Sorry for the all-Palin, all-the-time around here, but her story is a little like a car wreck you feel compelled to rubberneck. I just posted a comment over at Indiana Barrister that felt like it summarized Palin’s problems nicely. Abdul posted about how Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy was fair game to some extent due to the Family Values posturing
I responded that the pregnancy is the least of it; though, as he suggested, it’s put into play by the Family Values gambit — you can’t campaign on pretending to know how other families should conduct their affairs, then claim to be off limits when yours is examined.
But really, there are more important problems with Palin. She has apparently attempted to use her office to settle personal scores then fired another government official when he got in the way, then denied pressuring the government official before admitting to it. (We’ve seen this movie before; it has a crappy ending.) She apparently has a poor grasp of history, believing as she does that the Founding Fathers put “under God†into the Pledge of Allegiance (a belief that’s so inaccurate, it’s hard to know where to begin.) She believes that abortion should be outlawed even in cases of rape, incest, or a chance of serious injury to the mother exists; allowing it only when a doctor believes that the mother is going to die if the pregnancy continues. She believes that “Intelligent Design†should be taught as science in the classroom. And, she was apparently a member of a pro-secessionist political party which she still supports.
Her daughter’s pregnancy is a very minor issue and probably one of the most sympathetic with which she and the McCain campaign have to deal.
I didn’t mention in my comment at Indiana Barrister, but Palin also was a director for Ted Stevens’ 527 group. Stevens has recently been indicted on federal corruption charges. Palin was also for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was “against” it. She does not believe that human activity is a cause of global warming.
The bigger picture, of course, is what this says about McCain. Only after he made his pick has he sent a legal team up to Alaska to do a more thorough vetting by, say, going through Palin’s hometown newspapers to examine her tenure as mayor. This reflects an intellectually lazy, shoot first, ask questions later decision making process on the part of McCain. He rolled the dice on Palin and, while, his come-out roll looked pretty good, it doesn’t look like he’s going to make his number.
I keep seeing right wingers saying “If she were a democrat then everyone would be saying to back off on the pregnancy because it isn’t relevant.” What these people don’t understand is that Democrats don’t make it a central part of their ideology and are a bit more realistic when teenagers are involved. I don’t necessarily think the girl is “fair game”, but her mother should be forced to defend her positions.
I really want to see a debate question as follows: “Governor Palin, considering your daughter’s situation, have you changed your standing on abstinence only education? And if not, then why not?” With a followup that says: “How do you explain then the government report that states that Bush’s abstinence only education plan was largely ineffective in curbing teen sex and pregnancy?”
Besides the burden placed on families and communities when kids have kids, we need to be encouraging a new world where we take a very, very hard look at the damage wrecked on the environment due to over population. Telling kids to just “not have sex” is ridiculous for a large number of biological, sociological and now ecological reasons.
I’ll never understand why Republicans are so afraid of condoms.
Well, yeah, they picked her because she’s female. Shoot first, ask questions later? Absolutely. But hey- this election became about identity and not policy long, long ago. This is what we get.
ABC news is also covering her pre-Republican involvement with a party that advocates Alaskan Independence from the United States.
Link to the ABC story.
Oops – you covered it. Sorry for not reading carefully.
Well, I am not sure it is fair game.
However, I did see on GMA today that even though Palin says her daughter is going to marry the father, the father’s “myspace” page (which has since been taken down) says he does NOT WANT children.
Kudos to Obama for declaring this subject (her kids) off-limits, and pointing out that he was born to a 18 year old mother. Good show of class.
Yes, and thank God for the media and bloggers for digging into this woman’s background, as it seems the McCain people failed to do.
The mere support of the Independence Party puts into question whether she can in good faith swear to defend and uphold the AMERICAN Constitution. Reason enough to be against her.
But the soap opera will drag on.. and on… and on. Why? Because these stupid politicians of both parties fail to learn the Nixon lesson. Deal with it immediately, repent, and move on. Otehrwise the slow moving crawl of ever fresh headlines will crush you.
Now the McCain doctrine will be VETTE first. DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
In this case, even with 6 months to consider, McCain’s people did a poorer job than Obama’s with only 3. But then, they never really seriously considered the rightwing whack job til they realized the juggernaut coming at them with the DNC last week.
