Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Spin-Talk Express: First stop Alaska

McCain is saying that his vetting process for his pick for Vice President was completely thorough (link) and that he was grateful for the results. Grateful for the results!? Really!? This has got to go down as the dumbest, pre-election blunder since Gary Hart’s ‘follow me’ remark.

The simple facts are that McCain met her face-to-face once in Feb. 2008 and then spoke with her on the phone once a couple days before his decision.


"John McCain first met Governor Sarah Palin at the National Governors Association meeting in Washington in February of 2008 and came away extraordinarily impressed."
"Last Sunday (August 24th), Governor Palin and John McCain had a conversation over the phone"(link)


"Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin's background. A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice." (link)

That was it.


The vetting process was quite different for the other potentials. The ridiculous claim by McCain that Palin was thoroughly vetted is insulting to both the intended electorate and the other candidates that actually went through the grueling up-to two-month process of VP vetting. In fact, Pawlenty advisors and another finalists on Maverick's VP list described a rigorous vetting process for candidates that lasted one to two months.

Mr. Straight Talk wanted and fought for either Lieberman or Ridge to be his dance partner for the election, not Palin. But the religious right fought back and threatened a fight on the convention floor. Instead of standing for his beliefs, McCain caved to the religious right that has owned the Republican Party. By throwing away the running mates that he wanted, McCain showed a lack of decisiveness in choosing the partner that he wanted and also showed a tremendous lack of conviction for both the position of Vice President and the individual that he selected.

Did the McCain group think that no one would check?

Since the press knew next to nothing about Palin before last Friday, it makes perfect sense that there would be someone would check her background. And by-golly did they find a bunch: a pregnant high schooler, a husband with a DUI, an abuse of power scandal; boy I sure didn't see this list on Fox News' "5 things you didn't know about Sarah Palin".

Instead of honing his message for the convention, McCain is now busy chasing his tail by trying to contain his message. The McCain campaign started using the Rovian playbook of "shoot the messenger' by going after the bloggers that pushed the daughter's story.

"Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser, said no matter who the nominee was, the campaign was ready to send a "jump team" to the No. 2's home state to work with the nominee's staff, work with the local media and help handle requests from the national media for information, and answer questions about documents that were part of the review." (link)

Isn't anyone concerned about this tactic?

The campaign is mobilizing their forces to go back to Alaska and manage the flow of information coming out Alaska both at a local and a state level. Instead of letting the information out and allowing the public the ability to make an informed decision, the McCain campaign decided it was more important to control and contain the flow of information to an informed electorate.

Palin will be a just a 72 year-old heartbeat away from the Presidency and no one knows, including many of those in the campaign, anything about her background.

Which is why, when Palin was announced as the VP choice, I was shocked to watch the lemmings instantly throw their 'overwhelming' support to someone that they most certainly had no prior knowledge of.

How else can you explain the onslaught of support by so many for a personality that had such little notoriety outside of her own state?

But now that people are getting to know more about Palin. Unfortunately the information that's coming out wasn't what she wanted released.

She and a number of others say that 'kids are off the table', including her daughter.
Okay; that makes sense. But it appears that only certain kids are off-the-table. If you recall, during her introductory speech in Ohio she talked quite a bit about her family and her children.
She talked about the absence of her eldest son who will be deploying to Iraq in a couple of weeks. She went on to talk about her son's decision to join and to serve. She enjoyed the reception of acceptance and applause for her son. But somehow I missed the part where she fawned on about how proud she was for daughter, that is a high school student, is going to make her a proud grandparent.

She also talked about her wonderful, world champion snowmobiler, card-carrying union man husband. I missed the part where she mentioned the DUI.

It's a bit clear to those that have been watching that Palin didn't go through the same scrutiny as her other VP wanna-be peers; in fact it's almost disingenuous to continue saying so.

The best thing that McCain can do is go back eight years and get back on the straight-talk express and come clean with the electorate.

Posted by john trevisani at September 2, 2008 8:09 PM
Comments
Comment #261063

You base your entire argument on the word of one ‘anonymous’ person.

Yet the McCain camp has already address this in detail and you ignore anything they say to make your partisan points.

The story, my campaign source told me, is “materially false.” Gov. Palin, the strategist said, was subjected to a “complete vet.” “That included her filling out a 70-question questionnaire that was highly intrusive and personal. She was then interviewed for more than three hours by A.B. Culvahouse. There were multiple follow-up interviews.” (I asked precisely how many follow-ups there were, but my source stuck with “multiple.”) “There was a thorough interview process,” the strategist continued. “There was a public records search and political vet. There was a private life and financial vet. Everything that has come out was known by the campaign through the vetting process.”
As for what materials the campaign examined in the vetting, the source told me they checked out (almost) everything. “The only thing the campaign did not look at was the microfilm of the local newspaper, because it was impossible to look at the microfilm without revealing the search process,” the strategist said. “We made a calculation that we would be able to get all the information from the Anchorage newspaper, that it was unlikely that there would be items in the local papers that were problematic that didn’t make it to the Anchorage paper.”

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2EyM2Q2NjYxZmUxMzgxNTYwMjAwZDk3MmE2NGNmNjY=

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2008 8:25 PM
Comment #261065
Which is why, when Palin was announced as the VP choice, I was shocked to watch the lemmings instantly throw their ‘overwhelming’ support to someone that they most certainly had no prior knowledge of.

How else can you explain the onslaught of support by so many for a personality that had such little notoriety outside of her own state?

You realize that her name was in the top 10 names discussed for the past several months by many pundits, that the news media was lazy is not anyone’s fault but their own.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2008 8:27 PM
Comment #261066

Rhinehold:
i really don’t understand what you mean by ‘entire argument is based on a single anonymous source’. i’ve posted numerous articles that have many different sources.

FROM THE NYTIMES ARTICLE.

“They didn’t speak to anyone in the Legislature, they didn’t speak to anyone in the business community,” said Lyda Green, the State Senate president, who lives in Wasilla, where Ms. Palin served as mayor.

Representative Gail Phillips, a Republican and former speaker of the State House, said the widespread surprise in Alaska when Ms. Palin was named to the ticket made her wonder how intensively the McCain campaign had vetted her.

Posted by: john trevisani at September 2, 2008 8:38 PM
Comment #261068

That’s great Rhinehold… grueling…70 questions, the evasive answer of “multiple” follow-ups when pressed for a number. One could actually consider two as multiple, I guess. And they checked out “almost” everything. Guess we pretty much know some of the things they failed to find out.
Glad you used such a non-partisan source for your information, too. Kind of fits your Independent points of view, as long as they lean way to the right.

Posted by: janedoe at September 2, 2008 8:49 PM
Comment #261072
Guess we pretty much know some of the things they failed to find out.

Like? Everything that has come out was addressed in the link…

Glad you used such a non-partisan source for your information, too. Kind of fits your Independent points of view, as long as they lean way to the right.

I never claimed it to be non-partisan, it was a release from the campaign. I pointed out that the article written was partisan by not even including the statement by the campaign, not even to dismiss it out of hand. He cites an anonymous source and an andectode by someone that is meaningless.

So, please, continue the personal attacks, seems to fit in very well with the politics de jour.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2008 8:56 PM
Comment #261074

You’re way off to suggest that was a personal attack.

Posted by: janedoe at September 2, 2008 9:02 PM
Comment #261075

Rhinehold:
i agree with janedoe; it’s not they said F*** Y** or anything. :)

Posted by: john trevisani at September 2, 2008 9:07 PM
Comment #261076

janedoe:
i’ve interviewed for jobs, gone through phone screens, face-to-face interviews, more face-to-face interviews and then they do a background check to verify what i signed in the job application was accurate.
i realize my experiences are different as i’ve worked in the private sector. i guess the Vice President of the United States of America doesn’t warrant more scrutiny than my profession.

Posted by: john trevisani at September 2, 2008 9:12 PM
Comment #261078

janedoe,

What are your thoughts on Hillary’s statement that she’d put 18,000,000 cracks in the glass ceiling? If Palin/McPain is elected, will that mean the glass is shattered? I’d like your perspective on this matter.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 2, 2008 9:13 PM
Comment #261082

McCain is clearly lying about this — and not even convincingly. What an incompetent, reckless, doddering old fool. He obviously has no respect for the American people, or for the office he wants to hold.

Caribou Barbie was never vetted at all, and this has been very well established at this point.

The vast majority of independent voters that McCain had been counting on to give him the presidency are now extremely likely turn away from the thought of voting for him in deep disgust.

And Al Qaeda must be laughing their asses off at the thought of these two dumbsh*ts holding the reins of power.

Dude:

If Palin/McPain is elected, will that mean the glass is shattered? I’d like your perspective on this matter.

I know you didn’t ask this of me Dude, but I’d like to give you my thoughts in addition to Jane. I hope you don’t mind if I do.

The answer in my opinion is: NO. Caribou Barbie is a religious fanatic who is totally Anti-Woman in every way she could possibly be. And this ticket is sure to be the death knell of every stride forward that so many progressive women, including Hillary, have tried to make since the 1970’s.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 2, 2008 9:37 PM
Comment #261083

John, the McCain campaign directly addressed this story in a press release today.

The New York Times in particular was basing its story on the comments of people who were in no position to know the facts of what was going on in the inside of the McCain campaign’s vetting process.

You have absolutely no idea—beyond your partisan wish to say that Governor Palin wasn’t adequately vetted—what actually went on in the vetting process, what questions were asked, or what criteria were used to make the selection.

This is getting downright silly. The faked pregnancy thing didn’t work out for your side, the Palin is a secessionist thing didn’t work out, and now all you’ve got is this idle speculation about things nobody is any position to know about.

It’s actually kind of pathetic, and made even more so by the suggestion that an old DUI citation of her husband or the fact that her daughter is pregnant with her fiance’s baby would somehow disqualify her from holding office.

The DUI thing in particular is ridiculous, especially since it involves not even the candidate but her husband. As I understand it, Al Gore’s son also received a DUI and drugs were found in his car… but I would consider it ridiculous to hold Al Gore responsible for it. Let’s not even get started with Bill Clinton’s brother! Joe Biden’s son, as I understand, crashed his car while driving drunk… but so what? I’m not about to hold that against Biden, and I’d laugh at anybody who told me I should.

What’s more, both Biden’s son AND his brother are currently in court defending against accusations of defrauding investors out of millions of dollars. Should this disqualify Biden? Should this have been “vetted” by Obama? I’m sure it was, but Obama realized—correctly I might add—that people aren’t responsible for the actions of all their relatives.

Your side is so afraid of Palin that there’s nothing they won’t stoop to, no matter how ridiculous. Could you imagine if we held the Kennedy clan up to this kind of scrutiny? Based on the craziness that some of their relations have gotten up, not one member of that family would be considered worthy of serving in government.

In fact, how many of US could pass such a test if we were judged and held responsible for all the actions of our relatives?

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 2, 2008 9:44 PM
Comment #261084

Palin will be gone soon. The media is eating her alive, and deservedly so. She’s inexperienced, inadequately vetted, and eminently unqualified to be Vice President.

Posted by: phx8 at September 2, 2008 9:44 PM
Comment #261086

LO:
How many times did McCain meet with Palin face-to-face before giving her the knod?

How many times did McCain talk with Palin before giving her the knod?

McCain was the one that is pandering for a non-existant vote from disgruntled Hillary supporters.

Palin put her son in front of the public but kept her pregnant high schooler in the shadows.

Posted by: john trevisani at September 2, 2008 9:51 PM
Comment #261088
How many times did McCain meet with Palin face-to-face before giving her the knod?

Once, as I understand it.

How many times did McCain talk with Palin before giving her the knod?

A few times, I don’t know the exact number as it is a meaningless one.

McCain was the one that is pandering for a non-existant vote from disgruntled Hillary supporters.

Except he isn’t, he is looking to fire up his base and will take the help from disgruntled women voters who are upset with Obama if he can get it.

Palin put her son in front of the public but kept her pregnant high schooler in the shadows.

Imagine that, not getting up and saying on that first day that her daughter was pregnant. Wanting to leave that up to her to decide when to tell people, her and her fiancee.

The SHAME.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2008 10:00 PM
Comment #261089

Phx8, that’s several times now that you’ve declared that Palin is going to withdraw from the ticket. If she was such a drag on McCain, wouldn’t you want her to remain? Sounds to me that you’re scared of her and you well should be.

John, I understand that Palin talked to twice face-to-face and other times by phone, and that Palin had a number of interviews with McCain surrogates besides.

Is there some magic number of face-to-face conversations that you think is required before someone selects a running mate? Should they go on vacations together first? Down a bottle of bourbon and hit the bars? Spend a weekend in Tijuana? What is it you want?

What matters is what goes on in the meetings and interactions you do have, and what you’re able to find out about someone through other means. These criteria you’re making up out of thin air are meaningless. You have absolutely NO idea what you’re talking about when you claim to know what went on between McCain, Governor Palin, and everyone else doing the vetting. You are not in a position to know and you DON’T.

This is just a sad little hobbyhorse that Democrats have decided to ride and it has absolutely no bearing on how good Palin will turn out to be as a candidate… something that frankly, none of us know yet. Tomorrow, at the convention when she speaks, a lot of things may be cleared up, but until then all of these attacks are just pointless and pointlessly nasty Democrat party mud-slinging.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 2, 2008 10:05 PM
Comment #261091

John

I think it can be accurately said that things are not as they would like us to believe in McCainville. None of this adds up to a proper and responsible handling of the situation. It was bungled horribly and most definitely was not the way they hoped to introduce his pick. Whether the omission of the fact was intentional or not, it does raise suspicions of intended deception. I am inclined to believe that his arm was twisted in this selection. I also believe that this entire affair is a direct reflection of just what his presence in the white house would look like. Another four years of irresponsible bungling and knee jerk decisions based on a pseudo maverick persona that is lite on intellect and high on GOP rhetoric. Like GW he will be owned lock stock and barrel by the ultra wealthy GOP elitists who are currently running this country.

Posted by: RickIL at September 2, 2008 10:06 PM
Comment #261099

LO:
“John, I understand that Palin talked to twice face-to-face and other times by phone, and that Palin had a number of interviews with McCain surrogates besides”

i’ve posted my sources that support my statement. Please cite the sources to your ‘understanding’.

Posted by: john trevisani at September 2, 2008 10:21 PM
Comment #261100

The same source as mine, I believe. The McCain camp.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2EyM2Q2NjYxZmUxMzgxNTYwMjAwZDk3MmE2NGNmNjY=

“Todd’s DUI — we judged that to be immaterial to the selection process. The ticket for fishing without a license — we judged that to be immaterial to the selection process.” On the charge that Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party, the strategist said, flatly, “She was never a member of the independence party, because she has been a registered Republican.” (Later, the McCain camp put out a statement saying it had provided reporters with “ALL voter registration documentation” showing that Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982 and “has never been a member of the AIP.”) And on the issue of Palin’s daughter Bristol being pregnant: “John McCain made a decision that did not affect his decision-making in terms of her qualifications.” (As far as the allegation that Gov. Palin faked a pregnancy to cover up for her daughter is concerned, it appears the McCain campaign knew about it and looked into it, but never very deeply because it had been proven false to the satisfaction of pretty much anyone outside The Atlantic or the DailyKos.)

From our conversation, it was clear that the McCain campaign paid a lot of attention to the so-called “Troopergate” issue. After all, unlike the “fake baby” story that has preoccupied the press, it is a real issue involving allegations that Palin abused her power. Last night, the McCain campaign distributed a “background guidance” memo to reporters on the issue. In our conversation, the strategist recounted much of the substance of that memo.

“Of course this issue came up in the vetting, and this is what we discovered,” the source said. “The man who was fired has said on the record that he was never pressured by the governor or the governor’s husband on the issue of firing Trooper Wooten. The governor had a vision for how she wanted that department to be run. The commissioner had a different vision.”

“The reason that members of the Palin family were having discussions with the head of the state police about this state trooper, who was her ex-brother-in-law, was because he had made threats against the family. He threatened to kill the governor’s daughter, her father, and her sister. He tasered her 11-year-old stepson. And that is why the Palin family was concerned about this trooper.”

