August 30, 2008

The wild speculation that Sarah Palin is not the real mother of the new baby she presents as her own.

Some people are shocked that a Daily Kos diarist, one "Inky 99," would air doubts about this.

ADDED: If you want to read the comments beyond the 200th, you need to click on "post a comment" -- at the bottom of the post page -- and then click on "newer." And you can still add new comments, but to see them, you'll have to take those extra steps.

309 comments:

1 – 200 of 309   Newer›   Newest»
Alan said...

It's only a leftwing version of a FreeRepublic.com type conspiracy smear. IIRC, Chelsea Clinton's father was supposed to be one of the attorneys that worked with Hillary at the Rose Law Firm. He also worked in the WH and went to prison for a little while. I forget his name.

Trooper York said...

I think it is always a great idea to attack a mother and her baby. Especially a downs baby.

Good move there guys.

Lot's of luck with that one.

Meade said...

I'm pretty sure that second link changed in last three minutes. Did the Inky 99 post get wiped?

Merge Divide said...

As much as I may resent what I see as some of the most exploitive politics in recent times, I can't help thinking and talking about McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. It's true that I am playing right into GOP hands by helping wipe the slate clean after this week's Democratic convention. But this is a fascinating scenario that I'm still trying to get my head around. This is Machiavellian strategy at its finest. Imagine making a decision of this magnitude, and doing it completely out of expediency. It's purely reactionary thinking on the part of the McCain campaign. Do you have any doubt that things would have gone down differently had Obama picked Hillary Clinton as his partner? I don't. Not at all.

Listening to the right wing pundits on talk radio, you'd think that this was sheer brilliance. The Christian branch of the GOP has been stroked. This woman is so "pro-life" that she had a kid that she knew was afflicted with Down's Syndrome. How wise and compassionate she must be to accept this "gift from God". She's accepted this beautiful presence in her life in such a self-sacrificing manner. It should be pointed out that anyone who makes the choice not to abort a fetus with such a severe disability is making a commitment to give of themselves in a way a parent of normally-functioning children can not ever truly understand. The amount of time and energy that the mother must invest are extraordinary*.

This Sarah Palin must truly be a noble soul, right? She's going to prioritize the sanctity of life. She's going to live up to her reputation as a crusader for "family values". She must be absolutely inexhaustible. As governor of a state of such crucial importance to the rest of the nation, she must call upon her extensive education and experience to look out for the interests of all US citizens, and not just the tens of thousands who elected her to office. And that's not all. Now she's agreed to take on a bigger role of service to our country. She's willing to accept the nomination to be our Vice President. Why is that? Well, as of the beginning of this month she didn't even know. In her own words "I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?"

Well, in her case (should McCain win in November) she has to be prepared at any time to assume the duties of the presidency. If you're not aware of the state of John McCain's health, suffice it to say that the 72-year-old's prognosis is not especially favorable. So Palin really ought to be boning up on her prospective duties in the number 1 spot as well, because she is not what anyone could call especially well-informed when it comes to federal government (in fact she's never served in it). At the very least, she should spend some time studying Iraq. In an interview with Alaska Business Monthly in 2007, she was asked about the troop "surge" and she replied, "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."

Of course that's a bit odd considering her oldest son is due for deployment to the Middle Eastern theater on September 11th of this year. But we've got to cut her some slack. She has a lot on her plate. I'm sure the investigation into her possibly unlawful dismissal of Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan is eating into her moose-hunting time. The results of that inquiry will be released on October 30th. Furthermore, she's going to be on the campaign trail for the next 60 odd days. In order for her to unleash her "Sarah Barracuda" persona on Joe Biden, she's going to have to receive a basic introduction to national policy and government, which should sufficiently complement her prestigious bachelor of arts degree in journalism from the University of Idaho.

And finally, the duties of motherhood never end. This will be a crucial time in the early development of her four-month-old disabled infant. And she's got four other kids to nurture. Hopefully she can carry over some of the burnished luster from her "Miss Congeniality" days that allowed her to finish second in the Alaska Beauty Pageant. Maybe she can take few a sips from John McCain's energy drink.



* Especially for a woman with four children who decides to have another at age 43, knowing that the risks of an abnormal pregnancy are dramatically heightened.

Meade said...

Nevermind. Now it's back.

Lem said...

How can a governor have a baby in some sort of a vacuum?

This is book depository, grassy knoll territory.

Alaska can't be that isolated... can it?

Trooper York said...

I always thought these guys were low, but this is about as bad as it gets.

Salamandyr said...

Merge, that's longer than a Cedarford post. How do you feel about Jews?

Simon said...

This is called desperation. It's a sign of fear that they'll stoop so low.

You've seen how liberals treat black conservatives. And you've seen how they treat people like Althouse. Anyone whose vote they feel entitled to the vote of is singled out for particular abuse if they don't play a good little house n*****.

P. Rich said...

Kos. Crap in the gene pool. An Althouse kind of destination.

Bissage said...

You know what?

It's funny how I meet a great many more despicable people on the internet than I do in the real world.

Of course, by the same token, I meet a great many more really nice people on the internet than I do in the real world.

It often occurs to me there has to be a way to make things better, that way, overall.

I'm working on it.

Trooper York said...

I mean these douches always claim that sex should be a private matter unless it's a Republican because of hypocrisy, but now they want to go after a little baby like this and make it into a political football.

Do you have no shame sir?

Simon said...

Merge Divide, you're making the mistake of not taking seriously what McCain said about his reasons. McCain understands that the need to draw a line under the Axis of Avarice - to declare the GOP's independence from the open sore of the legacy of incompetence, corruption and lethargy that sprung up under Bush, DeLay and Frist - is the party's most pressing priority in rebuilding its brand with an electorate that's still in a "kick the bums out" mood. Selecting a veep whose reputation rests on doing precisely that on a microcosmic scale is a very smart move.

McCain-Palin makes a laughing stock of Obama's "change" message, underscores Obama's inexperience, unifies the party, and reaches out to the middle. Granted I'm biased, because I pushed Palin as the veep pick for weeks ahead of his actually doing it. But for the life of me, I am at a loss to see how this decision is anything but a home run.

Merge Divide said...

salamandyr,

Explain your reference. What do Jews have to do with this issue?

Sy said...

This is an old footage of Sarah Palin when she was a sportcaster. She was cute as a button!

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=164463&comments=1

Trooper York said...

I also think these assholes seem to forget Palin"s husband in all this. He does not seem the kind of guy who will take this shit laying down like a pussy. The first time Keith Olberman asks that question about his daughters he should just hunt him down and lay him out. Take those yuppie glasses and shove them down his throat. Every real american man would be behind him for that.

Lem said...

Do you know how many people would have to be in on this farce?
For what?

Help me out here somebody.

Merge Divide said...

Simon,

Much has indeed been made about Palin's high-toned opposition to pork-barrel spending. Yet we haven't seen much in the media about how she actually supported receiving federal funds for the Gravina Island Bridge, until it became a national issue. Then she "condemned" it, yet kept the federal funds that had already been delivered. The only reason she canceled the project was because she didn't want Alaskan tax dollars spent on its construction.

Meade said...

"The only reason she canceled the project was because she didn't want Alaskan tax dollars spent on its construction."

Ooo... sounds Machiavellian!

Merge Divide said...

meade,

If you're not going to take the time to read my comment, your response is likely to come off as rather foolish. I called the choice of Palin as VP candidate Machiavellian.

Salamandyr said...

Blogger Merge Divide said...

salamandyr,

Explain your reference. What do Jews have to do with this issu


Inside joke. Cedarford is a regular poster here who is known for two things, really long posts, and the ability to tie everything back to the perfidity of the Jews.

Personally, I think the Palin pick was a very idealistic one, not cynical at all.

Job said...

MergeDivide,

I don't find the idea that a state governor would decline to comment on military strategy surprising. Perhaps she is refreshingly modest about her lack of military expertise. Of course, she shares this deficiency with Obama and Biden, who are not noted for their modesty on anything.

Further, it wasn't at all clear that her son was scheduled to go to Iraq at the time she was asked about the surge.

Obama did comment on the surge--he strongly opposed it--and he was dead wrong.

I find it interesting that Sarah Palin has finally made feminists cognizant of the importance of motherhood. I thought that the party line was that kids were better off in daycare.

Will Mrs. Palin be busier as VP than as Governor or even mayor of that podunk town? I doubt it.

If anything, she will have more money, as much time and more help with the kids as VP.

How come no one wants to know if Obama's young daughters would be better off with his full attention?

(Or have we decided that fathers aren't important?)

Finally, you seem to disapprove of the idea of a 43-year-old woman having children because they are increased risk of disabilities. I guess that depends on the idea that world would be better off without Downs kids. But I don't see them as a problem but as a challenge and a blessing. (I have two developmentally disabled children--both have ASDs.) As George Will has written of his own son with Downs, “He doesn’t suffer from anything but the Orioles pitching.” (The quote is from memory.)

Incidentally, my mother was about Palin's current age when I was born.

The liberal hypocrisy is particularly thick on Palin.

-- Job

Trooper York said...

Back in the forties and the fifties things like this used to happen. I mean look at Paulie Walnuts.

But now, in the small community that they live in? The Palin's have a child that they love who they didn't hide away like those great friends of the retarded the Kennedy's did with their sister Rosemary.

Attack her on her experiance or her views or even her haircut if that's what you want to do. But leave the little baby out of it.

XWL said...

I'm a bit sick of the age thing, some folks at 72 are ready for the grave, but others have another good 20 years left, and while the presidency is mentally and emotionally taxing, it's not a position that requires physical endurance as long as you aren't an idiot. Let's examine where each of the last few presidents were around their 80th birthday (assuming McCain wants two terms as President) . . .

Clinton chose to burn the candle at both ends, and he paid for it with declining health, but if he watches himself, he'd probably still be capable in 2026. Both Bushes were as healthy going into their presidencies as they left them, and we know GHW Bush could have handled it at 80, and I suspect GW would be able to, as well.

Reagan, was still sharp at the end of his two terms, though he was struck by Alzheimers within a few years of leaving office, there was no evidence of the disease until he was 82 (and that can happen to people in their 50s as well as late 70s or 80s, so while age is a factor in Alzheimers, it doesn't follow that just cause someone is old that they are automatically senile)

Carter, while being a total idiot and a douchebag, still seems to be the same idiot and douchebag he was when he was voted out of office in 1980, so while nobody sane would have wanted him in office when he was 80, he was certainly mentally capable of carrying out the duties of the office.

