Post by: Dannyboy on August 31, 2008, 04:32:39 PM
http://dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223
Sarah Palin Is NOT The Mother [Photos+Video]
by ArcXIX
Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:12:31 PM PDT
Attention! Read The Follow-Up too! BabyGate: Explosive New Details [Photos+Video]
Yesterday, with the news of Sarah Louise Heath Palin inexplicably being chosen as a Vice-Presidential nominee, the attentive American public was also introduced to her character. Unfortunately for all of us, it was filled with multiple instances of backtracking and outright lies. While Alaskans had been giving her an 80% approval rating, recently 87% of Alaskans polled on the subject of TrooperGate believed she was lying.
Now, I've known liars in my life. Their single core problem is not with themselves, but those around them. If they're never called out on their twisting of truths and fabrications, they simply continue to make larger lies.
Well, Sarah, I'm calling you a liar. And not even a good one. Trig Paxson Van Palin is not your son. He is your grandson. The sooner you come forward with this revelation to the public, the better.
* ArcXIX's diary :: ::
*
The story begins on March 6th, when Sarah decided to come forward and announce to the world that she was pregnant, a monumental occasion for an acting Governor. Republican Governor Jane Maria Swift of Massachusetts was the first sitting Governor in United States history to give birth in office just seven years before, and now here we were once again. Yet, no one could believe the news:
JUNEAU -- Gov. Sarah Palin shocked and awed just about everybody around the Capitol on Wednesday when she announced she's expecting her fifth child.
...
Palin said she's already about seven months along, with the baby due to arrive in mid-May.
That the pregnancy is so advanced astonished all who heard the news. The governor, a runner who's always been trim, simply doesn't look pregnant.
Even close members of her staff said they only learned this week their boss was expecting.
"I thought it was becoming obvious," Palin said. "You know, clothes getting snugger and snugger."
But people just couldn't believe the news.
"Really? No!" said Bethel state Rep. Mary Nelson, who is close to giving birth herself.
"It's wonderful. She's very well-disguised," said Senate President Lyda Green, a mother of three who has sometimes sparred with Palin politically. "When I was five months pregnant, there was absolutely no question that I was with child."
...
Palin said she's not aiming to take any time off from her job as governor, assuming all goes well with the pregnancy.
...
With Palin riding extraordinarily high popularity ratings, pundits have mentioned her as a potential vice presidential candidate. But she said Wednesday night she's "not pursuing or perpetuating it," adding, "I have no desire to leave my job at all as governor."
...
She's known as a fashion plate, but said she hasn't been dressing differently to cover her barely perceptible bulge.
Funny quote on her having no desire for the Vice-Presidency aside, the article is direly clear. No one knew she was pregnant, not even her own staff. Quite a feat. Why the secrecy? Sarah has never given an answer, and upon further reading, no one has bothered to ask.
Seven months into a pregnancy, and no one noticed.
Even Harry Houdini would be impressed.
And how could anyone tell? Sarah's waistline never changed. Her wardrobe still remained tight and professional. In a video posted in February (nearing five months of pregnancy at the time), Sarah is seen trim, and walking around all of Juneau, Alaska.
@5:50
..."I like running the hills, it kills me, that's why I like it, I mean it thrashes your guts..."
Not exactly terminology said by a pregnant mother. Six months into pregnancy, she attended the National Governor's Association at the White House:
The Associated Press provides two photos in this timespan, one three days later on February 28th:
And another three days before the announcement, on March 3rd:
Here she is, seven months pregnant, three days after her official announcement:
And one week later:
And that infamous video in which Sarah trashes Hillary Clinton? That was at the Newsweek Women & Leadership Event in Los Angeles, in March:
After previous pregnancies (in this case, four), and at later ages, the female body is meant to adjust and show changes earlier, not later as in Sarah's unprecedented case.
On Friday, April 18th, 2008, Sarah and her husband Todd were in Dallas, Texas for a Republican Governor's Convention. They had been in town for three days already, but Sarah had yet to give her keynote speaker address on energy policy. Then early Friday morning at 4:00am, Sarah began leaking amniotic fluid. Instead of checking into a hospital, she instead made a call to her doctor, and delivered the keynote speech.
"I was not going to miss that speech," she says.
She rushed so quickly from the podium afterwards that Texas Gov. Rick Perry nervously asked if she was about to deliver the baby then.
The oddities only grow from here on, as instead of rushing to a Dallas medical facility that could treat a mother who's amniotic fluid has been draining for hours on end (made even more crucial due to the fact that this is occurring a full month prematurely), Sarah & Todd instead opted to... Fly all the way back from Texas to Alaska. A dangerous choice, as with each pregnancy (once again, in this case after four previous), a mother's window of labor to delivery grows shorter and shorter.
Aboard Alaska Airlines, the flight lasted for eight hours, with an additional landing in Seattle. The majority of commercial airlines require mothers seven months pregnant to provide a doctor's letter to fly, but Sarah did not inform the airline of her condition. Alaska Airlines is one of the few airlines that do not require such a notice, despite the possibility of an emergency landings being required in such scenarios. That said, no one on board noticed that Sarah was going into labor:
"We leave the decision to fly up to our customers and their medical advisers," according to Alaska Airlines representative Caroline Boren.
...
"Governor Palin was extremely pleasant to flight attendants and her stage of pregnancy was not apparent by observation as she didnt show any signs of distress," Boren said.
Eight months pregnant. A 6.2 pound fetus. No one notices a visible trace. By the third trimester, a perfectly fit woman not wearing anything less than a space suit should be easily spotted as pregnant. Not in Sarah's case.
The plane then made a landing in Anchorage, Alaska. Does Sarah then visit a medical facility that can accommodate a premature birth in Alaska's most equipped city? No. She drives 45 minutes away, to Mat-Su Regional Medical Center, right outside the small village she used to govern as Mayor, Wasilla. Trig Palin is then delivered one month premature, Friday night. Sarah returned to work after three days.
The inherent need to absolutely have Trig delivered in a remote and possibly ill-equipped facility for premature deliveries, where Sarah would likely have numerous contacts and pull, does not sit well. The doctor, Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, approving of all of these actions borders on malpractice. Not treating leaking amniotic fluid causes infections, and time is of the essence after water breaks. Husband Todd Palin simply delivers this winner of a line:
"You can't have a fish picker from Texas," said Todd.
A poor motivation, to be sure. Another motivation began making its rounds in the Alaskan legislature, where everyone was initially shocked to hear the news.
Sarah Palin was not pregnant with child.
Her sixteen year-old daughter was.
Checking with the Anchorage High School that Bristol Palin attended, reporters were given word that her family had taken Bristol out of school due to contracting infectious mononucleosis. The amount of time Bristol was absent shifts from five to eight months.
Mono can last anywhere from two weeks to three months, but an eight month infection is a freak oddity. Yet it remains a common excuse given by girls in private & Catholic schools around the nation when pregnancy comes into play. Not the first time, not the last time.
The following photograph of Bristol has been dated late 2007:
And the following photograph was printed in the Anchorage Daily News, on March 9th:
Bristol is pregnant in these pictures. She is not carrying belly fat, which grows outwardly wide, and does not become dome-shaped. That's because fat is generally evenly distributed around the abdomen and a fetus is not. Bristol's chest is sticking out, a normal body reaction when sucking in stomach muscles.
Yesterday, the State of Alaska has also moved Sarah's photo page three different times from
http://gov.state.ak.us/...
to
http://www1.gov.state.ak.us/...
to
http://gov.state.ak.us/...
... With losses of photos from January & April.
The final point of interest is that Trig Palin has been diagnosed with Down's syndrome (aka trisomy 21). This is an interesting point, as chances of having offspring with Down's Syndrome increases from under 1% to 3% after a mother reaches the age of 40. However, 80% of the cases of Down's Syndrome are in mother's under the age of 35, through sheer quantities of births in this age group.