I brought up accusations that the McCain team has performed a “legal vet” on Palin but did not perform a “political vet.” In addition to the accusation that Palin had been a member of the Alaska Independence Party, there were issues like her change in position on the “bridge to nowhere” and her support for raising sales taxes in Wasilla, Alaska. “Change on the ‘bridge to nowhere?’” my source asked. “Are you saying there’s somebody out there who believes that should disqualify her to be vice president?” Barack Obama has changed his mind on a few things, the strategist added. As for sales taxes in Wasilla, the source said, “Every aspect of her political record is known to us. These people [McCain’s opponents] are desperate.”

And those are the same things I brought up here Friday night because they were all out there for anyone, who wanted to actually investigate the issue instead of piling on based on what the DailyKOS commenters said, to see. I’ve even posted the actual phone call that is said to be the material ‘proof’ of Palin’s pressure and asked everyone to decide for themselves, how many has actually listened to it?

BTW:

The McCain campaign started using the Rovian playbook of “shoot the messenger’ by going after the bloggers that pushed the daughter’s story.

You mean the slime ridden innuendo laden gutteral attempt to claim that Trig was Bristol’s baby?

Yeah, bad McCain for pointing out the putricity of some on the left. And bad Obama too for going along with that admonishment.

No, I’m not a republican, but even a Libertarian can see when people are acting like slime. And I’m sure the undecided are not going to be too happy about it either. You know, the undecided, the ones that aren’t already in Obama’s camp? He’s going to need them and the fact that he doesn’t have them already is a real story…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 2, 2008 10:29 PM
Comment #261102

Who would have thought that after comparing Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears,then being shown up by Paris’s more comprehensive Energy policy, that McCain would select the family of Jaime Lynn Spears to be his Veep choice? Amazing.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 2, 2008 10:36 PM
Comment #261107

LO,
As a Democrat, I would like to see Palin stay on the ticket.

I also happen to really enjoy following the ups and downs of a political campaign. I can appreciate a well executed strategy or maneuver made by the opposition, just as I can condemn a misstep by my own side.

The Palin pick is a strategic disaster. Think of all the things you want a VP pick to accomplish: swing a border state, appeal to moderates, establish experience credentials in an area of perceived weakness, or provide an example of statesmanlike stature. Palin accomplishes virtually none of these, with the exception of nailing down the Christian fundamentalist base.

The GOP has taken the support of fundamenalists for granted in the past, and it most certainly can afford to do the same this election. To win the election, McCain needs to win the middle. He needs to bring home moderates who have defected from the GOP and maybe Reagan Democrats. If possible, he needs to capture disaffected Hillary supporters.

Palin was meant to capture those disaffected Hillary votes, but she is proving to be so extremely right wing in her views that she destroys McCain’s chances of winning HRC voters, or encouraging any moderates or centrists to vote for McCain.

On the plus side, Palin brings in a lot of money from the churches.

On the negative side, she is sucking the oxygen out of the room. Every few hours another scandal or piece of negative news rears its ugly head. Worse, her story is dominating media coverage, but the coverage is all negative.

So what should McCain do? Personally, I would pull the plug immediately, and try to leverage the convention. It may be too late already, and putting a replacement into the convention would probably result in a floor fight.

If he waits a week or so, McCain can offer the fundamentalists a sop, kind of a ‘hey, I tried’ justification. If he waits, he loses crucial time and watches moderates flee the GOP. But by waiting, he can replace her by putting a vice presidential pick through the GOP nominating committee, and avoid a floor fight.

A conservative commentator summed it up pretty succinctly. What else could McCain do? The odds were against him from the start. If he didn’t take a chance, he would lose. He gambled, and he lost.

Posted by: phx8 at September 2, 2008 10:47 PM
Comment #261108

Geezer and Gidget are getting so much laughter from producers and audiences that they are considering canceling the presidential bid and making a sitcom.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 2, 2008 10:52 PM
Comment #261111

Phx8, that’s quite a fantasy. The Republican delegates are whipped up with excitement over Palin, and there isn’t going to any floor fight to remove her. Nonsense.

ANY Republican VP nominee would be confronting the same BS. It’s clear that the Democrats and their media allies have abandoned ANY scruples at all and no exaggeration, distortion, or outright lie is too disgusting for them to embrace and repeat over and over again.

I realize it’s not going to be easy to go over their heads to the American public, but I’m confident that we have the people in place—especially Governor Palin—to do it. Now we can just wait and see.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 2, 2008 11:06 PM
Comment #261114

Palin will be gone soon. The media is eating her alive, and deservedly so. She’s inexperienced, inadequately vetted, and eminently unqualified to be Vice President.

The libs are so scared by Palin that their attacks aren’t even making sense anymore! Take her off the ticket? Only in your most desperate dreams! It’s clear that she’s very popular with both Republicans and independents. Stop trying to project your wishes on reality; it doesn’t work! The media is not eating her alive because, to normal people, lefty wing-nut bloggers don’t count as the media. Unvetted and unqualified? Too late for that argument. The American people like what they see her background.
What’s really ironic is that Obama keeps asking you guys to shut up, but you just won’t listen to your own candidate! Obama needs independent voters in order to win and the attacks on Palin are turning them against him.
Has anyone else noticed there isn’t a single issues-based article in the Democrats column of this site (not too many in the other two either, but at least they have some)? When libs are desperate, it’s attack, attack, attack! You call this “change”?

Posted by: Republicwin at September 2, 2008 11:21 PM
Comment #261115

According to the Times article he met her face to face once and offered her the job moments later… And she’s his soul mate?

Rhinehold,

I don’t think these posts have anything to do with hating Palin. We’re asking questions, and the answers simply don’t add up. I’m not fond of her positions, but the kinds of things that are coming out are very strange. It’s very strange that McCain’s team did not announce Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy from the get go, considering it is a widely known Alaskan rumor that was bound to come out.

And, knowing whether or not she was vetted is important. It says something about McCain’s desperation and judgement. In fact, I don’t really need to know anything about him other than that he took the massive risk of selecting her as VP. I don’t vote for unpredictable gamblers.

Posted by: Max at September 2, 2008 11:24 PM
Comment #261117

Phx8, that’s quite a fantasy. The Republican delegates are whipped up with excitement over Palin, and there isn’t going to any floor fight to remove her. Nonsense.

It’s funny how delusional libs get when they’re down and out! They really thought Reps would turn their backs on McCain and Palin, when in reality Republicans haven’t been this unified since Clinton was President. They really think it’s ok to hurt Obama with independents as long they get their go at Palin.

Posted by: Republicwin at September 2, 2008 11:28 PM
Comment #261119

No amount of “vetting” would have prevented the Democrats from throwing out one obscene lie after another. Vetting your own candidate does not instill character or a sense of decency into the other side.

The Democrats have gone into full-blown mud-slinging mode and all they do is pause every now and then to ask “Look at all this fuss your candidate is causing? Boy, have you chosen wrong!”

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 2, 2008 11:33 PM
Comment #261120

You think it’s just liberals that are asking these questions? Internationally, they are saying there is an 18% chance she will be removed. You can actually bet on it.

Posted by: Max at September 2, 2008 11:34 PM
Comment #261121

phx8:

As a Democrat, I would like to see Palin stay on the ticket.

Me too! And I think we’re going to get our wish!

Max:

she’s his soul mate?

Bingo. McCain announced to all of America that Caribou Barbie is his “Soulmate”, and because of that, I don’t think they’ll be dumping her now.

Unless of course, the GOP suddenly decides to dump Mr. McGoo, too — for some health reason or another, naturally.

But I really think they dare not pull the plug at this late stage.

goog:

McCain would select the family of Jaime Lynn Spears to be his Veep choice? Amazing.

Funny! Thanks for the chuckle — even though it hurt bit! Splashed a little hot tea on my jeans over that one. Good thing it didn’t reach the keyboard! :^)

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 2, 2008 11:48 PM
Comment #261122

You think it’s just liberals that are asking these questions? Internationally, they are saying there is an 18% chance she will be removed. You can actually bet on it.

Soo… It’s other kinds of idiots as well as liberals? Got it.

It’s very strange that McCain’s team did not announce Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy from the get go, considering it is a widely known Alaskan rumor that was bound to come out.

So you don’t like the fact that she didn’t announce a personal matter when you thought she should have? Yeah, huge mistake on McCain’s part…

I don’t really need to know anything about him other than that he took the massive risk of selecting her as VP. I don’t vote for unpredictable gamblers.

What risk? McCain knew how you lefty wingnuts would respond! That’s how he knew Palin would be a popular choice with normal people!

Posted by: Republicwin at September 2, 2008 11:50 PM
Comment #261125

Bingo. McCain announced to all of America that Caribou Barbie is his “Soulmate”, and because of that, I don’t think they’ll be dumping her now.
Unless of course, the GOP suddenly decides to dump Mr. McGoo, too — for some health reason or another, naturally.

A. Why do libs always resort to name-calling when they have no argument?
B. Why can’t they even try to be creative about it?

Posted by: Republicwin at September 2, 2008 11:58 PM
Comment #261126

A twenty year old DUI, a far too typical teenager who made a mistake, and an ‘ethics scandal” that involved an abusive brother-in-law. That’s the best you can complain about? Good grief, this will be old news in less than a week. Obama’s scandals, Marxist and anti-American mentors and his lying, plagiarizing lifetime Washington insider of a running mate have ten times ‘the problems’ than the squeaky clean reformer and governor of Alaska does.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at September 3, 2008 12:00 AM
Comment #261130
I don’t think these posts have anything to do with hating Palin.

I don’t think we’re reading the same posts…

And, knowing whether or not she was vetted is important.

I still don’t get this talking point. Of course she was vetted. In fact, she was vetted by Arthur B. Culvahouse, Jr. CNN was just talking about him and mentioned that ‘he was a professional and if he was doing the vetting then the vetting was done’.

I’m not fond of her positions, but the kinds of things that are coming out are very strange.

Strange? That she has a 17 year old daughter that got pregnant? Yeah, that never happens. The her husband was part of a political party for a couple of years, one she never joined but attended some conventions with him as his wife? Astonishing. That she was trying to find out why her ex-brother-in-law was still a State Trooper when he lied on his application, threatened the lives of her family and tazered an 11 year old family member? Even stranger!

The problem is the same with what happened to Quayle. It was an unexpected pick so people start running with innuendo and half-investigated facts in order to ‘get the scoop’. Quayle was accused of having an affair that was proven false years before. He was accused of getting special treatement at the National Guard, which didn’t happen. And he was too inexperienced, which he wasn’t.

And, you know what? His ticket still won the election…

(and yes, if you haven’t guessed, I have more than passing knowledge of Dan Quayle, he helped me out of a tough situation as a disabled veteran in dealing with the Navy while he was my senator, even though I had not voted for him. He was class and worth a lot more as a human being than was leashed upon him by ignorant rumormongers.)

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 12:10 AM
Comment #261131
You think it’s just liberals that are asking these questions? Internationally, they are saying there is an 18% chance she will be removed. You can actually bet on it.

Bet on her staying then, Lieberman just made sure of that… He actually just bet his political career on it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 12:12 AM
Comment #261132

How funny!!! Almost couldn’t get my hamburger down while I was reading some of the responses. Even the nasty righty ones. Dude, I think that even trying to compare this (am struggling with just what to call her, for I have a hard time spitting out “lady”) candidate with Hillary. I know there are some who don’t agree with those feelings, but she did open things up for us. And she has so much more she could bring into the office, and I could never forget that BC was part of the package. This gal is honestly insulting to me. Those pictures are cheap and trashy and it repulses me to think that image is what can be seen by people all over the world. For God’s sake, we are trying to pull ourselves out of the crap that Bush has had us mired in all these years, and these nitwits think this person is the answer to that. It’s embarassing. How many of you guys in here can honestly tell me that looking at that bikini and the cutesy skirt, that you could take pride in saying that she is “your President” ?????
I am so frikin’ sick of the word maverick that I could puke!!! I’m going with goog and calling them Geezer and Gidget!!!! good one goog!!!
And they are saying about every 15 minutes what the Times reported and stands by about the 1st. and only in person meeting was last Weds.
McCain has no ba**s…!! He’s got a giant hand up his butt working his mouth, and I’m disgusted.
Now….I need to go take a blood pressure pill…..lol

Posted by: janedoe at September 3, 2008 12:16 AM
Comment #261134
How many of you guys in here can honestly tell me that looking at that bikini and the cutesy skirt, that you could take pride in saying that she is “your President” ?????

Seriously, you really care that when she was younger she was cute? That somehow disqualifies her? And you call yourself a feminist, really?

the Times reported and stands by about the 1st. and only in person meeting was last Weds.

They are at odds with CNN, NY Times, etc… I suppose you have to go with what you want, it is just a shame it isn’t with the facts.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 12:21 AM
Comment #261136

This from the Washington Independent:

I’m reading an article from October 1996, in which a reporter named Laura Mitchell Harris asks Palin about her intentions for a shake up. How would she effectively run a city without experienced leaders? “”It’s not rocket science,” Palin said, “It’s $6 million and 53 employees.”

Remember: We’re talking about the city she addicted to earmarks and left twenty million dollars in debt.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 3, 2008 12:29 AM
Comment #261137

phx8, you’re so cool. You just pop in occasionally and make a calm statement about her longevity in all of this. You got someone up there you’re getting inside info from??
I would love to have both your cool and conviction…but don’t. Guess you’ll have to keep making regular appearances to remind us!

Posted by: janedoe at September 3, 2008 12:29 AM
Comment #261138

Oh, and more from the mouth of AB Culvahouse:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080902/D92UI8DG0.html

Culvahouse disclosed details of his examination in a half-hour interview with the AP.

First, a team of some 25 people working under Culvahouse culled information from public sources for Palin and other prospective candidates without their knowledge. For all, news reports, speeches, financial and tax return disclosures, litigation, investigations, ethical charges, marriages and divorces were reviewed.

For Palin specifically, the team studied online archives of the state’s largest newspapers, including the Anchorage Daily News, but didn’t request paper archives for Palin’s hometown newspaper. “I made the decision that we could not get it done and maintain secrecy,” Culvahouse said.

Reports, 40-some pages and single-spaced, on each candidate then were reviewed by McCain, Schmidt, campaign manager Rick Davis and top advisers Mark Salter and Charlie Black.

Among the details McCain’s campaign found: Palin had once received a citation for fishing without a license.

Palin, like others on the short list, then was sent a personal data questionnaire with 70 “very intrusive” questions, Culvahouse said. She also was asked to submit a number of years of federal and state tax returns, as well as any controversial articles she had written or interviews she had done. The campaign also checked her credit.

Then, Culvahouse conducted a nearly three-hour-long interview.

He said the first thing she volunteered was that her daughter was pregnant, and she also quickly disclosed her husband’s DUI arrest.

Early on, the public search unearthed details of the investigation by the Republican-controlled legislature into the possibility that Palin ordered the dismissal of Alaska’s public safety commissioner because he would not fire her former brother-in-law as a state trooper.

Culvahouse said that he asked follow-up questions during the interview, and “spent a lot of time with her lawyer” on the matter.

“We came out of it knowing all that we could know at the time,” he said.

As for the financial records review, Culvahouse said: “It was very clean. We had no issues there.”

Throughout the process, the campaign said, Davis had multiple conversations with Palin.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 12:30 AM
Comment #261139
Why do libs always resort to name-calling

Because it’s fun, and because I’ve been taking lessons from Dubya and his buddy, Turd Blossom Rove.

when they have no argument?

Oh, I tend to squeeze my arguments in and around the nicknames. Perhaps the pique over these names is short circuiting an ability to decipher them?

Why can’t they even try to be creative about it?

Caribou Barbie isn’t creative? You know, it’s like Malibu Barbie, just a tad more gun-nut and secessionist.
:^D

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 3, 2008 12:35 AM
Comment #261141

Rhinehold, I don’t think she is cute now, and probably wasn’t any better when she was younger. What detracts from any cuteness is her attitude that shines through her every pore. Maybe you just have to be a woman to understand, and if you don’t understand that, oh well.
Funny, but not sure how one can be at odds with oneself, as they are citing the Times as the source of that comment, but maybe this helps more:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/29/1307122.aspx

Posted by: janedoe at September 3, 2008 12:41 AM
Comment #261142
Because it’s fun

It certainly is childish, I don’t know much about the fun part though…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 12:45 AM
Comment #261143

Rhinehold-
The basic strategy I would take as a candidate would be to vet well ahead of time, not to take it down to the wire. As McCain has been the presumptive nominee since early March, he should have had his pick in the can long before he started editing together his campaign strategy with them.