Sigh
Talking about her with coworkers today, two of them love her more the more they hear. I discussed abstinence only education’s role in the unplanned pregnancy, and one took offense and said, “I was an unmarried teen mother.” I asked what kind of birth control she was aware of at the time and she replied, “I didn’t know about that because my parents didn’t believe in teaching it.” I asked her if she wanted all teenage girls to suffer the same lack of awareness, and she replied that she just thinks Palin’s wonderful and changed the subject to “that Teddy Kennedy who killed that woman and still ran for president.” The rest of Palin’s missteps were perceived by her to just be CNN picking on her, and she vowed to only watch Fox News from here on out.
Hoosier 1st said:
Mitigated, of course, if she wears an American Flag lapel pin.
Good to see that Palin is being researched and discussed critically.
When y’all planning to do that with Obama?
To “Parker”: what’s the matter? Aren’t Gary Welsh’s racist, rabid screeds enough for you? He’ll let you know Obama is a murderer, dope-user, homosexual, thief, Muslim, foreigner, etc.
Use Google to find ALL about Obama from the crazies on your side!
We all know Obama served on a board, which puts him one association and thirty years removed from some radical activity when he was eight years old. It also probably puts him a couple of steps of association away from Kevin Bacon.
Obama has been vetted, analyzed, etc., for a couple of years now. Palin just stepped out of her hunting blind a few days ago, and we already know ten times more than McCain knew about her– and not much of it good.
So, you’re not planning to, then?
3 steps, T. Obama to Oprah from her support, Oprah and Dominic Scott Kay were in Charlotte’s Web together, and Kay and Bacon were in Saving Angelo.
So, since Bacon played a gay man in JFK, does that make Obama gay? Sounds like the logic that is being used…
Yes, this is totally off-topic, but T’s post was too flippin funny to ignore!
“Parker” – you’re a big boy now. Use Google. Obama’s been a national figure for some time now – there’s lots of stuff on him.
Sarah Palin is a 20-month Governor of a state with a population smaller than Indianapolis. She is an unknown. We are learning about her. Obama is quite well known except for cave-dwellers like “Parker” who are seemingly ignorant after a year of campaigning.
Once again, “Parker”, Google is your friend!
Thanks, Wilson! I accept your compliment in the spirit with which it was so graciously offered.
So Obama is without any characteristics that are worthy of critical discussion in this venue – his awesomeness can simply be taken as a given.
Question – does Google make discussion based blogs obsolete, then?
[Now I’ll never learn what a community organizer does that’s so incredibly awesome…]
IIRC, Wilson said the same kind of stuff about some unknown guy named Greg Ballard. THAT kind of talk worked out real well in his election. Keep up the elitist claptrap Wilson. You’re really “helping” the old team out. For the sake of clarity, the preceding sentence was intentional sarcasm.
We’ve spent the last 19 months vetting and checking out Mr Obama, can the McCain team say the same about Mrs. Palin. Maybe 19 hours? Or perhaps 19 minutes?
IF they knew even half the crap that has come out of her already flimsy background in the last 4 days, they are either criminal or insane. To put her family through the hell they have had this week just to get that evangelical $ and vote… criminal. To think she’s even partially as qualified as either Obama or Hillary.. or the MANY Republican women officeholders he skipped over = INSANE.
I think the “community organizer” thing was discussed amply at the convention. Now, it wasn’t mentioned with the frequency of, say, “I was a POW” has been by that guy who was a POW. But it was touched on about as much as it probably warrants.
Obama’s liabilities have been discussed at length here. Just a few threads ago there was a spirited back and forth about Ayers. Michelle Obama’s level of love for America, which appears to greatly exceed that of the Palins (“Alaska FIRST! Alaska ALWAYS!”), was discussed when it was the buzz. So was “bittergate”. All of it.
Now it’s Palin’s turn in the barrel. It’ll get old when new and crazy shit stops cropping up, and then we’ll move on to whatever else is interesting. We’re here because we’re amused or enthused by politics, policy, current events, etc. When it gets old, the conversation will drift elsewhere. But it just doesn’t look like it’s going to get old. For example…
As mayor, it’s alleged she threatened to fire a librarian who wouldn’t ban books that offended Ms. Palin’s religious sensibilities.