People like to think the vetting process is secure, and completed months ahead of time, but ABC News has reported otherwise, painting a picture of a quick vetting process for Sarah by a small, but secretive group of McCain's legal staff. A proper vetting process under those circumstances would only go so far, and the true media vetting process has just begun.
It doesn't come as a surprise that this story was never properly researched. Palin was never on the National scene for more than a few minutes at a time, and local reporting only goes so far on a governor with an 80% approval rating. However, the motivation to cover daughter's pregnancy aligns with her political standings. She valiantly did not perform an abortion, but fell into the fundamentalist way of thinking, and covered up for the illicit (but natural) action's of her daughter.
There could be calls below to delete this information. Calls that this type of information is muckraking and 'below us'. The truth is not below any progressive, nor any citizen of the world that is one heartbeat away from having Palin as leader of the free world. We simply ask that she be forthright, honest, and not waste our time with such juvenile games that anyone with eyes can see as fabrication.
Bristol Palin rightfully should be able to embrace her child in public as her own, with no shame, and no quarter. And a mother should be just as accepting.
Digg It.
Post by: De Selby on August 31, 2008, 04:42:20 PM
It's quite despicable of them to attack her high school age daughter. I'm amazed that there doesn't seem to be any thought whatsoever in this article as to the damage this kind of rumor could do to the girl, especially if she really did leave school for 8 months. It even has the stones to suggest that the author just wants to "help her embrace her child."
Post by: longeyes on August 31, 2008, 04:50:44 PM
Post by: De Selby on August 31, 2008, 04:52:03 PM
Alan "Hammerhead" Holmes, mocking the "family values" theme, is noting that Palin's first child was born eight months after they were married. I guess he's forgotten about the great exemplars of Bill Clinton and John Edwards? Or maybe that Barack's mother was underage when she took up with the saintly Marxist bigamist Barack the Elder? This stuff can get low low low very fast. One might have thought the Left would have a bit of trepidation going after a woman like Palin but I think they are so neurotic they can't help themselves.
This is not a left/right issue-it is about those who rely on the rumor mill vs. those who use their noodles.
Post by: MechAg94 on August 31, 2008, 04:56:42 PM
Which is really funny to me because I remember some of those people who were really pissed at the Democrat infighting in the primaries like they didn't know that stuff happens.
These things happen in politics and they have since the original G.W. said two terms in office were enough.
Post by: Bigjake on August 31, 2008, 04:57:42 PM
Post by: agricola on August 31, 2008, 04:59:21 PM
Alan "Hammerhead" Holmes, mocking the "family values" theme, is noting that Palin's first child was born eight months after they were married. I guess he's forgotten about the great exemplars of Bill Clinton and John Edwards? Or maybe that Barack's mother was underage when she took up with the saintly Marxist bigamist Barack the Elder? This stuff can get low low low very fast. One might have thought the Left would have a bit of trepidation going after a woman like Palin but I think they are so neurotic they can't help themselves.
His earlier claims were far worse (albeit not as bad as the ones attacking her daughter, which Michael Moore has eagerly run with):
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/08/31/you-stay-classy-alan-colmes.php
Post by: agricola on August 31, 2008, 05:01:52 PM
Lefties really ARE that dumb. Which is why they are utterly terrified of Sarah Palin.
Indeed. The fact that they are going this negative, this publicly, this early on her suggests she is either seen as a serious threat to The Dream, or they are really, really stupid... or a combination of both.
edit: by the way, if anyone wants pictures of VP Palin pregnant (which, according to Kos, dont exist):
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 31, 2008, 05:07:00 PM
I would care... why?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on August 31, 2008, 05:11:22 PM
I remember an old wives wisdom I read somewhere.
The first child can arrive at any time after a young couple's wedding and is assumed to have been conceived that night, it's just the rest that take the full nine months.
Also,
I love how the city of Wasilla becomes a "small village", and its fully equipped, modern hospital has its quality questioned.
Admittedly it doesn't have a NICU, but this wasn't Sarah's first child, it was not a difficult nor dangerous pregnancy and Anchorage is only about 15 minutes away via Life-flight.
Also,
They keep quoting Repubs up here as if their criticism of Palin is somehow especially meaningful while simultaneously slamming much of the Party up here for being corrupt.
Which is it Kos-kids? Are they dispassionate honest observers speaking the truth about one of their own or pissed off establishment types upset at a young crusader?
Post by: MechAg94 on August 31, 2008, 05:13:03 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 31, 2008, 05:15:09 PM
Quote
As for Track being born 8 months after the elopement.
I was born 2 weeks after my Mom and Dad got hitched.
I see no problem.
While there can be genuine concern about the fate of children born out of wedlock in the sense that they often grow up without a proper family, this is clearly not the case with Track.
Post by: De Selby on August 31, 2008, 05:15:44 PM
Lefties really ARE that dumb. Which is why they are utterly terrified of Sarah Palin.
In fairness, as dumb as these accusations are, equally dumb things have been said about Barack Obama by the equivalent sources on the right.
It makes you wonder whether or not they think we're all dumb, or whether dumb crosses the aisles, or whether every point has its counterpoint.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on August 31, 2008, 05:23:49 PM
That one applies equally to everyone always.
Post by: agricola on August 31, 2008, 05:33:21 PM
Lefties really ARE that dumb. Which is why they are utterly terrified of Sarah Palin.
In fairness, as dumb as these accusations are, equally dumb things have been said about Barack Obama by the equivalent sources on the right.
It makes you wonder whether or not they think we're all dumb, or whether dumb crosses the aisles, or whether every point has its counterpoint.
The difference here is that two of Palin's kids are directly involved in this, with precisely zero evidence to back it up.
Post by: De Selby on August 31, 2008, 05:43:41 PM
Lefties really ARE that dumb. Which is why they are utterly terrified of Sarah Palin.
In fairness, as dumb as these accusations are, equally dumb things have been said about Barack Obama by the equivalent sources on the right.
It makes you wonder whether or not they think we're all dumb, or whether dumb crosses the aisles, or whether every point has its counterpoint.
The difference here is that two of Palin's kids are directly involved in this, with precisely zero evidence to back it up.
Yes, it is especially despicable to attack children, but the level of stupidity in the theory is equivalent to what's been charged against the other side.
I think carebear is right-sometimes, I look at all the construction and technology that surrounds me, and I think "witchcraft-there's no way enough people used their brains long enough to build all of this."
But miracles do happen, it seems-just not on campaigns, during campaign season.
Post by: MechAg94 on August 31, 2008, 05:46:41 PM
That said, it still doesn't excuse this little tidbit of stupidity.
Post by: De Selby on August 31, 2008, 05:49:42 PM
Stupid comments and people do exist on the right. I see them on comment sites like lucianne.com. There are always people attached to any group who tow the party line without putting much actual thought behind it. In most cases on either side, they are minority.
That said, it still doesn't excuse this little tidbit of stupidity.
That said, it still doesn't excuse this little tidbit of stupidity.
Nothing excuses it-and trying to explain it just makes the theory appear more ridiculous, normally.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on August 31, 2008, 05:50:23 PM
Quote
The difference here is that two of Palin's kids are directly involved in this, with precisely zero evidence to back it up.
Technically 3 kids.
Part of the slur is that Track, the oldest son, suspiciously left for the Army in September, 8 months prior to Trig being born.
That variation has less traction but yes, some of the Kos-kids are in fact alleging incest to explain the Down's syndrome.
Here are some photos of her from April in Juneau, AK. She isn't resting that binder on nothing.
(note these are not press photos, just from someone who was there, posted on a photo hosting site)
These people will burn for this slander eventually.