According to what I’ve heard, she was not his first choice. But shouldn’t have mattered. You should have had all of the candidates fully vetted, fully interviewed. And for crying out loud, you could have done a simultaneous toss up in the air of all the candidates if you were looking to keep the identity of the person being selected secret. Not looking in her hometown’s newspaper was just looking for trouble.

You can through all the data in the world about how much was done to vet her, but so much was found out so late, or not at all, that it seems like the purpose of that vet was not served.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 3, 2008 12:46 AM
Comment #261144

Reading your link it looks like they met twice, once at the Governor’s convention and once again before the announcement…

And I still don’t know what point it makes, other than there weren’t sharing physical space very often, though I wonder if it will end the rumor that they were having an affair for the past couple of years now?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 12:47 AM
Comment #261145
The basic strategy I would take as a candidate would be to vet well ahead of time, not to take it down to the wire.

Where do you get that it was ‘down to the wire’? Do you think a lawyer with a staff of 25 gets built and pours through all of that information, holds several phone interviews and makes its conclusions overnight?

As McCain has been the presumptive nominee since early March, he should have had his pick in the can long before he started editing together his campaign strategy with them.

Like when Obama announced his candidate as a surprise, promising to email followers first, just days before the election? If he had had the political will/currency to make a better, bolder pick, would you be screaming foul if the right acted the same way?

Come on Stephen, you know you wouldn’t stand for it.

According to what I’ve heard, she was not his first choice.

I don’t know about that, but since I don’t know for sure, or care, I’m not really sure why it matters.

You should have had all of the candidates fully vetted, fully interviewed.

And it appears he did.

And for crying out loud, you could have done a simultaneous toss up in the air of all the candidates if you were looking to keep the identity of the person being selected secret. Not looking in her hometown’s newspaper was just looking for trouble.

Did you even READ what was wrote? They did look in the ‘hometown newspaper’ through online sources, instead of going through the actual microfilm. And they learned all about the things you are claiming they knew nothing about. They weren’t ‘made public’ because 1) it isn’t their responsibility and 2) most of it was irrelevant.

You can through all the data in the world about how much was done to vet her, but so much was found out so late, or not at all, that it seems like the purpose of that vet was not served.

It is obvious you are just not going to read the facts on this one and regirgutate the talking points, Stephen. Even CNN can get it right…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 12:54 AM
Comment #261146

BTW, you say so much was found out so late, by whom? The press? The campaign knew about it, was it really their responsibility to do the press’ job for them?

I don’t think anyone has an issue with the press going out and finding those things, asking about them and the campaign saying ‘yes, we knew but it was irrelevant and we found out xxx’ or somesuch.

But when the slime machine started in such a way that even DailyKOS has to ask their commenters to back off, it is apparent that it didn’t matter what they said or did, the politics of personal destruction is being practiced by both parties well this election cycle.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 12:56 AM
Comment #261147

Sarah Palin will spend the next two months campaigning with this man. She will need to mesh her side of the campaign with his. She will need to be a disciplined part of his campaign.

If somebody forced you to work with somebody cold, with no chance to meet them and get to know them, much less the opportunity to have met and worked with them in another environment, it will affect your working relationship’s ability to hit the ground running.

Also, Although the surprise of the Palin selection was effective, the campaign had no time to coordinate a real media rollout where the bumps in the road of her particular story would be smoothed over, or at worst, Palin chucked overboard for a better selection before the choice is made public, and therefore almost obligatory.

As Forrest Gump said, Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re going to get. It’s the job of the vetters and the role of meetings with the candidates to get a taste of this particular brand of goods before you find one those nasty little confections in there that sours the whole deal.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 3, 2008 1:03 AM
Comment #261150
It certainly is childish,

Perhaps — but that’s only fitting when we’re talking about Ms. Palin, no?.

I don’t know much about the fun part though…

No, you wouldn’t.
But for so many Obama supporters and volunteers watching this ongoing vice presidential train wreck unfold because of McCain’s own incompetence happens to be hilarious.
He WAS running on experience and judgment!!!

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 3, 2008 1:10 AM
Comment #261151
Sarah Palin will spend the next two months campaigning with this man. She will need to mesh her side of the campaign with his. She will need to be a disciplined part of his campaign.

Of course, just like any other POTUS/VP ticket.

If somebody forced you to work with somebody cold, with no chance to meet them and get to know them, much less the opportunity to have met and worked with them in another environment, it will affect your working relationship’s ability to hit the ground running.

1) You make an assumption that McCain was forced to work with Palin.

2) Meeting someone face to face over and over doesn’t necessarily mean anything, Stephen, and you know that. Heck, my boss at my job and I are in different cities and while we communicate back and forth from time to time I have not met him. Does that make me unable to work with him?

Also, Although the surprise of the Palin selection was effective, the campaign had no time to coordinate a real media rollout where the bumps in the road of her particular story would be smoothed over, or at worst, Palin chucked overboard for a better selection before the choice is made public, and therefore almost obligatory.

That is true. It was a calculated risk that McCain took. But that doesn’t call for the rumors of her baby being her grandson and the way that was handled. It was completely inappropriate and put a real black eye on the left in this country, even though it wasn’t the entire Democratic Party, they are going to have to deal with the aftermath of that.

As Forrest Gump said, Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re going to get. It’s the job of the vetters and the role of meetings with the candidates to get a taste of this particular brand of goods before you find one those nasty little confections in there that sours the whole deal.

And there is nothing to say that they didn’t do their job. All you have are assumptions and wishful thinking, Stephen. Let the campaign go for a bit, let her take her acceptance speech and participate in a debate before piling on with the innuendos that are being floated out there by unethical hacks.

Those are the guys holding back the blogsosphere from being real journalists, they don’t have the integrity necessary to understand the difference between gossip and news.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 1:14 AM
Comment #261152
Perhaps — but that’s only fitting when we’re talking about Ms. Palin, no?.

No, it’s childish when anyone does it.

Congrats for being just as bad as the other guys you rail against.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 1:15 AM
Comment #261153
Those are the guys holding back the blogsosphere from being real journalists, they don’t have the integrity necessary to understand the difference between gossip and news.

Please tell me you’re kidding..

Posted by: janedoe at September 3, 2008 1:28 AM
Comment #261154

Rhinehold,

The Times reports McCain claim he only found out last Wednesday about the pregnancy, as she was being offered the job. Seems a little late to be finding things out, but this was obviously a last minute decision, after McCain watched Obama’s convention and lost it.

You can’t blame Democrats for finding out about rumors that were generally well known in Alaska. Frankly, I would still like to see her medical records made public as they are for all candidates, and still want to know why, as a pro-life advocate she would risk the health of her child by taking a plane while in labor.

Actually, the questions never end. Answering them is called campaigning, and that’s her job right now. You don’t make a last minute decision to pick someone as VP no one knows anything about and then complain about answering some questions, especially ones that have been out in the open for a long time.

Hardly any of the Palin issues bother me as much as the fact that he would make a last minute gamble pick on someone he hardly knew anything about. I don’t think that’s disputed at this point. What bothers me second-most is that she stands for completely the opposite of what McCain’s been running on - experience, bi-partisanship, etc. What’s even more amazing is that Republicans haven’t even blinked at this complete reversal.

I’m embarrassed for Republicans, most of whom are going on the record that Palin has great foreign policy and commander in chief experience since Alaska is next to Russia and she runs the national guard. But.. Palin doesn’t meet with Russian leaders on anything, and the governor has nothing to do with the national guard in terms of national defense matters. These are lies plain and simple.

Posted by: Max at September 3, 2008 1:31 AM
Comment #261156

Rhinehold-

Where do you get that it was ‘down to the wire’?

They learned of Bristol’s pregnancy, the DWI, and I suppose most of the most embarrassing information the actually knew of the day before the selection.

If they had known sooner, they would have been better prepared to handle the media circus, shape the coverage, coach Palin with the right talking points to handle these things.

Instead, you’re getting a very messy, long, and rather unhealthy vetting in public.

Did I read what you wrote about the hometown newspaper? Yes, but I also read your source, out in plain view. And I quote:

For Palin specifically, the team studied online archives of the state’s largest newspapers, including the Anchorage Daily News, but didn’t request paper archives for Palin’s hometown newspaper. “I made the decision that we could not get it done and maintain secrecy,” Culvahouse said.[emphasis mine]

Sure, they kept it a surprise, but at the cost of missing a newspaper which covered most of her political career in the best, most local detail.

It is obvious you are just not going to read the facts on this one and regirgutate the talking points, Stephen. Even CNN can get it right…

You didn’t get the hometown newspapers right. The hometown newspapers are a critical part of a vetting process. They should have found some way of either keeping it secret, or making the investigations so multi-pronged as to preserve surprise.

As for Talking points? What do you think you’re delivering now? Check out what the pundits are saying; you’re saying the same thing.

Your average Democrat’s exposure to talking points is relatively small. We look for news stories, and some bloggers even run down these things for themselves. We’ve essentially created intelligence operations, with both open source information from newspapers and networks and even sometimes primary source reporting.

That is how, not even half a week later, the GOP’s VP pick has become such an underwhelming choice. You see only vicious, inaccurate rumor-mongering. And a few Democrats are going that direction. But what most of us are interested in are the news items, the facts that come flying in and get aggregated. A lot of the time, the Democrats come up with their own talking points in a sort of marketplace of ideas.

For example, a while back, I referred to her as a trophy running mate. Nobody told me to do this, and I didn’t read that from anybody. It just seemed an appropriate metaphor for the pure window dressing this candidate was.

The way this pick was rolled out was not unlike the way the soldiers in the firt wave of the Omaha Beach landing where rolled out. The guns and bunkers were supposed to be taken out, and craters were supposed to be blown in the beach to give them cover, but nothing of the sort happened, and the first wave of her publicity, claims about the Bridge to Nowhere and all, were shot to pieces.

This is about a lack of coordination, about people not knowing critical information soon enough to do them some good. Now you mention your relationship with your boss, but would it be wrong of me to suggest that over time you two must have built some kind of rapport, some kind of understanding of the expectations and needs of the other person?

And if you’re going to have to physically work with the other person, tour the country with them, campaign with them, would you not want to get started getting comfortable with the other person before you have to subject that relationship to the stress of the general election campaign?

I get the sense that you’re making excuse, coming up with reasons why something wasn’t necessary, saying that something was done right, when the evidence is right out there that something went wrong. The whole point of vetting somebody is to proactively and pre-emptively avoid scandal. It can never be perfect, but I can’t remember the last time it’s gone so explosively wrong.

You can get self-righteous about bloggers, but can you counter the information? Tell me, what do you think about this particular quote from The Washington Independent?

I’m reading an article from October 1996, in which a reporter named Laura Mitchell Harris asks Palin about her intentions for a shake up. How would she effectively run a city without experienced leaders? “”It’s not rocket science,” Palin said, “It’s $6 million and 53 employees.”

If somebody had vetted her properly ahead of time, they would have known not to go on about the executive experience, on that account.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 3, 2008 1:41 AM
Comment #261157
The Times reports McCain claim he only found out last Wednesday about the pregnancy, as she was being offered the job.

And the Times is incorrect as the lawyer who did the vetting details.

but this was obviously a last minute decision, after McCain watched Obama’s convention and lost it.

So, he made the decision on Wednesday, but now he made it on Thursday? When did he make it, Max?

And what about the 25 person staff that was put in place to vet Palin who poured of all of the documentation, had her submit to hours and hours of interviews, etc? Was that done in the 12 hours from the end of Obama’s speech to the announcement of the pick, which of course had to have been decided before the long plane trip to Ohio from Alaska…

You can’t blame Democrats for finding out about rumors that were generally well known in Alaska.

I don’t blame them for finding out about rumors. I blame them for reporting on them without any facts, especially the most disgusting of them, the one that was obvious to debunk and was here with no thought to the reality of the situation.

Actually, the questions never end. Answering them is called campaigning, and that’s her job right now.

Of course it is. Now if you want to ask legitimate questions, please feel free. But follow your POTUS’ candiate’s lead and lay off of the politics of personal destruction.

You don’t make a last minute decision to pick someone as VP no one knows anything about and then complain about answering some questions, especially ones that have been out in the open for a long time.

Again, it wasn’t last minute as shown by the information provided by the lawyer who did the vetting…

Hardly any of the Palin issues bother me as much as the fact that he would make a last minute gamble pick on someone he hardly knew anything about. I don’t think that’s disputed at this point.

? You don’t think it’s disputed? Even though the McCain camp has called out the Times for writing lies (not the first time against McCain) and the AP releasing an interview with the vetting lawyer who refutes it in its entirety?

Hmmm

What bothers me second-most is that she stands for completely the opposite of what McCain’s been running on - experience, bi-partisanship, etc. What’s even more amazing is that Republicans haven’t even blinked at this complete reversal.

She stands for the opposite of bi-partisanship by taking on corruption in her own party and defeating a sitting Republican Governor? And you’re saying now that suddenly McCain is not as experienced compared to Obama as he was before the pick?

I wonder sometimes if I have just walked into bizarro world…

I’m embarrassed for Republicans, most of whom are going on the record that Palin has great foreign policy and commander in chief experience since Alaska is next to Russia and she runs the national guard. But.. Palin doesn’t meet with Russian leaders on anything, and the governor has nothing to do with the national guard in terms of national defense matters. These are lies plain and simple.

Not lies, but not whole truths either. Clinton made the same claim when he was running as President, that he had foreign policy experience because of the Guard. But she does (and has) called out the guard to combat fires and has had experience as an executive. We can argue if it is enough and I might agree if is she was running for president, but she isn’t. There is a difference between the office of the President and that of the Vice president, even though they are responsible for taking over ‘in case’. McCain doesn’t look like he’s about to drop dead to me or any doctor either. You say his mother at the convention tonight too, didn’t you?

And the on the job training she’ll get as VICE president would be more beneficial than a few years in the senate, don’t you think?

What am I kidding, of course you don’t think that…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 1:51 AM
Comment #261158

Stephen,

You say you don’t do ‘talking points’ because, well, you’re a Democrat. But anyone else is obviously giving ‘talking points’ because, well, they aren’t Democrats.

Classy.

Tell me, Stephen, what was in that ‘smalltown newspaper’ that wasn’t discovered during the vetting process? The lawyer details all that they found out, is there anything that is out now that wasn’t discovered in that process?

Please be detailed, we all know that as a Democrat you are obviously far better suited for discovering information without the help of ‘the pundits’, us lowly non-Democrats are just left with emailed talking points that we cut and paste… We rely upon you to find out that information!

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 1:59 AM
Comment #261159
Congrats for being just as bad as the other guys you rail against.

Do you ever for a moment stop to think how you come off when shovelling this kind imperious bullsh*t? Let me tell you something Rhiney, I couldn’t care less how “bad” you think I am for finding the spectacular train wreck that is McCain’s campaign both hilariously funny and extremely satisfying after eight harrowing years of Bush/Cheney/Rove.
Eight years in which Democrats have been called every nasty, despicable name in the book.

This lofty double standard that contrarians such as yourself, and other rightwingers constantly set for us Democrats is LUDICROUS. Almost as ludicrous as this recent display of offended and oh-so-tender sensibilities over the fact that Palin is now getting the kind of public vetting that could have easily been avoided had John McCain possessed an ounce of good judgment.

The choice of a vice presidential running mate happens to be a very serious duty and heavy responsibility to this nation, yet the shallow and superficial way that McCain went about making his selection shows he viewed it as little more than a flashy advertising gimmick.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 3, 2008 2:32 AM
Comment #261162

I have never seen the liberals on this blog vituperate on an issue with this amount of fervor. They will all deny it, but the fact of the matter is, they are scared. If Sarah is so obviously bad for America, then America will obviously not vote for her. Obama will crush her.

After all, she just had the horns sawed off her forehead before the nomination, and her daughter is practically a prostitute, and her husband is a drunkard felon, and her mother-in-law hates her, and she banging John McCain, and she is a total political failure, she’s an inhuman wolf-killer, she is as anti-woman as is humanly possible, and she’s stupid.

