It seems that the Democrat’s strategy regarding Governor Palin is to just throw out as many random, unsubstantiated rumors as possible, ignoring when they’re shot down, and move on to the next thing as quickly as possible. The problem with such an approach is that one thing after another is proven false, your credibility vanishes very quickly.

In short, the Party of Lincoln, the President who fought to preserve the Union, is about to nominate a running mate who belonged to a party favoring the breaking away of a state from that union, and may still sympathize with its views.t

Stephen, the director of the Alaska Division of Elections (a government agency—not a partisan group) has comfirmed that “Gov. Sarah Palin first registered to vote in the state in May 1982 as a Republican, and she has not changed her party affiliate with the Division of Elections since that time.”

In the video she made greeting the party, Palin clearly states “your party.” There are clear records of her being not only a Republican but an outspoken Republican her entire political life, and none whatsoever indicating that she has ever been anything else.

Has Governor Palin EVER tried to advance any policy or made ANY statement to the effect that she favors Alaskan seccesion? No. May she have been physically present at some point at this party’s convention? Who knows and who cares? Chris Matthews, Tom Brokaw, and for that matter Joe Lieberman are currently at the Republican Convention. What does that tell us about them? Absolutely nothing.

But beyond that, this whole issue is a huge “so what?”

Even if she or her family members had been associated with this party in any way, there is absolutely no public concern in the United States about these state-pride movements in Texas or Alaska which involve people wanting to have the right to vote on state independence. Especially since that right is actually part of the terms on which those states entered the union in the first place (unlike the rest of the states of the union who fought the Civil War.)

You may be aware that both Alaska and Texas joined the union as states AFTER the Civil War anyway, and they did so on different terms than most of the rest of the states.

My point is that even if this were proven true about Palin—and it appears not to be true—this is simply not a resonant issue with American voters. When was the last time you heard anybody worrying aloud that Texas or Alaska might separate from the union? It’s simply a non-issue, and it would be a very odd voter indeed who would hear about such a thing, get worked up about it, and then cast their vote on that basis.

To compare it to Obama’s associations with groups which have agendas that ARE of concern to average American voters is incredibly far-fetched. Is hearing white people condemned from a pulpit, or learning that a candidate was associated with an unapologetic Weather Underground bomber in any way equivalent or less worrisome to average Americans as the notion that a small group of Alaskans might want to vote on state independence because they feel that right is given them in their state charter? You can persist in thinking so—or saying you think so for partisan reasons—but I think you know the truth. That dog just won’t hunt.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 2, 2008 5:55 PM
Comment #261042

Incidentally, Barack Obama supports passage of “The Akaka Bill” also known as the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which seeks to establish a “Kingdom of Hawaii” wherein the Native People of Hawaii could effectively secede from the United States and negotiate with the United States separately. The goal is to eventually secede from the US entirely.

Here is an article.

Even the bill’s main supporter, Senator Daniel Akaka saidWhen asked during a National Public Radio interview whether the bill “could eventually go further, perhaps even leading to outright independence.” he replied, “That could be. That could be. As far as what’s going to happen at the other end, I’m leaving it up to my grandchildren and great-grandchildren.”

Proponents of this measure, supported by Barack Obama, put up signs saying:

“We are not American; We are not American; We are not American; We will die as Hawaiians; We will never be American!!”

“Kanaka Maoli, Read International Law and see that America has no Rights to govern the Hawaiian Nation. America is not Lawful in Hawaii. “If the 1st amendment is the freedom of speech, what can we be saying when they been stealing our beach. Oh say can you see, America is a thief.”

“We don’t need no American government Don’t like to see too much foreign power here cause Western influence been killing us for years.”

The difference between Senator Palin’s vaguely RUMORED support for secession and Obama’s support for secession is that Obama is CLEARLY on record supporting this bill. Oops!

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 2, 2008 6:14 PM
Comment #261046

The purpose of picking Sarah Palin may have just been to prevent BHO from getting any bounce from the convention. Isn’t the party that holds the white house, supposed to have their nominating convention first? IIRC, the conventions were usually in different months in the past. I don’t know why this happened this way this year.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 2, 2008 6:42 PM
Comment #261055

BTW,

It appears that the McCain camp is not going to let the charge that Palin wasn’t ‘vetted’ stand.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2EyM2Q2NjYxZmUxMzgxNTYwMjAwZDk3MmE2NGNmNjY=

Does the left seriously think that a nationally run campaign (I think that McCain has been in one or two) didn’t do any vetting of a VP candidate?

You would think that they would have learned by now to attack on substance, not slime, but learning from their mistakes is not something that political hacks, from any party, seem to be able to do.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2008 7:42 PM
Comment #261062

Kirk

2) You are unfortunately correct that some will indeed use this to form their opinion of the mother, but should the perception of the fitness for office be lowered by actions of her daughter? Should perception of your or my mother be placed into question because of the stupid things we did/do even thought they told us not to (sometimes on multiple occassions)? Note to self, call mom tonight and beg for forgiveness. Note 2 to self, set my daughters down tonight and demand an apology.