Post by: MicroBalrog on August 31, 2008, 05:55:19 PM
Quote
That variation has less traction but yes, some of the Kos-kids are in fact alleging incest to explain the Down's syndrome.
...attempting to care... failing....
Let's assume here Palin's kids are ALL perverts. This affects her ability to be VP... how?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on August 31, 2008, 05:58:26 PM
The left isn't going to let anyone get away with lying about a private matter after Clinton (and to a lesser degree Edwards) got hammered on it.
Post by: Antibubba on August 31, 2008, 07:50:49 PM
You know, if the story were true, I could see it helping her. Seriously. That's practically a Hallmark Afterschool Special. It's Hollywood script material. Let's face it, Americans say we love the truth, but we love a good story more. Hell, the American dream is a great story, with endless characters telling a similar plot.
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on August 31, 2008, 08:17:30 PM
Quote
Let's assume here Palin's kids are ALL perverts. This affects her ability to be VP... how?
It's the nature of current US politics. The serious Republicans vote for their guy, serious Democrats for theirs - how do you win the election? The 'moderates' - people who don't make up their mind until the last minute. I get the notion that said moderates have little interest in and knowledge of politics. They eat up this stupid stuff. If Obama wanted to socialize every industry in the country, confiscate all guns, ban all SUVs, the moderates wouldn't care. If Obama had thrown a water balloon at Oprah, they would care. They have no interest in politics except as a gossip column, AFAIK.
Post by: CombatArmsUSAF on August 31, 2008, 09:45:25 PM
Post by: Iain on August 31, 2008, 10:32:08 PM
Post by: anygunanywhere on September 01, 2008, 02:56:01 AM
He was a math major so I know he can figure it out.
The subject has never been an issue. We do not care what people think. Think is the key word.
With regard to the spoken word, people who know us (Mrs. Anygunanywhere and I) kind of instinctively know better than to broach the subject especially in a derogatory manner.
If someone made it an issue in an attempt to smear one of us the guilty party would have to find another line of work because of the severe physical disability resulting from the beat down and stomping under my size 11 1/2 Tony Llamas.
Scum that write this filth would be erased if the proper application of responsibility for ones actions were applied in generous measure.
Even though our sons are grown men, I will still defend them to the very end.
Sarah Palin is an amazing woman and I am excited for the election.
Anygunanywhere
Post by: longeyes on September 01, 2008, 06:56:44 AM
"Extreme liberalism is a mental disorder."
It's not about getting stuck on stupid, it's about a kind of sick viciousness that we have seen for years now in Bush Derangement Syndrome. A lot of this is nothing but bratthink, pretending to adult sophistication.
Post by: wmenorr67 on September 01, 2008, 07:27:07 AM
Post by: agricola on September 01, 2008, 07:29:51 AM
There is now breaking news on FOX that says that the daughter is pregnant and will marry the father.
Confirmed:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/palin-confirms-daughters-pregnancy-915378.html
Post by: Manedwolf on September 01, 2008, 07:30:30 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on September 01, 2008, 07:33:10 AM
Chris
Post by: Manedwolf on September 01, 2008, 07:42:16 AM
No, they celebrate the unwed mom NOT getting married.
Chris
Chris
Oh, yeah, true.
Post by: agricola on September 01, 2008, 08:00:56 AM
Post by: eflatminor on September 01, 2008, 08:35:41 AM
Just to be clear, I do not suspect this but I wonder if the liberal bloggers will suggest it.
Post by: Ben on September 01, 2008, 08:37:17 AM
Quote
The cynic in me wonders whether the rumours about Trig Palin were a cunningly disguised trap to get this news out
I won't say it was a plan (but you never know). I will say that the DailyKos faction really hurt the Dems with what they did, and they did in fact help Palin and the Republicans with damage control.
If the pregnancy would have come out as just her daughter's pregnancy (without the "fake pregnancy", incest, etc. claim prelude) I think the Palin camp would have had to go into high gear to control accusations from the left about "the moral right" and teenage pregnancy, etc. But now it's gone from a "cover-up" to, "Oh, yes, my daughter is pregnant and she's getting married (yawn)."
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on September 01, 2008, 09:13:57 AM
Post by: eflatminor on September 01, 2008, 09:20:59 AM
Me, I couldn't give a rat's you know what but I'm fasinated by the political process/machine.
Post by: agricola on September 01, 2008, 09:27:11 AM
Okay, I'm going to REALLY play devil's advocate here. Does the timeline support the idea that the daughter could have gotten pregnant TWICE? The first time her mother claimed it to be hers, and now pregnant again, her Mom says "I can't cover this up twice! You're getting married!"
Just to be clear, I do not suspect this but I wonder if the liberal bloggers will suggest it.
Just to be clear, I do not suspect this but I wonder if the liberal bloggers will suggest it.
If they do, then they will make themselves look even more stupid (which is not to say they arent doing it already and claiming (sadly backed up by the BBC) that they "forced" Palin to reveal this information).
As for the timeline, no. Bristol Palin is around five months pregnant, if the statement put out is to be believed. Trig Palin was born on April 18th, four-and-a half months ago.
Post by: longeyes on September 01, 2008, 10:06:06 AM
The script on Palin is this: She's a freak (guns, moose-gutting), a lightweight, and, now, uppity trailer trash.
It will backfire. The Left likes early pregnancy only when it leads to victims, preferably minorities.
Post by: alan2 on September 01, 2008, 11:39:20 AM
Post by: Regolith on September 01, 2008, 11:40:58 AM
And the importance of Governor Palin's daughters condition(pregnancy) is important how? It escapes me.
It isn't. It's just the Kos Kids trying to make a cheap (and rather sleazy) political score.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 01, 2008, 12:49:49 PM
Post by: De Selby on September 01, 2008, 01:02:17 PM
It should not matter, and it's wrong to make her a target or to involve her family in politics this way. But that's the way politics are done here-happens to all sides.
Just because you support one side over the other doesn't mean that it will escape the damage from something that, in a perfect world, would not matter.
This is one of the more unsavoury aspects of "character" or "identity" politics: when you are running primarily on who you are, and the quality of your "character" as opposed to your willingness to enact specific, well-defined policies, these sorts of things impact your odds of winning an election.
If elections were about policy and specific plans for government, this wouldn't matter, but these elections aren't really about policy.
Post by: De Selby on September 01, 2008, 01:07:02 PM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_on_Palin.html?showall
Quote
"I have said before and I will repeat again: People's families are off limits," Obama said. "And people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. So I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18 and how a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldnt be a topic of our politics."
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 01, 2008, 01:21:02 PM
Pretending that this doesn't hurt the McCain/Palin ticket is denial.
It should not matter, and it's wrong to make her a target or to involve her family in politics this way. But that's the way politics are done here-happens to all sides.
...
It should not matter, and it's wrong to make her a target or to involve her family in politics this way. But that's the way politics are done here-happens to all sides.
...
The thing is, there isn't a negative here for any flavor of social conservative I'm aware of. As was said, the things they believe in are designed to prevent these situations in general (because they are usually not good in general), but, regardless of smears, the basis is love, not puritanism.
1) She had premarital sex, but her mom is in favor of a more abstinence-based education. But the girl is 17 and kids do dumb things.
Net loss of conservatives - 0; with a net possible gain from comprehensive sex ed. salt-of-the-earth types whose kids also go against their wishes and teaching and they have to deal with it on a host of issues.
2) She is having the baby when it would be perfectly legal in AK without parental consent, but her mom is pro-life.
Net loss of conservatives - 0; with a net possible gain from pro-choice s-o-t-e types who also have family or friends dealing with teen pregnancy and keeping the baby.
3) She is marrying the father of the baby, and her parents (and presumably his) are supportive of the young couple.
Net loss of conservatives - 0; with a net possible gain from s-o-t-e types whose grandparents, parents, themselves or their kids did the same thing and the relationships worked out.