Doesn’t that sound much goofier and more interesting (and scary, batshit insane, un-American…) than whatever claptrap we’ve had to wade through about Obama?
I would wager that with McCain’s $47 million haul this month, at least a few thousand bucks is going to some people in a room, well out of view, who are considering the pros and cons of letting Palin off at the next exit. They’ll decide that would do more damage than keeping her. But I’d just about guarantee they’re talking about it, on his dime. If not, then Team McCain is more unprofessional than we could have ever imagined.
Dumping Thomas Eagleton was a “campaign killer”. But, I see no one rememebers that around here. Good suggestion to reenact the debacle of the recent past again (this time on the pachyderm side of the fence). You’re doomed! All doomed!
They are very unlikely to dump her. But someone’s almost certainly being paid to do the calculation, just to reassure themselves.
Dumping her would almost surely be a campaign killer. The question is, does she turn into that brain tumor that’s too dangerous to remove, so they have to leave it in?
“As mayor, it’s alleged she threatened to fire a librarian who wouldn’t ban books that offended Ms. Palin’s religious sensibilities.”
T: this is intriguing and new to me, do you have any links to the story??
Thanks:)
Story at http://www.time.com. Was called Mayor Palin: A Rough Record. Varous other outlets have the same story, but maybe they’re all quoting that Time piece.
This reflects an intellectually lazy, shoot first, ask questions later decision making process on the part of McCain. He rolled the dice on Palin
Contradictory evidence. Like the article says, and what your unfounded allegations make clear, you guys are desperate. And I’d add ‘intellectually dishonest’ to that description.
An unsourced, second hand account of the McCain campaign saying “we did too do our job?” in the National Review? Come on. Why not just cite “Obama is a Muslim” e-mails?
Thanks, T. Already sending to many librarians out there, you don’t want to anger that group!
An unsourced, second hand account of the McCain campaign saying “we did too do our job?”
Better sourced than your unsourced lying smear that Palin was a member of a Pro-secessionist party when in point of fact, she’s been a registered Republican since 1982. Just sayin’
So, you saying she’s always been opposed to secession?
So, you saying she’s always been opposed to secession?
I’m saying that it’s a lie a smear to claim she was a “member” of a pro-secessionist party. I’m also saying that if you had an ounce of integrity, you would correct your post. The ball is in your court.
She claims she wasn’t; the secessionist party leader claims she was. Claims that her husband was a member appear to have stronger evidence.
The real question is whether she is and has been opposed to Alaskan secession. The secession question has been answered (for those who may have been reading the “Founders wrote the Pledge of Allegiance” version of history – the Southerners committed treason by seceding, then got outfought by the North); it’s not permitted.
If there’s credible evidence that Palin denounced (what’s the version required when Obama’s within 6 degrees of nutjobs – ‘reject and renounce?’); then I’ll happily retract it. Otherwise, I’ll just let folks like you post contrary views, and we can approximate the truths neither of us can know absolutely that way.
Actually there are pdf’s of her voting records floating about, which defintively answer the question had you bothered to check. So yes, there is an “absolute truth” here. The question is, do you have the integrity to modify your original post, or are you just another smear merchant parrotting what you were told to thing by the extreme left?
More credible evidence. Please note how, when referring to the AIP, she says your party plays an important role in our state’s politics. I’ve always said that competition is so good. And that applies to political parties as well.
Your party, as in “not my party”. Clear enough?
What important role was that? Advocating treason?
What important role was that? Advocating treason?
As of 10:15 CST, I see you don’t have the integrity to update your post having been presented with facts which definitively contradict the smears that you have made. It’s who are, and it defines whom you have sided with and chosen to believe.
And yet, somehow, somehow I’ll manage to sleep at night.
And yet, somehow, somehow I’ll manage to sleep at night.
Just to be clear, you are knowingly smearing the Republican VP candidate with a lie and refusing to correct the record having had your unsupported lie disproven. As you say, sure you can sleep well after doing that. It’s who you people are.