I can’t and won’t say if I think they should be lowered by the actions of her daughter. You are missing the point. It is the action of the mother to approach the issue as she did that shows lack of judgment. As I have said before, the situation exists, that is not the fault of any one but the family. Bristol to be exact. It could be argued that the mother and father are also somewhat at fault since they are the young ladies legal guardians. To date I have not gone there. Nor do I want to because that is an entirely different issue. The fact is she knowingly accepted invitation to run for the VP position knowing that this revelation would come to fruition. Now you tell me, who is showing responsibility in this issue. The person who questions the mothers judgment. Or the mother who decided to go down that path knowing full well the eventual outcome. She quite simply chose to put her political career in the national spotlight ahead of her daughters privacy. It also appears she elected to hide that fact knowing full well that it would be exposed sooner or later. My guess is they were hoping for later. Yes, considering the position she aspires to, everything about her character and judgment is fair game.

I can guarantee you that every time I or yourself had some sort of careless moment in our teen lives there was a parent somewhere making a judgment on the parenting abilities of our parents.

Posted by: RickIL at September 2, 2008 8:22 PM
Comment #261092

kctim-
Everybody on the right says that Barack is too inexperienced. But why? Fact of the matter is, there are Two things that should make you doubt the validity of that argument.

First, that Palin was selected at all. I know what the Republicans are saying about her tenure, about her qualifications. But most of that is spin, and you can tell because they’re trying to elevate the superiority of being mayor of a rather small town. My neighborhood probably has more people in it than her town. This forms the bulk of her executive experience.

Why would they nominate her for Vice President, with such little experience, if they seriously bought the premises of their own argument against Obama?

The second issue that casts doubt on it has been Obama’s ability to simply steamroll the competition. Biden may not have carried a bounce with him, but he has carried little of the controversy or trouble that’s come down from the right, His organization is seen as rather disciplined, calm, collected. Obama might not have McCain’s experience, but McCain doesn’t have Obama’s skill for making what experience and knowledge he does have count.

I feel safe in accusing Palin of being inexperienced, because she truly is. Her eight years as mayor have been inflated in their importance beyond reason.

Let’s see, being part of a Secessionist Alaskan party or being part of an America is bad and white people are evil group?

You’ll have to find me that group. You unreel that series or right talking points, and I can honestly tell you that crap is silly, built on selective attention to the sermons of his pastor, a blatant misinterpretation of the tenor and intent of what he said to some radio hosts, and an opportunistic misinterpretation of right-wing pundits of a well-founded theory that the focus on social and wedge issues of otherwise liberal folks has its roots with disappointment with what economic good the Democrats have done for them.

I doesn’t make me sad that this kind of stuff gets interpreted as such. What really makes me sad is the unfounded, habitual hostility shown to liberals from the right, and what that does to this country, and to its people.

smokedsalmon-
People who talk of thinking outside the box, typically aren’t. As for who kicked doors wide open for women, we have the lady who did that in our party, and we’re keeping her for the time being.

The missile interceptor defense system barely works, and a defense that barely works won’t work at all in the real world. It’s too cheap to fool the electronics on those damn things, or to build more warheads to overwhelm the defense for the cost of the damn systems to be worth it. Besides, we could probably hit these things easier and more cheaply with a boost phase system, while the things are still struggling to get to ballistic speed with red hot flaming engines on their backsides.

That, though, is not relevant to one hard truth here: Sarah Palin isn’t in command of these troops. They are under federal control. She isn’t even briefed on what they’re doing. I’m afraid you have your information wrong.

Kirk-
Her claim on aborted babies should set off alarm bells from the outset. She can claim two other publications say that, but so can any anti-semite citing Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And yes, she may have fallen for the same pitfalls as those who looked at pictures and saw Trig growing in his supposed sister’s belly.

That’s a tendency of people. The ability to construct a story to explain events is the ability to construct the wrong story to explain them, and if others think that story is plausible, for others to think the same thing.

As for treatment, why would a conservative like yourself take the determination of viability out of the hands of the person best qualified to determine it? Under your law, a doctor could be forced to the best they possibly could no matter how much of a chance the child honestly has, and still be prosecuted for the results of a legal abortion. It’d be one thing to just ban the process outright, but this law could criminalize the action of the doctor who’s actually trying, as obligated, to save the baby!

Yes, once is too many, but is it really in your power to save every child, and is forcing the decision on a doctor who might know best, know better whether the child will survive, and then punishing him for trying his best the best way to prevent this? No.