That about sums up the Democratic symbal clanging on the almost 1000 posts regarding Palin since the announcement - which I GUARANTEE is a record. She is being drug over the coals by you hypocritical liberals and your mud-slinging drive-by media. I used to work in Radio up here and I’m golfing buddies with the GM for a conservative talk station in Anchorage. He was called that morning by CNN and asked (and I quote)

“What can you tell us about Sarah Palin that would illuminate or better explain her lack of experince to the American people.”

To which Justin replied

“I think she’s a great choice for McCain’s VP”

and CNN said “Thank you” and hung up. No liberal media bias there…

I live in Wasilla, and I can tell you that the reason for the debt service to the town was an inherited fiscal nightmare that was the reason she got elected in the first place.

After two terms as mayor (maximum allowed) she left us as the 2nd fastest growing community in the United States after Hendersen, Nevada. She was considering raising the sales tax as opposed to raising the property taxes to alleviate the burden of the debt from homeowners and have the tourism economy shoulder some of the load. It didn’t pass because everyone (and rightly so) knew that she wouldn’t be in office after the debt was repaid and then lower the tax rate back, so we all took it in the shorts and they raised the mill rate in city limits. Her heart was in the right place, but voters were stuck between a rock and a hard place.

So Stephen, please stop prattling on about the 20 million, you can’t imagine the nightmare before she was mayor and now we are thriving because of the changes she made while in office.

To all the liberals out there that say that it is McCain’s poor judgement that is to blame for your vicious mud slinging and slimy politics, I laugh in your faces. To think you would be treating anyone else he might have picked more professionally or with more consideration is so ridiculous I can’t believe you take the time to write it.

Palin will withstand this firestorm of nonsense, and she will connect with the people of America in a way that liberals cannot understand.

The one criticism that is so nuts is VV’s call from another thread that she is as Anti-Woman as can be.

A rhetorical question:
How is marrying the man you love, raising a family, going to all their track meets and games, taking the time to take care of yourself and stay fit and beautiful, entering public service by popular demand, doing a kick-ass job of it, handling all the challenges this insanely huge and complicated state has to offer, choosing to have a down-syndrome baby because you are a christian woman and you believe children are a gift from god - how does all that make you Anti-Woman?

Answer - it doesn’t - quite the opposite.

It makes you resented by all the obese, cottage cheese & garbage can legged feminists who think loving your husband makes you weak, and raising a family makes you a slave, and staying fit makes you beholden to men’s ideals. — You know, all the nonsense that feminists proclaim is in the interest of woman’s progress when really it only justifies their lifestyle choices.

What you liberals don’t realize is that more of America identifies with Sarah’s real qualities - the ones I listed, than identify with all the bullshit mud-slinging you have done, are doing, and continue to do. You don’t understand this because you are liberals, and liberalism is a mental disorder.

The most laughable thing is the whole pretense of this blog, as though any liberal will ever be enlightened enough to change their point of view based on someone’s post here. Or the other way around for that matter.

I leave you with the Typical Obama Supporter’s Intellectual Capacity to understand Sarah Palin.

Posted by: Yukon Jake at September 3, 2008 3:51 AM
Comment #261165

if you think about it its brilliant! she is human & voters will relate to many of her issues because they are or have experienced them themselves. we americans (most of us) are eager to forgive! at least she has a career & life to judge!

Posted by: benhed at September 3, 2008 4:06 AM
Comment #261167

John

Looks like the Dems want Sarah to now have a DNA test.

How sad.

To me, a woman who chose to have a child after being informed that the child is a Down’s Syndrome child is special…

That says volumes about her character.

I wonder what Barry and Michelle would have done.

Barry doesn’t want this to be an issue though…his mom was pregnant with him at 17 .

In one fell swoop, McCain has gotten his first team off the bench as witnessed by the convention’s opening night…and now the attack dogs will be unleashed.


The new talking points are now history in the making….the Democratic candidate with the least amount of experience ever who will work with the most unpopular Democratic Congress ever.

Even Bush’s popularity is higher….imagine that!

Words from Reid…who said we lost in Iraq, and Murtha…who convicted six marines over Haditha before they had their day in court will be played, re-played ten thousand times between now and the election.

Ted Kennedy calling Iraq the next Vietnam will be played again and again.

Maybe they should re-play his being drunk on the stage when Carter beat him. Better still, maybe they should interview a Cape family and ask them what they dead daughter would think today.

Numbers will be a factor too.

The most important being the number zero.

That’s how many attacks America has had since 9/11.

That is how much executive experience Barry has.

That is how much McCain will raise taxes.

The Democratic candidate is about to become the biggest con job in this nation’s history.

Bigger than Ponzi.

A smooth talking yes man for the left power base has been propped and hailed as a savior.

A testimony to Dean and Move On ,and the KOS

Vetting?

How did this guy get into Harvard?

He graduated from college and did not make the Dean’s list. He was stoned and drunk his first 2 years in college.

He was so stoned that he apparently didn’t hear his pastor’s rascist sermons while zoning out in the pew, I think.

Almost all his legislation introduced as a Illionios senator was drafted and pushed thru by corrupt Chicago politicians. He was their bag man.

In the Senate, he hit the ground running all right..running for president, that is.

He did nothing. Along with a do nothing Democtatic controlled Congress who spent ‘07 and ‘08 screaming that we lost the war….when we have in fact won the war.

Despite the MSM’s bag job of this candidate, McCain is still within shot of winning this election. Why? Because the American people are not blind…only the hateful Left can claim that title.

How sad. A DNA test.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at September 3, 2008 6:25 AM
Comment #261168

Rhinehold:

Reading your link it looks like they met twice, once at the Governor’s convention and once again before the announcement…

The link that you’re referring to is one of the links in my original posting. The link goes to a story ENTITLED: MCCAIN MET PALIN ONCE BEFORE YESTERDAY?

“John McCain first met Governor Sarah Palin at the National Governors Association meeting in Washington in February of 2008…Last Sunday, Governor Palin and John McCain had a conversation over the phone. Governor Palin was at the Alaska State Fair, and John McCain was at his home at Phoenix. …This past week, Governor Palin arrived with Kris Perry in Flagstaff, Arizona, on Wednesday evening. Upon arrival, Governor Palin and her longtime aide Kris Perry met with Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter of the McCain campaign at Mr. Bob Delgado’s home in Flagstaff. …On Thursday morning, Governor Palin and staff were joined by Mrs. Cindy McCain and later joined by John McCain at the McCain family home in Sedona, Arizona. At approximately 11:00 a.m. Thursday August 28, 2008, John McCain formally invited Governor Sarah Palin to join the Republican ticket.”

Seems pretty clear that McCain met her ONCE in Feb/08. Then spoke to her on the phone the Sunday before the announcement. Then flew her in to offer her the VP pick.

Unless you’re counting the face-to-face offering of the position another ‘meeting’, seems to me that they met only ONCE before he made his decision.

Posted by: john trevisani at September 3, 2008 7:29 AM
Comment #261169

SE,
DNA test? Sad that you are now resorting to lies.

Phx8,
She won’t be withdrawing. She will be rallied around for what she is. A divisive candidate that is perfect for a divisive party.

Posted by: Schwamp at September 3, 2008 7:45 AM
Comment #261172
seems to me that they met only ONCE before he made his decision.

Oh well hell, then by all means let’s tear her down then. That’s the smoking gun!

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 8:39 AM
Comment #261174

Rhinehold:

Oh well hell, then by all means let’s tear her down then. That’s the smoking gun!

It was McCain’s choice; he’s the one that supposed to be responsible.

Let me ask you a question: How many different interviews did you have to go through before you got your last offer for employment?

Posted by: john trevisani at September 3, 2008 8:55 AM
Comment #261179

With my boss? One.

With others vetting me? Two.

Which matches what she went through here…

And your point is?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 9:32 AM
Comment #261181

I think we, democrats, are beginning to take on the skunky characteristics of the GOP. We need to be better than this. I think that it has gone beyond whether John McCain made a wise decision and vetted Ms. Palin appropriately. Which is a legitimate question. We are now digging deep to trash this woman.

DON’T get me wrong I think she is a poor choice. I think that MCCain demonstrated poor judgement but lets don’t give this woman too much attention it could backfire. Let her political inexperience and lack of knowledge sink her. Let her sink into the background. She is no threat to us.

I could care less about her pregnant daughter. I do however care about the fact that she has put her own political ambitions ahead of attending to and meeting the needs of her 4 month old baby born with down syndrome. Everything she has done regarding her premature labor-not going directly to the closest hospital and now not giving herself and her family the time needed to emotionally deal with how loving and meeting this baby’s needs both developmentally and medically is going to impact her family says to me that she cares more about herself than her child. Plus, giving her infant the time and attention that is required of both parents to provide him with the healthy, learning environment he will need. If he was older it would be different but I have issues with any woman who puts her own political needs ahead of her infant’s. As a woman I would never make the decision she made knowing that I had just given birth to a child that I felt was going to need all my time and attention to become the wonderful and fulfilled human being he was meant to be.

Posted by: Carolina at September 3, 2008 9:35 AM
Comment #261182

Carolina

I agree with most of what you have said here and it has been my point in all of these articles. The only disagreement I have is in regards to her personal life regarding her son, it would seem to me to be her decision to make based on aspects of her family that we can not know. Her husband is staying home, so he is going to be the primary care-giver along with their other older children helping out (I know I spent most of my teenage years helping raise my brothers and sister).

My question, would you ask the same question of her if she was a man? Would Biden have been better suited to resign his seat after the death of his wife, or is he heroic for putting his country and constituents above his family?

Other than that, yes please do disagree with her on her experience (I think that is a dangerous road to go down but it is legitimate) and her positions (just try to get them right). Everything else just seems, as you say, skunky.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 9:44 AM
Comment #261186

Carolina:
i agree that her daughter’s pregnancy shouldn’t be an important issue. But it was Palin herself that decided to push her children in front (Military Son).

There’s a piece in the NYT today (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us/politics/03wasilla.html) about her tenacity towards putting the party above all. Not to say that she’s putting party above her infant son, but some could say she’s not giving the attention that he may need.

Posted by: john trevisani at September 3, 2008 10:15 AM
Comment #261187

Carolina:

I don’t know how to tell you this, but there is a wing in your party that will never stop their attacks, even if called upon by BHO himself. It is a case of pure hatred and organized attacks on a successful woman. The glass ceiling, spoken of by HRC is not upper-management, it is the Democratic Party. HRC was also discriminated against by her own party.

This attack will backfire against the left. The Dems have managed to put the face of Sarah Palin all over the TV and Internet. When she speaks at the RNC tonight, millions will want to hear and from what I have seen of her, they will find that the attacks do not match with the personality.

I have to disagree with you about her career vs. raising a 4-month old child. In the first place, BHO could not (because it wasn’t in his pay grade) determine if this 4-month old child is really a child or still a fetus. Since BHO believes the child could still be a fetus and not under the protection of the constitution, then his answer would be simple, just destroy the fetus.

You said:
“Everything she has done regarding her premature labor-not going directly to the closest hospital and now not giving herself and her family the time needed to emotionally deal with how loving and meeting this baby’s needs both developmentally and medically is going to impact her family says to me that she cares more about herself than her child. Plus, giving her infant the time and attention that is required of both parents to provide him with the healthy, learning environment he will need. If he was older it would be different but I have issues with any woman who puts her own political needs ahead of her infant’s.”

My question is, where did you get your medical expertise and where did you get these facts?

Secondly, you only have to look at this family to see the love they have for this child.

Thirdly, your opinion of her priorities (mother and career) is misplaced. The very goal of the feminist movement is to say that a woman can be a mother and have a career at the same time. You can’t have things both ways. If you believe in the feminist movement, then you must support Sarah Palin’s career. It is for this reason I find it astounding that the feminist are not supporting her. The only conclusion I can come to is they put politics above core beliefs. The golden calf of the feminist is abortion, and they hate her because she decided to give birth rather than abort her baby. They attack her because her daughter wants to keep her baby rather than abort.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 3, 2008 10:31 AM
Comment #261188

Hats off to Carolina. Finally a Democrat starts to wonder if it’s either decent or smart (instead of dumb politics that will backfire) to trash a woman so mercilessly without regards to facts.

I think we, democrats, are beginning to take on the skunky characteristics of the GOP. We need to be better than this. I think that it has gone beyond whether John McCain made a wise decision and vetted Ms. Palin appropriately. Which is a legitimate question. We are now digging deep to trash this woman.

I do take issue with part of this though. Can you name one instance ever where the GOP went after a candidate’s family members like this? It’s one thing to go after a candidate, but trashing her family is something else, and, I believe, totally unprecedented.

John:

I agree that her daughter’s pregnancy shouldn’t be an important issue. But it was Palin herself that decided to push her children in front (Military Son).

How did she “push her children?” As of yet, she’s given ONE speech, and in it she introduced herself and family and gave a little background on them. Should she not have mentioned that her son is in the military? The fact is that her son IS in the military. What’s the problem? Should Obama not mention that his wife is a lawyer? The unfair niggling nit-picking here is off the charts.

As for not announcing to the world that her daughter was pregnant, you have to remember that Governor Palin was only asked to join the ticket the previous day. Bristol Palin, like many a teenager in that situation, is probably anxious and embarrased and, frankly, is her own human being with a life separate from her mom’s political career. I’d have thought less of Governor Palin, actually, if she’d forced her daughter to go public—on an international media stage, no less—the day after Governor Palin herself was thrust into the spotlight. Nobody has the right to ask that of someone else, especially not a teenage girl.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 3, 2008 10:36 AM
Comment #261190

I just heard the democratic operatives released Sarah Palin’s SS number for the purpose of finding more to use against her.

This is a sincere question: does anyone have a problem with this? Her qualification for the job have nothing to do with this. It is an attempt to force her out of the running. It is intolerable.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 3, 2008 10:38 AM
Comment #261193

LO:
It all comes down to selective acknowledgment. The rumors about her daughter had been circulating in Alaska for quite sometime. The fact that the national media picked up on made perfect sense. But if she came out in the very beginning, during her introductory speech, and introduced her pregnant daughter in the same manner that she spoke of her military son, there wouldn’t be a issue.

She was the one (or possibly the McCain/Palin handlers) that hid her daughter’s pregnancy while playing up her son’s military record.

Posted by: john trevisani at September 3, 2008 10:44 AM
Comment #261194

oldguy:
Releasing SSN: please provide the source for this accusation.

i’ve searched and found dead links that originated from Politico. Others have described information that contained the first part of SSN missing the last 4 digits. Again, this is unconfirmed.

So, by all means, post your source.

Posted by: john trevisani at September 3, 2008 10:53 AM
Comment #261195

John, there were no proactive measures taken to “hide” the pregnancy. The poor girl showed up right beside her mother, wearing her engagement ring for all the world to see, for a speech that was intended to introduce the candidate to the public.

Bristol Palin is her own person. She was under no obligation to have her private life shoved out onto the world stage before she was ready simply because her mother was running for office. The very idea is offensive.

Simply because you don’t TALK about some embarrassing fact doesn’t mean that you are HIDING it. It’s actually just good manners. When you meet somebody with a harelip do you start asking them about what it’s like to have a deformed face? When you meet a pregnant teenage girl, do you say, “How you doing? Who knocked you up? What’s that like?” Let’s have some manners here.

When being introduced in the future, do you think candidate’s first order of business should be to talk about which of their relatives are pregnant, which are gay, which have diseases, handicaps, or some embarrassing fact in their backgrounds? Did Joseph Biden stand up and talk about how his son and brother are in court defending against charges of defrauding millions? Did he talk about his hair plugs? Did you want him to?

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 3, 2008 10:56 AM
Comment #261196

Michelle Obama is just now “proud of her country”. For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed. The way the news media is crucifying Sarah Palin and her family and her extended family is disgusting to me. The hateful comments and unfounded speculation is so tacky and telling. The democratic party has stooped to a new low. But, what goes around comes around. The one thing that the “smart” democrats don’t realize is that the gullible American public can become their worst nightmare. This whole thing is a stinking rat. I predict that there will soon be a dramatic change in the polls.