4) The left can hit her with snarky "See how well your "family values" work, neener neener." attacks, but that won't resonate with many parents or people who sympathize with a less-than-desireable situation for a kid.
I don't see this affecting enough of the base to matter but rather increasing her resonance with normal folks who may differ with her on some issues.
As you say, personality matters and America loves this kind of schmaltz.
Post by: Prophet on September 01, 2008, 02:38:19 PM
Carry on, ladies and gentlemen.
Post by: longeyes on September 01, 2008, 02:54:26 PM
Quote
Pretending that this doesn't hurt the McCain/Palin ticket is denial.
It should not matter, and it's wrong to make her a target or to involve her family in politics this way. But that's the way politics are done here-happens to all sides.
Just because you support one side over the other doesn't mean that it will escape the damage from something that, in a perfect world, would not matter.
It should not matter, and it's wrong to make her a target or to involve her family in politics this way. But that's the way politics are done here-happens to all sides.
Just because you support one side over the other doesn't mean that it will escape the damage from something that, in a perfect world, would not matter.
Palin's daughter got pregnant and is marrying the father.
Obama's best friends are Ayers, Wright, and Rezko.
Equivalency?
I think the people will decide that one.
Post by: Dannyboy on September 01, 2008, 03:02:56 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 01, 2008, 03:14:21 PM
No, they celebrate the unwed mom NOT getting married.
Chris
No, they celebrate the unwed mom killing the the child before it's born.
Chris
Post by: lupinus on September 01, 2008, 03:24:37 PM
No, they celebrate the unwed mom NOT getting married.
Chris
No, they celebrate the unwed mom killing the the child before it's born.Chris
Post by: roo_ster on September 01, 2008, 04:31:11 PM
Pretending that this doesn't hurt the McCain/Palin ticket is denial.
It should not matter, and it's wrong to make her a target or to involve her family in politics this way. But that's the way politics are done here-happens to all sides.
Just because you support one side over the other doesn't mean that it will escape the damage from something that, in a perfect world, would not matter.
This is one of the more unsavoury aspects of "character" or "identity" politics: when you are running primarily on who you are, and the quality of your "character" as opposed to your willingness to enact specific, well-defined policies, these sorts of things impact your odds of winning an election.
If elections were about policy and specific plans for government, this wouldn't matter, but these elections aren't really about policy.
It should not matter, and it's wrong to make her a target or to involve her family in politics this way. But that's the way politics are done here-happens to all sides.
Just because you support one side over the other doesn't mean that it will escape the damage from something that, in a perfect world, would not matter.
This is one of the more unsavoury aspects of "character" or "identity" politics: when you are running primarily on who you are, and the quality of your "character" as opposed to your willingness to enact specific, well-defined policies, these sorts of things impact your odds of winning an election.
If elections were about policy and specific plans for government, this wouldn't matter, but these elections aren't really about policy.
You need to spend more time with Christian evangelicals/fundies. A goodly proportion of them became that way be screwing up and then realizing the error of their ways and then getting on the right path. It is the stuff of witness.
Post by: De Selby on September 01, 2008, 04:54:45 PM
Pretending that this doesn't hurt the McCain/Palin ticket is denial.
It should not matter, and it's wrong to make her a target or to involve her family in politics this way. But that's the way politics are done here-happens to all sides.
Just because you support one side over the other doesn't mean that it will escape the damage from something that, in a perfect world, would not matter.
This is one of the more unsavoury aspects of "character" or "identity" politics: when you are running primarily on who you are, and the quality of your "character" as opposed to your willingness to enact specific, well-defined policies, these sorts of things impact your odds of winning an election.
If elections were about policy and specific plans for government, this wouldn't matter, but these elections aren't really about policy.
It should not matter, and it's wrong to make her a target or to involve her family in politics this way. But that's the way politics are done here-happens to all sides.
Just because you support one side over the other doesn't mean that it will escape the damage from something that, in a perfect world, would not matter.
This is one of the more unsavoury aspects of "character" or "identity" politics: when you are running primarily on who you are, and the quality of your "character" as opposed to your willingness to enact specific, well-defined policies, these sorts of things impact your odds of winning an election.
If elections were about policy and specific plans for government, this wouldn't matter, but these elections aren't really about policy.
You need to spend more time with Christian evangelicals/fundies. A goodly proportion of them became that way be screwing up and then realizing the error of their ways and then getting on the right path. It is the stuff of witness.
How many of those types of votes were in play already anyway, though?
It's the undecided "character" voters that Obama and McCain are fighting for at this point-people who are strongly committed to conservative causes aren't going to switch to Obama, and neither are committed liberals going to vote for McCain.
The reason why this is bad for McCain is the nature of the voter in question, not the event.
Post by: lacoochee on September 01, 2008, 05:07:45 PM
She is actually going to get more votes for McCain with her daughter being pregnant, her daughter is beautiful the daughter's boyfriend could play an actor on One Tree hill. I have actually heard women in Wal-Mart referring to her as "Sarah", trust me on this Obama is going to lose and and lose big.
This woman, her family and story would make an excellent teen drama show, like Everwood.
The American public is going to hang on every action this family takes from now on.
Post by: De Selby on September 01, 2008, 05:15:18 PM
On many issues I am "the other side." I don't think this latest news sensation is going to take conservative voters away from McCain-indeed, he will probably get all of those committed conservative votes already. They're not really in play.
What I do think is that the crowds of undecideds, who are not, by this point, committed to any particular cause, ideology, or anything else, will be affected in the negative by this. Not because they are religious, pretend-principled, or because of any definite beliefs-but rather because they don't have any such core beliefs or firmness that would've already made them either Obama or McCain supporters a long time ago.
These are the people who are waiting to see "if they like Obama or McCain", or "what kind of guys they really are", ie, for character evidence. And as to proving character, any scandal of this nature is a negative-it costs votes.
And Obama is already winning big on this issue: he's making himself out to be a protector figure by condemning all the criticism and vowing to fire anyone who engages in it from his campaign.
When running for president and trying to grab the masses of undecideds two months out, you don't want to be in the position of having your opponent declaring that the illegitimate children in your family should be out of bounds for discussion.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on September 01, 2008, 05:38:00 PM
Quote
And Obama is already winning big on this issue: he's making himself out to be a protector figure by condemning all the criticism and vowing to fire anyone who engages in it from his campaign.
That sounds good if you say it fast. But the truth is his campaign jumped out too quick and went deep into the gutter without the facts. He as usual was two days late and a dollar short to make the train. It left the station and the middle of the road voters (my parents are of that group) are not believing the half hearted attempts by Obiden to repudiate what was already printed.
It was a given back in the days of real journalism that before you went to press with a story you would have two verifiable sources. Today you only need an imagination. What passes for journalism today wouldn't make piss poor fiction in the past.
Jim
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 01, 2008, 05:55:40 PM
Wow, so the Kossacks were right...about 9 months too late. How far along is she now?
The Palin's say 5 months. A bit crassly, that'd put conception right about their April 12 prom.
It's a story as American as apple pie.
Post by: Bigjake on September 01, 2008, 05:59:03 PM
It was a given back in the days of real journalism that before you went to press with a story you would have two verifiable sources. Today you only need an imagination. What passes for journalism today wouldn't make piss poor fiction in the past.
Jim
Amen
Post by: De Selby on September 01, 2008, 06:07:30 PM
Quote
And Obama is already winning big on this issue: he's making himself out to be a protector figure by condemning all the criticism and vowing to fire anyone who engages in it from his campaign.
That sounds good if you say it fast. But the truth is his campaign jumped out too quick and went deep into the gutter without the facts. He as usual was two days late and a dollar short to make the train. It left the station and the middle of the road voters (my parents are of that group) are not believing the half hearted attempts by Obiden to repudiate what was already printed.