JBDP-
I think you yourself have plagiarized the Wikipedia article on the subject. The text I see is very similar:

It was also alleged that, during his time as a law student at Syracuse, Biden had plagiarized a law review article. Though the then-dean of the law school, as well as Biden’s former professor, downplayed the incident, they did find that Biden drew “chunks of heavy legal prose directly from” the article in question. Biden said it was inadvertent due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation, and Biden was permitted to retake the course after receiving a grade of F, which was subsequently dropped from his record.[38] Biden also released his undergraduate grades, which were unexceptional.[38] When questioned by a New Hampshire resident about his grades in law school, Biden had inaccurately recollected graduating in the “top half” of his class when he actually graduated 76th from 85, that he had attended on a full scholarship, and had received three degrees.[39] He had received two majors, History and Political Science, and a single B.A., as well as a half scholarship based on financial need.[39]

Compared to yours:

It was also discovered that, when he was a law student at Syracuse Law School, he had plagiarized a law review article. While the then-dean of the law school, as well as Biden’s former professor, played down the seriousness of the incident, they did find Biden drew “chunks of heavy legal prose directly from” the article in question. Biden said it was unintentional due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation, (after 4 years of college one should know the rules of citation) and Biden was permitted to retake the course after receiving a grade of F, which was later dropped from his record.
When questioned by a New Hampshire resident about his grades in law school, Biden had inaccurately recalled graduating in the “top half” of his class when he actually graduated 76th from a class of 85, and he also falsely stated that he had received a full scholarship, and had earned three degrees. The truth is that he had received two majors, History and Political Science, and a single B.A degree ., as well as a half scholarship based on financial need not academic achievement .
When he was confronted with these truths, Biden withdrew from the nomination race on September 23, 1987, saying his candidacy had been overrun by “the exaggerated shadow” of his past mistakes.

Points for irony, I guess. But points for inaccuracy for Neil Kinnock. The story on that is that he remembered to site Kinnock’s words properly nearly every time, only once failing to do so. Unfortunately, that one time was in front of the cameras. That sounds more like a slip of the tongue than a deliberate attempt to take credit for another person’s speech.

I don’t think we can be so charitable about your wholesale uncredited, unquoted lifting of material from Wikipedia.

LO-
Her husband’s a confirmed member of the AIP, she was regarded as a member by those who saw her at the conventions, which witness say she attended in 1994 and 2000.

She’s not dumb. Nor, if you see the video, are the AIP (or AKIP as they like to called) members dumb, either. They talk about how Ron Paul, an avowed Libertarian, switched to the GOP to work his little insurgency, when they note Sarah Palin doing the same.

I’m not dumb myself. the last year her husband was affiliated with the group was 2002, when she started running for state office. Before 1995 and after 2002, he was uncommitted, or something like that. That seems to me to be very indicative of the same kind of party opportunism that Walt Hickel employed. You know, she knew him too.

What are her beliefs? How should I know? But, we do know that she knowing associated herself with a party whose founder made it his wish to be buried in Canada because he did not want to be laid to rest on American soil, or beneath an American flag. This party is anti-American by nature. It’s not merely critical, it’s advocating secession from the union!

As for Alaska and Texas joining as states after the civil war, you’re half wrong. Alaska did. Your mistake may have been the fact that Texas rejoined the union post-civil war (it was one of the states in rebellion), but it did in fact originally join in 1845 as the 28th State.

It’s funny you bring up the Civil War. If Palin was as vetted as you say, association with a group like the AIP should be a no-brainer elimination. Yours is the party of Lincoln, the man who made America what it is today, not just a collection of united states, but The United States. He would be turning in his grave to see a secessionist run on his party’s ticket.

You can’t keep this secret. You can’t hide this forever. This is a deeply anti-American group here. They don’t want Alaska a part of the Union. This may be, very well, the reason why Palin went to such extraordinary lengths, water having broken, to have her child in Alaska.

As for the Akaka Bill, the lastest version has no provision in it for independence, it merely extends to native Hawaiians, the aboriginal inhabitants of the archipelago, similar rights to what Native Americans and Aleuts have. It is thought that it might perhaps by implication perhaps some day result in something like that, but I doubt it, and I hardly think such a distant techicality equates to Obama being part of a party which seeks the secession of Hawaii from the Union.

Ohrealy-
It failed. He’s at fifty or above in nearly every poll, and has substantial, statistically significant leads in them all.

Nice try, though.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 2, 2008 10:08 PM
Comment #261160

Stephen,
You think Obama’s measley campaign organization budget is larger than the budget for the state of Alaska?

I laugh at your allusion to factual basis for argument.

Clarity before agreement, and you are CLEARLY misinformed.

But keep saying everything about Sarah and nothing about Obama besides you think he is winning - polls are never wrong you know…

Posted by: Yukon Jake at September 3, 2008 2:55 AM
Comment #261170

Yukon Jake-
She’s only had 20 months on that job. We’re talkin about her long “executive experience” as the lobbyist-hiring, earmark-seeking, town-indebting boss of fifty people, with a budget of a few million.