Ford was vital and on a lot of boards in to his 80s, and Nixon remained sharp until he died of a stroke at the age of 81. You have to go back to LBJ to find a person who served as President who died before they were 80 and weren't fit to serve at that age.

I suspect McCain is no different, but if folks on the left want to continue to disparage McCain about his age, and risk alienating one of the largest blocks, and most active voters out there, go right ahead.

(old folks, some of them may be scary behind the wheel, but they manage to vote in big percentages up until the grave, and if they are in a Democratic district, many years after)

Meade said...

I took the time to read your comment, Merge. It's Machiavellian because there was some sort of deceit involved in McCain's choice for VP?

Merge Divide said...

salamandyr,

Ok, I gotcha. I couldn't for the life of me figure out how anyone could read anti-semitism into my comment.

We'll agree to disagree on the motivation of the Palin pick.

Chip Ahoy said...

I heard the child was born to the daughter, fathered by Satan at midnight under a full moon that converged with the aurora borealis on a fur of a freshly killed and skinned polar bear and witnessed by Inuits that were duly appalled, but sworn to secrecy or their native lands would be drilled for oil and their salmon runs wasted. And later, the mother was seen eating raw Narwhal liver and then dancing naked in the snow and screeching an unearthly howl and seemed to be in a trance or on drugs or something. I read it on a website called "Don't vote for Palin or everybody dies."

Lem said...

How can Governor Palin have a private/public dispute with some trooper and at the same time claim her daughter's baby as her own and not raise any flags until now?

Are we talking about Sarah from the bible ;)

Ann Althouse said...

"I mean look at Paulie Walnuts."

LOL.

Alan said...

"McCain understands that the need to draw a line under the Axis of Avarice - to declare the GOP's independence from the open sore of the legacy of incompetence, corruption and lethargy that sprung up under Bush, DeLay and Frist ..."

Or from a different POV, highlight the thread of religiosity that plagued the GOP right through the Terry Schiavo fiasco and a Democratic majority. But, at least McCain proved his years of experience won't prevent him from taking a reckless gambit with choosing the second in line to govern the most powerful country in the world. At least the other GOP primary candidates pleaded their case to run this country before the American people. McCain made the choice from meeting her once or twice and saw that pro-life means everything.

Merge Divide said...

job,

She was pretty clearly saying that she had more important things on her mind. You have to see the context of the quote, I guess. She was asked about Alaskan national guard troops being sent to Iraq, and she clearly didn't want to commit to a position (probably for political reasons). The only alternative is that she was being honest when she reported that she had not given much thought to Iraq.

It seems to me that you are jumping to conclusions in calling me a "feminist". Where did I indicate I was one?

I'm not worried about her qualifications for performing the requirements of the VP position. I thought I was fairly clear about my main concern- her likely ascension to the presidency if the McCain ticket prevails.

In Obama's case, his wife is a stay-at-home mother. Palin has stated that her hubby is both a commercial fisherman AND an employee of BP in the oil fields. Who's watching the home front and teaching the kids about "family values"? Or is that not a huge platform plank for the GOP in 2008?

Finally, you are right... I consider birthing a child at age 43 very risky, both for the normal development of the fetus and the health of the mother. The pre-screening for Down's Syndrome is optional (at least where I live). Why do you suppose that Palin had it done in the first place.

You have me on one point for sure... I do indeed honestly believe its preferable for children to be born without Down's Syndrome. If that makes me callous, so be it.

chickenlittle said...

Merge Divide said: It's true that I am playing right into GOP hands by helping wipe the slate clean after this week's Democratic convention.

You give away a bias there. I just took the time to read a previous post on your blog where you described the Dem convention as "stirring"

What exactly was so stirring about it?

But this is a fascinating scenario that I'm still trying to get my head around. This is Machiavellian strategy at its finest. Imagine making a decision of this magnitude, and doing it completely out of expediency.

Why are you acting so shocked about this? It was noted on Althouse within hours of Hillary's capitulation that McCain had made a decision.

Your first paragraph sounds like another “political malpractice" whine.

Merge Divide said...

trooper york,

The baby has already been used as a symbol of pro-life values by right. I didn't choose to make the kid a political football. Palin has framed it as proof of her commitment to pro-life values.

Dogwood said...

In Obama's case, his wife is a stay-at-home mother.

As far as I know, she has a $350,000 per year job with the University of Chicago Hospital. She currently has a leave of absence to campaign for hubby.

Or did she quit the job and I just didn't get the memo?

In either event, she has not been a stay-at-home mom.

mcg said...

Palin has stated that her hubby is both a commercial fisherman AND an employee of BP in the oil fields.

You're getting your tenses wrong. Her husband WAS those things. He resigned from BP when the NG pipeline negotiations began.

Merge Divide said...

xwl,

"Reagan, was still sharp at the end of his two terms"

You are going against conventional wisdom with this assertion. What do you base this belief on? At the beginning of his second term in office he was already citing lapsed memory in order to provide himself "plausible deniability". Was he simply lying?

Why has McCain tried to withhold his medical records if he is ship-shape?

mcg said...

The pre-screening for Down's Syndrome is optional (at least where I live). Why do you suppose that Palin had it done in the first place.

Because it's not just a screen for Down's, but for a variety of prenatal issues, some of which can be treated for or prepared for before birth.

chickenlittle said...

Merge Divide said: Listening to the right wing pundits on talk radio, you'd think that this was sheer brilliance. The Christian branch of the GOP has been stroked. This woman is so "pro-life" that she had a kid that she knew was afflicted with Down's Syndrome. How wise and compassionate she must be to accept this "gift from God".

Why the scare quotes around “pro-life” and “gift from God”? Are these concepts that you yourself are unfamiliar with and therefore have to denigrate?

She's accepted this beautiful presence in her life in such a self-sacrificing manner. It should be pointed out that anyone who makes the choice not to abort a fetus with such a severe disability is making a commitment to give of themselves in a way a parent of normally-functioning children can not ever truly understand. The amount of time and energy that the mother must invest are extraordinary*.

Which sure exceeds the amount of time you invest in your precious “art” as revealed on your website.

Merge Divide said...

dogwood,

I stand corrected. You are absolutely right.

Randy said...

I can't find it now, but there is photograph of an obviously pregnant Governor Palin standing at a lecturn at a conference.

As to this personal attack, Trooper York's comments are better than anything I can manage.

mcg said...

You have me on one point for sure... I do indeed honestly believe its preferable for children to be born without Down's Syndrome. If that makes me callous, so be it.

It makes you far more than callous.

From Inwood said...

XWL

But ya gotta watch some old folks. Look at Seward at 67 as Sec of State purchasing Alaska without the approval of the MSM. And what has that got us now but a VP candidate.

Lem said...

Palin has framed it as proof of her commitment to pro-life values.

Palin walks the talk? Thats proof, she is not ready ;)

Simon said...

Merge Divide said...
"Simon, [m]uch has indeed been made about Palin's high-toned opposition to pork-barrel spending. Yet we haven't seen much in the media about how she actually supported receiving federal funds for the Gravina Island Bridge, until it became a national issue."

That's the meme, but I'm not sure. The source material for that claim is a 2006 questionaire where Palin was asked whether she would "continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges...." Palin said, "Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now - while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." But look closely at the question: she was asked whether she would continue state funding for the project.

Dogwood said...

The baby has already been used as a symbol of pro-life values by right. I didn't choose to make the kid a political football. Palin has framed it as proof of her commitment to pro-life values.

So you see no difference between admiring a mother/politician for living up her pro-life principles by carrying to term a baby with Down Syndrome, and attempts by partisan opponents to destroy the mother's character with malicious smears targeting two of her children?

In your mind they are both okey dokey?

OldGrouchy said...

MD, it's far more likely that Palin framed the birth of her fifth child as simply that a birth. That the baby is a Downs Symptom Baby is unfortunate but something she and her husband accept.

It would be far better if you trolled for fish rather than for unfounded rumors.

Be careful out there, a snark will get you and crew your detestable body parts into metaphysical mince meat.

BTW: your commenter name is quite inappropriate; it should be Dhimmi-Divide.

Trooper York said...

Dude, there is big difference between having a down’s baby because you are true to your values and loving that child and not hiding it away like Rosemary Kennedy and saying that the baby is really her daughters child.

That's just wrong. Not political. Just wrong. That does not make you callous. That makes you a fool. A vicious fool.

ron st.amant said...

The pre-screening for Down's Syndrome is optional (at least where I live). Why do you suppose that Palin had it done in the first place.

Because it's not just a screen for Down's, but for a variety of prenatal issues, some of which can be treated for or prepared for before birth.


Yes especially in women over 35, almost all OBs or midwives encourage the non-invasive tests which generally only give you probability, then if that turns up a high degree they recommend the more invasive procedure.

My wife has had both of our girls post-37 so she took these tests.

I've been reading some of the gossip about Palin since I heard this story yesterday.
It seems to stem from circumstantial evidence being tied up into one BIG rumor.

She reportedly told her staff and colleagues that she was 7 months pregnant in mid-March. They were all shocked because she did not appear pregnant. She then had the baby in mid-April 5-6 weeks early. Apparently she was giving a speech in Texas when her water broke and she flew home to Alaska. She admitted herself that she probably shouldn't have flown to Texas and back, but the airlines didn't stop her because she wasn't showing all that much.

Whatever. It seems pretty easy to dispute. She's a candidate now, she'll release her medical records, it will all be in there.

chickenlittle said...

Merge dived said: So Palin really ought to be boning up on her prospective duties in the number 1 spot as well, because she is not what anyone could call especially well-informed when it comes to federal government (in fact she's never served in it).

I say give the woman the chance. Yes, the VP is an understudy position but she is a quick study. And, no Palin probably wouldn't be "ready" to lead as president should something horrible to McCain early on. But why buy into the fear you promulgate at all.
There is a risk with McCain-Palin. But it’s a risk I’m willing to take in the face of the more certain risk of putting Obama in charge- Obama is man utterly unfit to be CIC.

Merge Divide said...

mcg,

I suggest that you watch Palin's acceptance speech in Dayton. She clearly says that her husband is a "life-long commercial fisherman" and "is a production officer in the oilfields up on Alaska's North Slope". She herself is using the present tense, and I accept her authority on this issue.

Simon said...