It was a given back in the days of real journalism that before you went to press with a story you would have two verifiable sources. Today you only need an imagination. What passes for journalism today wouldn't make piss poor fiction in the past.
Jim
Huh? Is there any evidence whatsoever that the Obama campaign was connected to the rumors two days ago?
Just like you wouldn't expect McCain to comment on every "Obama's a Muslim!" article on google, I'm not sure why you'd expect the same from Obama.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on September 01, 2008, 06:15:41 PM
Do not try and pretend that you are unaware of the use of proxies to sling mud during a campaign. He is from the Chicago school of politics.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/08/30/stay-classy-daily-kos-accusations-palin-faked-her-pregnancy-down
Just read the comments under the article if you won't read the article. Then again maybe you shouldn't as you might see one of your posts there.
Jim
Post by: De Selby on September 01, 2008, 06:18:46 PM
Try this: If I posted an article with rumors about Obama, and then pointed to the comments as 'proof' that McCain's campaign had planted the story....would you accept that McCain was farming tinfoil hattery about Obama?
I don't think any of us with eyes to see and brains to interpret the information would. Likewise when you're talking about leftist looney rumors.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on September 01, 2008, 07:02:49 PM
Quote
"Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies. That's not the change we need, it's just more of the same,"
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080829171140.5123i228&show_article=1Friday Aug 29th:
Quote
Okay, I just have to diary about this, although in many ways this falls into the "none of our business category".
But it appears that Pallin's last child, a baby with Down's syndrome, may not be hers. It may be that of her teenage daughter.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/17933/7330/417/579267But it appears that Pallin's last child, a baby with Down's syndrome, may not be hers. It may be that of her teenage daughter.
Sept. 1st:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-to-media.html
Quote
"Let me be a clear as possible: I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people's families are off limits," Obama said, "and people's children are especially off limits.
"This shouldn't be part of our politics," he continued, "It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor, or her potential performance as a vice president.
"This shouldn't be part of our politics," he continued, "It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor, or her potential performance as a vice president.
He waited until asked the question instead of issuing a statement reaffirming his stance. And you know well that if it makes it through a complete news cycle that it becomes a meme.
Quote
The Democratic presidential nominee said, "There is no evidence at all that any of this involved us. I hope I am as clear as can be so in case Im not, let me repeat: We don't go after people's families, we don't get them involved in the politics. It's not appropriate and it's not relevant."
Concluded Obama before getting on his campaign bus headed to Milwaukee, Wisc., "Our people were not involved in any way in this and they will not be. And if I ever thought that it was somebody in my campaign that was involved in something like that, they'd be fired."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-to-media.htmlConcluded Obama before getting on his campaign bus headed to Milwaukee, Wisc., "Our people were not involved in any way in this and they will not be. And if I ever thought that it was somebody in my campaign that was involved in something like that, they'd be fired."
Now lets see if it turns out that his close associates had nothing to do with this.
Jim
P.S.
Highlighted the part you didn't read. You say there will be no evidence to put Obama's people inside these attacks. Let us see if this turns out to be true. So far he doesn't have a very good track record with regard to honesty and forthrightness.
Quote
The Obama campaign was not prepared for the Palin announcement, a choice that was unexpected but not totally off the radar. Thats not good in politics but its very discouraging in governing. In fact, it makes the Obama campaign sound as clueless as it often describes the Bush Administration.
http://patterico.com/2008/08/29/obama-campaign-reaction-to-palin/Maybe this is why you are getting gung ho for Obiden?
Quote
The respected Israeli newspaper Ha'artez today repeated an Israeli Army Radio report that Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, told "senior Israeli officials behind closed doors that the Jewish state will have to reconcile itself to a nuclear Iran."
"Israel will have to reconcile itself with the nuclearization of Iran," Army Radio said that Biden told the unnamed officials. "It's doubtful if the economic sanctions will be effective, and I am against opening an additional military and diplomatic front."
"Israel will have to reconcile itself with the nuclearization of Iran," Army Radio said that Biden told the unnamed officials. "It's doubtful if the economic sanctions will be effective, and I am against opening an additional military and diplomatic front."
Post by: De Selby on September 01, 2008, 07:03:59 PM
And, fyi, this is about the fifth time I've said this: I do not support Obama/Biden.
Post by: Antibubba on September 01, 2008, 07:19:34 PM
The only way this hurts the Palin's is that Bristol won't be able to work the nets during the salmon run.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on September 01, 2008, 07:27:38 PM
Jim
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 01, 2008, 08:46:05 PM
lacoochee,
On many issues I am "the other side." I don't think this latest news sensation is going to take conservative voters away from McCain-indeed, he will probably get all of those committed conservative votes already. They're not really in play.
What I do think is that the crowds of undecideds, who are not, by this point, committed to any particular cause, ideology, or anything else, will be affected in the negative by this. Not because they are religious, pretend-principled, or because of any definite beliefs-but rather because they don't have any such core beliefs or firmness that would've already made them either Obama or McCain supporters a long time ago.
These are the people who are waiting to see "if they like Obama or McCain", or "what kind of guys they really are", ie, for character evidence. And as to proving character, any scandal of this nature is a negative-it costs votes.
And Obama is already winning big on this issue: he's making himself out to be a protector figure by condemning all the criticism and vowing to fire anyone who engages in it from his campaign.
When running for president and trying to grab the masses of undecideds two months out, you don't want to be in the position of having your opponent declaring that the illegitimate children in your family should be out of bounds for discussion.
On many issues I am "the other side." I don't think this latest news sensation is going to take conservative voters away from McCain-indeed, he will probably get all of those committed conservative votes already. They're not really in play.
What I do think is that the crowds of undecideds, who are not, by this point, committed to any particular cause, ideology, or anything else, will be affected in the negative by this. Not because they are religious, pretend-principled, or because of any definite beliefs-but rather because they don't have any such core beliefs or firmness that would've already made them either Obama or McCain supporters a long time ago.
These are the people who are waiting to see "if they like Obama or McCain", or "what kind of guys they really are", ie, for character evidence. And as to proving character, any scandal of this nature is a negative-it costs votes.
And Obama is already winning big on this issue: he's making himself out to be a protector figure by condemning all the criticism and vowing to fire anyone who engages in it from his campaign.
When running for president and trying to grab the masses of undecideds two months out, you don't want to be in the position of having your opponent declaring that the illegitimate children in your family should be out of bounds for discussion.
Whooosh! That was the sound of lacoochee's point sailing right over your head.
Daughter got pregnant on Prom night? Trying to do the right thing about it now? Welcome to real life. Elitist, out-of-touch politicians need not apply.
It isn't about character, it's about being real. It's about being able to relate to voters. All politicians talk about being able to relate, but Sarah Palin and her family really do it. It's about voters actually liking their elected representatives, not just for being good representatives, but for being good, decent people.
The public is going to hang on this family's every move. The public is going to root for this family. The more we learn about Palin's family, struggles and all, the more people are going to vote for her and McCain. Count on it.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 01, 2008, 08:54:30 PM
Post by: De Selby on September 01, 2008, 09:02:11 PM
The public is going to hang on this family's every move. The public is going to root for this family. The more we learn about Palin's family, struggles and all, the more people are going to vote for her and McCain. Count on it.
That would be a nice dream result for McCain supporters, but unfortunately, soap operas surrounding politicians tend to sink their careers, not support them.
Everyone loves a bad boy in the movies who's just trying to make things right, too-but in real life, he's usually on strike three without anyone actually knowing his name.
I think you are tremendously over-stating the potential benefit of a "soap opera" type narrative to campaign on. The proven formula for character is being known for firmness, having everybody like you, and it helps to just plain be a celebrity on top of it (think of reagan)...sympathy votes because you are having a serious family issue will not carry an election.