I’m concentrating on Palin because the Republican intentionally dropped her in our laps as a surprise pick, setting her up as a family woman who fought corruption and deep-sixed the Bridge To Nowhere. Turns out, she killed the project only after the federal government killed their support for it first. Just about everything they introduced her as is false. She’s no fiscal conservative, not in action, and she was fine climbing up the backs of the corrupt with their help before she planted her foot in their faces.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 3, 2008 8:00 AM
Comment #261177
She quite simply chose to put her political career in the national spotlight ahead of her daughters privacy.

Rick,

You know there is another way to look at this too. Is it possible that she put the health of the country and her daughter’s / grandchildren’s future ahead of her daughters privacy? As painful as this may be for her family and daughter, she may well feel (as I do) a potential of 8 years of Obama would be much more painful for them all.

Of course as proven by the posts here, the idea of someone putting country first over family is inconcievable to the left.

Posted by: Kirk at September 3, 2008 9:26 AM
Comment #261180
As for treatment, why would a conservative like yourself take the determination of viability out of the hands of the person best qualified to determine it? Under your law, a doctor could be forced to the best they possibly could no matter how much of a chance the child honestly has, and still be prosecuted for the results of a legal abortion. It’d be one thing to just ban the process outright, but this law could criminalize the action of the doctor who’s actually trying, as obligated, to save the baby!

Stephen,

Again using the old tried and true leftist tactic of lie, lie, lie until the masses believe it.

There is absolutely nothing in the BAIPA that could be used to prosecute a doctor for trying but failing to save the life of an infant.

Posted by: Kirk at September 3, 2008 9:33 AM
Comment #261191

Kirk-
If you’re serious about debating me on this subject, you won’t essentially call me a liar instead of making your own valid and sound argument on the matter.

There is plenty in that law which could cause concern, especially if you’re pro choice.

The concern on the part of Obama and others was that the medical opinion of the doctors on viability, that is the fetus’s ability to survive without being on machines for the rest of its life, would be disregarded in favor of a standard that would require any fetus not born completely limp and dead to be given what might be futile care.

The law already provide for doctors to step in when the baby was born alive and viable, so that wasn’t the thing. The thing was, the wording of the bill would have defined unborn children as persons, which would be a direct attempt to circumvent Roe vs. Wade. The concern about the bill was bipartisan, Obama’s reservations justified.

The law only passed when language was inserted that gave the judgment about viability back to the doctors, and stated that the law could not be construed as challenging Roe V. Wade.

That’s the long and short of it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 3, 2008 10:43 AM
Comment #261204

Stephen,

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

But whether or not one accepts those arguments, it is not the reason Obama had been giving for his 2003 opposition. He told Brody that the federal bill “was not the bill that was presented at the state level.” That’s technically true; though the “neutrality clause” was identical in the federal and state bills, there were other minor wording differences elsewhere. But the Obama campaign statement says that “Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language.” That’s true for the earlier versions that Obama voted against. In the case of SB 1082, as it was amended just before being killed, it’s false.


Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 11:39 AM
Comment #261213

Stephen
I have looked at Obama’s history and have come to the conclusion he has little experience. It has little to do with what the “right” says.
I am curious though, about how Palin’s lack of experience shows Obama is experienced enough to be President.

“Why would they nominate her for Vice President, with such little experience, if they seriously bought the premises of their own argument against Obama?”

To bring the issue of lack of experience to the forefront? Your pick for #1 is being compared to their pick for #2, shouldn’t he be compared to their pick for #1?

“The second issue that casts doubt on it has been Obama’s ability to simply steamroll the competition.”

Running a good campaign or being able to read a good speech, does not equal experience, Stephen.

“I feel safe in accusing Palin of being inexperienced, because she truly is. Her eight years as mayor have been inflated in their importance beyond reason.”

As have Obama’s Constitutional scholar, community organizer and senator, works. Come on Stephen, both are a little green for the job they are seeking.

“You’ll have to find me that group. You unreel that series or right talking points, and I can honestly tell you that crap is silly”

Of course its silly, you totally ignore what was said and attempt to discredit it by calling them “right talking points.” Sad.

“I doesn’t make me sad that this kind of stuff gets interpreted as such. What really makes me sad is the unfounded, habitual hostility shown to liberals from the right, and what that does to this country, and to its people.”

And how does all this unfounded, habitual hostility shown towards Republicans, Conservatives and everyone else who doesn’t believe as liberals, from the left, make you feel? What does that do to this country and to its people?
Oh, I forgot, its “different” when you guys do the same thing.

Posted by: kctim at September 3, 2008 12:15 PM
Comment #261226

Rhinehold-
They’re hair splitting on the inconsistencies between statements, not invalidating the reasoning given.

kctim-
I have never argued that Palin’s inexperience justifies Obama’s. I have argued that Obama is a better politician and leader than your average person of his experience, and that his intelligence, discipline, and creative thinking justifies overlooking his relative lack of seniority.

However, the Republicans have never hesitated to complain about Obama’s inexperience when they defend Palins. The fact of the matter is, she managed a small town for most of the time the McCain Campaign’s given as executive experience, and didn’t do so good of a job.