Alan said...
"Or from a different POV, highlight the thread of religiosity that plagued the GOP right through the Terry Schiavo fiasco and a Democratic majority."

I don't think that the Palin pick does that. And I say that as someone who thought the Schiavo thing was silly - there was no credible basis for federal jurisdiction there.

"McCain proved his years of experience won't prevent him from taking a reckless gambit with choosing the second in line to govern the most powerful country in the world."

This is a moot point in light of the ticket that the Democrats have fielded. I'm certainly more comfortable with the idea of Palin in charge of the United States in a crisis than I am with Obama, and I'll tell you this: I'd feel more secure if a mayor selected at random from the National League of Cities' rolodex was in charge of responding to a crisis than I would if Joe Biden was.

"At least the other GOP primary candidates pleaded their case to run this country before the American people."

Silly standard. So a nominee is obliged to pick from the runners up? Really? Come now, Alan, you don't really believe this.

"McCain made the choice from meeting her once or twice and saw that pro-life means everything."

You need to learn the difference between necessary and sufficient, and to go back and watch David Brooks' remarks on the News Hour on Friday about McCain picking her because he sees her as a younger version of himself.

ron st.amant said...

lem asks:
How can Governor Palin have a private/public dispute with some trooper...and not raise any flags until now?

Well that HAS raised red flags...its under an ethics probe right now in Alaska. Whether there is merit is another. It seems like her staff and her husband called the head of the department and asked why the guy hadn't been fired yet. She admits there were calls so at least that much is true. Though she says she had no knowledge of the calls...which is fishy.

From Inwood said...

merge divide

The baby has already been used as a symbol of pro-life values by right. I didn't choose to make the kid a political football. Palin has framed it as proof of her commitment to pro-life values.

Are you saying you think it's a good thing for anyone to go & attack her & the baby?

Merge Divide said...

chickenlittle,

What I found "stirring" about the Dem convention was that they actually addressed policy decisions and made very real distinctions between their platform and that of their opponents. I didn't see that in 2000 or 2008. It's good to see a bit of fight in this campaign.

When do you think that McCain made his choice for running mate?

ron st.amant said...

mcg, I believe he is indeed back working with BP. There was early talk of a conflict of interest, but Palin said he's not in management so he's not a part of decision-making thus no conflict of interest and he returned to work...I'll try to find the article and reference it later.

If all those things are true I don't see a conflict of interest so it's not a story to me.

Merge Divide said...

dogwood,

Who exactly is trying to "destroy the mother's character with malicious smears targeting two of her children"? I think you are projecting these sentiments into my comments.

Trooper York said...

I live in a very Catholic neighborhood and there are many children who have down's who are cared for and loved by their families. Even now when they are in their forties. We dressed one not two weeks ago. She is a sweetheart and everyone in the neighborhood knows her and looks after her. I don't think she would have been better off aborted. Because she is loved much like the Palin's baby. I saw how one of the daughters held the baby tight during the speech.

That's the difference between me and you pal. And your fellow travelers. Good luck to you.

Dogwood said...

Ron,

It is my understanding that Palin's brother-in-law is alleged to have tasered his stepson and threatened to shoot Palin's father if he hired a divorce attorney for his daughter.

So yeah, if these allegations are true, then calling the superintendent of police and asking why the guy is still employed would be entirely appropriate in my book.

I also understand that Palin has been very cooperative with the legislative committee investigating the allegations, so much so that they have not needed to issue a subpoena for information or testimony.

In other words, she is not acting like she has anything to hide.

Dogwood said...

Who exactly is trying to "destroy the mother's character with malicious smears targeting two of her children"? I think you are projecting these sentiments into my comments.

The Kos Kidz are, and you seem to be defending their behavior, unless I am reading more into your comments than what is actually there. If so, my bad.

Paddy O. said...

So Palin really ought to be boning up on her prospective duties in the number 1 spot as well

That's precisely what we've all been saying about Obama. Better to bone up on the number 1 spot while in the number 2 spot than have to do it while campaigning.

Merge Divide said...

inwood,

No I'm not saying anything about attacking her baby. I'm questioning her priorities in the face of a commitment she has already made to a disabled child.

The fact that the right holds this up as a symbol of her pro-life, family values-orientation makes it appropriate for the political discourse.

Meade said...

All artists are equal, but some artists are more equal than others.

XWL said...

Merge said, You are going against conventional wisdom with this assertion

I'm very comfortable going against conventional wisdom, since when it came to Reagan, conventional wisdom was invariably wrong.

He was accused of being dopey and not up to the job before his first election according to "conventional wisdom". While proof that would convince those that had a visceral dislike for Reagan would be impossible to provide, there is proof that a reasonable person might recognize as being good enough.

First, Reagan kept a handwritten diary throughout his presidency, and while I haven't looked at it myself, I'm sure that if it was readily discernible that his handwriting began deteriorating while he was President, I'm sure some journalist would have had a big story showing proof that he was going senile while President.

Also, he kept a busy speaking schedule the first 2 years out of office, I doubt the people paying hefty fees would have been pleased to hear the confused ramblings of a person with a wandering mind. This alone isn't proof, but if he was slipping, he couldn't have slipped too far yet.

As far as the Iran-Contra stuff you alluded to, and the plausible deniability thing, Reagan himself was livid with his staff for withholding information from him, so while his testimony has been construed by the press as proof that he didn't know what was going on (or was forgetful), it could simply be proof that underlings with good intentions went about protecting the president the wrong way. That could happen to a President who is 77 or to a President who is 47, and given that Obama seems to be surrounded by acolytes as much as advisors, I wouldn't be surprised if an Obama presidency wouldn't run in to a similar problem down the road.

I'm sure my answer won't satisfy Merge, or the other Merges of the world, but figured I should put it out there, and even if Reagan was beginning to decline at the end, that doesn't change the fact that none of the other ex-Presidents to make it to 80 so far have all been sharp enough to do the job at 80.

So again, as far as Palin being a sure thing to be President cause McCain is probably going to drop dead before the inauguration should the unthinkable happen (from Merge's or Kos' perspective) and the people of the United States choose McCain-Palin, I think that line of argument will do Democrats far more harm than good, and will alienate more voters against Obama than it will turn voters away from McCain.

So keep it up, keep trying to find pictures of Palin in a bikini, keep insinuating that her kid isn't her kid, or that she was an idiot for having her kid in the first place when any sensible person would have snuffed out that child before they ever got a chance to breath on their own, keep mentioning McCain's age, keep accusing him of hiding behind his time in a POW camp, keep defending Obama's associations with radicals, and keep describing the United States as a country in trouble with an economy in shambles, and a military that we should be ashamed of.

If enough people hear the messages being put out by folks enthralled by Obama, McCain won't have to do much work of his own to secure this election

Trooper York said...

I call troll on Merge and will not engage him again. He is engaging in creeping Cyrus Pinkertonism.

May whatever God or Demon he believes in have mercy on his soul.

Merge Divide said...

dogwood,

I am definitely not feeding into the rumor that this kid isn't genuinely hers. I think it's kind of a ludicrous conjecture, and beside the point. It's a distraction from the real issue, as far as I'm concerned... which is Palin's ability to carry the load she has chosen to accept.

Merge Divide said...

trooper york,

That suits me fine. I encourage your disengagement from political discourse. You seem only capable of personal attacks anyway.

Alan said...

"This is a moot point in light of the ticket that the Democrats have fielded."

It's not a moot point. McCain proved in acting as President he'll make reckless decisions. I haven't heard Obama say anything that comes across as reckless. He seems to be very thoughtful. And his first Presidential act by choosing Biden was anything but reckless.

McCain is undermining the very strength he's running on--his supposed sound judgment. Moreover, he's chosen the future of the GOP. Its the same religiosity that divided the GOP during the Schiavo fiasco. McCain got a twofer with one swift blow. That ain't sound judgement.

Merge Divide said...

xwl,

It is a fairly common tactic to try to invalidate reasonable concerns by lumping those that espouse them with all manner of iniquities. A lot of posters seem to be making a whole lot of assumptions about me that have nothing to do with what I've written. I don't know why you feel a need to vilify me or create some type of arbitrary "us vs. them" dichotomy, but it does nothing for an honest interchange of political views.

mcg said...

If I'm wrong about the BP job so be it but let's put it this way---I doubt he'll be working there if she's in Washington. Besides, given that we've dispatched the notion that Michelle Obama is a full-time mom now this line of argument has diminished value.

Dogwood said...

I'm questioning her priorities in the face of a commitment she has already made to a disabled child.

I'm willing to bet they will raise their baby the same way they raised their other children, all of whom seem to be turning out okay.

Sorry, I just don't see the problem. Obviously, the Palin family has arranged their lives in such a way that they can both pursue careers while raising a family.

In other words, they are doing what millions of other families are doing.

Sure, life will be hectic for the next nine weeks or so, but her family has experience with campaigns and am sure they will handle it just fine.

In politically active families, everyone tends to get involved in the campaign to one degree or another. It becomes a family project. The Palins will do just fine.

chickenlittle said...

Merge Divide said: When do you think that McCain made his choice for running mate?

I think he decided immediately or just after the acclamation. He announced that he had decided within hours (there was "developing story" blurb on Drudge.)

I even made note of it latter that night: on Ann's "Pasta and Arugula" live blog on the 27th:

8:02 PM
chickenlittle said...
Gotta love the concerted nature of Hillary's action and McCain's announcement that he's decided


Again, why are you so shocked?

Trooper York said...

MacReady: Somebody in this camp ain't what he appears to be. Right now that may be one or two of us. By spring, it could be all of us.
Childs: So, how do we know who's human? If I was an imitation, a perfect imitation, how would you know it was really me?
(The Thing, 1982)

Merge Divide said...

mcg,

Yes, I concede that point. However, I will insist that a four-month old infant with major disabilities requires far more care than school-aged children of "normal" developmental abilities. And I also insist that it is crucial for a mother to provide that care in early development. Is that not consistent with the "family values" line?

Dogwood said...

Its the same religiosity that divided the GOP during the Schiavo fiasco.

Evangelicals are a significant chunk of the GOP base. That base has not been very excited about McCain. That base is now very excited about Palin.

Combine McCain's performance with Rick Warren and his selection of Palin, and he just locked in the GOP base.

In other words, he can now spend the next nine weeks wooing swing voters.

Brilliant move.

Alan said...

"So a nominee is obliged to pick from the runners up? Really? Come now, Alan, you don't really believe this."