Holy Troll Batman!
Last post for tonight! (you have been gracious in granting opposing viewpoints)
Leftist Dems dig and release Palin’s SS #
Early reports, but you know what vicious lowlife vermin do the dirty work for the Dem party. Unlike you Doug, if this turns out to be BS, I will return and correct the record. But for now, it looks like Dem operatives really are vermin of the worst sort. And you’re definitely guilty of repeating their unsupported talking points unfiltered (“Sarah Palin was not vetted!”, etc)
Jeez – this guy hasn’t got a clue. Don’t feed the trolls.
But Amy, its so FUN! The more you feed them, the more that funny smoke comes out of their ears. Then the part where we point and giggle, wheee!
Hey Mook… I tried to read the evidence with the smoking sun of letting out her SSN, but the PDF was not available. Guess we’ll never know the truth.
Also, I did watch the YouTube video you linked to. Yes, she said “your party”. However, there was clear evidence that you have to read between the lines to see: She was not wearing an American flag pin. Not only that, but there was NO American flag behind her at all, just the state of Alaska…see her priorities?
Her husband appears to have been a member.
She makes video welcoming them to their convention. What if Mrs. Biden made a video welcoming a reconquista group to their convention? You know, just in the interest of “competition”? It would be considered treasonous. Somehow when a Republican does something, there are all kinds of caveats. She wasn’t a member. How do you know that? Because she’s a registered Republican? The head of the AIP said she was a member? Can you be a member of both? For a “non-member”, she sure likes showing up (at least by video) at their shindigs, which is well inside tacit endorsement territory.
What a dipshit this “Mook” is turning out to be. No, the Democrats aren’t vermin, it turns out. An old oppo research file of Palin from her opponent in the governor’s race had her SSN on it, with the last four digits redacted. Not *quite* the same as leftist vermin Dem operatives releasing her SSN.
What a little turd.
She also said the Iraq War is a “task from God” and “part of God’s plan”.
I guess “Curveball” was guided by God to mislead our government about WMD? Is that how it worked?
Next, will we hear that cutting taxes for the wealthy is part of God’s plan? Oh, yeah, we kind of already got that idea at the Saddleback Forum.
Theirs is a funny god. Kind of like Gordon Gekko, with nukes.
God was also apparently very interested in Palin’s recent pipeline deal.
That’s one huge disconnect between myself and the religious right. I tend to describe myself as “agnostic,” not because I find anything bad about being labeled an “atheist,” but because I hold open the possibility that “God” exists in the form of some First Cause. That possibility is horribly abstract and not very much use in guiding day-to-day decisions. For the most part, it simply doesn’t matter how creation got started — just that it did. The rest is up to us to engage in scientific observation and figure out how it works and figure out how to use that knowledge to our best advantage.
I can’t credit the notion that there is an Old Man in the Sky who is peeping into our bedrooms and who is Very Concerned about how we conduct our affairs in there.
This isn’t new — religions of all sorts have had a back and forth between the “cold,” impersonal religions of the philosophers and the “hot,” personal religions that appeal to the masses.
So, when I hear that someone has invoked God with respect to something mundane like a pipeline; it leaves me cocking my head like a dog hearing a strange, incomprehensible sound.
Especially considering that the important aspect of the appeal to her god in the pipeline deal, as I understand it, is location. She wants her god to locate the pipeline completely within Alaska, in order to employ Alaskans. Presumably, His will would be done if Alaskans, rather than Canadians, have gainful employment.
Since when do you Dems consider secession so “treasonous” (to use Doug’s description)? I recall a US Senator from Hawaii not that long ago introducing legislation for Hawaii to secede. And although the secession language (treason?) got a few Republican votes, it was, by and large, legislation which was supported by Dems and opposed by Republicans
Yawn.
Don’t remember what you’re talking about. Wasn’t supported here. Never was an issue Democratic voters cared about or expressed an opinion about.
One party likes to talk about treason alot. Now, here’s a glaring example from their VP nominee. If treason doesn’t matter, than I will expect to hear no such things about Obama or the Democrats, either real or (as always) imagined.