Experience is a container. If a person manages extraordinary feats within that container, that should be the measurement of their skill, not some abstract numbering of years in office.

What has Palin managed within her time? What challenges has she been faced with? Well, within the container of her experience, we see contradictions to her expressed values. We see association through her own husband with what could fairly be called anti-American, secessionist politics. We see a town that did without a bunch of earmarks now addicted to the government handouts. We see her introducing culture war politics into a town whose politics were rather sedate before.

We don’t see her rising of her own accord, building a grassroots movement, creating a streamlined political organization. To the extent she is a game changer, she’s that as a pawn for the interests, including the McCain campaign, who put her there. Obama fought his way to where he is now.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 3, 2008 1:31 PM
Comment #261231
Rick,

You know there is another way to look at this too. Is it possible that she put the health of the country and her daughter’s / grandchildren’s future ahead of her daughters privacy? As painful as this may be for her family and daughter, she may well feel (as I do) a potential of 8 years of Obama would be much more painful for them all.

I don’t believe she has either the depth or foresight to project something quite that stellar.

Posted by: janedoe at September 3, 2008 1:42 PM
Comment #261233

If the reason he gave for not signing it was because it didn’t have the language with the protection in it, yet the 3rd one he voted against did have the language, I think we have to either assume his reasons were wrong OR he didn’t know what was in the bill. He gave no other reason for vetoing the bill at the time if I read this correctly.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 1:53 PM
Comment #261236
I don’t believe she has either the depth or foresight to project something quite that stellar.

Based off of one speech, a few days of viritrolic ‘vetting’ and what some left blogs have said about her?

Oh, and because she’s cute. I read that you said that invalidates intelligence because she posed for some pictures…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 1:55 PM
Comment #261240

Stephen
A reasoned response like that and you still refuse to see the other side? Can you honestly say the liberals are not defending Obama’s lack of experience and complaining about Palins? Can you not see that people see the same things in her and that is why they overlook her lack of seniority?

There are contradictions in all candidates expressed values, but people only care about those of the other side.
You complain about her lack of experience to be #2, but you ignore Obama’s lack of experience to be #1. You complain about her husbands views, but ignore, excuse and attempt to justify the views of Obama’s friends and mentors. You complain about her govt handouts, but you support a candidate whose entire platform is nothing but handouts. And you complain about her culture war politics, but yet you support a candidate who labels people as typical white people, ignorant and clingers, because they do not believe as he and his party do.

IF change is what is truly needed, it will only come when we are first willing to hold our own as accountable as we hold others.

Posted by: kctim at September 3, 2008 2:00 PM
Comment #261246

Rhhinehold, I never said she was cute…I mean she’s okay, but that’s as far as I can go with that. And yes, it validates lack of intelligence, and I qualified that by indicating it was my opinion. She was already in public office, somewhat high profile and it clearly indicates a lack of common sense and I also believe it denigrates the legitimacy of the office(s) she holds.
It makes me think of a saying that was profuse when I was young…. “if you aren’t good looking, than you better be able to **** good”. You fill in the blanks.

Posted by: janedoe at September 3, 2008 2:30 PM
Comment #261289

S.D., respectable Rpblcns are starting to come out from wherever they’ve been hiding during the current administration. With only 139 days left of the worst president in history, they are already trying to forget that anyone named Bush ever existed. JMcC is nuts if he doesn’t go negative on the Bush administration in the next 2 months.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 3, 2008 5:49 PM
Comment #261313

kctim-
Like I said before: I’m not trying to defend Obama’s lesser experience by appealing to Palin’s.

My defense for Obama’s lack of seniority compared to McCain is that Obama shows skills and judgment that balance out concerns his inexperience might raise. Palin, on the other hand, demonstrates serious flaws that compound the issues that her inexperience in State and Federal government bring to bear. Her virtues are works of fiction. She was for earmarks before she was against them, for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it, against fiscal responsibility before she was for it, etc.

I’m not sure what the point of picking Palin was. Maybe this was meant to put Democrats into a rhetorical bind, but it binds them right back. He knew, selecting her, that the charge of inexperience would be batted right back at them.

The Hillary grab part of it was obvious. And for its obviousness, offensive. Is it not sexist to believe that Hillary voters would flock to her just because she had the necessary chromosomes? It’s cynical, at least.

I think John Kerry put it best when he said that this pick proved that John McCain was a prisoner of the Right. A real Maverick in the GOP might have picked a proc-choice Republican. A real maverick might have picked a woman with real credentials, rather than a Twenty month governor.

He could have refused to bow to the theocons, eschewing experienced, respected, but not relgious Republicans, but instead, he chose one of the most religious candidates since Bush.

He could have maintained his most maverick-y of positions, but instead, to get through the primary, he essentially made himself a Bush Republican. His level of agreement of Bush has risen over time, until he’s become a virtual clone of Bush in the senate.