He chose her solely because she's radically pro-life. There are lots of other people with--proven--executive experience within the GOP. McCain decided on a reckless gambit.

Merge Divide said...

chickenlittle,

Why am I so shocked by the Palin pick? Because I didn't think McCain would make such a transparently expedient choice. I honestly thought he would pick someone with a lot of experience, given his campaign's attacks on Obama for his perceived lack of it. I also thought that he might resist capitulation to the Theo-con wing of the party. And I'm further surprised that his campaign believes he can siphon off some of the Clinton supporters with this move. On the other hand, I guess no one ever found success overestimating the intelligence of the American citizenry.

MadisonMan said...

The problem with the internet is that every crackpot has a megaphone and gets heard.

What we need is the old days when the crackpots were just mumbling to themselves as the shuffled down the street outside the diner.

In the very very very very very very extremely unlikely event that this child is not Sarah Palin's, I have to ask: So what? Why on Earth is it any of my business what she and her husband decide to do?

Randy said...

Trooper York: MacReady was right.

Alan said...

"In other words, he can now spend the next nine weeks wooing swing voters."

He won't woo swing voters. He has highlighted the very issue that turns swing voters away from the GOP. And he's proven he'll govern recklessly. Palin is a likable person. But McCain has lost the election due to this choice. Or if Obama does something amazingly stupid during the debates.

Alan said...

That is, unless Obama does something amazingly stupid during the debates.

Methadras said...

So the tacit implication here is that Palin didn't have the baby but because her daughter was away with mono, which I'm assuming is code for she is pregnant, and therefore after having the child the Palin's took it on as their own?

Is this really an issue that the left is trudging through? Does this bear any relevance on Palin's ability to be VP? If this is even remotely true, it's completely in line with her pro-life beliefs and that is something that should have profound meaning.

Synova said...

You really think so, Alan?

Or is this a case of people who would not have voted for him anyhow, still planning to not vote for him?

What seems reckless to you seems decisive to me. Leaders do that. They decide, not what is the best choice, but which choice is the best available to them. You may not like Palin. I do. Even while agreeing that it would have been *better* if she was about 10 years older (Obama's age bothers me too) and had a couple of terms as Governor to draw on... I still can't say that someone else would have been a clearly better choice.

John Burgess said...

Merge Divide: I've worked with children and adults with Downs. The problems arise when physical age exceed mental age, unless the person is profoundly retarded. Profound retardation is usually accompanied by other, physical problems.

As none of us know the level of disability this child has, it's a bit premature to assess what level--if any--of extraordinary care he might need over the next few years.

Alan said...

"They decide, not what is the best choice, but which choice is the best available to them."

I don't think you realize, but you just made my argument.

Dogwood said...

Alan,

It is called tag teaming.

Palin will be sent out to campaign to the GOP base, small towns, suburbs, rural areas, Evangelical voters. She'll talk energy, economy, reform, agriculture, etc.

McCain will head to larger population centers, talk reform, energy, defeating our enemies, and more reform. Then he'll ask, have you heard what my VP has been doing to reform Alaska politics? She's a fighter, a true reformer, etc., etc.


And he's proven he'll govern recklessly.

Heh, he proved that with McCain-Feingold, but at least he has proven he can govern, unlike Obama.

Merge Divide said...

john burgess,

Point taken, but isn't it the best course of action for the mother to develop a profound relationship at an early stage, especially where there is a serious disability? It would seem to be crucial at this point, at any rate.

Or are you maintaining that Down's Syndrome need not be considered a serious disability?

Synova said...

"We'll agree to disagree on the motivation of the Palin pick."

Not that it's worth arguing over the motivation but it's really not a matter of opinion. McCain's motivation was what it was, and just because his stated motivations don't seem adequate to someone or other doesn't mean that they aren't his motivations. Some opinions are simply more wrong than others.

What I find interesting is that choosing a running mate people will *like* is considered Machiavellian.

Or as someone else has put it... cynical.

Is McCain supposed to pick someone that people won't like? Is he supposed to pick a pro-choice running mate (I'd have liked Giuliani) just because conservative Republicans (which McCain is not) wanted a pro-lifer? Is he, in order to prove that he's not playing politics, required to pick someone the opposite of what conservatives want, who is unlikable, who is certainly not a minority or woman?

Why?

He *ought* to pick someone that people can (and have) gotten exited about (since NO-one is exited by McCain) who has attributes that will play well with various constituencies... who *isn't* one of his long time cronies... who *does* emphasize and invigorate his "maverick" reputation... and who spikes the opposition's guns in various important ways.

Normally this would be considered evidence that he knows what he's doing!

But no....

It's reckless. Or pandering. Or cynical. Or Machiavellian.

1jpb said...

Dogwood,

I agree with you about the baby raising.

But, yesterday I was talking to a nurse who was extremely outraged at the thought of Palin running for and possibly serving as the VP with her Downs Syndrome baby.

This nurse is single, with no kids, and she is a BHO supporter. But, she has a lot of contact with babies and kids in the hospital. And, she was outraged at her core, it wasn't simply political picking.

I had thought that this sort of thinking was sexist. But, it seems like some women may feel that Palin is acting badly. My friend did say that she would be less outraged if Palin had a bunch of family and a nanny or two--which I'm sure will be the situation for Palin. Even so, she thought that Palin was putting personal ambition over her family.

There's no way to know if there are large numbers of women who think like my friend does.

Randy said...

The problem with the internet is that every crackpot has a megaphone and gets heard.

I've always thought the problem was that people feel compelled to engage the crackpot, perhaps in the mistaken belief that his views are somehow validated if they are not disputed. Althouse's resident anti-Semite is a good example of someone who receives a great deal of attention he would never receive were he standing on a street corner with a megaphone. It is hard to convince people that the most effective way to silence crackpots is to deny them any response whatsoever.

Synova said...

"I don't think you realize, but you just made my argument."

You said it was a reckless decision.

What do you think he should have decided instead? Why do you think that Palin's lack of experience will be a deal breaker for voters when Obama's extreme lack of experience will not?

Trooper York said...

Right on Randy.

TmjUtah said...

Machievellian means "darned effective political strategy redounding to McCain's favor in the campaign".

There. That help any, at all?

Smell that stink, out there? Gets stronger when MSNBC is left on, or maybe CNN?

That's fear.

Alan said...

"Heh, he proved that with McCain-Feingold, but at least he has proven he can govern, unlike Obama."

McCain has "governed" as long as Obama. But, to be kind, we can say his association with Charles Keating was also reckless but not corrupt.

Randy said...

Some here might benefit by checking out reputable websites about Down Syndrome, such as the national Association for Down Syndrome, before continuing to make uninformed comments.

Randy said...

But, to be kind, we can say his association with Charles Keating was also reckless but not corrupt.

To be kind, we can also say Obama's association with Tony Rezko was also reckless but not corrupt.

Joan said...

Best laugh of the day: I haven't heard Obama say anything that comes across as reckless. He seems to be very thoughtful. And his first Presidential act by choosing Biden was anything but reckless.

How is it not reckless to insist on immediate, complete troop withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the facts on the ground? Sure, Obama has moderated somewhat on this issue, but that's where he started. And how is it not reckless to still, after all this time, condemn the surge strategy, even though it is universally recognized as having worked?

As for choosing Biden -- that was the most reckless thing of all. My dear husband speculates that Biden was the only one who, when asked to serve as VP, said yes. Biden is a gaffe-o-matic. Foreign policy expert? It is to laugh. Joe wanted to send a $50 billion check to Iran after 9/11. Everyone in Iraq hates his guts because he wanted to partition it. That's the kind of foreign policy "experience" Biden brings to table.

And you call McCain choosing the most popular governor in America, who has bucked her own party, pushed through reforms, reduced the size of her government, reckless? This is an Inigo Montoya moment.

Dogwood said...

Even so, she thought that Palin was putting personal ambition over her family.

Every politician, from city councilman to president, sacrifices significant time with their family in order to serve in office.

Yet the only politician being criticized for making that decision is Palin?

vbspurs said...

My God, this is too much for me.

Politics is the creation of the devil for the enjoyment of the twisted.

Dogwood said...

Politics is the creation of the devil for the enjoyment of the twisted.

Is that original? Can I steal it!? Please!

blake said...

Alan hasn't been paying attention:

I haven't heard Obama say anything that comes across as reckless

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Randy said...

How is it not reckless to insist on immediate, complete troop withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the facts on the ground?

As it turns out, it was quite reckless. Had Obama had his way, the American withdrawal would have been completed about April of this year, I believe. Fortunately for Iraq, it didn't happen. As recently as two months ago, Obama stated had he known then what he knew now he would still want American troops withdrawn on the schedule he proposed then.

P.S. RE: Biden's check idea for Iran in response to 9/11, I believe the correct sum suggested by Joe was $200,000,000, not $50 billion.

blake said...

Or are you maintaining that Down's Syndrome need not be considered a serious disability?

It isn't always.

Down's kids can have above average intelligence and virtually no perceptible symptoms.

Merge Divide said...

dogwood,

Why don't you rattle off the list of VP or Presidential candidates that had given birth within a year of accepting a spot on the ticket. Sarah Palin is in territory that is brand spankin' new. There is no precedent for this.

vbspurs said...

It's mine, Dogwood. You can use it as long as you use attribution whenever possible.

"vbspurs" hardly sounds Churchillian, though. ;)

Thanks, BTW!

Cheers,
Victoria

Synova said...

"This nurse is single, with no kids,..."

That pretty much says it. And she has daily contact with parents who are under the worst possible stress; overwhelmed; and hardly coping because their children are ill. She simply doesn't see them on the good days. Plus, since she doesn't have children of her own... she doesn't know what is normal.

It's pretty dang obvious that Sarah Palin has had plenty of time to get her domestic ducks in a row. There is no doubt she'll have help with the younger ones.

But why don't we all be honest... is the problem that her fifth child has downs or is it that she's got a fifth child? With four children I'm well aware of public opinion toward people who reproduce too much. There's a marked prejudice toward those who "don't know what causes that" or whatever witticism is used to express disapproval.

Just wait until she has another.

I used to know a lady who's middle child had severe disabilities and you would not believe the number of people who felt the need to tell her that she should never have had her two younger children.

Imagine telling a person who loves their child more than life itself that they were wrong to have that child in their life and in the world. And people think it's okay to just go up and *say* crap like that.

