"These family imperfections make people say, 'That family isn’t so different from my family.'"Blemishes? Warts? Don't you know people get those things removed? There are all sorts of procedures that people use to perfect their appearance these days. So, really, it's to the point where the existence of blemishes, warts, and teen pregnancies says less about human failing and more about the a person's decision not to undergo a procedure. If there are no teenage pregnancies in a family, it no longer reads as evidence of virginity.
But why are we even thinking of evaluating candidates based on the chastity of their offspring? Even if we could ascertain whether a candidate has this qualification -- and, given birth control and abortion, we can't -- it's a patently absurd and offensive idea for a qualification.
***
I hope Bristol Palin is a strong person who can endure all this talk about her. Has a teenager ever had to put up with such a thing? Maybe we'll get to see a beautiful wedding. You know the people love weddings! And the husband-to-be is gorgeous. Oh, I'm not saying dress the kids up and parade them around so that people can feel good about love and life and jerks can pronounce the whole thing an exploitative political show. It would probably be more tasteful to have a small and very private wedding. But I'm saying that from Wisconsin and reflecting my East Coast upbringing. I don't know how they do things in Alaska.
IN THE COMMENTS: Tex said...
"But I'm saying that from Wisconsin and reflecting my East Coast upbringing. I don't know how they do things in Alaska."I responded:
Thank you for saying this, assuming you are not being sarcastic. The reactive elitism from journalists & bloggers surrounding the Palin story is killing me.
I'm not being sarcastic. I'm saying this with genuine love and appreciation for the diverse cultures of the different states. I like that Sarah Palin shows us Alaskan styles and values -- lots of rugged individualism, connection to nature in a harsh climate... whatever. I want to see it. Show me. I think it's very cool. I wish Barack Obama brought more of a sense of what Hawaii and Kansas mean. I think he's trying to bring the Chicago. He's worked hard at making himself into a Chicago person. He selected his place, and it's not his place of origin.I should add that I think going to a new place and remaking yourself as a person of that place is a very American thing to do, as American as absorbing and embodying the culture of your original state.
AND: MadisonMan answered my question "Has a teenager ever had to put up with such a thing?" with "Jamie Lynne Spears." You know, I thought about Jamie Lynne Spears as I was asking the question and I don't think she fits the category. She put herself in the limelight and was used to fame -- her own fame -- when this happened. Yes, she was inspected and judged for keeping her baby, but unlike Bristol Palin, she was not suddenly exposed to the entire world and she was not snapped at by politicos who were ready to do whatever they could to destroy her mother. There was no hordes with a built-in motivation to crush Jamie Lynne Spears.
PLUS: Here's what I said about the Jamie Lynne Spears pregnancy at the time.
পোস্টগুলি
১৬৯টি মন্তব্য:
Is it a stretch to imagine that Bristol Palin and her boyfriend wanted to have a baby, wanted to get married? I don't understand why it's being treated as unplanned, some big surprise or that they didn't know what they were doing. Not saying that it's particularly wise if this was more planned than not but we have no idea how mature this couple is or what their own thoughts are (nor should we really).
In my review of the Kaylene Johnson biography on Gov. Palin, I summarized and quoted from a passage about their elopement, in which they "snagging two residents of a nearby nursing home to serve as their witnesses for the civil ceremony at the courthouse in Palmer, Alaska." Johnson included this anecdotal detail, I'm sure, to show how unpretentious and fun-loving Gov. Palin and spouse Todd are.
I was sad, but unsurprised, to see someone from a Hard Left blog link my review as supposed "proof" that they were on the run and in a hurry to get married.
People don't hate with this much rage and intensity unless they're threatened in some very distressing way. The notion of a conservative, attractive, competent, rifle-shooting, corruption-fighting hockey mom/governor is making a lot of people feel very, very threatened.
(Forgot to self-promote with a link to my review of the Johnson biography of Palin, sorry.)
Sarah and Todd Palin have been a happy loving couple since high school.
So Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston have excellent role models.
I don't think the left liberal strategy of trashing the Palin family will earn support and votes throughout Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The people trashing the Palin family now are not swing voters. They are hardcore left wing Democrats who hate everything about the America represented by the Palin family.
This morning, my daughter and I were watching the Palin Teen Pregnancy story on TV as we waited for the school bus to take her to first day of 8th grade. She earnestly asked why candidates for office aren't allowed to be regular people, with the problems of regular people. I found that quite heartening.
She has also told me that she recognized the Bristol-Palin-secretly-bears-child-and-Sarah-claims-it-as-hers theory as a "Desperate Housewives" plotline. This I found somehow less than heartening, but . . . well, her mother lets her watch that show.