McCain made the calculation that he could not be his own kind of Republican, a true maverick, and become a candidate, much less the nominee. Rather than challenge the status quo, he conformed to it. Rather than remake the party through an insurgent campaign, he bent his knee to their special interests.

Palin, when you examine her record, hardly seems the Mavericky Choice.

Obama, for his lack of seniority has had the toughness, resolve, tactical skill and strategic smarts to achieve what McCain has marketed himself as doing. I would rather pick the man who succeeds despite being a relative rookie, than stick with a wannabe who just talks about changing things. Obama’s done what McCain’s talked about doing. That’s why I value McCain’s experience so lowly.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 3, 2008 8:41 PM
Comment #261329
If you’re serious about debating me on this subject, you won’t essentially call me a liar instead of making your own valid and sound argument on the matter.

Stephen, multiple times you have made statements about prosecution of doctors which is simply not true.

The concern on the part of Obama and others was that the medical opinion of the doctors on viability, that is the fetus’s ability to survive without being on machines for the rest of its life, would be disregarded in favor of a standard that would require any fetus not born completely limp and dead to be given what might be futile care.

Stephen, do doctors ever make errors in judgement? Or tell someone they only have a few months to live and then that person lives for several years? Or tell someone they will be wheelchair bound the rest of their lives and that person walks again?


The law already provide for doctors to step in when the baby was born alive and viable, so that wasn’t the thing. The thing was, the wording of the bill would have defined unborn children as persons, which would be a direct attempt to circumvent Roe vs. Wade. The concern about the bill was bipartisan, Obama’s reservations justified.

Stephen, you are correct that the law provides for doctors when an infant is born alive, BAIPA simply defines what a live birth is.

I have once again posted the exact language of the bill that Obama as committee chair voted to kill in committee denying the full Illinois Senate the opportunity to vote on it. It is also nearly word for word identical to the federal BAIPA that Obama claims he would have voted for if he had been in the US Senate. Please show me where in this bill that Obama helped kill that it defines unborn children as persons.

AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly:

Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding Section 1.36 as follows: (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)

Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.

(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this Section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this Section [the bill] shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section.

Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon becoming law.

Posted by: Kirk at September 3, 2008 11:35 PM
Comment #261344

Kirk-
Your statement contradicts mine. That doesn’t make me a liar.

The doctor should be allowed to do what a doctor does: judge the complex biological situation as it’s going on. A lawyer doesn’t know his crap here. A heart beat alone doesn’t give life. Movement of voluntary muscles doesn’t mean life.

When this bill was finally passed, they essentially had two added parts put in so that it wouldn’t deny the Doctors their just authority, and so that it wouldn’t conflict with constitutional law.

You really can’t define an unborn child as a person without opening up a can of worms in terms of Roe v. Wade. In legal terms, a person has certain rights. Life is one of them. We do not define, in law, an unborn child as a separate person from the mother. The fetus is defined as part of the mother, and medical privacy demands that people be free to make medical decisions about their own body. Define the fetus as a separate person in the womb, and that conflicts with medical privacy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 4, 2008 12:16 AM
Comment #261352
If the reason he gave for not signing it was because it didn’t have the language with the protection in it, yet the 3rd one he voted against did have the language, I think we have to either assume his reasons were wrong OR he didn’t know what was in the bill. He gave no other reason for vetoing the bill at the time if I read this correctly.

Rhinehold,

He knew exactly what he was voting against. If you look at the actual committee records, Obama voted along with the other 9 members in a 10-0 vote to add the “neutrality clause” ammendment to the BAIPA. The clause states “Nothing in this Section [the bill] shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section.”

Obama and the 5 other Democrats then voted along party lines in a 6-4 vote to kill the bill in committee and deny the full Senate a chance to vote on the bill.

After appearing at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church on Saturday to debate John McCain, Obama sat down to an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) correspondent David Brody.

Brody asked Obama to respond to questions over why he voted “no” to BAIPA, since Obama voted down the Illinois version, which was exactly identical to a federal bill passed unanimously by the US Senate. Obama became visibly irritated and accused NRTL of “lying” about his record.

“They have not been telling the truth,” Mr. Obama said. “And I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying.”

Obama said he would have voted for a version like the federal BAIPA “even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion.”

However, twenty-four hours later, the Obama campaign made an about-face and admitted that Obama, not NRTL, had “misrepresented” his own position, which his critics have charged defies “commonsense” and “imagination.”

The Obama campaign admitted to the New York Sun that Obama misrepresented his position when he told CBN that the federal version he says he supports, “was not the bill that was presented at the state level.”

The campaign acknowledged Obama had voted against an identical bill in the Illinois Senate, but then said Obama was worried that even as worded, the legislation might have undermined existing Illinois abortion law.

Posted by: Kirk at September 4, 2008 12:27 AM
Comment #261356
Obama’s done what McCain’s talked about doing.