It helps even less that most people will be learning her name for the first time during this period-now the conversation among the undecideds is likely to run like this: "Sarah Palin, from Alaska?" "Who's that?" "The lady with the teen pregnancy story."
Not good, when you're trying to sell yourself on character.
Post by: wmenorr67 on September 01, 2008, 09:05:07 PM
Post by: De Selby on September 01, 2008, 09:17:51 PM
One member raises his hand, and says "I propose we find a family values candidate, with a child who has fathered an illegitimate child or is about to have one! That way, we'll relate to all those hard working Americans whose teens are pregnant, and give ourselves a huge boost in the polls! [insert maniacal laugh]"
The reason why that scenario is completely unrealistic is that, while this isn't fatal, it's certainly not good for the campaign. No sane McCain proponent would ever have chosen this scenario in advance; trying to paint it as a boost in retrospect is primarily wishful thinking.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 01, 2008, 09:21:52 PM
Post by: De Selby on September 01, 2008, 09:26:13 PM
and yet the reports are that they knew when they chose her. i think you are mistaken about how this will fly.
The latest reports are that they didn't check her out all that closely-I don't think it's clear yet what they knew when, but in any case, knowing of a fact and choosing anyway doesn't imply that it's a good thing. Everyone knew about Biden's plagiarism incident, but I highly doubt you'll find any argument that Obama thinks it's actually a boost for Biden's record...yet he was chosen.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 01, 2008, 09:28:36 PM
Post by: De Selby on September 01, 2008, 09:37:06 PM
i think you are not familiar with the types of folks who are fundamentalists. i think jfuser called it real well. and even those who didn't mess up themselves will root for someone who tries to better themselves. this i do know
You know, I agree with you on this-I just don't think most of the undecideds are principled people who will admire the choice her daughter has made, and who will respect the adversity that her family will deal with in having this made public.
I would expect fundamentalists and conservative religious folk of all types to be solidly behind McCain already, and to be behind Palin as his running mate. I just think we're dealing with a different type of voter in play, at this point.
Post by: Antibubba on September 02, 2008, 12:36:54 AM
Is that Bristol on the right, or the left? And that's "Downtown" Juneau behind them, right?
You know, I really don't care for children, but the little girl is adorable. And that look in her eyes? She'll be the next "Barricuda".
---
SS, if you haven't figured it out yet, perception has a much bigger impact than reality in politics--and nothing is bigger or better than "seeing the real thing", whether it's real or not.
The Palins are The Real Thing. And if they're not, they sure have mastered the look of it. But I don't think they're faking it.
Do you know what her husband's "title" is, in Alaska?
First Dude.
Post by: wmenorr67 on September 02, 2008, 12:39:26 AM
Here is a picture of her.
Post by: Antibubba on September 02, 2008, 12:58:41 AM
That little girl is going to be a star, even more than her mom.
Post by: roo_ster on September 02, 2008, 02:36:15 AM
and yet the reports are that they knew when they chose her. i think you are mistaken about how this will fly.
The latest reports are that they didn't check her out all that closely-I don't think it's clear yet what they knew when...
McCain knew the deal and decided for her, anyway. FOlks in her home town knew about her daughter's pregnancy, according to reprts from local reporters.
Palin was a contender for the veep slot since McCain first met her in February. She was no panic pick with little vetting. She was on the original long list and survived every winnowing.
The top three McCain choices were Lieberman, Palin, & Pawlenty. Palin was chosen less to shore up McCain's weakness with the Rep base than to emphasize McCain's reformer/change/maverick strengths.
Post by: agricola on September 02, 2008, 03:09:04 AM
Maybe a better way to explain the politics of this is by imagining the McCain team, sitting in its office, choosing a VP:
One member raises his hand, and says "I propose we find a family values candidate, with a child who has fathered an illegitimate child or is about to have one! That way, we'll relate to all those hard working Americans whose teens are pregnant, and give ourselves a huge boost in the polls! [insert maniacal laugh]"
The reason why that scenario is completely unrealistic is that, while this isn't fatal, it's certainly not good for the campaign. No sane McCain proponent would ever have chosen this scenario in advance; trying to paint it as a boost in retrospect is primarily wishful thinking.
One member raises his hand, and says "I propose we find a family values candidate, with a child who has fathered an illegitimate child or is about to have one! That way, we'll relate to all those hard working Americans whose teens are pregnant, and give ourselves a huge boost in the polls! [insert maniacal laugh]"
The reason why that scenario is completely unrealistic is that, while this isn't fatal, it's certainly not good for the campaign. No sane McCain proponent would ever have chosen this scenario in advance; trying to paint it as a boost in retrospect is primarily wishful thinking.
I think its more likely that they looked at Palin and all her advantages, then looked at the disadvantages (this issue perhaps, and the trooper thing) and decided to take her as the VP pick anyway, which really should be commended IMHO.
Meanwhile, could Obama's disavowal of this as a political issue be about to come back and bite him on the arse?
http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/01/am-i-making-too-much-of-arcxix/#comments
Post by: Intune on September 02, 2008, 04:22:36 AM
Quote
The latest reports are that they didn't check her out all that closely
Naw, youre right. Its not that important. They called her in right after they finished up with the Auto Zone parts department interview.The latest reports& Thanks for the morning laugh. You wouldda been a real hoot during the ticker tape era. Does anyone still employ a town crier?
WAIT, hold the keyboards! This just in from America's #1 news source, the Weekly Cuz...
"The latest reports indicate that there is a very real possibility that the short, curly, gray hair found in the dumpster less than two blocks from the sealskin covered, whale blubber heated, poached walrus ivory door-handled governors mansion where the caribou poaching, near-sighted, dyed hair, menopausal, breast augmented, liposuctioned, alcoholic, child abusing, cat killing, bank robbing, poo-poo headed Palin resides may be associated with her loins."
Were talkin nether regions here folks. If DNA tests indicate a match, Palins pubes could prove to be a hairy predicament for McCain. When queried about this potentially blockbusting situation, McCain just smiled, gave thumbs up and said, grays in style, mofos. Shocking indeed.
Michael Moore, the nations leading intellectual, had this to say when pumped about the pube predicament, McCain knew, everybody knew. They thought that they could get away with deceiving the American people once again but a little grey in the carpet isnt something to sneeze at. It defiantly proves her lack of character and failed pube policing policies. Clairol executives are disgusted as they should be. We havent had this big of a story since the bratty, slut of a daughter popped up preggers. Disgusting family. Let me tell you who to vote for cause Im smarter and fatter than you. Back to you Jane&"
Quote
And, fyi, this is about the fifth time I've said this: I do not support Obama/Biden.
Then WHY would something this inane/foolish about a 17yo even be on your radar?Post by: richyoung on September 02, 2008, 06:06:34 AM
Who cares? Maybe not you and me, but many, many voters do, especially if someone lied. Witness Clinton's blowjob. Nobody would have cared about the sex; many cared that he appeared to lie did in fact lie about it, and thereby commited perjury about it. That's a big thing when the chief law enforcement officer in the nation prevents someone from getting justice.
Me, I couldn't give a rat's you know what but I'm fasinated by the political process/machine.
Me, I couldn't give a rat's you know what but I'm fasinated by the political process/machine.
Fixed for you...
Post by: richyoung on September 02, 2008, 06:15:19 AM
lacoochee,
On many issues I am "the other side." I don't think this latest news sensation is going to take conservative voters away from McCain-indeed, he will probably get all of those committed conservative votes already. They're not really in play.
What I do think is that the crowds of undecideds, who are not, by this point, committed to any particular cause, ideology, or anything else, will be affected in the negative by this. Not because they are religious, pretend-principled, or because of any definite beliefs-but rather because they don't have any such core beliefs or firmness that would've already made them either Obama or McCain supporters a long time ago.