Posted by: JC at September 3, 2008 10:58 AM
Comment #261198

There is good reason to be excited about Palin. She had the baby knowing he would be handicapped and this is being rightly lauded by Republicans.

After all, she is not a murderer. That’s as much as you can expext I guess.

Posted by: Schwamp at September 3, 2008 11:04 AM
Comment #261199

john;

The releasing of the SS number was just told on Fox News. I suggest you look on Fox’s web site.

My question was, how do you feel about this?

Since the dems had the most to say about congressional national security bills that would “infringe upon the rights and privacy of US citizens”.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 3, 2008 11:09 AM
Comment #261200
I do take issue with part of this though. Can you name one instance ever where the GOP went after a candidate’s family members like this?

I thought the right was pretty merciless in going after Roger Clinton and Billy Carter. There was some right wing stuff going around about Chelsea too for a while, though they knocked it off when it was obvious that it was going to backfire on them.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 11:11 AM
Comment #261201

It was not the whole number, just the last 4 are blacked out. They did the same thing to Richard Steele (as well as calling him Uncle Tom and throwing Oreo cookies at him, loving Democrats) in 2005.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28347&page=1

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 11:19 AM
Comment #261202

Aaand, it looks like politico.com has taken the file down now.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 11:21 AM
Comment #261203

oldguy

I have 30 years experience in child development and developmental disabilities primarily working with infants and their families. One of the primary disabilities I worked with was down syndrome going into the home to provide early intervention services. I am experienced regarding this issue. Without going into depth, it can be stressful having a handicapped child and based on my experience income level, educational level, moral beliefs have little impact on how well a family copes and meets the challenge. What is more important is the stressors already in play in a family. This family has a IMO a great deal of stressors already. I will say again this child is 4 months old with a handicap. Raising this baby will be very different than rising a child without a disability. There is so much for these parents to learn about the road ahead. For a mother to go into premature labor and not get to the nearest hospital places said infant in grave danger.

I agree it would be grand if the dad is going to be a stay at home dad and take part in the early intevention services this baby will need. However, I said that as a woman I would not make the choice she is making. I agree it would not bother me as much if it was a man instead of a woman but I would still hold him in high esteem if said man decided to focus on his family instead of running for office knowing the kind of support his wife was going to need in addressing the needs of his 4 month old son born with down syndrome. The early years are extremely important to children.

I personally think Joe Biden should have stayed home with his sons instead of joining the senate. I do like him a lot and am a fan but think he should have been with his children.

Posted by: Carolina at September 3, 2008 11:30 AM
Comment #261205

I had a more thorough vetting for a clerical position with the Attorney General’s office. The State will maintain a “rap sheet” on me until the day I die, due to the fact that I handled criminal records. My personnel file is flagged, and sealed to all but but any high level persons wishing to look into it. A clerical position !
Quit whining because a large percentage of the population is trying to do what a handful should have done to assure all of us that this woman is qualified to (possibly) take over the most demanding, sensitive and important position in this country. If she has nothing to hide or fear, then let it go….let the questions be answered. It won’t change the fact that we firmly believe she is wrong and no way suited for the position, but will show she is “clean”.
Quit whining and carrying on like a bunch of stuck hogs…..protecting someone is far different from covering up for them.

Posted by: janedoe at September 3, 2008 11:45 AM
Comment #261207

Wow. All of this mudslinging has finally achieved something for the Democrats.

I wasn’t sure before, but although I’m a Republican, I must now confess that I think Barack Obama is more qualified to be President of the United States than Bristol Palin.

It was a close call, considering that neither have any substantial achievements in governing and have no executive experience at all, but that’s my decision and I’m sticking to it. I’m sure that many Americans feel the same.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 3, 2008 11:52 AM
Comment #261208

Max

And, knowing whether or not she was vetted is important. It says something about McCain’s desperation and judgement. In fact, I don’t really need to know anything about him other than that he took the massive risk of selecting her as VP. I don’t vote for unpredictable gamblers.

Simple and well reasoned logic Max. I agree, replacing a moron with a not particularly intelligent gambler could be potentially devastating to this country. I have to sit back and wonder just how does a corrupt and less than moral political party manage to so easily convince such a large group of people that they are the ones to best meet their value based ideologies. Fool me once, understandable. Fool me twice, I guess I really wasn’t paying much attention. Fool me three times, I am indeed a dumb ass and deserve just what I get.

Posted by: RickIL at September 3, 2008 11:55 AM
Comment #261211

I think it’s pretty funny that those on the right are so outraged at the way people have gone after Sarah Palin. When even the most dreadful things that have been said do not compare with the way Bill Clinton was savaged by the right and the mainstream media (he was called a murderer after all), the way Hillary Clinton has been savaged, the way John Kerry was savaged by the swiftboat liars, the way Barack Obama has been savaged (being a terrorist, being a muslim, his wife hates America, etc). So don’t give me the false outrage or the undeserved outrage. What the right has done to good people pales in comparison to this stuff.

That being said, as I have said before, I regret taking part in these Palin rumors and won’t be doing so in the future, I will leave her family alone. Her daughter doesn’t deserve that kind of scrutiny. I wonder what kind of field day the right would be having if it were one of Obama’s daughters. It would be much worse. But 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

Now on to stuff that is fair game. Mr. Noun Verb 9-11 (also know by his stage name Rudi Giuliani) said that had Palin been president on 9-11 that she would have been able to handle it. Well, if we take Mr. 9-11 at his word and accept that his judgment is sound she is, at the very least, going to make a better president than George W. Bush who totally bungled every aspect of our 9-11 response and turned it into a crass political wedge.

As to the convention last night - it’s pretty sad when the most dynamic speaker the MSM covered was Joe Lieberman - and I only sarcastically call him dynamic. What a snooze fest! The best speaker of the night was the guy who was in the Hanoi Hilton with John McCain and it seemed like he got chopped short for Laura Bush (who also did a decent job) and W (not his worst nor his best) via video feed. The worst part was the little video/slide show for Bush 41. While I may disagree with his politics, he has a remarkable story, and seems like a generally decent guy. But that presentation was as dull and lifeless as could be. Is that the best they could do? Fred Thompson’s speech it might have been better in print than his delivery, I was reminded of Joe Piscapo’s impersonation of Perry Como falling asleep in the middle of a song. Now I only watched what the MSM was showing I didn’t see all the speakers and there might have been some life in them - jeez I hope that wasn’t their A game. I regret not letting my little girl watch the Backyardigans instead - she was very upset.

I do look forward to tonight and Palin’s address as it should at least be more interesting than what I saw last night.

Posted by: tcsned at September 3, 2008 12:07 PM
Comment #261212

Carolin:

I think we, democrats, are beginning to take on the skunky characteristics of the GOP.

I think this would be true if Democrats were blatantly lying and swiftboating Palin, and weren’t even trying to dig for the truth about a woman who is a completely unknown quantity but who may soon be the vice president. For instance, we’re not doing anything close to painting Palin as a secret muslim-terrorist, or the Antichrist.

john:

i agree that her daughter’s pregnancy shouldn’t be an important issue. But it was Palin herself that decided to push her children in front (Military Son).

I think they’re both important issues, but only because from the moment Palin came before the American public, she began speaking about her family situation as a reason to vote for her. In doing so, she thrust her entire family into the spotlight. Now her family is supposed to be off limits to talk about. There are pictures circulating on the internet now from the extremely young, five months pregnant and soon-to-be-married Bristol’s MySpace pages where she is drinking and partying with her friends.
What the truth seems to be is that we can talk about the son who will be going to Iraq, and the infant with Down’s Syndrome, but the daughter has to be off limits because that doesn’t sell Ms. Palin as Mother of the Year.
Since Palin is using her eldest son as a reason to vote for her, is it off limits to quote what she said only three months ago?

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
Yukon Jake:
The one criticism that is so nuts is VV’s call from another thread that she is as Anti-Woman as can be.

No, it isn’t nuts, because she is a religious extremist whose positions ARE anti-woman — as are McCain’s.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 3, 2008 12:09 PM
Comment #261215

“No, it isn’t nuts, because she is a religious extremist whose positions ARE anti-woman — as are McCain’s”

So she isn’t anti-woman because she hates women, she is anti-woman because she has differing opinions than you, right VV?
She is anti-woman to the left simply because she is pro-choice and doesn’t look or act like rosie o’.
Entertaining, but pitiful.

Posted by: kctim at September 3, 2008 12:37 PM
Comment #261216

I’d like to post comments, but the majority of my comments generate messages that my comments are being temporarily delayed, and then they never appear. Maybe I was banned and didn’t even know it. Anyway, not much point in commenting, and for those who have taken the time to respond to my comments, please pardon- I’m not ignoring anyone. I’ll still read along…

Posted by: phx8 at September 3, 2008 12:45 PM
Comment #261217

“Now….I need to go take a blood pressure pill…..lol”
Posted by: janedoe at September 3, 2008 12:16 AM

janedoe, how many BP pills did you take when Bill Clinton was impeached? It is highly amusing to me to read the comments of how awful it must look to the world that the Republican VP candidate has legs and breasts, can wear a skirt or dress instead of nothing but pantsuits and believes she can be both a mom and leader.

This so-called “vetting” issue is especially interesting. I believe we would all agree that Bill Clinton was well vetted on his first run for president. As I recall, he even had a team of people whose job was to kill the stories of his womanizing and even charges of molestation and worse.

My point folks is that all this vetting of Clinton did absolutely nothing to insulate him from the scandals that followed him into the Whitehouse and stained his presidency forever. I lost count of all the (___-gates) that occurred during his time in office.

Can we ever examine a candidates heart, soul and mind? Can vetting ever reveal to everyone’s satisfaction, all that we wish to know about our candidates for high office.

Does anyone believe that Mr. Obama has been fully vetted? I and many others have questions we would like him to address. That Mr. Obama admitted to drug use in his youth is given a pass because he wrote about it. Would we be as likely to give this “youthful” error a pass if it was just being released today? If not, why not? Why is something revealed post-vetting, or non-vetting more important?

Some folks might actually believe that the voters of Alaska took a good hard look at Sarah Palin before voting for her as mayor and governor. Some folks might consider her 80% approval for her two years as governor as evidence of vetting.

Why is it that only the press and talking heads are allowed to vet a candidate? Does not the fact that she holds high office imply some kind of voter vetting?

Posted by: Jim M at September 3, 2008 12:48 PM
Comment #261218

>He’s got a giant hand up his butt working his mouth, and I’m disgusted.
Now…I need to go take a blood pressure pill…lol

Posted by: janedoe at September 3, 2008 12:16 AM

janedoe,

Thanks for your low-down on Palin and the glass ceiling. I thought much the same, but thought perhaps my being male colored my view. She ain’t no Hillary!

Great analogy at the end of your post…LOL

Posted by: Marysdude at September 3, 2008 12:49 PM
Comment #261223

phx8, your post of 12:45 came through, obviously…..mine does that once in a while and I don’t think it has anything to do with being censored. You know as well as I do that if you had crossed the line at any time, you would be warned. I can’t think of any of your posts that are vicious or hateful and come close to being deemed not appropriate. In fact, I’ve actually admired (and commented on it just last night) your ability to stay cool, calm and collected and bring me down from bouncing off the ceiling.
Jim M, I didn’t take blood pressure pills when BC was in office…not only was I younger, he gave me no reason to feel I needed them…….but hey….thanks for your concern with my health…. ;)
dude, I don’t know..maybe I have a distorted view and opinion of what feminism and a feminist should be. I think that we are entitled and deserve to be..to do…to go …anything, and anywhere that we want. I don’t think physical appearance should be a precursor to anything that follows. Sarah Palin has obviously flaunted her body. Granted, her “beauty queen” days were during pretty young years, but some of those other pictures are relatively recent and immediately negate any intellectual capabilities she may possess…(IMO). To get somewhere using your looks is okay if you’re wanting to be a movie star, or a rock queen, but to taut that as an asset immediately shouts of superficiality…
Listen to some of her usage of the English language. “Cool” (giggle) is one of her favorite words. Can you see her in a serious meeting with heads of state….?????
I’m not only not impressed big time, but I am sooo disappointed in the way that people are falling all over her gaagaaing !!

Posted by: janedoe at September 3, 2008 1:22 PM
Comment #261224

>My point folks is that all this vetting of Clinton did absolutely nothing to insulate him from the scandals that followed him into the Whitehouse and stained his presidency forever. I lost count of all the (___-gates) that occurred during his time in office.

Posted by: Jim M at September 3, 2008 12:48 PM

Jim M,

Yeah! And why was that again? Why were there so many -gates during Clinton’s time in office? Gee, I can’t remember all the so-called moral right folks who perpetrated those myths. It’s just your turn I guess…bite the bullet…er…bite her bullet, she’s probably got more of them to bite…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 3, 2008 1:26 PM
Comment #261228

janedoe,

My dad told me a story a long time ago. He was oldest among five siblings, but their ages were close enough that they were all teenagers at the same time, for a short time.

They grew up in the same isolated area of Northwest Missouri, in the middle of the conservative middle-west. Being of poor stock they had to walk most everywhere they went, and because the older siblings could protect and watch over the younger ones, they mostly walked places together, i.e., to and from church, to and from school and to and from town on Saturday night.

The boys being pretty competitive, especially with each other, started a little macho match. On the way to or from one of those places, they would approach a particular tree that grew in a fairly remote spot, and see which one of the three could pee the highest on that tree. My dad, being the oldest and tallest of the bunch, and although losing now and then, sat record after record. They soon began carving their initials at their individual highest marks.

One of my aunts didn’t think that it was very fair for her and her sister to be left out of such sport, and she talked the boys into letting the girls have a go at it. So, they made a few rules, i.e., all of them had to lay down with their feet toward the tree, the boys could not look at the girls when it was their turn, etc.

The next time the contest was held, the boys lay down and did their thing, than got up and marked their spots. They turned away so the girls could make their move, and one of my aunts managed to tilt her pelvis in such a way as to not only beat the boys, but to strike the tree higher than even my dads old highest record.

I cannot attest to whether these contests actually took place, as they allegedly took place around 1920 and I wasn’t born until 1940, but I have no reason to disbelieve my father. One thing I do know is that up until I left home in 1958, there was a tree not far from town with recognizable initials, at various heights, carved on it, and the highest mark was ‘OS’.

Susan Anthony, Eleanor Roosevelt, Hillary Clinton, and many others have served the female agenda well over the years, and I would not denigrate their accomplishments, but I don’t think any of their efforts were more in tune with women’s liberation than those of my aunt Opal. But, I don’t think I’d want her OR Palin to run for national office…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 3, 2008 1:34 PM
Comment #261232
but some of those other pictures are relatively recent and immediately negate any intellectual capabilities she may possess…

Erh?

Um

Well, I guess I don’t know how to respond to that… You’re invalidating any actress? Model? anyone who has had pictures taken of them… It’s not ‘intelligent’ to find physical beauty ok?

I was SURE that there had been some sort of revolution about that in recent history, that even pretty girls should be taken seriously.

I’m *hoping* I wasn’t wrong about that… That people aren’t judging her intelligence level based on how she looks…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 1:49 PM
Comment #261234

What a great story dude…thanks for sharing it!!
And just between you and me, because I know that nobody else will see this.. ;)…there is a tree not far from where I am now, that still displays a couple of notches verifying achievement.
My husband was actually able to talk with a little pride about that…. go figure.

Posted by: janedoe at September 3, 2008 1:53 PM
Comment #261238

Jane,
I read your earlier comment, Thanks!

Tonight Palin will speak. She will be reading a prepared speech from a teleprompter, written by a professional speech writer, in front of a sympathetic crowd. The speech should be definition go well for her. In the next few days, she can appear for a few carefully scripted interviews in friendly venues, such as FOX. That will buy her a few more days. I still think she will be done by mid-September. At some point, she will have to face the public and the press. The questions will be nearly impossible to deal with… There’s simply too many scandal threads unfolding, too many unanswered questions, and not enough time for her to do anything other than play defense.

Rhinehold,
The FBI announced that it did not vet Sarah Palin. McCain campaign manager Davis was lying about that. Several newspapers- LA Times, NYT, WaPo- are filing reports on the lack of vetting.

Sorry, but there is a very good reason not to push an inadequately vetted, unknown nominee into the middle of a nationwide presidential election. It doesn’t matter whether you like her or dislike her. It’s just a terrible idea, as we are all seeing.