Personally, I don't know what is worse... figuring that a child with a disability is better off dead, or letting that child destroy all of his or her younger sibling's lives.

Both are nasty.

Merge Divide said...

Blake,

Are you maintaining that this is the case with Sarah Palin's infant?

Beldar said...

Todd Palin worked for BP. According to this article from 2007, he went "on leave" in December 2006 "to make more time for his family and avoid potential conflicts of interest." I believe I've read elsewhere that he now works as an officer of the steelworker's union.

Merge Divide: Everyone believe[s] it's preferable for children to be born without Down's Syndrome." No one is in favor of the syndrome. Where people differ is whether to abort -- kill -- the unborn who are believed to be affected by it. I know, and respect, people who conclude that such abortions are appropriate. But to take the further step of condemning someone who decides not to murder her baby is indeed more than callous. It's despicable. You're well spoken, but you do not have my respect.

vbspurs said...

Guys, not sure the other Palin threads are still active, but thought you might want to read this Time Magazine interview with Sarah Palin.

Date: 14 August 2008

Time's Interview With Sarah Palin

I am highlighting the relevant part about the baby, but please read the whole interview. She is incredibly well-spoken. Her words are fluid, and though there is no audio so we can't hear ums, uhs, I think on par with anything I've read from Obama.

You have five children. You must be incredibly busy.

I'm just very blessed. My husband loves being a dad as much as I love being a mom. I've got great help there. But also my immediate family and my extended family, for the most part, are Alaskans, they're here, helping with a network, a support system. I got a couple of aunts outside in Washington state too who are very, very helpful to me. So logistically speaking it's not impossible what I'm doing. I've got great assistance. And having big kids in addition to the little ones... the big kids help out so much with the little one.

I have a 19 year old who's getting ready to be deployed to Iraq. His striker brigade leaves on September 11 of this year. He's 19 and he'll be gone for a year. [And so] on a personal level, when I talk about the plan for the war, let's make sure we have a plan here. And respecting McCain's position on that too, though. And I have a daughter who will be 18 here shortly, another daughter 14, another daughter 7. My daughter just walked into my office. [Sound of child whispering. "I'm not eight till next year."] And I have a baby who is three months old. Trig was just born recently, And he's just an awesome sweet baby. Trig was born with Down Syndrome so this was a whole new ballgame for us, just understanding this very, very special child, who's such an awesome fit in our lives right now. It's just very nice and full life that we have right now...I knew while I was pregnant that he would be born with Down Syndrome. So I was as prepared as one could be.

blake said...

OK, why is no one saying here that the VP position is pretty much the world's best paying (public sector) do nothing job?

Who says she's not gonna have MORE time with her kids being Veep? It's all travel and ceremonies. And the occasional tie-breaking vote, which probably happens once a year.

Well, that and protecting the space-time continuum. READ YOUR CONSTITUTION, PEOPLE!

From Inwood said...

Merge Divide

You’re certainly approaching troll territory, as TY notes.

You say
“The fact that the right holds this up as a symbol of her pro-life, family values-orientation makes it appropriate for the political discourse.”

But what exactly does that mean? What kind of discourse is appropriate for her opponents? The sensible ones will stay away from it, methinks. And sensible ones will also distance themselves from the nut jobs who write what Prof A has described...

You also say
“No [you’re not saying anything about attacking her baby. [You’re] questioning her priorities in the face of a commitment she has already made to a disabled child.”

My Bulls**t detector is buzzing. This has been answered adequately by Dogwood, but I would ask whether you’ve ever questioned the priorities of any other women candidates in the face of the commitment they’ve made to their children? The only people I know who’ve done that are antediluvian males who are branded Right-wing nuts. And what about Barack’s & Michelle’s commitment to their children? And, no, I’m not questioning the Obamas’ commitment. Repeat: I’m not questioning the Obamas’ commitment. I’m questioning your commitment to fairness & decency.

And you have produced no evidence of Reagan’s alleged Alzheimer’s during his presidency & ignored evidence to the contrary.

Your comments do, to quote your own words, “nothing for an honest interchange of political views”.

Merge Divide said...

synova,

Your position smacks of empty sentiment. In the case of someone who has no subsequent children after birthing a disabled baby, the parents are assuredly not "letting that child destroy all of his or her younger sibling's lives." That's some seriously distorted thinking.

The argument is NOT that the Sarah Palin should not have birthed a child that she knew had Down's Syndrome, but rather that she is so self-serving (or unrealistic) as to deny that child the focus and energy it needs to reach its full potential.

Alan said...

"You said it was a reckless decision.

What do you think he should have decided instead?"


You intimated McCain had a limited list to choose from. McCain had the universal list of GOP contendrs with years upon years of executive experience. But he chose Palin because she's radically pro-life.

After this sinks in you'll realize it mainly resonates with the people who beat drums and blew horns outside of a hospice nursing home a few years ago, including the pundits on TV and radio that fanned the flames. IMO, that played a large role in the Democratic Party taking over congress. It's almost comical McCain could be this reckless.

Merge Divide said...

beldar,

Please read my posts again and tell me where I was involved in "condemning someone who decides not to murder her baby". You guys are just projecting your own preconceptions on what I'm saying.

Dogwood said...

Palin is doing nothing different than the millions of career moms who give birth and then return to work a few weeks or months later.

The only difference is her job happens to be VP, instead of CEO, or CFO, or Board President, or Governor, etc., etc.

If the Palins can figure out how to make their family work while fighting the GOP establishment and winning a statewide campaign, then they will make this work, too.

Merge Divide said...

Inwood,

I'm really not interested in your definition of a troll, and I don';t care about your "bullshit detector". If you want to have an exchange that's free of the personal rancor, then I welcome it. Otherwise, I'm not interested.

Synova said...

"OK, why is no one saying here that the VP position is pretty much the world's best paying (public sector) do nothing job?"

I think that it's unlikely that Palin will be content to "do nothing."

OTOH, you've got a good point there. Her days will likely be far more flexible than many mothers experience in the work-place.

peter hoh said...

Okay, so some idiot is spreading that despicable rumor. Does the stink from that stick to all liberals?

Anyone want to remember the last time we heard a false rumor about a presidential candidate and a baby scandal?

I said false rumor, so the Edwards scandal doesn't count. You have to go back to 2000.

Dogwood said...

Victoria,

No problem with the attribution!

Thanks!

From Inwood said...

randy

You said you've
always thought the problem [with answering those undeserving of an answer] was that people feel compelled to engage the crackpot, perhaps in the mistaken belief that his views are somehow validated if they are not disputed.

I agree fully. My previous answer to to merge d was made before I saw his posts from 12:02 & following.

There is no sense in any further exchange with him/her.

blake said...

Are you maintaining that this is the case with Sarah Palin's infant?

It's not possible to tell at this point. I've seen intense therapy programs actually reduce the apparency of Down's over time.

Randy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
vbspurs said...

I'm torn. Should I blog about this story -- or leave it as the rancid flotsam it is?

Merge Divide said...

synova,

But how's that going to work on the campaign trail? She's going to have to be wholly dedicated to the pursuit of victory in the November election. You don't see depriving this infant of a relationship with its mother at this crucial stage a problem at all?
If not, then we simply disagree.

Merge Divide said...

blake,

Yeah, so what I'm saying is that you err on the side of caution, and give this kid every advantage you are capable of, as its mother.

Alan said...

Regarding downs syndrome, if the Palin wing of the GOP gets their way, and they'll try to, discussing tests will become a moot point. There will be no reason to test because you won't have any choice to abort the pregnancy. The government will take that choice away from you.

Randy said...

Flotsam, Vics, flotsam. Don't dignify it.

Dogwood said...

I'm torn. Should I blog about this story -- or leave it as the rancid flotsam it is?

Leave it. Not worth it.

1jpb said...

Dogwood,

Apples and Apples please.

Palin and her baby and the commitment to politics she's making is not typical. There is no precedent. So, folks come to this with fresh eyes and they struggle with the moral questions.

As I said, I see this the way you do. But, others don't.

Blake,

1) That is the correct policy. We must kill our enemies. Even Bush has been following this strategy after BHO's comment.

2) Is it wise to state the policy? This can be argued either way. Here is the argument for announcing this.
The reason to state it is that folks will find out you're doing this even if you don't say you will. So, at least the open threat should put pressure on the Pakistan government to do it themselves, or authorize us because they will look feckless if we totally cut them out and take action anyway. And, it sends a signal of weakness and gives comfort to UBL and our enemies if they don't know that they could be blown away at any second, and they have POTUS publicly committed to go wherever they are to extinguish their wickedness. And, not stating this, and not perusing folks across the boarder (until recently) has failed us. Seven years of failure is "enough" (with echo, just like BHO on Thursday.)

Your other comment; Does the constitution say anything about becoming the president if there is a problem with the 72 year old with multiple cancers who hides all but a very short look at medical records (though not all) where the folks looking can't be doctors.

From Inwood said...

Goodness

The moving hand types more quickly than the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog to mix a pangram with the Rubaiyat.

Merge d’s dismissal of me is timed two minutes earlier than mine of him/her.

Dogwood said...

So, folks come to this with fresh eyes and they struggle with the moral questions.

This isn't a moral decision, this is a child-raising decision being made by a family with extensive experience of combining child rearing and politics.

They have five kids, including a 19 and 18 year old, I think they know how to raise them by now.

The moral decision was to abort, or not abort, the baby. They made the morally-correct decision.

Synova said...

"You don't see depriving this infant of a relationship with its mother at this crucial stage a problem at all?"

I don't see how the infant will be deprived.

As the mother of four, I'm more concerned (not terribly concerned but *more* concerned) with the next youngest. I'm almost not at all concerned with the baby because there is no reason whatsoever that the baby will be deprived in any way, time or attention or otherwise, while his mother campaigns.

This "thing" you've got about how this is so terrible for the baby is your "thing" and you simply have not supported the idea that it's actually a problem, or will be a problem.

I mean, really! I know that people have strange ideas about babies, and I'm certainly a "breast-feed and bond" advocate. And while I would not be surprised if Trig is bottle fed, I would also not be surprised if he was breast fed... and I would not be *surprised* if either Palin or some future political figure managed to do just that on the campaign trail. After all... the BEST thing about breast feeding is the portability!

"If not, then we simply disagree."

I doubt you'd consider another opinion to save your life, but if agreeing to disagree makes that all right for you, go for it.