These are the people who are waiting to see "if they like Obama or McCain", or "what kind of guys they really are", ie, for character evidence. And as to proving character, any scandal of this nature is a negative-it costs votes.
And Obama is already winning big on this issue: he's making himself out to be a protector figure by condemning all the criticism and vowing to fire anyone who engages in it from his campaign.
When running for president and trying to grab the masses of undecideds two months out, you don't want to be in the position of having your opponent declaring that the illegitimate children in your family should be out of bounds for discussion.
On many issues I am "the other side." I don't think this latest news sensation is going to take conservative voters away from McCain-indeed, he will probably get all of those committed conservative votes already. They're not really in play.
What I do think is that the crowds of undecideds, who are not, by this point, committed to any particular cause, ideology, or anything else, will be affected in the negative by this. Not because they are religious, pretend-principled, or because of any definite beliefs-but rather because they don't have any such core beliefs or firmness that would've already made them either Obama or McCain supporters a long time ago.
These are the people who are waiting to see "if they like Obama or McCain", or "what kind of guys they really are", ie, for character evidence. And as to proving character, any scandal of this nature is a negative-it costs votes.
And Obama is already winning big on this issue: he's making himself out to be a protector figure by condemning all the criticism and vowing to fire anyone who engages in it from his campaign.
When running for president and trying to grab the masses of undecideds two months out, you don't want to be in the position of having your opponent declaring that the illegitimate children in your family should be out of bounds for discussion.
Whooosh! That was the sound of lacoochee's point sailing right over your head.
Daughter got pregnant on Prom night? Trying to do the right thing about it now? Welcome to real life. Elitist, out-of-touch politicians need not apply.
It isn't about character, it's about being real. It's about being able to relate to voters. All politicians talk about being able to relate, but Sarah Palin and her family really do it. It's about voters actually liking their elected representatives, not just for being good representatives, but for being good, decent people.
The public is going to hang on this family's every move. The public is going to root for this family. The more we learn about Palin's family, struggles and all, the more people are going to vote for her and McCain. Count on it.
+1. Think "The Gilmore Girls Go To Washington"...
Post by: Intune on September 02, 2008, 06:43:49 AM
Quote
The latest reports are that they didn't check her out all that closely-I don't think it's clear yet what they knew when, but in any case, knowing of a fact and choosing anyway doesn't imply that it's a good thing.
ST. PAUL, Minn. Sarah Palin voluntarily told John McCain's campaign about her pregnant teenage daughter and her husband's 2-decade-old DUI arrest during questioning as part of the Republican's vice presidential search.Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr., the lawyer who conducted the background review said that Palin underwent a "full and complete" background examination before McCain chose her as his running mate.
Then came the campaign's disclosure that Palin's unmarried 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, was pregnant. In addition, the campaign also disclosed that Todd Palin, then age 22, was arrested in 1986 in Alaska for driving under the influence of alcohol.
At several points throughout the process, McCain's team warned Palin that the scrutiny into her private life would be intense and that there was nothing she could do to prepare for it.
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.
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.
"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."
Well, hopefully that will put your mind at ease s'student and allow you to vote for your candidate (which is not BO) with all your I's crossed & your T's dotted. I know what put you off of the McCain/Palin ticket and it's nothing to be ashamed of. The citation for fishing without a license.
She is a disgusting, flagrant law flaunter who deserves to be strung up with her own monofilament and treble hooks. If it saves one sockeye... Do it for the schools... The salmon will thank you. Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 02, 2008, 09:05:28 AM
We take our fisheries resources serious up here.
Post by: De Selby on September 02, 2008, 05:14:33 PM
and yet the reports are that they knew when they chose her. i think you are mistaken about how this will fly.
The latest reports are that they didn't check her out all that closely-I don't think it's clear yet what they knew when...
McCain knew the deal and decided for her, anyway. FOlks in her home town knew about her daughter's pregnancy, according to reprts from local reporters.
Palin was a contender for the veep slot since McCain first met her in February. She was no panic pick with little vetting. She was on the original long list and survived every winnowing.
The top three McCain choices were Lieberman, Palin, & Pawlenty. Palin was chosen less to shore up McCain's weakness with the Rep base than to emphasize McCain's reformer/change/maverick strengths.
I do think he knew the deal on the pregnancy, and chose her despite it (not because of it, which seems to be about the furthest stretch of wishful thinking I've seen yet this campaign season.)
Pretending that this benefits the ticket would be like Barack Obama claiming that his past drug experimentation actually helps him, because it shows that he "struggled with temptation just like everyone else." Uh huh...sorry folks, but soap opera/ABC afterschool "don't let this happen to you" versions of real life are a proven loser for national elections.
Just how closely she was vetted is clearly in doubt, though, based on the latest reports. How much he knew about corruption scandals, ties to lobbying groups, and her overall political history is not obvious at this point.
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 02, 2008, 06:00:25 PM
Post by: Ezekiel on September 02, 2008, 06:08:36 PM
If this had happened to a liberal candidate, the media would never have had a story to run with because: a) the girl would have had an abortion and b) she would have had it without the parent's consent, so they'd never know about it.
You act as if that is a problem.
If she is old enough to get married, she's old enough to make her own decisions.
Not just in politics: we cannot have it both ways.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 02, 2008, 06:21:24 PM
Post by: Ezekiel on September 02, 2008, 06:25:01 PM
if if but in the real world in alaska they can't marry without parental permission
Which -- I am certain -- was very expediently offered, if necessary.
Hell, after the election, who even knows if the kid gets married?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 02, 2008, 06:30:54 PM
Post by: longeyes on September 02, 2008, 07:13:15 PM
And that family could be the greatest show in tv history.
Post by: De Selby on September 02, 2008, 07:41:12 PM
Quote
ST. PAUL, Minn. - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was not subjected to a lengthy in-person background interview with the head of Sen. John McCain's vice presidential vetting team until last Wednesday in Arizona, the day before McCain asked her to be his running mate, and she did not disclose the fact that her 17-year-old daughter was pregnant until that meeting, two knowledgeable McCain officials acknowledged Tuesday.
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 02, 2008, 08:18:55 PM
From Obama's TV henchmen. And you believe it.
Michelle Malkin had a good column today, which can be found here.
Post by: De Selby on September 02, 2008, 08:20:11 PM
"Information coming out:"
From Obama's TV henchmen. And you believe it.
Michelle Malkin had a good column today, which can be found here.
From Obama's TV henchmen. And you believe it.
Michelle Malkin had a good column today, which can be found here.
Malkin is useful as a guage of...people who flip out over scarves on donut commercials, and not much else.
At a minimum, MSNBC has access to decently high ranking people on both sides and is somewhat mainstream.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 03, 2008, 12:51:27 AM
She didn't disclose her daughter's pregnancy to the McCain campaign until someone in the campaign actually informed her she was being the VP nod?
How f-ing strange.
What would you like me to volunteer to you all, prior to you making it relevent by actually asking me to join your ticket?
What a stupid damn issue to raise.
By the way, just in case any of you plan on asking me to join your ticket in the next 5 months or so. My sister is married to a black man and I have a biracial nephew. I just declared bankruptcy. I have paid for at least one abortion.
See, me volunteering that now, rather than when you actually ask me to join your campaign, makes so much freaking sense.
This is a non-issue.
Move the frak on.
Post by: Ben on September 03, 2008, 03:59:33 AM
Quote
Malkin is useful as a guage of...people who flip out over scarves on donut commercials, and not much else.
She's also a useful gauge regarding the "mainstream" media of which you speak:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/03/two-covers-one-conclusion/
Post by: Balog on September 03, 2008, 04:43:01 AM
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 03, 2008, 04:46:16 AM
Quote
At a minimum, MSNBC has access to decently high ranking people on both sides and is somewhat mainstream.