Posted by: phx8 at September 3, 2008 1:56 PM
Comment #261239

And just as a non-related comment…I have an Aunt Opal…maided name Smith. And we are “Arkies” by blood lines, so maybe that is what gave me the desire to leave my mark as well.

Posted by: janedoe at September 3, 2008 1:57 PM
Comment #261241

VV

I couldn’t care less how “bad” you think I am for finding the spectacular train wreck that is McCain’s campaign both hilariously funny and extremely satisfying after eight harrowing years of Bush/Cheney/Rove.
Eight years in which Democrats have been called every nasty, despicable name in the book.

I love it when you get pissed off. Good stuff! I know where you are coming from. It may not be particularly productive, but every once in awhile those sanctimonious asses have to be reminded that the world does not revolve around them and their blind ideologies.

Posted by: RickIL at September 3, 2008 2:04 PM
Comment #261247

VV & RickIL,

These folks continue to think they, and they alone, can assess a situation, find fault with the folks or outcome, denigrate the opposition, tell lies about the proponents, call forth moral judgements and expect others to sit back and smile it away. Pretty soon, they think, if they spread enough fertalizer around, we’ll all just fall into lock step with them.

Personally, when someone calls me a name, even if the name fits, I get upset. They have called me a traitor to my country, just because I call my president a liar, and disagree with this stupidity in Iraq, and that name don’t fit.

Now, they want me to leave poor little Palin alone, even though the doofus who selected her did not vet her or select her because she was capable of leading this natiion in case he can’t make it to the end of his term.

Well they can kiss my whachamacallit.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 3, 2008 2:32 PM
Comment #261249

janedoe,

I just thought that my Aunt Opal was just as qualified to become Veep as Palin…if Palin was selected in order to garner Hill’s disgruntled backer votes. Palin hunts and fishes and spits her terbacker twenty feet…that oughta do it. John McPain thinks so. I think peein’ up a tree oughta make Aunt Opal at least as qualified…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 3, 2008 2:38 PM
Comment #261250

If it had been revealed that Michelle Obama was a member of a seperatist party looking to secede Illinois or Chicago from the union, what would the Republican’s reaction be?

If the Obama girls were older, and it turned out one of them was pregnant out of wedlock, and decided to keep it an marry the father, would that stem the tide of attention that would come their way?

If Biden was some first term governor from Wyoming who spent eight years as the mayor of a small town in that state with just five thousand people, what would the Republicans actions be, especially if his vetting had been sloppy and rushed?

The Republicans are holding Democrats to a double standard. For some reason, Republicans are allowed to engage in all kinds of scandalous behavior as described above, and get away with it, rather than suffer extreme excoriation for it. And when somebody does challenge them, does ask tough questions, they take their ball and go home, complaining loudly of media bias and unfair, vicious politics being played against them.

The Republicans are somehow safe, some how more trustworthy, despite their complete failure to hold themselves up to a higher standard. I really have no sympathy for Republicans who find this situation to be terrible. Bristol Palin has my sympathy. But everybody else? Good heavens folks. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.

The Republicans have set a very low standard for corrosive, invasive PR attacks on their opponents. They have made it clear to Democrats that they are willing to say anything, allege anything, and repeat the lies, damn lies, and statistics as many times as it takes to win the argument.

If you think what some Democrats are doing at a grassroots, netroots level is despicable, the question is, have you done the same? Are you qualified to bash them, if you have? Is it not naive to think that you can win repeatedly by playing on the worst in people, and not drive people who are desperate or unscrupulous, to strike back in order to win?

Personally, I don’t like to lose, but I don’t like to win on weak grounds. If, for example, I point out that Palin’s behavior in dealing with her scandal is resembling Bush’s, then its because I believe there’s a substantive connection, a real question as to whether somebody trying to be this unaccountable needs to be vice president. If she’s such a reformer, why’s she trying to quash an investigation? Why do Republicans get to dodge one investigation after another? What right do they have to do this?

Yukon Jake-
Here’s another resident who disagrees with your take.

The most laughable thing is the whole pretense of this blog, as though any liberal will ever be enlightened enough to change their point of view based on someone’s post here. Or the other way around for that matter.

It’s not necessarily going to be the people who post who have their minds changed, but the people who read. Quite a lot do. The real trick is just who you think you’re going to persuade with your red meat baseball bat beating of the same dead horse of liberal stereotypes? Everybody who was going to agree with you, will agree. but those who aren’t are going to take one look at this and shake their heads.

What you liberals don’t realize is that more of America identifies with Sarah’s real qualities - the ones I listed, than identify with all the bullshit mud-slinging you have done, are doing, and continue to do. You don’t understand this because you are liberals, and liberalism is a mental disorder.

I’m posing a simple question to people: is what they are expecting you to identify with real? Is she really a reformer, a fiscal conservative? Is she even a real patriot? you can talk about mental disorders, but people are realizing that the real insanity is buying into your party’s line again and again and expecting different results.

How is marrying the man you love, raising a family, going to all their track meets and games, taking the time to take care of yourself and stay fit and beautiful, entering public service by popular demand, doing a kick-ass job of it, handling all the challenges this insanely huge and complicated state has to offer, choosing to have a down-syndrome baby because you are a christian woman and you believe children are a gift from god - how does all that make you Anti-Woman? Answer - it doesn’t - quite the opposite. It makes you resented by all the obese, cottage cheese & garbage can legged feminists who think loving your husband makes you weak, and raising a family makes you a slave, and staying fit makes you beholden to men’s ideals. — You know, all the nonsense that feminists proclaim is in the interest of woman’s progress when really it only justifies their lifestyle choices.

You don’t know Liberal women if you think this is really how they act and look! Just a glance at the comments section should tell you that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 3, 2008 2:44 PM
Comment #261254

>If it had been revealed that Michelle Obama was a member of a seperatist party looking to secede Illinois or Chicago from the union.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 3, 2008 02:44 PM

Oh, God, Stephen, why did you go and hafta do that? Now one of these guys will spread this all over the internet. We’ll be weeks tryin’ to quell the riots!

Posted by: Marysdude at September 3, 2008 3:03 PM
Comment #261257

kctim:

she is anti-woman because she has differing opinions than you, right VV?

Right. Palin’s positions are anti-woman in the extreme, and I can give you three good reasons why the vast majority of American women would never wish to give their vote to the McCain/Palin ticket.

1. McCain voted against the Fair Pay Restoration Act, and Palin is in agreement with McCain on this issue.
They don’t think that a woman should have more than 180 days to formally complain that they are being paid less than their male colleagues for the same work. Thus, someone like Lilly Ledbetter, who was a supervisor at the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company’s plant in Gadsden, Alabama, who sued for pay discrimination just before retiring with that company after working there for 19 years should be considered permanently out of luck. By the time she retired, Lilly Ledbetter was making $6,500 less than the lowest-paid male supervisor because earlier decisions by her supervisors had kept her from getting the kind of pay raises that she had deserved for many years.

2. Palin is a member of a “Feminists for Life” — a group that has been waging (along with many other anti-choice groups) extremely well-financed campaigns to keep American women from accessing birth control. These people actually consider contraceptive methods like the pill, the patch, and IUD’s to be “abortifacient”! Which is insane. “Feminists For Life” also posts discredited claims on their website about how abortions cause breast cancer, which is a lie. But they do so because they oppose abortion for ANY reason whatsoever, except to save the life of the girl or woman in an extreme emergency situation. No exceptions are allowed even for incest or rape, or the long term health of a woman. Even if a ten or eleven year old girl is pregnant, there can be no exception. No exceptions for a woman trying to escape domestic violence. No exceptions allowed for women who have already reached extreme limits of poverty as single mothers. No exceptions allowed if a woman is carrying a fetus that is certain to die due to birth defects or serious deformities. No exceptions for women who have made repeated attempts at suicide. No exceptions in any instance AT ALL.
What Palin and all the other “Feminists For Life” are seeking to do is to force over a million American women and girls to give birth each year, completely against their will.

3. McCain and Palin want to increase privatized healthcare. Single mothers and middle class working women — with children and without — can no longer afford that.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 3, 2008 3:09 PM
Comment #261258

“Jim M, Yeah! And why was that again? Why were there so many -gates during Clinton’s time in office? Gee, I can’t remember all the so-called moral right folks who perpetrated those myths. It’s just your turn I guess…bite the bullet…er…bite her bullet, she’s probably got more of them to bite…”
Posted by: Marysdude at September 3, 2008 01:26 PM

So sorry Marysdude that you missed my point about vetting and choose instead to defend an impeached president. I will just choose to believe that you did not have a reasoned response to my vetting question.

Posted by: Jim M at September 3, 2008 3:10 PM
Comment #261259

Jim M:
You seem to be missing the point. i think we can all agree that Ms. Palin did not go through the same vetting process as other hopefuls (in this election or others).
But what should be of concern is that McCain; the man running on maverick status, the man of integrity and his word, caved.

McCain gave up his integrity when he didn’t fight for the person that he actually wanted (Leiberman or Ridge).
McCain gave up his word when he said that Palin was exactly what he wanted.
McCain gave up his maverick status when he allowed outside groups to pick his running mate.

Posted by: john trevisani at September 3, 2008 3:11 PM
Comment #261263

VV
1 - Do men currently get more than 180 days to formally complain that they are being paid less than their male/female colleagues for the same work?

2 - The abortion issue is pretty emotional on both sides. But claiming a woman is anti-woman simply because she is pro-life is as silly as claiming a woman is anti-human life simply because she is pro-choice. I don’t believe either side hates womens rights because of their position on abortion.

3 - Socialized healthcare takes away a womans right to choose. Isn’t the right to choose a fundamental right that women fight for every day?

Sorry, but such differing opinions don’t make somebody anti-woman anymore than a differing opinion make me unpatriotic or a traitor.

Posted by: kctim at September 3, 2008 3:33 PM
Comment #261265
McCain and Palin want to increase privatized healthcare. Single mothers and middle class working women — with children and without — can no longer afford that.

Because, like everyone else, they are overtaxed. Adding another program that will have to be funded by taxation isn’t going to help matters much, just make more people so close to the knife’s edge that they have no ability to manage themselves out of dependency on social programs.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 3:41 PM
Comment #261266

timmy, you might want to take a really good look around at the state we are in right now, both here re:economy,decimation of our military,blatant defiling of our Constitution, and our standing in the world.
I’d say that we were right on! with our concerns over Bush’s abilities and mentality to be POTUS.

Posted by: janedoe at September 3, 2008 3:45 PM
Comment #261267

Stephen D

The Republicans are holding Democrats to a double standard. For some reason, Republicans are allowed to engage in all kinds of scandalous behavior as described above, and get away with it, rather than suffer extreme excoriation for it. And when somebody does challenge them, does ask tough questions, they take their ball and go home, complaining loudly of media bias and unfair, vicious politics being played against them.

I was thinking the same just a few days ago. It reminded me at the time of the really obnoxious and cynical character on Mad TV that covers here ears with her hands and yells La la la la la when someone tries to rebut her.

Posted by: RickIL at September 3, 2008 3:50 PM
Comment #261268

kctim:

1. Because the Fair Pay Restoration Act wasn’t passed the answer is: No. Neither men nor women can formally complain that they are being paid less than their male/female colleagues for the same work after 180 days — even if they didn’t know they were being paid much less than their colleagues were for many years. The legislation was intended to overturn the Supreme Court decision that recently limited pay discrimination lawsuits against companies where such a thing takes place, but the Republicans shot it down.

2. Palin is indeed anti-woman because she is completely anti-abortion with no exceptions. And btw, she is not pro-life, she is merely pro-birth. “Feminists for Life” and other anti-abortion groups want to make abortion totally illegal, and then impose the death penalty upon women who have abortions, and on abortion providers.
Whether you realize this or not, the fact is that people can hold pro-life positions without being totally anti-choice for all American women.

3. Bullsh*t. Without universal healthcare the only “choice” too many American woman have now is to have no healthcare for themselves and their children at all.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 3, 2008 4:06 PM
Comment #261271

I haven’t really entered the fray over Palin. I think it’s a big joke. I’m just enjoying watching serious rational men make fools of themselves trying to support this dumb choice.

It’s clearly a niche choice, pointed at Nascar women and men. It’s a bone for the redneck vote. McCain has no substance to base his campaign on, it’s just 4 more years of Bush stupidity and catering to lobbiest. He’s hoping to appeal to the ignorant.

What is so ridiculous is all the flapping about and indignation, sorta like WMD, and the lies about that. I’m just going to sit back and watch the Republicans flush themselves further down the toilet.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 3, 2008 4:09 PM
Comment #261272

dude

Now, they want me to leave poor little Palin alone,

Yes that is it isn’t it. They just want us to leave her alone. I guess they figure since she is not our candidate we have no right to question her judgment or make attempts at determining her character. After all we must have had all of about 0 seconds to get to know her previous to her selection. We should all just sit back while the GOP keeps her locked up in a hotel room somewhere out of sight and keep our eyes closed and our mouths shut.

What they fail to realize is that the process of passing judgment is accomplished in small steps. For each step that falters it will take two to get back on track. It is apparent that for many conservatives here there is no need for time to form opinion or an accurate assessment. They would like us to believe that they are knowledgeable and intelligent enough to form an instant and unbiased assessment. I think the recent past has shown that they aren’t particularly good at making long term judgments. Let alone quick judgments. Imagine the gall it must take for us liberals to expect anything more than the short sided process of affirmation they so eagerly practice.

Posted by: RickIL at September 3, 2008 4:23 PM
Comment #261274

goog

What is so ridiculous is all the flapping about and indignation, sorta like WMD, and the lies about that. I’m just going to sit back and watch the Republicans flush themselves further down the toilet.

I think it is probably safe to say that the Palin choice will not create a loss of any of the blind follower base. Most of them were looking for some sort of miracle savior and they are pretty sure she has been delivered. They are putting all their faith in that. The real test will be how well they can sell her to independents. Perhaps I am giving independents a little too much credit, but I think that largely they are a more responsible bunch, and will come to see the absurdity of McCains hasty, if not coerced choice. Not to mention her degree of extremism.

And hey, that gidget and geezer thing earlier, I like that a lot. Pretty creative and could make a great Saturday night live or Mad Tv skit. Thanks for the laugh!

Posted by: RickIL at September 3, 2008 4:36 PM
Comment #261276

“Jim M: You seem to be missing the point. i think we can all agree that Ms. Palin did not go through the same vetting process as other hopefuls (in this election or others).
But what should be of concern is that McCain; the man running on maverick status, the man of integrity and his word, caved.” Posted by: john trevisani at September 3, 2008 03:11 PM

Well John, you also missed the point. I’ll go a little slower, I outlined the vetting process of the last two teams nominated by the democrats and showed how little that process meant to winning. And, then showed the fickle nature of the democrats who in vetting, nominating, working for, then abandoned those whom they vetted and nominated. And now, the very same people who have proved to be incapable of nominating winners, who have turned their backs on those whom they nominated, are asking Republicans to follow their advise and council.

Posted by: Jim M at September 3, 2008 4:42 PM
Comment #261277

VV
1- Since it doesn’t give women less rights, I just don’t see how it is anti-woman to support such a thing. She could have objected to the bill for a number of reasons, but I seriously doubt it was because she is anti-woman.

2- Anti-abortion does not equate to hating women no more than pro-abortion equates to hating infants. Both positions are individual beliefs that really have nothing to do with hating the women involved.

“Whether you realize this or not, the fact is that people can hold pro-life positions without being totally anti-choice for all American women”

Oh, I realize it. In fact, it comes close to my own pro-choice beliefs.

3- So, choice to end a life but no choice who ends it?
Why can’t people hold pro-universal healthcare positions without being totally anti-choice healthcare for all Americans? You could call it liberal healthcare, you all could give money to support it and people like me wouldn’t have our rights violated and be forced to be a part of it. Now that is compromise.

Either way, supporting an individuals right on healthcare is hardly being anti-woman.