Everyone on the left keeps talking about what Obama has done without. Yet all they list are adjectives not concrete accomplishments. If Obama has all these accomplishments that we on the right just do not see, pleae enlighten us.

Posted by: Kirk at September 4, 2008 12:41 AM
Comment #261361

I’ve just updated my McCain / Palin site, for your consideration:

http://www.palinbycomparison.net

Thanks

Posted by: gop4obama.org at September 4, 2008 12:54 AM
Comment #261366
The doctor should be allowed to do what a doctor does: judge the complex biological situation as it’s going on. A lawyer doesn’t know his crap here. A heart beat alone doesn’t give life. Movement of voluntary muscles doesn’t mean life.

Again doctors are human and make errors in judgement. The Senators (I assume that is who you were refering to as lawyers) were trying to clarify the earlier law be defining what “born alive” is. Without this definition doctors and hospitals could be opened up to legal action based on their judgement of the viability of an infant compared to someone elses judgement. With a black and white definition there is no ambiguity. Everyone then knows the exact paramaters surrounding the situation removing doubt.

You really can’t define an unborn child as a person without opening up a can of worms in terms of Roe v. Wade.

I agree but don’t know as I would call it a can or worms.

In legal terms, a person has certain rights. Life is one of them. We do not define, in law, an unborn child as a separate person from the mother.

Legally that is correct.

The fetus is defined as part of the mother, and medical privacy demands that people be free to make medical decisions about their own body.

I agree with your interpretation of the legal definition and people are allowed to make those medical decisions.

Define the fetus as a separate person in the womb, and that conflicts with medical privacy.

I agree. Unfortunately for your arguement that is not what the BAIPA which Obama killed in committee did. That is not what the federal BAIPA which Obama claims he would have supported despite voting against an identical state bill does.

This is where your dishonesty comes in, that or you lack an understanding of the BAIPA on whole.

Again, if you actually believe that is what the BAIPA as quoted above does please highlighte the wording that defines in your words “fetus as a separate person in the womb”. Otherwise, I must assume you are intentionally mis-stating what is included in the bill.


Posted by: Kirk at September 4, 2008 1:01 AM
Comment #261417

Kirk-
What would your reaction be if somebody came around to help an injured friend of yours, and said “I can help, I’m a lawyer!”?

Doctors make mistakes, but other doctors are the ones who have the expertise to properly critique their actions.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 4, 2008 9:06 AM
Comment #261426

Is the matter of Sara Pallin’s pregnant teen daughter off topic? My answer is NO.

Here is why: If this were just a matter of teen pregnancy then sure, it is off topic. But there is so much more to this. It plays directly in line with the judgment of the parent who was also governor of the state at the time. Alaska has the highest rate of teen STD’s in the country, the governor of the state with the highest teen STD rate refuses to teach sex education or offer contraceptive to teens. Alaska is also a state with a pretty high teen pregnancy rate.

This particular governor decided to put ideology over policy and in turn her teen daughter got pregnant. She choose to ignore the statistic’s and instead offer only the impractical religious philosophy of abstinence in place of practical education.

Because she was in charge of the policy making that directly assisted in her daughter getting pregnant, we have to question her judgment in ignoring the statistic’s of the state with the highest STD rate in the country. I believe if the situation was reversed, this is the argument the republicans will use and beat us to death with it.

I don’t believe this is an issue that should be off the table at all, this is clear and concise evidence to the core of the republican institution that their inability to separate church and state when deciding policies is very ineffective.

Also, they are now praising the fact that the baby was not aborted to promote their values rather than the failure in their methods. This is causing them to win the argument. If they are saying the kids are off limit, they should not mention anything complementary to the after effect of the decision. This is much like them praising the surge and talking nothing about going into war in the 1st place.

The republicans get more aggressive and we take the high road every 4 years and lose. I would really like to say NO this time around. This is the core of your issue, it goes into the practicality of her judgment not to offer sex education in the state with the highest teen STD rate in the country. That is not the judgment of a leader. Bad policy and absentee parenting is not replaced with ideological philosophy. This includes the pictures of her teen daughter drinking and kissing other girls that are all over the internet. This is not the family values you talk about, preach about and the decision for John McCain to select her as his running mate is DANGEROUS for the country.

What are we sitting on our hands for?

Posted by: Andrew Stone at September 4, 2008 10:12 AM
Comment #261445

Kirk

Of course as proven by the posts here, the idea of someone putting country first over family is inconcievable to the left.

Please Kirk the woman is a politician, nothing more. The chance for a female to be on the republican ticket as the VP pick is a one in a million shot. Of course she was not going to turn it down. Save the patriotism bull for someone who can’t see beyond the horizon. Also I am sure her family supported her in this decision. How could they not do so. The result is that they too had to realize what they would be up against when supporting her. Never the less the decision was ultimately hers.

Posted by: RickIL at September 4, 2008 12:22 PM
Comment #261606
Kirk

Of course as proven by the posts here, the idea of someone putting country first over family is inconcievable to the left.