Nichevo said...

As Malcolm Reynolds might say, I would bet my rutting life that child has a better upbringing and home life than you did.

And as you are evidently a sufferer of moral retardation, the cases seem muchlike. Perhaps Trim or Trig or Tick or Tuck or Tug or whatsisname won't grow up to be an Internet dirtbag like you.

Being so busy and all, should she quit her job as Governor? Zounds, man, why did they ever give her shoes?

But yes, it is indeed uncharted waters. Talk about a glass ceiling! If she is ever President, she may well have to make the ultimately "manly" or masculine-identified choice and sacrifice home life to the job.

But I believe she would throw neither the kid nor the nation under the bus when the going got tough.

Dogwood said...

And I can't believe I am still up at 1:30 a.m. arguing with a bunch of liberals that a mother in the 21st Century should be allowed to pursue a career in whatever field she chooses whenever she chooses.

When did I become the feminist in the crowd? Geez.

I'm gong to bed.

Randy said...

I wonder why the thin 47-year-old candidate who chain smoked for well over a quarter century hasn't made any of his medical records available? Is he hiding something?

Nichevo said...

Let's see: my mom's take:

How long does it take to get her hair like that? '50s

FIVE KIDS?!?!?11!!!!eleven!~

And abortion, gay rights she named; but those are issues. One might move someone on the right to life, but never on style.

I should note my mom has a 170 IQ. Although when I ask her, "So who wants to have an abortion? You? Dad? Me? Holly?" or "Do you think that what gay people do is the same as what you and Dad have?" she lacks answers.

But I can't argue that the hair and the kids' names are a bit silly to my way of thinking. Who wants to play VP Makeover?

Merge Divide said...

dogwood,

You wrote...

"The moral decision was to abort, or not abort, the baby. They made the morally-correct decision."

Frankly, I don't agree with your conclusion, but that's beside the point here (and by the way, I am not saying the morally-correct thing would be to abort... but rather that I don't feel qualified to make the kind of judgment you are making). I'm surprised that, given the way you feel on this issue, you won't acknowledge the point that a true moral commitment in this case would be the child's mother giving more energy than anything else in her life. I consider Palin morally irresponsible for accepting this nomination, given the rigors it will require. To me, it makes Ms. Palin come off as extraordinarily self-serving.

Lawgiver said...

The Thing
is one of my all time bestest scary movies. Thanks for reminding me Trooper!

Alan said...

The moral decision is her having the choice to make it.

Merge Divide said...

nichevo,

Way to raise the level of dialog. Well done, really.

blake said...

Yeah, so what I'm saying is that you err on the side of caution, and give this kid every advantage you are capable of, as its mother.

"Its" mother wasn't going to be a stay-at-home mom to begin with.

I don't think the Presidency is the best thing for Obama's kids, either.

Why not give all children every advantage? I don't think it was good for Chelsea, Amy, John Jr., Alice... Kids are probably better off working in toxic landfills than growing up in D.C.

Synova said...

"Regarding downs syndrome, if the Palin wing of the GOP gets their way, and they'll try to, discussing tests will become a moot point. There will be no reason to test because you won't have any choice to abort the pregnancy. The government will take that choice away from you."

Oh grow up.

Seriously. I was going to not be so snarky but *seriously*... do you think that pro-life is ever going to succeed to make abortion illegal in this country? And really! Are you suggesting that the only reason to take prenatal tests is to decide to abort?

Or is this one of those "Obama" things were the right to abortion is so fragile that it's necessary and important to oppose "born alive" or other laws on the extreme ends of abortion on demand because the whole abortion house-of-cards may tumble and fall at the very slightest "chill" wind?

What is so gosh darn threatening in the simple notion of making an error in the direction of protecting life?

I don't understand this. It's a freaking tragedy if someone who is brain dead gets fed. It's a horror if we pretend that a baby born alive ought to be cared for rather than left to die. It's desperately important that we don't ever EVER give human rights to marginal cases because... what?

Explain this. Please.

If it's really all or nothing. Why go all or nothing in *that* direction?

Nichevo said...

You realize of course that the worst thing that will happen, if the impossible occurs and Roe v Wade is overturned, is that states will decide, and if Buffy knocks up Muffy then Muffy might have to take a little trip.

There is no prejudice anymore against unwed parenthood. What's the big deal about having a little bastard? Give the kid up for adoption. Get married and do your best like millions have. Whatever. MUST you kill it because it will interfere with the fit of your prom dress? Think a little bigger.

Lawgiver said...

I consider Palin morally irresponsible for accepting this nomination, given the rigors it will require. To me, it makes Ms. Palin come off as extraordinarily self-serving.

You do? Good for you, now please go away.

Merge Divide said...

"Kids are probably better off working in toxic landfills than growing up in D.C."

Yikes... that's bleak, Blake.

Synova said...

"I consider Palin morally irresponsible for accepting this nomination, given the rigors it will require. To me, it makes Ms. Palin come off as extraordinarily self-serving."

How do you feel about mothers in the work-place?

Because you definitely seem to be insisting that mothers should never work. I made that choice to stay home with my children but I'd hardly feel qualified to tell other women what they must do and how they must raise their children.

Or is it just Republican women who are supposed to stay at home and do the pregnant and barefoot thing?

Palladian said...

"When did I become the feminist in the crowd? Geez.

I'm gong to bed."

Oh Jaye P. Morgan and Jamie Farr would have gonged "Merge Divide" and Alan a long time ago.

Now come on, Gene Gene and dance us out of here.

Merge Divide said...

lawgiver,

You're a bit presumptuous to come in on the tail-end of a conversation and tell folks to leave. You'll just have to manage to bear up under an opinion that is different from yours, or alternatively you can choose not to participate.

PJ said...

"At least the other GOP primary candidates pleaded their case to run this country before the American people."

Isn't that exactly what McCain/Palin are about to do as a team from now until November? It's not like McCain has prevented the American people from making a choice. If the People think Palin's inexperience is worse than Obama's (after factoring in the likelihood that Palin would be elevated versus the certainty that Obama would), they can choose Obama. And anyway, why is it obviously better to pick as VP someone the voters have already decisively rejected for the top job (I'm looking at you, Joe) rather than someone the voters haven't decided about yet?

Kirk Parker said...

Victoria,

Thanks for including the Time interview.

This sure jumped out at me: "His striker[sic] brigade..." I can understand their transcriptionist not having a clue, but good grief, don't they have editors any more? (Yes, yes, that's a rhetorical question.)

Merge Divide said...

palladian,

I'd have to assume that there are quite a few on this thread that would rather see my right to free speech curtailed. I hope you feel satisfied in expressing your sentiments here tonight.

blake said...

1jpb,

Re Pakistan: It was an impolitic thing to say and he said it to fend off charges that he would be a creampuff. (Something he needs to do, but imagine if, instead of Pakistan, he were talking about France. And then consider that Pakistan is more strategically important than France and more likely to care about the insult.)

Reasonable people can--and do!--disagree with this, of course. But reasonable people can--and do!--disagree with the notion that Palin is somehow a reckless choice.

You can pitch the "MCCAIN'S GONNA DIE ANY SECOND NOW!" till the cows come home.

It doesn't stick with me. I don't think it's particularly likely and I'd rather the ticket were Palin/McCain anyway.

I have a long, rambling post here explaining why exactly, but the short of it, the things that were attractive to me about Obama are attractive about Palin.

She's a real outsider, she fights corruption in her party--which is the only way you can even think of fighting corruption elsewhere--and unlike Obama, I know exactly where she stands (even when I don't agree with those stances).

I'll take integrity over experience any day.

vbspurs said...

Thanks for the replies!

I will not blog about it but merely keep my thoughts here in this thread with you guys.

You know what is fuelling this story?

Apart from the very good reason mentioned by Synova (that 5 children smacks of craziness in the developed world, therefore you must be a hick or a religious nutjob), it is a mindset that is too entrenched into conspiracy theories already.

That describes the paranoic Left-wing of the Democratic Party today.

Back in the good ole days, both Parties smeared each other. It was enough to smear a candidate by saying that McCain had a "black baby", or that Laura Bush killed her "boyfriend" in a car accident because she had been dumped by him. Those are refutable rumours, although still pretty low-down.

But this story is different.

Its nexus is the Christian angle, and the conspiracy part is due to a collusion of all parties, familial and official.

1- FACT - Sarah Palin has a Down Syndrome baby.

Evidence? There is a baby she claims as her own.

2- SMEAR STARTS - Sarah Palin's daughter got pregnant. The family are Christian. They couldn't allow this to stand. Sarah Palin decided, continued this hallucinatory smear, to pretend to bear a child in her daughter's stead, though she wasn't actually pregnant. Her daughter was "fatter" than usual according to this smear campaign.

Evidence? None.

2- SMEAR CONTINUES - Photos of Sarah Palin when she was allegedly 7 months pregnant, show no noticeable sign of pregnancy.

Evidence? This.

Witness this Governor's Reunion at the White House (far left)

No "bump", cry the Kostards. In fact, she shows herself to be slightly plumper than usual. Check her out in this photograph of 2007, already linked to here yesterday and on my blog.

Counter-evidence?

Palin is deeply athletic, since girlhood. As everyone knows she was a PG at school, earning the name Barracuda for those flying elbows.

This is her daily workout routine.

She's a marathoner and runs, even in the Alaska winter, 7k-10k PER DAY.

She dropped running and started doing aerobics when she learned she was pregnant with Trig.

(Coincidentally, my mother did the same with me, and being reed thin back then, she didn't show at all. I too was a preemie)

3- ALLEGED COVER UP - According to reports of the birth, Palin was due to give an Energy conference keynote address in Texas. Her water broke at 4 AM. She gave the address anyway, with leaking amneotic fluid. This continued, as she boarded a plane to Alaska. She wanted her kid to be born there. The plane stopped in Seattle, and she checked with an OB-GYN there (her birth pangs were controllable up to that point).

Alaskan Airlines have no rule on the matter. They leave it up the parents.

She arrived at Mat-Su Regional Medical Center in Wassila at 10:30 PM, which has no preemie unit, and after having labour induced, she gave birth to her son Trig at 6:30 AM the following day, Friday.

Evidence? None.

It requires the collusion of her staff, her husband, her family, the conference members, those present at two hospitals, including doctors sworn to a Hypocratic oath, her personal OB-GYN, Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, nurses and medical personnel. Not even to mention the whole Alaskan public, who followed the progress of the baby's birth since it was announced.