Posted by: kctim at September 3, 2008 4:57 PM
Comment #261279

“Perhaps I am giving independents a little too much credit, but I think that largely they are a more responsible bunch, and will come to see the absurdity of McCains hasty, if not coerced choice. Not to mention her degree of extremism”

Unfortuantley RickIL, we also see the absurdity of the Democratic Party’s pick and his degree of inexperience and extremism. All you guys had to do was put up a Democrat with some experience with no skeletons, and this election would already be over. Instead, you give us the top liberals and expect us to just follow the “no more Bush” meme in lockstep with you guys.

Posted by: kctim at September 3, 2008 5:06 PM
Comment #261280

RickIL -

You’re right - how can we decide whether Palin is a good choice if we don’t DISCUSS her and all her faults and strengths, her policies good or bad, and her history of performing in accordance with her stated policies.

But the Republicans want us to just accept her and vote for McCain/Palin, no questions asked. That’s business as usual for them, if you’ll think about it.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 3, 2008 5:06 PM
Comment #261282

RickIL,
Exactly. A VP nomination can accomplish all sorts of political objectives. Nailing down the small portion of a base which is already supposed to be in the bag is normally not one of those objectives. It paints the GOP as even more right wing. There are so many discrediting stories coming out it’s hard to know where to start… anyway, the point is, Palin will not bring in additional votes. She will not be able to attack. After the speech and some slow pitch interviews from allies, she will face the public, and it’s going to be ugly.

An example was the Campbell Brown interview on CNN with a McCain campaign manager. The manager tried to claim Palin’s position of governor gave her military experience, via the Alaskan National Guard. Brown asked for one example. The manager couldn’t do it. Instead he spent three minutes evading a simple question.

That’s going to happen again and again. Did Palin oppose her party’s corruption? Then why was she a Director for a Ted Stevens 527, favor the bridge to nowhere, and direct earmarks to Wasilla through a hired lobbyist? Almost every facet of her ‘narrative’ fails to hold water. It’s a catastrophe. It McCain keeps her, she will be on the defense for the next 60 days, trying to justify a narrative which was simply a lie.

Posted by: phx8 at September 3, 2008 5:08 PM
Comment #261285

Phx8:

An example was the Campbell Brown interview on CNN with a McCain campaign manager. The manager tried to claim Palin’s position of governor gave her military experience, via the Alaskan National Guard. Brown asked for one example. The manager couldn’t do it. Instead he spent three minutes evading a simple question.

My personal favorite was Steve Doocy on Fox and Friends. Doocy said that ‘some say that she doesn’t have foreign affairs experience… well they’re all wrong, Alaska is right next to Russia.’

Posted by: john trevisani at September 3, 2008 5:16 PM
Comment #261286

kctim

Unfortuantley RickIL, we also see the absurdity of the Democratic Party’s pick and his degree of inexperience and extremism. All you guys had to do was put up a Democrat with some experience with no skeletons, and this election would already be over. Instead, you give us the top liberals and expect us to just follow the “no more Bush” meme in lockstep with you guys.

I said I think that largely this is the case. To be absolutely perfectly honest, I have no idea if you represent my perception of “largely”. I doubt it since your writings on this blog seem to me to be largely of a more republican bias. That is fine. But I am not aware that independents largely are of that political bent. I am of the impression that by way of claim independents are individuals who do not aspire to a group think process, and would like to have the option and exhilarating freedom of not being tied to a particular ideology or party. I would like to think that the majority of them would use logic and practicality in making a selection. I however do not see such logic or practicality in some. I guess there just is no such thing as the perfect unbiased political party.

Posted by: RickIL at September 3, 2008 5:33 PM
Comment #261290

Alaska Independence Party founder, Joe Vogler:

“The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won’t be buried under their damn flag. I’ll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home.”
Sarah Palin’s husband Todd was a member of AIP from 1995-2002, and she has attended several of their conventions.

Here’s Palin’s welcome address to AIP’s convention in 2008. You’ll note how she repeatedly refers to the Constitution of Alaska in her remarks, not the Constitution of the United States. Why on earth would an incumbent American State Governor ever want to give a formal welcome to a political party whose ultimate goal is to have her state secede from the Union?

Sarah Palin might need to start wearing a much larger lapel flag pin in order to prove where her true loyalty lies.

PS. to kctim: I’m going to stand on what I wrote earlier.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 3, 2008 5:52 PM
Comment #261291

john t. I guess based on that logic I would be an expert on earthquakes, ‘cuz I live by San Francisco!??!

Posted by: janedoe at September 3, 2008 5:52 PM
Comment #261292

Glenn, phx8

Another thing I think some are missing is that it takes a lot of observation for anyone to determine the true character of an individual. Determining what sort of person someone is takes much more than a simple presentation in the media can provide. People need to be observed studied and scrutinized over a period of time in order for anyone to make a good assessment of the subject. We all form first impressions when meeting someone new. But how often do those impressions hold up over time. My point here is that no one I know has had enough time to get beyond that first impression where Palin is concerned. I am not willing to take a presentation of her worth from someone or anyone I personally do not know. That is an assessment I must form on my own. Anyone who tells us they know that this is the right person for the job is fooling no one but themselves.

There simply is not enough time for anyone who does not know her to make a responsible decision as to her worth for the VP position.

Posted by: RickIL at September 3, 2008 5:57 PM
Comment #261293

>I however do not see such logic or practicality in some. I guess there just is no such thing as the perfect unbiased political party.

Posted by: RickIL at September 3, 2008 05:33 PM

RickIL,

I sure hope this was VERY tongue-in-cheek, because anyone who thinks kc or Rhin or…well DRem probably IS…independent, is crazy as a loon. I don’t think your crazy…are you???

Even Ron Paul, who went to the independent ticket before he dropped out, said, when asked if the R’s or D’s were in a superior position, said nope, just about even. Not these guys, they consistantly defer to the right, which means they think we Dems are ALWAYS wrong. That don’t seem very independent to me…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 3, 2008 6:06 PM
Comment #261294

>There simply is not enough time for anyone who does not know her to make a responsible decision as to her worth for the VP position.


Posted by: RickIL at September 3, 2008 05:57 PM

RickIL,

I ee to be disagreeinwithyou lotthiss afternoon…we DO have enough information, i.e.:

R’s = Doofus Mcpain selected her, hence, she’s good.

Us = Doofus McPain selected her, hence she’s not good.

A vetting process might have helped, but this will do…McPain didn’t think it would help, and hell, he’s running for President.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 3, 2008 6:18 PM
Comment #261295

Oh wait johnt, she just picked up another endorsement from a campaign representative………..she is right next door to Canada, too !!

Posted by: janedoe at September 3, 2008 6:26 PM
Comment #261297

janedoe:
the funniest thing about yours is that yours were meant to be a joke. Doocy was serious. LOL!!!

Posted by: john trevisani at September 3, 2008 6:38 PM
Comment #261298
because anyone who thinks kc or Rhin or…well DRem probably IS…independent, is crazy as a loon

kctim and I are Libertarians, David Remer is a Statist. You should really keep up with what people believe if you are going to call people loons for not believing your nonsense.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 6:55 PM
Comment #261299


McCain had a committee to help him choose his running mate. However, I believe that the final decision was made on the recomendation of Carl Rove. If Palin survives the vetting which I expect she will, after all Obama did, she will be a great asset for McCain.

If Democrats attack her on experience, the Republicans merely have to point out the obvious that she is as qualified as Obama and she is riding in the passenger seat.

If the Democrats attack her on women’s issues, that will not bode well with quite a few female Democrats.

I have four sisters, all registered Democrats. All four are deeply dissapointed that Hillary did not get the nomination. None of them is thrilled about voting for Obama. All four are also prolife and believe that abortions should only be performed to save the woman’s life.

This is the problem for the college educated elitists who are in control of the party. Some Democrats are more socially conservative than the liberals and some Democrats are more economically progressive than the liberals.

I expect McCain will be ahead by more than the margin of error in the next round of polls.

Posted by: jlw at September 3, 2008 6:58 PM
Comment #261300

jlw, I’m sure you’re Democratic pro-life sisters will love the fact that Palin cut $1.1 million from funding for teen moms in need.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 3, 2008 7:21 PM
Comment #261304

John T,
The GOP talking points for Palin simply do not fly with anyone other than “low information” voters. The “elitist” people in the media- those awful people- will cream the GOP on tv and in print, because while they might be willing to be balanced, they will not sit there and accept total BS about Alaska bordering Russia equating foreign policy experience, the governor’s duties in respect to the National Guard equating to experience with the military, and ‘exectuve experience’ as the Mayor of a small town, will not be allowed to stand.

jlw,
Well, let’s see who is right. I predict the McCain bounce will be nearly non-existent. Right now, polls are showing Obama with a post convention bounce and a 5 - 10% lead. Sarah Palin appeals to social conservatives, and they supported McCain already, but there is no way most independents/centrists/moderates/Hillary voters will throw in with a someone so obviously unqualified, and so extreme in her views. Everything about her discredits McCain, and deservedly so. That was a terrible pick.

Palin’s speech tonight and some soft toss interviews in the next few days will help, but she can’t hide forever. She’s going to get slaughtered by the media and voters when the questions get asked. It’s going to be awful. It’s going to be ugly. By mid-September, Obama will sport a double digit lead.

Posted by: phx8 at September 3, 2008 7:23 PM
Comment #261306

>By mid-September, Obama will sport a double digit lead.

Posted by: phx8 at September 3, 2008 07:23 PM

phx8,

You’ve called it about as close as it can be called.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 3, 2008 7:33 PM
Comment #261307

Thanks, Marysdude.

Tonight, Palin will read a professionally prepared speech from a teleprompter to a sympathetic crowd. It will attract a lot of attention, and buy a few days. She will make up all kinds of things without fear of contradiction.

Next week, she will be called out. How can she be anti-corruption, yet so deep in earmarks and support for Ted Stevens, and so on?

McCain is getting beat up over his poor decision making process. It’s worth keeping in mind that if he could make a mistake this bad on his first major decision, the chances are good he will make more mistakes in the next two months.

Posted by: phx8 at September 3, 2008 7:41 PM
Comment #261308

dude

Even Ron Paul, who went to the independent ticket before he dropped out, said, when asked if the R’s or D’s were in a superior position, said nope, just about even. Not these guys, they consistantly defer to the right, which means they think we Dems are ALWAYS wrong. That don’t seem very independent to me…

I can’t imagine that discussing whether or not these gentlemen are independents or not is really of any value. Apparently they feel they are. It is my understanding that being independent does not mean that one can not be conservative or liberal or somewhere in between. I do however think that after reading the writings of most everyone here for a few years now I can pretty accurately determine if their individual leanings are right or left.

The reality of their situation is that probably all of them had their start in a democrat or republican format. They recognize the need for an alternate party of power that can challenge the two old institutions that are now imo corrupt as hell and totally out of touch with the American public. Especially the right side of this equation. All things considered the right side simply has played the American people so hard for the last eight years that I find them a despicable lot of no real value.

These folks are stuck in a sort of catch 22. They have a growing base but no strength in name brand candidates. Personally judging by the varied opinions and leanings that emanate from the people who claim themselves as independent I am not so sure that they would be capable of putting together a viable competitive party that would be capable of establishing a clear purpose. In the end all of the biased opinion of just what their cause should represent would bog them down in the same sort of gridlock that exists today. Most likely they would become what they say they now detest.

Just my two cents here. This is probably more than you wanted to hear. And to be honest I had never given this much thought until now. So if my reasoning is way off base, please just disregard it, sometimes my typing fingers react faster than my mind.

Posted by: RickIL at September 3, 2008 8:02 PM
Comment #261311

S.D. “wonderful, world champion snowmobiler, card-carrying union man husband. I missed the part where she mentioned the DUI.”

Sounds like a good guy to me, a lot like 50 million others who did the same thing and didn’t get caught. I guess I’m not understanding the comedy here, but “for crying out loud”, the other four fingers are pointing at your candidate, not his spouse.

How about something substantive in response to ObamaBiden, who would leave private US military personnel and tens of thousands of troops in Iraq to protect “American interests”(Iraqi oil resources), as well as expand US combat forces in surrounding nations;

who supported ‘benchmarks’ giving US and UK corporations control over Iraqi oil, which would require continued US troop presence in Iraq to protect corporate interests;

who support continued US occupation and war on Afghanistan: Mr. Obama called for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan;

who support a huge military budget, voted for increases in military funding;

who favor a continued US embargo of Cuba;

who favor modest long-term cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and ineffective corporate polluter-friendly carbon emissions trading schemes (‘cap and trade’);

from http://www.gp.org/index.php , the real Democratic party.

The rest of the nonsense in this thread could have been written better by Cynthia Nixon, so I’ll go back to watching One Life to Live.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 3, 2008 8:27 PM
Comment #261312

In case you need one for your lawn!!! :)


Geezer Gidget 08

Posted by: QueenBee at September 3, 2008 8:40 PM
Comment #261315

Here are a couple of excerpts from

palins’ address to a minisrty school graduation at the Wasilla Assembly of God:

Palin asked the students to pray for the troops in Iraq, and noted that her eldest son, Track, was expected to be deployed there.

“Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,” she said. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God’s plan.”

“I can do my job there in developing our natural resources and doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded,” she added. “But really all of that stuff doesn’t do any good if the people of Alaska’s heart isn’t right with God.”

I honestly don’t know how to feel about this. I grew up in a ultra neoconservative enclave religious group. Mitt Romney s’ faith played against him beacause some felt that the Mormon church was to extreme. How is she any less extreme than Romney?

The Palin pick I believe was done as it was with a definite purpose. To put liberals and democrats in a fit and disrupt their campaign. That and that alone is the reason they picked her.
The republicans need a miracle to pull off this election, looks like the democrats and liberals are giving them the miracle. Primarily the fault of the press though. This has been a whirlwind of controversy because the media sensationalizes everything with no regard for the consequences

She was vetted, but kept secret, their plan B. curious to see how this plays out.
Source article link.

also I am an independent and a comment was made that she appeals to the independents, not this one.

Posted by: NapaJohn at September 3, 2008 8:56 PM
Comment #261316

oops sorry the second quote was referring to her service in the governors office

Posted by: NapaJohn at September 3, 2008 8:57 PM
Comment #261319

Napa John

From what I have seen she comes across as way over the top with regard to church and state. I am beginning to think there may be some validity to the arm twisting from the religious right on this one.

Posted by: RickIL at September 3, 2008 9:04 PM
Comment #261320

NapaJohn, she is far more extreme than Romney. Romney didn’t act as governor on any other premises than what would work to solve problems as he saw it. In that regard, he did much good for his state by all his accounts.

It is one thing to believe. It is quite another to seek the power of office to enforce one’s beliefs upon all others through legislation or enforcement of law according to whether people believe as you do or not.

Palin has nothing but contempt for democracy and law when it comes to Roe v. Wade. She has no understanding or empathy for compromise when it comes to innocent people being killed by the prevalence of easy guns for sale. She has a right to her opinions and beliefs, she has no right to seek to use government to force all others to comply with her personal beliefs and opinions. Not in a democratic republic. Now in an authoritarian government, she would fit right in.

And therein lies the heart of the absence of good judgment by John McCain in her selection. John McCain seems to hold the same attitude, that his judgments are better and greater than what a democratic process could produce. Polls and will of the people have no meaning for him, save for their usage in rising to his next level of incompetence, very much like GW Bush.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 3, 2008 9:15 PM
Comment #261324

Sarah Palin is a power monger who would do anything to get that #1 spot. I am afraid if they let her moose-hunting desperate housewife wannabe butt in the White House she will poison Mccain if not give him a heart attack by uncovering all her skeletons (lies)to the media. She is not the mother of that little ugly baby. She is not the mother of any children. They “mother” themselves! Their Myspace pages tell it all! http://roseburner.blogspot.com///She is a failure as a person and a failure as a leader in general.

P.S. Has anyone ever seen that baby move?

Posted by: Roseburner at September 3, 2008 10:54 PM
Comment #261325

Sarah Palin is a power monger who would do anything to get that #1 spot. I am afraid if they let her moose-hunting desperate housewife wannabe butt in the White House she will poison Mccain if not give him a heart attack by uncovering all her skeletons (lies)to the media. She is not the mother of that little ugly baby. She is not the mother of any children. They “mother” themselves! Their Myspace pages tell it all! http://roseburner.blogspot.com
She is a failure as a person and a failure as a leader in general.