Please Kirk the woman is a politician, nothing more. The chance for a female to be on the republican ticket as the VP pick is a one in a million shot. Of course she was not going to turn it down. Save the patriotism bull for someone who can’t see beyond the horizon. Also I am sure her family supported her in this decision. How could they not do so. The result is that they too had to realize what they would be up against when supporting her. Never the less the decision was ultimately hers.

Pretty well point proven. Won’t even consider the possibility

Posted by: Kirk at September 4, 2008 10:59 PM
Comment #261609
Kirk- What would your reaction be if somebody came around to help an injured friend of yours, and said “I can help, I’m a lawyer!”?

Stephen, please. The Illinois Senators (not necessasarily lawyers) were trying to clarify an ambigous law. They were making a clear and unmistakable definition so that no one could be confused as to the meaning protecting Doctors, Nurses, and Hospitals from possible prosecution.

Doctors make mistakes, but other doctors are the ones who have the expertise to properly critique their actions.

And in the mean time an infant born alive is left to suffer and die a slow agonizing death.

Once again as the left typically does when they finally realize they are wrong on the issue and can in no way defend their position the ignore and obfuscate, try to change the direction of the debate and deflect the overwhelming evedence against them.

You have multiple times stated that the BAIPA would threaten Roe v. Wade by defining an unborn fetus as a person. That it would be used to prosecute doctors both of which are catagorically false. So, I will ask one last time and your response will be telling.

Define the fetus as a separate person in the womb, and that conflicts with medical privacy.

I agree. Unfortunately for your arguement that is not what the BAIPA which Obama killed in committee did. That is not what the federal BAIPA which Obama claims he would have supported despite voting against an identical state bill does.

This is where your dishonesty comes in, that or you lack an understanding of the BAIPA on whole.

Again, if you actually believe that is what the BAIPA as quoted above does please highlighte the wording that defines in your words “fetus as a separate person in the womb”. Otherwise, I must assume you are intentionally mis-stating what is included in the bill.

Obama has been caught with his pants down on this one when he said he would have voted for the federal bill even though he killed a materially identical state bill in committee denying the full Senate an up or down vote on the measure. He publically called those pointing out his action liars in an interview. Now his campaign has had to admit that Obama did indeed vote against the bill. So, now who is the liar?

Posted by: Kirk at September 4, 2008 11:20 PM
Comment #261664

Alaska Gov National Security Experience
Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. Itʼs on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units.
As governor of Alaska, unlike nearly all other States, Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. She’s also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security’s counterterrorism plans.
Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country’s defense. She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.

Posted by: badda bing at September 5, 2008 8:08 AM
Comment #261902

Perhaps Barack should have chosen a local TV anchorwoman to be his running mate. Unlike Biden, with his intellect, foreign policy experience, and ability to assume the Presidency if necessary, a TV newsreader could deliver a good scripted speech, and with enough coaching could pretend to know the difference between Slovenia and Slovakia. For the most compelling country in the world, we’ve really dumbed ourselves down. The Obama / Biden ticket, the most competent, skilled ticket in 100 years, has to share airspace with a Rove corrupted McCain and a small town former beauty contestant, who was only recently elected governor of a very small population state. I do think there’s more to come on this Palin issue, and the issue is squalrely a McCain issue. It has to do with McCain’s disregard for the welfare of the country, by making such a silly pick. Are we that stupid in this country? I hope not. http://www.palinbycomparison.net

Posted by: gop4obama.org at September 6, 2008 1:03 PM
Comment #261984

Kirk-

The Illinois Senators (not necessasarily lawyers) were trying to clarify an ambigous law. They were making a clear and unmistakable definition so that no one could be confused as to the meaning protecting Doctors, Nurses, and Hospitals from possible prosecution.

The Majority of Senators and Reps in Illinois were in agreement about the poor quality of that phrasing. Obama was not alone.

And in the mean time an infant born alive is left to suffer and die a slow agonizing death.

Just add “You bastard” at the end there, It’ll clarify the thrust of such language. There’s not a lot of evidence that this was the case to begin with. I know the anti-abortion people have probably put out their share of horror stories about these things happening, but we must examine their case at face value, and require evidence. So, what’s the incidence of all this? Where are the documented incidents that lead to the necessity of this law.

Once again as the left typically does when they finally realize they are wrong on the issue and can in no way defend their position the ignore and obfuscate, try to change the direction of the debate and deflect the overwhelming evedence against them.

With such an attitude, you could never lose an argument, because everytime somebody didn’t agree with you, you could argue that they’re simply backpedalling from the fact.

I’ve not backpedalled from the analysis that the laws were poorly written, and that’s why Obama voted against them. You’ve raged around and against me, trying to cast me as a cowardly villain. In the end, though, the bill only passed when the language was added that explicitly reinforced the doctor’s judgment, as well as the fact that this law was not going to make legal persons out of the unborn.

badda bing-
Just say no to trollery.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 6, 2008 11:00 PM
Post a comment