4- REFUTATION OF SMEAR:

Sarah Palin pregnant photo #1
Sarah Palin pregnant photo #2

Ladies and Gentleman, it's Day 2 after the presentation of Governor Sarah Palin as the VP nominee of the Republican Party.

So far, we have:

- Creationist myth
- Troopergate scandale royale
- Fake pregnancy allegation

The first two are business as usual in politics. I didn't even blink when I saw or read them, though I did try to counter with facts.

The third one is beyond disgusting, and almost unthinkable in its malevolence.

Trooper York said, if you think this going to work out for you, Dems, accusing a mother of a Down Syndrome baby of faking a pregnancy, go with it.

I say differently.

Show you have common decency and a shred of logic left in those bones of yours, and tell your more radical ideologues to shut the hell up.

Ya'll make crazy look sane.

Cheers,
Victoria

Synova said...

"And I can't believe I am still up at 1:30 a.m. arguing with a bunch of liberals that a mother in the 21st Century should be allowed to pursue a career in whatever field she chooses whenever she chooses."

Well, one liberal anyway.

"When did I become the feminist in the crowd? Geez."

I know! Isn't that the oddest thing? I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that I have been wrong all of these years to avoid the label "feminist." It seems that when it comes down to the gravel on the road I've got to claim it. I find it appalling that anyone would suggest that a woman doesn't have the same range of responsibilities as men have.

"I'm gong to bed."

Some of us are smarter than others. ;-)

Merge Divide said...

Synova,

How do you possibly read that into my posts? Mothers should never work?! Having a child is a choice, regardless of when you make it (except in the case of coerced sex or rape). If giving that baby proper care is going to interfere with your work, then you should consider finding an alternative to that work. The baby should be the priority, if at all possible. I could understand Ms. Palin's decision if her family needed the income... but that's not the case here. She's making a self-serving choice, and she's also asking the public for their confidence that her disabled infant will not be a distraction from her potential leadership of this country. Sorry, the job requires a level of commitment that goes beyond family concerns. I'd expect that of any President or VP.

chickenlittle said...

merge said: Why am I so shocked by the Palin pick? Because I didn't think McCain would make such a transparently expedient choice.

Does that mean you anticipated the choice, then thought no, he wouldn't do that?

I honestly thought he would pick someone with a lot of experience, given his campaign's attacks on Obama for his perceived lack of it.

In other words, you fell for staleness and predictability, and got caught off guard. That's just politics.

And I'm further surprised that his campaign believes he can siphon off some of the Clinton supporters with this move.

Well that remains to be seen, doesn't it? I'll believe the data when it comes in.

On the other hand, I guess no one ever found success overestimating the intelligence of the American citizenry.

But plenty of losers hit the flush cycle underestimating us.

Nichevo said...

Actually, VPOTUS is a promotion and a raise and a relocation to potentially a better, in some ways, neighborhood.

Now instead of mercy flights through Arctic blizzards to rural hospitals, any medical emergencies such as a Down's Syndrome child might have will be transported, by Marine choppers, to Bethesda or Walter Reed or the myriad top-notch DC-Metro hospitals for the relevant condition, and the world's finest specialists roused out of bed by federal agents and flown to meet them, if necessary.

Instead of hiking or dogsledding eighteen miles to school, the kids will be driven in convoys of armored Suburbans, or tutored by the geniuses of the age. Bullies at school will be met with federal agents' sunglass'd stares instead of lunch money or swirlies. And d'ye think they will get any valentines next year?

Where will they be more likely to get arugula and $100/lb Spanish ham in their diets, Alaska or DC?

I should say that Gov. Palin's family will never have had it so good. Can you IMAGINE what it will be like to grow up at the Naval Observatory? This is absolutely the best decision that could be made for all of them.

As for the tone, want some cheese to go with that whine? If Palin's choices have opened her up to your hatred and derision, are your choices any less meaningful to how you are to be treated?

There is nothing I can do to raise the tone - you can't paint a turd. I will try a little more to get sense out of you before I troll rate you off my attention span.

You might like to know that Ann will indeed ban the worst sort of trolls, though you probably haven't got that far yet, so do know that there are limits. You have been warned.

vbspurs said...

"His striker[sic] brigade..."

OH! Kirk, glad you brought that up. Apparently they are also trying to smear Track Palin's forthcoming deployment to Iraq. It involves something about his being in a recruitment detail, which would preclude him serving in active combat. You know, the "special treatment", "phoney warrior" smear.

Merge Divide said...

synova,

I think it's telling that you only realized your "feminism" after being put in the position of defending your chosen ticket- one that just so happens to have selected a woman for VP. Congratulations though, it's never too late.

Merge Divide said...

nichevo,

That's great. Thanks for your feedback.

blake said...

Merge,

I think it's telling that you only realized your "commitment to family values" after being put in the position of attacking your opponent's ticket--one that just so happens to have selected a woman for VP. Congratulations though, it's never too late.

See how easy that is?

Jim Howard said...

Palin has made full financial disclosures available from the State of Alaska's web site:

http://aws.state.ak.us/apocinterim/pofdSearch.aspx?s_last_name=palin

or http://preview.tinyurl.com/598kaa

Note that they are all filled out in her own hand.

Merge Divide said...

chickenlittle,

If I had anticipated the pick, why would I claim to be shocked? It seems like we're just going in circles here. What you term "staleness and predictability" I would refer to as consistency of position.

Yes, you are right. We'll have to see how many Clinton supporters can be turned. Still, I suspect the data may be skewed by all of the Operation Chaos primary voters that count among those "18 million" the McCain campaign is so fascinated by all of a sudden.

"But plenty of losers hit the flush cycle underestimating us."

I'd ask you to provide examples, but I'm afraid we'd get "off-topic".

Lawgiver said...

You'll just have to manage to bear up under an opinion that is different from yours, or alternatively you can choose not to participate.

Well thanks for giving me those two options, but I think, instead, I will be really presumptuous and taunt you a second time.

Now, please go away you irritating little man. You are not engaging in political discourse, you are engaging in the most boring form of dikhed verbosity.

Merge Divide said...

Blake,

Well-played.

Nichevo said...

merge divide,

You're quite welcome. Whatever you thought was great, I'm happy for you. Glad I could help.

Is your lack of clarity, though, a mirror of your internal thought processes, or some passive aggressive thing? (IOW, WTH?)

As we are now trying to raise the tone, please understand that the above is not meant as an insult.

Synova said...

Merge, what I just read from you was that no mother should run for VP.

Period.

No woman should work if she doesn't need the money.

You have not, in any way, shown that Trig will be a particular burden. And if he is an ordinary burden, then your statements about Palin apply to ever single last mother on this planet.

They simply do. Your claiming that they don't makes no difference. If Palin can't do this, then no one can. If you say she *shouldn't* do this, then you say that NO WOMAN should try to balance career and family.

I hate to pull the creds out and wave them about but I do have children and have had and cared for babies, including a three month old while he and I evacuated half way around the entire world after a natural disaster. You can NOT convince me, and frankly have not even tried to do so, that taking care of a baby in the absence of being in a war zone or natural disaster is something that normal people can not do adequately.

Running for VP and certainly *being* VP does not qualify as "war zone or natural disaster."

You have not addressed, or attempted to address, anything I've said about the needs of children of various ages. As I've said... I've done far worse than run for VP with an infant and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, but it was not even *slightly* hard on my son. Oh, the sun burn was unfortunate, but emotionally and all that stuff? Babies have certain needs but I see no reason at all that Trig's needs can't be met (with some effort) on the campaign trail, and with no more difficulty than anyone else has when his mother is VP. (Or when she's still Governor, which ever it is.)

You've stated your opinion. You haven't supported it.

Alan said...

"Seriously. I was going to not be so snarky but *seriously*... do you think that pro-life is ever going to succeed to make abortion illegal in this country?"

Maybe you haven't noticed. But "pro-life" dominates the GOP. My former representative, Tillie Fowler, who was part of the Gingrich's revolution pleaded with the leadership, "Enough is enough" when they had over one hundred "pro-life" votes scheduled. It's never enough. If they can't make it illegal they'll widdle away the right by forcing women to jump through as many hoops as they can legislate. Last week they added a prohibition to all public and private stem cell research to the Party platform. Again, it's never ending. Our host, Ann seems to think merely acknowledging abortion kills a living human being is enough to placate them. It's not. Going back to the Schiavo fiasco, that was the only event that rallied the Republican controlled congress and President, besides the war, to actually do something they thought the country wanted. Well, McCain wants to perpetuate this nonsense. Losing majority in congress evidently fell flat on McCains tin ears. McCain has ensured 40 years in the wilderness for the GOP until this issue is cleansed from the party.

Michael said...

Why would Ann devote an entire blog thread to something someone calling themselves Inky99 said?

Good Lord...you're kidding, right?

Lawgiver said...

Blake said,

She's a real outsider, she fights corruption in her party--which is the only way you can even think of fighting corruption elsewhere--and unlike Obama, I know exactly where she stands (even when I don't agree with those stances).

I'll take integrity over experience any day.


Nice, concise, I'm with you 100%

Merge Divide said...

lawgiver,

you wrote...

"you are engaging in the most boring form of dikhed verbosity."

I'll translate your observation into adult language and respond in kind...(you're welcome)...

but I'm not going to apologize for conveying opinions that are different from yours. Perhaps you should seek sanctuary in a small dictatorship somewhere where you will be protected from actual ideas.

Host with the Most said...

Oh well, time to say what we all know needs to be said:

There is not ONE person slamming Sarah Palin or her qualifications that:

1) is actually "undecided". These people are already decided against her.

2)would for a even a second talk the same talk if the Dem ticket had chosen the exact same person, as long as she was pro-choice.

If someone has true doubts, and still has an open mind, and wants to have an adult discussion on the merits, then no doubt that would be welcome here!

But the anti-Palin commenters on this post so far are basically dishonest in their expressions (see poiints 1 and 2 above).

Which inevitably means that it is waste of time engaging them because of their lack of character on the matter.

Synova said...

Opinions aren't the same thing as ideas.

Just saying.

Nichevo said...

Alan,

Just a thought. Perhaps it is better to wander forty years in the wilderness than it is to remain slaves in Egypt (where the male children are slaughtered, or the female children left alive, at the whim of the Pharaoh). How many Moseses may have been 'ripped untimely from their mothers' wombs?'