High ranking people like Chris Matthews, who has a tingle go up his leg over Obama? Yep, no media bias there.
Mainstream? Only if you consider the NY Times to be a conservative newspaper.
Post by: roo_ster on September 03, 2008, 05:47:19 AM
Quote
At a minimum, MSNBC has access to decently high ranking people on both sides and is somewhat mainstream.
High ranking people like Chris Matthews, who has a tingle go up his leg over Obama? Yep, no media bias there.
Mainstream? Only if you consider the NY Times to be a conservative newspaper.
MSNBC is the network more in the tank for BHO than any other.
Watching Matthews & Olberman was hilarious and disgusting at the same time.
Heck, even the obnoxious Bill Maher saw the two assclowns on MSNBC as embarrassing:
Quote from: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/08/30/maher-matthews-olbermann-were-ready-have-sex-w-obama
I think there is a problem, though, with the media gushing over him too much. I don't think he thinks that he's all that, but the media does. I mean, the coverage after, that I was watching, from MSNBC, I mean these guys were ready to have sex with him....It's embarrassing.
Video of BM:
http://newsbusters.org/static/2008/08/2008-08-29-HBO-RTBM-Maher.wmv
Post by: Matthew Carberry on September 03, 2008, 10:04:30 AM
Carebear: sorry to hear you just declared bankruptcy. Is everything ok?
I'm debt free, couldn't be better.
But yeah, I'm past the feelings of failure and moving forward.
Post by: MechAg94 on September 03, 2008, 11:08:53 AM
They are minor enough not to cause any concern with the voters McCain is targeting yet big enough that the media is talking about McCain and Palin, not Obama and Biden.
Post by: Iain on September 03, 2008, 11:18:16 AM
I'm glad you guys have at least half a presidential bid you can get behind rather than seeming wholly to be on the attack against a presidential bid you really abhor. That whole attack/defend scenario has switched around, and to a guy who'd like to think he would be one of these famous floating voters were he a US voter, my sympathies do tend, sometimes incorrectly, to lie with those on the receiving end.
I'd have some issues with Palin personally, politics/science-y related, but she seems to be doing quite a bit for the enthusiasm, and thus sanity, levels around here.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 03, 2008, 02:50:57 PM
"Obama admits possessing and snorting cocaine, which was and still is a felony." *yawn*
"Palin's husband had one DUI 22 years ago" *OMG go to press!!!!!!*
Post by: Ezekiel on September 03, 2008, 03:09:26 PM
Media:
"Obama admits possessing and snorting cocaine, which was and still is a felony." *yawn*
"Palin's husband had one DUI 22 years ago" *OMG go to press!!!!!!*
"Obama admits possessing and snorting cocaine, which was and still is a felony." *yawn*
"Palin's husband had one DUI 22 years ago" *OMG go to press!!!!!!*
Republicans wrap themselves in God-fearing and "conservative" values, then act like everyone else.
Democrats dispense with hypocritical conservatism.
If your platform is based in "not being that guy," but you are -- or have been -- in fact, that guy: you get what's coming.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 03, 2008, 03:37:58 PM
Media:
"Obama admits possessing and snorting cocaine, which was and still is a felony." *yawn*
"Palin's husband had one DUI 22 years ago" *OMG go to press!!!!!!*
"Obama admits possessing and snorting cocaine, which was and still is a felony." *yawn*
"Palin's husband had one DUI 22 years ago" *OMG go to press!!!!!!*
Republicans wrap themselves in God-fearing and "conservative" values, then act like everyone else.
Democrats dispense with hypocritical conservatism.
If your platform is based in "not being that guy," but you are -- or have been -- in fact, that guy: you get what's coming.
Post by: Ezekiel on September 03, 2008, 03:44:11 PM
Media:
"Obama admits possessing and snorting cocaine, which was and still is a felony." *yawn*
"Palin's husband had one DUI 22 years ago" *OMG go to press!!!!!!*
"Obama admits possessing and snorting cocaine, which was and still is a felony." *yawn*
"Palin's husband had one DUI 22 years ago" *OMG go to press!!!!!!*
Republicans wrap themselves in God-fearing and "conservative" values, then act like everyone else.
Democrats dispense with hypocritical conservatism.
If your platform is based in "not being that guy," but you are -- or have been -- in fact, that guy: you get what's coming.
I have the hypocrisy of both readily covered.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 03, 2008, 03:47:45 PM
Media:
"Obama admits possessing and snorting cocaine, which was and still is a felony." *yawn*
"Palin's husband had one DUI 22 years ago" *OMG go to press!!!!!!*
"Obama admits possessing and snorting cocaine, which was and still is a felony." *yawn*
"Palin's husband had one DUI 22 years ago" *OMG go to press!!!!!!*
Republicans wrap themselves in God-fearing and "conservative" values, then act like everyone else.
Democrats dispense with hypocritical conservatism.
If your platform is based in "not being that guy," but you are -- or have been -- in fact, that guy: you get what's coming.
I have the hypocrisy of both readily covered.
Post by: Ezekiel on September 03, 2008, 03:52:08 PM
Media:
"Obama admits possessing and snorting cocaine, which was and still is a felony." *yawn*
"Palin's husband had one DUI 22 years ago" *OMG go to press!!!!!!*
"Obama admits possessing and snorting cocaine, which was and still is a felony." *yawn*
"Palin's husband had one DUI 22 years ago" *OMG go to press!!!!!!*
Republicans wrap themselves in God-fearing and "conservative" values, then act like everyone else.
Democrats dispense with hypocritical conservatism.
If your platform is based in "not being that guy," but you are -- or have been -- in fact, that guy: you get what's coming.
I have the hypocrisy of both readily covered.
I disagree. They're hypocritical or mindless automatons.
I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 03, 2008, 03:59:26 PM
Media:
"Obama admits possessing and snorting cocaine, which was and still is a felony." *yawn*
"Palin's husband had one DUI 22 years ago" *OMG go to press!!!!!!*
"Obama admits possessing and snorting cocaine, which was and still is a felony." *yawn*
"Palin's husband had one DUI 22 years ago" *OMG go to press!!!!!!*
Republicans wrap themselves in God-fearing and "conservative" values, then act like everyone else.
Democrats dispense with hypocritical conservatism.
If your platform is based in "not being that guy," but you are -- or have been -- in fact, that guy: you get what's coming.
I have the hypocrisy of both readily covered.
I disagree. They're hypocritical or mindless automatons.
I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt.
Post by: Ezekiel on September 03, 2008, 04:02:22 PM
Media:
"Obama admits possessing and snorting cocaine, which was and still is a felony." *yawn*
"Palin's husband had one DUI 22 years ago" *OMG go to press!!!!!!*
"Obama admits possessing and snorting cocaine, which was and still is a felony." *yawn*
"Palin's husband had one DUI 22 years ago" *OMG go to press!!!!!!*
Republicans wrap themselves in God-fearing and "conservative" values, then act like everyone else.
Democrats dispense with hypocritical conservatism.
If your platform is based in "not being that guy," but you are -- or have been -- in fact, that guy: you get what's coming.
I have the hypocrisy of both readily covered.
I disagree. They're hypocritical or mindless automatons.
I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt.
"History." LOTS of it. Recent.
Poor ideas, less execution: following failed ideals that they do not uphold to begin with.
I think a solid beginning would be to Google, "Iraq War."
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 03, 2008, 04:11:41 PM
So, uh, were you going to back up your charge of hypocrisy?
Post by: Ezekiel on September 03, 2008, 04:36:43 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 03, 2008, 04:38:31 PM
Post by: Ezekiel on September 03, 2008, 04:50:29 PM
That's it, insult the military on a board full of vets...
(sigh)
Post by: mtnbkr on September 03, 2008, 04:51:46 PM
Keep it up and I start swinging the ban stick. I'm tired of the BS.
Chris