Posted by: Roseburner at September 3, 2008 10:56 PM
Comment #261328

Sarah Palin is a power monger who would do anything to get that #1 spot. I am afraid if they let her moose-hunting desperate housewife wannabe butt in the White House she will poison Mccain if not give him a heart attack by uncovering all her skeletons (lies)to the media. She is not the mother of that little ugly baby. She is not the mother of any children. They “mother” themselves! Their Myspace pages tell it all! http://roseburner.blogspot.com///She is a failure as a person and a failure as a leader in general.

P.S. Has anyone here ever seen that baby move?

Posted by: Roseburner at September 3, 2008 11:06 PM
Comment #261333

Did anyone see Palin’s speech? It was hard to gauge her, because the speech sounded it was written for Bush or Cheney- aggressive, derisive, divisive. Amateur night for vice presidential hopefuls.

I thought the most interesting moment came after the speech. McCain barely looked at her, and he avoided standing close to her.

Purely subjective observation: McCain does not like what has happened to his campaign. It’s turned negative and divisive. In the back of his head, I think McCain wants to bring a unifying and positive message like Obama, and reach across the aisle. It has always been what he needed to do to win. Now, with the convention, the campaign has spun out of control. It really is a third Bush/Cheney/Rove term that is being pushed by the social fundamentalists and Neocons, and McCain is powerless to stop it.

Unless he dumps Palin and puts his own nominee in the VP slot.

The polls are going to show a huge deficit, double digits in a matter of weeks, and McCain will find himself fronting a campaign for people he doesn’t even like.

Dump Palin, and push his own VP choice through, preferably Lieberman. That would be a true reflection of what McCain wants to represent and the positive he can actually offer to the public.

Posted by: phx8 at September 3, 2008 11:50 PM
Comment #261334

Gee - wonder what the Republicans would say if they knew Michelle Obama once belonged to a party that had as a policy a desire for Illinois to secede from America?

Oh, silly me - that’s PALIN’s husband, who belonged to the Alaskan Independence Party, and they want Alaska to secede from America!

Their founder once said, “I’m not American - I’m Alaskan!”

BUT I SUPPOSE IT WOULD BE SEXIST to bring that up….

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 3, 2008 11:51 PM
Comment #261335

napajohn,

You’re right we can’t have these kinds of people, who put their decision making in god’s hands, lead our country. Why, I just ran across another prayer…

Lord,

Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins and help me guard against pride and despair.

Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just.

And make me an instrument of your will.

As an athiest, I can tell you that we just can’t stand for it anymore.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 11:53 PM
Comment #261347

Did anyone else hear that Harry Reid’s press secretary called Palin’s speech ‘shrill’?

Shrill. Has anyone ever heard that phrase used to describe a man?

Good Job Harry. We can see why those approval numbers are so low now.

Posted by: Amara at September 4, 2008 12:20 AM
Comment #261351

i once heard Michael Jackson referred to as shrill

Posted by: NapaJohn at September 4, 2008 12:25 AM
Comment #261358

Yes, but any men?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 12:45 AM
Comment #261418

RickIL
“I have no idea if you represent my perception of “largely””

Fair enough assessment. Being an atheist, pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro 2nd Amendment and for low taxes, hasn’t really given me a party to throw my support totally behind so I sometimes consider myself as independent.

VV
“PS. to kctim: I’m going to stand on what I wrote earlier”

Nothing wrong with that. Of course, its easier to stand behind something supported by facts rather than opinion, but at least you are consistent.

Posted by: kctim at September 4, 2008 9:07 AM
Comment #261419

phx8

Purely subjective observation: McCain does not like what has happened to his campaign. It’s turned negative and divisive. In the back of his head, I think McCain wants to bring a unifying and positive message like Obama, and reach across the aisle. It has always been what he needed to do to win. Now, with the convention, the campaign has spun out of control. It really is a third Bush/Cheney/Rove term that is being pushed by the social fundamentalists and Neocons, and McCain is powerless to stop it.

I think you may have made and accurate observation here. I had not thought in that direction until you presented the notion. She did deliver a totally divisive speech. There was nothing there to indicate reaching across the aisles to find solutions. And I think you are correct in that McCain might in his heart like to pursue that avenue of approach. Oh well, too bad for him. He literally has to appease the GOP and follow their lead or pay the price. I think it is becoming increasingly clear how the GOP operates. John McCain is no longer his own man. Like GW he is wearing a choke chain leashed at the hands of GOP power brokers.

Posted by: RickIL at September 4, 2008 9:09 AM
Comment #261422

“She has a right to her opinions and beliefs, she has no right to seek to use government to force all others to comply with her personal beliefs and opinions”

Yep. People are only allowed to use govt to force all others to comply when it comes to social security, healthcare, how they run their business, what they eat and all the “feel-good” social programs.

Come on David. Obama’s entire campaign is based on using govt to force all others to comply.

Posted by: kctim at September 4, 2008 9:38 AM
Comment #261432

Comon KCTIM
the current administration arrests people and sends them to Gitmo for what they overhear on the illegal wiretaps.
and you are worried that Obama might OFFER the opportunity for you to have good healthcare??
Heavens’s what shameless grab for power is next??

Oh yea McClean buckled and voted FOR torture!!
Yeha!
I love the rightwing using the same old tired boogy man fear mongering instead of real ideas.
Ohhhh, “they” will tell you what you can eat, what car to drive, how much air in your tires” ohhhh
Oohhhh Bull Pucky
None of that is even remotely true, but that never stops the true-blue (red???) right wing fear monger.

Posted by: Russ at September 4, 2008 10:29 AM
Comment #261437

Russ
First, David mentioned how Palin would “force all others to comply with her personal beliefs and opinions,” as if Obama would not. Choosing which issues it is ok to use govt to force someone to comply with personal beliefs and opinions, is wrong no matter what.

The current administration arrests American citizens and sends them to Gitmo for what they overhear on the illegal wiretaps? That’s terrible! And since I am against that, I would love links so that I may learn more about all these Americans having their rights violated.

Oh yea McClean buckled and voted FOR torture? Obama buckled and voted FOR the wiretaps, but thats “different,” isn’t it.

Bull Pucky? Do you have any experience with such programs?
If govt pays for your food (WIC), they tell you what you can eat. If govt pays for your healthcare, they tell you how to live your life. If govt pays for your housing, they tell you where you can live. If govt pays for your retirement, they tell you how much you contribute and how to save.
I prefer to make those choices myself and others who use govt to force me to comply with their beliefs and opinions on them, are wrong.

If I’m a “right wing fear monger” for wanting to live my own life, then a left wing fear monger must be one who wants govt to dictate how they live theirs.
That is not a “real idea,” it is fear.

Posted by: kctim at September 4, 2008 11:07 AM
Comment #261439

kctim:

Nothing wrong with that. Of course, its easier to stand behind something supported by facts rather than opinion, but at least you are consistent.

WTF are you talking about? I was the one giving you the facts on where Palin stands on those three issues. And all you did was ask some questions in return, which I answered.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 4, 2008 11:12 AM
Comment #261440
Shrill. Has anyone ever heard that phrase used to describe a man?

Yes. In fact, I use that phrase wherever I feel it applies. For instance I think O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh and the like are all extremely shrill.


Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 4, 2008 11:17 AM
Comment #261441

Oh crap, I just noticed the prayer asking for god to make them an instrument of god’s will wasn’t Palin at all, it appears to be Obama…

Sorry for the confusion, it gets hard telling them apart without a program these days.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 11:24 AM
Comment #261468

VV
I truly appreciate the time you took to answer my questions and thank you for providing those facts. But the info you provided does not prove that she is against women, wants to hold them back or even that she hates women. The info only shows that it is her position on those issues that have formed your opinion that she is anti-woman, not confirm it as fact.
Perhaps I should have said it is easier to convince others with facts than opinions.
My bad.

Posted by: kctim at September 4, 2008 2:10 PM
Comment #261475

So then kctim, in your opinion the vast majority of American women actually view unequal pay for equal work, and no birth control, and having no power or choice over their reproductive organs and motherhood, and either paying a high price for healthcare or having none at all for themselves and their children, as pro-woman?

Hey, why don’t you conduct a poll if you think you’re right, just to see what sort of answer you get.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 4, 2008 2:31 PM
Comment #261480

kc,

You consider yourself to be an ‘independent’? Please let Rhinehold in on that, will you?

Posted by: Marysdude at September 4, 2008 2:42 PM
Comment #261525

VV,

Extending or not extending the deadline on how long a woman can go before suing for unequal pay says nothing about being ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ women.

You’ve been shown this repeatedly but continue to hawk the partisan talking point.

Which is IMO sad. And clearly it will be problem with Obama attempting to ‘bring us together’, it looks like that means dragging everyone to his view…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 5:06 PM
Comment #261570
Extending or not extending the deadline on how long a woman can go before suing for unequal pay says nothing about being ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ women.

Bullsh*t. Maybe if you were a woman who had been shortchanged or cheated out of a few raises in your lifetime, you’d understand that.

You’ve been shown this repeatedly but continue to hawk the partisan talking point.

I’ve been shown this repeatedly? By whom? You? Kctim? What the hell do either of you know about being a woman? NOTHING. So quit acting like you know something when you don’t, and stick your own set of talking points where the sun don’t shine.

Which is IMO sad. And clearly it will be problem with Obama attempting to ‘bring us together’, it looks like that means dragging everyone to his view…

Yeah, yeah, we all know you hate Democrats. But just you watch, Obama and Biden will end up with the vast majority of the women’s vote in November. Because we know that an anti-women candidate like Tammy Faye Palin will only spell death to all the progress we’ve had to fight so hard for over many years. That b*tch ain’t taking the rest of back in time just because of her own extremist religious views. No way, No how.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 4, 2008 7:56 PM
Comment #261619
Bullsh*t. Maybe if you were a woman who had been shortchanged or cheated out of a few raises in your lifetime, you’d understand that.

Yeah, because as a man I have smooth sailing through life. I was never told not to apply for a job because I wouldn’t fit in ‘with the girls’ or anything…

The fact is that discussing a point about the statute of limitations on a law is not the same as saying the law should exist. Nor is it saying you hate the people who are protected by the law. It’s like saying you are anti-theft-victim because there is a 7 year statue of limitations on those crimes.

If you want to play the same game as you accuse and denegrate the republicans of playing, by all means go ahead. But you fall into the trap of being just as bad as they are. Congrats.

I’ve been shown this repeatedly? By whom? You? Kctim? What the hell do either of you know about being a woman? NOTHING. So quit acting like you know something when you don’t, and stick your own set of talking points where the sun don’t shine.

Ah, the old ‘you aren’t a woman so you can’t possibly understand’ bullshit, meaning I can’t tell you you are wrong. What a great defense. I’m sure it works all the time too… Why, next I’m sure we’ll see some tears…

Get over it, if you want to be treated equally, quit acting like you’re different whenever it is convenient. I have every right to voice an opinion about the logic and legality of an issue, and tell you that you are violating the critical thought of that issue as well. Just becuase I don’t have a vagina doesn’t mean I don’t smell bullshit when I smell it.

Yeah, yeah, we all know you hate Democrats.

No, I don’t ‘hate’ democrats. I can’t hate someone I don’t know, nor can I hate someone who doesn’t deserve to be hated. I save that emotion for the really big hitters, like Mussolini, Hitler, etc.

And I don’t cheapen it by applying to people I simply disagree with.

But just you watch, Obama and Biden will end up with the vast majority of the women’s vote in NovemberWe’ll see. I don’t know what is going to happen between now and then but apparently being liberal gives you the ability to see into the future. I’ve already been hearing about the huge landslide victory and double-digit percentage thumping that Obama is going to give McCain, but I prefer to deal in reality and nows, predicting the future is apparently beyond me and my penis.
Because we know that an anti-women candidate like Tammy Faye Palin will only spell death to all the progress we’ve had to fight so hard for over many years. That b*tch ain’t taking the rest of back in time just because of her own extremist religious views. No way, No how.

It’s good to see that you don’t let hysterics and emotion rule you, that would be just fitting into the sexist stereotype. Reasonability and rational though are overhyped anyway.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 4, 2008 11:46 PM
Comment #261680

VV
On the pay issue, men and women followed the same set of guidelines to file a complaint.

I may be pro-choice, but I do know a few pro-life people and not one of them believe women need to be controlled and held back. The issue isn’t about the woman, it is about the innocent, unborn life that cannot defend itself. I seriously doubt that we are anti-infant because we are pro-choice.

Expensive healthcare or having none at all, is a problem for ALL Americans, not just women. Those of us who do not believe in socialized healthcare are not against it because we are anti-woman, we are against it because it intrudes on our individual freedoms.

“Hey, why don’t you conduct a poll if you think you’re right, just to see what sort of answer you get”

Gladly, but lets keep it simple and word it according to the facts, instead of to support an opinion.

1- Is it anti-woman to believe men and women should follow the same rules?
2- Is it anti-woman to be against abortion?
3- Is it anti-woman to be pro-choice?

Dude
“You consider yourself to be an ‘independent’? Please let Rhinehold in on that, will you?”

I consider myself independent because I do not want some of my more extreme views to be seen as the views of the Libertarian Party. That would not be fair to them.
However, as they are one of the few partys who actually believe in the Constitution, I have no problem with being associated with them.

Posted by: kctim at September 5, 2008 9:38 AM
Comment #261696

Rhinehold,
I see what’s happening here.
You don’t really care about womens issues at all.
But you know that I do.
And so you’ll keep arguing for the sake of arguing.
Flamebaiting and Trolling simply for whatever fun you can get out of it.
Buh-Bye.

kctim:

On the pay issue, men and women followed the same set of guidelines to file a complaint.

I don’t think there should be a statute of limitation on being cheated out of equal pay for equal work. For women or men.

I may be pro-choice, but I do know a few pro-life people and not one of them believe women need to be controlled and held back. The issue isn’t about the woman, it is about the innocent, unborn life that cannot defend itself.

But that’s bunk. Because without the woman, there can be no baby, so her circumstances have to be considered first. All of these pro-birth crusaders care about is putting the fetus before the choice of women, no matter what our circumstances may be. Nor do they want to pay for any programs geared toward children in poverty once they are born — they want to outlaw abortion and believe in giving the death penalty to women who get abortions, and abortion providers. Pro-birth, not Pro-Life.
These people are hypocrites — who want to legislate putting religious ideology before real world realities for American women.

Expensive healthcare or having none at all, is a problem for ALL Americans, not just women.

I agree that this is an issue for all Americans, but I also know it impacts single mothers and middle class people with children very hard.

Those of us who do not believe in socialized healthcare are not against it because we are anti-woman, we are against it because it intrudes on our individual freedoms.

Sorry, but I consider these kind of statements utterly ridiculous and non-sensical.

Thanks for the discussion. I’m done with this thread now. You can have the last word if you wish, and I’ll check back to read your reply.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 5, 2008 10:56 AM
Comment #261721
You don’t really care about womens issues at all.

Again, you make assumptions and apply them as you desire.

I’ve even stated that I am prochoice, probably more than most liberals, because I don’t think it ends at abortion rights, the right to choose should be in our lives everywhere.

I am for rights as individuals. I don’t think we need special anything for anyone, we should all be treated equal under the law. Apparently that is ANTI-woman, in your mind, because you think that women need special treatment, I guess. Change the law, FOR WOMEN, not for everyone, because it will help WOMEN, not people. I can’t take that view because I actually see people as equal and judged on the things they have some control over, not things that they can’t.

And so you’ll keep arguing for the sake of arguing.

It’s not for the sake of arguing, it is in a vain attempt to get you to perhaps see the world rationally. If you are telling me there is no point in doing that, then fine. It is just a shame. :/

Sorry, but I consider these kind of statements utterly ridiculous and non-sensical.

Because you don’t have a sense of the importance of individual freedom. Which is what kctim and I have been trying to enlighten you on, and instead we get called anti-woman and trolls.

Maybe you’re right, maybe we should just ignore whatever you say from now on.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 5, 2008 12:44 PM
Comment #261904

VV,

You had it correct about the trolls and the flamebaiting. There is no ‘discussion’ in them…no debate…no common sense…no humility or humanity. I think I’ll give it up again too.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 6, 2008 1:31 PM
Post a comment