Palladian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Palladian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
vbspurs said...

Michael, considering the threads on this are several so far, and they are often deleted as an embarrassment to the host blog, it is sometimes wise to keep a record of the dirty campaign tricks already perpetuated by that side.

Our rebuttals, including my evidence one, to this story on a high traffic thread allows it to be Googled and used to debunk it in case individuals out there hear of it, and want to assuage their concerns with facts.

This is the kind of topic that one should avoid like the plague, but be eagle-eyed about at the same time.

Cheers,
Victoria

TRundgren said...

lol.

merge divide reminds me of HAL singing "Daisy" as Dave Bowman is in the process of deactivating him.

merge, please tell me you've had throat cancer and now have to speak via a formant synthesizer!!

please tell me it's true!!!!

Seven Machos said...

Merge -- No one is going to read posts that are so long, no matter how right you think you are.

Think of all the life you wasted. You should start a list of 100 things to do before you die and get busy. I'll help you start:

1. Write with brevity.

Palladian said...

third time's the charm

"I'd have to assume that there are quite a few on this thread that would rather see my right to free speech curtailed."

Just to nitpick, you don't have a "right" to free speech here. Only the government can curtail your right to free speech. This is not a public forum, this is Althouse's weblog, so "rights" are at the pleasure of the proprietor. She's free (and most likely) to give you a forum for your commentary. But that doesn't exempt you from criticism or mockery.

Your incessant and unquenchable replies and counter-statements are starting to seem to me like "troll" behavior, especially now that I see that your first (long) "comment" here is actually completely copy-and-pasted from your weblog. That's not commentary, that's trolling, which is what you came here with the intention of doing.

Revenant said...

I honestly thought he would pick someone with a lot of experience, given his campaign's attacks on Obama for his perceived lack of it.

He's already got vastly more experience than Obama. What would he need another ancient Washington veteran on the ticket for? Obama had to add such a person because Obama's got the political gravitas of a dogcatcher. He needed somebody in his administration whom voters could trust to find Iraq on a map.

Democrats are just annoyed because they're stuck trying to talk about "change" and "reform" with a straight face while running a ticket consisting of a Chicago machine insider and an ancient Senate careerist, neither of whom can point to even a single example of successful "change" or "reform" that exists because of them. Then they've got to turn around and try accusing McCain (coauthor of the biggest "campaign finance reform" package in decades) and Palin (who took on both crooked Republicans AND oil industry insiders and won) of representing "business as usual".

Merge Divide said...

synova,

I don't have to show in any way that Trig will be a "particular burden". Your employing a shallow rhetorical device to distort my position. I didn't call children a "burden". I called them a choice worth committing to.

I can't stop you from applying an absolutist perspective to what I say, so I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. Of course I never tried to convince you that raising a baby ("in the absence of being in a war zone or national disaster"- well, that's a new introduction on your part)is beyond the ability of normal people. I don't believe that, and never insinuated it.

You've also stated opinions without supporting them. I've never claimed that this wasn't about "opinions". But I've communicated clearly what I believe, and so have you. I guess we'll find no common ground on this topic. So be it.

Synova said...

Alan, If pro-life dominated we'd be seeing far more laws against abortion passed. We don't see that. McCain is pro-life and that's the most conservative thing about him. Palin is pro-life but there were any number of pro-choice people out there than McCain could have chosen. I don't see evidence that Republicans are marching along in some sort of pro-life lock step.

You didn't try to explain why the right to abort any child at any time (or the issue with Shiavo) is so very important.

I understand why I think that abortion (and the treatment of those with severe injuries or in comas, etc.) is important in relation to how we view and value human life. I think it's important and far reaching when we decide who is human and who is not. I think it matters in which direction we prefer to make our errors.

Why is it so important to err on the side of abortion or euthanasia?

chickenlittle said...

Palladian said: especially now that I see that your first (long) "comment" here is actually completely copy-and-pasted from your weblog.

I noticed that too early on. Thanks for pointing it out.

Troopergate, babygate, whatever. Tomorrow night it'll be a different-gate. They're just flinging shit now.

Merge Divide said...

seven machos,

Well, actually several folks (even here on this thread)have responded in such a way as to demonstrate that they have read what I wrote. Still, it's always novel to hear a dissenting opinion.

Thanks for following your own advice.

vbspurs said...

They're just flinging shit now.

They must be threatened by a woman running for public office. They can't handle it and just attack her because of their deep-seated sexism.

/smirk

Seven Machos said...

Seeing large, clunky chunks of writing does not equal reading them.

Good post, though, that one to me. Pithy. A damn shame, really, and more than ironic.

Synova said...

"I guess we'll find no common ground on this topic. So be it."

I'm curious about this. I really am.

I know a man who argues, and that bothers people, but he only argues when he respects a person and their opinions. He only engages them and disagrees with them as a sign that he values their thought process. I think I'm probably like that.

But you seem to find value in not caring what others think. You find value in your opinion and some sort of pay-off, it seems to me, in being the sort of big-minded person who... what? doesn't care enough about other people to engage them?

What is this then, for you? A monologue?

Seven Machos said...

It's not a monologue. It's a windy soliloquy. Please note the difference.

Merge Divide said...

palladian,

Actually, while I appreciate the distinction you are making, I must point out that I meant exactly what I wrote. I believe that several of the people chiming in at this late hour would genuinely like to see my free speech curtailed (not just on this site). It's evident from their tone and the unwillingness to engage in a discussion unfettered by personal animosity and put-downs.

Thanks for the link, but it's ridiculous of you to suggest that my participation on this thread could be characterized as "trolling". Do you even know what that is? My original post was on topic, relevant to the discussion, and not aimed at provoking an emotional response (although it seems like it has). I have consistently maintained an even and fair tone, and have passed up many opportunities to engage in flame wars. I've made every effort to minimize projection and personal attacks. It's a shame that so many on this forum seem incapable of returning that level of respect.

Perhaps what is truly bothering you is my endurance? It's not like I'm not responding to people (and only those people) who are addressing me directly.

Host with the Most said...

Alan,

You and I have different world views. I believe that life begins at conception: the second that a completely different set of DNA is formed, a seperate being exists. And I believe that that being deserves protection.

I believe in birth control methods during sex.

I have sympathy for a woman who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant , especially a single woman who doesn't see how financially she can handle it.

My wife and I put feet to our belief in the 80's and 90's by raising money, housing, and helping provide medical care and food and shelter for hundreds of women in just a situation so that they could carry their baby to term. And yes, though we shared out faith views with them, we never required that they believe or sign on to our views. Approximately one fourth of the babies born were adopted by another couple.

We did not protest at abortion clinics.

I do not believe that you are evil, stupid, or an extremist (though you could be any or all of those things) because you have a different view of the issue.

There is no woman today in America that cannot get an abortion if she really wants one. Money and location may be issues. But that doesn't change the fact that no woman is legally prevented from aborting her child in the United States today.

There is no true decrease on the number of abortions in the United States form the beginning of legalization under Roe v Wade.

And yet you cry as if it will change overnight.

And that leads me to consider that you are a one-issue voter. Which is interesting, because that is the extremist label that the Democrat Party likes to pin on the religious right.

Funny how it's the opposite of what the Democrats say. Which is why this registered Democrat got tired of the lying and dishonesty of the Party and told the stunned County Party Chair to his face.

Synova said...

And please... your whole premise was that because Trig has downs syndrome that he presents an unusual burden. That's no rhetorical trick of mine.

If he doesn't present an unusual burden then your statements concerning the morality of Palin's choice (which you clearly feel qualified to judge) apply equally to all working women.

It's quite true that you've clearly stated your opinions.

What delusion suggests to you that opinions are intrinsically valuable simply for existing?

vbspurs said...

Latest flip to the smear: Incest.

From Kostard:

People forget that the older the father is, the greater the chances of Down's Syndrome are. It doesn't have to be just the mother's age at conception.

And people will flame me for going here, but there's an increased chance in cases of incest as well.

1jpb said...

vbspurs,

Cole had a good reaction to this stuff.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=11185

Don't forget that there are a lot of nutty Rs too.

Merge Divide said...

Synova,

If this were a monologue, then I wouldn't be quoting others' comments in my responses. I don't need to limit my discussion to those I respect- that's a recipe for clan mentality. And furthermore I have no grounds for respecting or disrespecting people when I'm communicating with them over the internet. You may think you know me and you can make that judgment, but I assure you that it's impossible. It's part of an "us vs. them" world view that I reject. You and I are not reducible to our opinions on this one subject, or any cluster of topics. That's too simplistic for me.

I can't form your definition for what "engagement" is, but in my view, what's going on in this thread are multiple engagements at a variety of levels.

I hope that answers your question.

Synova said...

Hey, can we have a discussion of free speech now?

Free speech is not the right to speak without repercussion, disapproval, or response. Free speech does not require that one express that speech in an accepting and nurturing environment. Free speech does not guarantee an audience, because audiences are free to refuse to listen, or even hear. Anything else would be the antithesis of freedom.

All free speech ensures is the right to make sound waves (or pixels) in the air without getting arrested by the government for saying something the government does not like.

Free speech must and needs to include offensive speech. By definition. And that means that free speech *requires* the right to have people respond to speech with expressions of disapproval, disagreement, and offense.

They might even make you feel unwelcome.

Joan said...

Merge Divide, how many children are you raising? How many babies have you nursed? What makes you qualified to decide that Palin is wrong to do anything but stay at home with Trig?

Having a newborn can be very, very rough if you don't have an extended family nearby to provide a support system. By all reports, the Palins share parenting duties, and they have an excellent familial support system as well. It's insulting to Palin that you would think that you know better than she does what is best for her family.

Nichevo said...

Insult Gov. Palin? He would never do that!

Joan said...

Synova, you're going to feel great when you stop banging your head against that brick wall.

Nice effort -- you see I made my own as well -- but discretion may be the better part of valor, here.

Methadras said...

How soon, if it hasn't happened already, will the leftist/liberal enviro-kook earth-firsters come out of the woodwork to criticize Sarah Baracuda for having 5 children and creating a carbon footprint crisis?

Synova said...

"I don't need to limit my discussion to those I respect- that's a recipe for clan mentality."

Huh?

How does one imply the other?

In any case, the lack of respect is pretty obvious. For what it's worth.

Are you going to claim to *listen* to those you don't respect? Or is this "discussion" one direction?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 309   Newer› Newest»