"But why are we even thinking of evaluating candidates based on the chastity of their offspring? "
Because partisans suck.
There is no bigger hypocrisy demonstrated in this incident than the "if Sarah Palin was a good mother, she'd stay home with her family" that Democrats are trying to imply.
The party that wants to "free" women to purseu it all is the party of do whatever it takes including character assassination to win. If Sarah Palin were pro-choice, the hateful and hate-filled Democrat Party would spin this completely differently. And EVERYONE knows it.
The Democrat Party - it's not too late to join in the hate!
I’m disgusted about the way some MSM journalists are bringing a candidate’s 17-year old daughter into their discussions on the politics of sex education. If they believe Bristol’s pregnancy gives them license for this unprecedented intrusion into a child’s personal life, then they’ve just moved the bar down in a way that is very harmful to our democratic process. (Okay, maybe I’m being a little dramatic about this, but I do feel this way.)
My husband just told me it’s too bad that John Edwards is not the father of BP’s baby, because then the MSM might stay away from this story.
Shotgun weddings have real shotguns up there.
Let her daughter have her privacy.
But I'm saying that from Wisconsin and reflecting my East Coast upbringing. I don't know how they do things in Alaska.
Thank you for saying this, assuming you are not being sarcastic. The reactive elitism from journalists & bloggers surrounding the Palin story is killing me.
I’m disgusted about the way some MSM journalists are bringing a candidate’s 17-year old daughter..
The MSM is a business. Scold their audience, not them, for being even slightly interested in this crap.
The MSM is just supplying product.
The politics is just along for the ride. Whatever has media legs gets used.
"I'm not saying dress the kids up"
He's 18. He's an adult.
She's 17. She's not quite an adult (although above the age of consent).
They should do what they want to do. Nothing more, nothing less.
Oh, please, Tex. Palin doesn't want sex ed in schools. That's an issue she might wanna re-examine now.
Also, how are we supposed to not ever say a word about the Palin family? We're just getting to know them and we're being told she should be VP in a couple months.
Anyway, I hope it is a beautiful wedding, but one suspects it has little chance to survive. It does seem like a shotgun wedding.
The babydaddy: "Doe-eyed Bristol Palin, 17, and ruggedly handsome Levi Johnston, an 18-year-old self-described "f---in' redneck," have been dating a year, locals in Wasilla, Alaska, told the Daily News."
Maybe she'll be in love with a effing redneck till death does them part. Or maybe one or both of them will end up feeling they were pressured into this marriage when they were too young.
The democrats are making a huge blunder pursuing this story line. Time will tell. Interesting that the issue of experience is now couched in her mayoral experience, and somehow the fact that she is the govenor of the State of Alaska gets overlooked. The American People arent that stupid. I do hope she delivers a barn burner at the convention, and wish the McCain campaign would start putting these democratic slurs on the air for all to see.
As Ruth Ann and Jdeeripper noted elsewhere, we should remember that this is only hard core democrats with their MSM lap dogs savaging the Palins. I have never listened to talk radio, but I would love to hear how Mr. Limbaugh plays this--now he has a much larger audience than most of the MSM combined.
Has a teenager ever had to put up with such a thing?
Jamie Lynne Spears.
One would think the Democrats would have learned their lesson from having made Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter the centerpiece of their election strategy two elections in a row. But unfortunately for Bristol and perhaps
fortunately for Sarah's election prospects, the Democrats will be unable to resist flogging this issue, revealing their innate repulsiveness, and losing yet another election.
I see Loafing Oaf is continuing his totally independent, totally middle-of-the-road assault on all things Palin. There ought to be a term coined, I tell ya.
"That's an issue she might wanna re-examine now."
Do you have evidence that she and/or Levi were unaware of how babies come to be, and had never heard of a condom? I suggest to you that this is highly implausible. To suggest it about an adult and a 17-year-old is laughable.
But never let logic get in the way of a good partisan attack! Especially coming from a dedicated independent such as yourself.
I'm asking the question "How many of us don't have someone in your family pregnant out of wedlock or a brother/sister arrested for DUI?"
My father was a university professor and I grew up around professors and their families plus largely professionals in my neighborhood. Yet, the answer to the above question is "yes" on both counts for my family and many of the families I knew growing up and that I know now.
EnigmatiCore said...
"I see Loafing Oaf is continuing his totally independent, totally middle-of-the-road assault on all things Palin. There ought to be a term coined, I tell ya."
"Repressed limerence" is the term you're looking for. It's also the root cause of both the regular and anaplastic forms of Althouse Derangement Syndrome.
LoafingOaf said...
"Oh, please, Tex. Palin doesn't want sex ed in schools. That's an issue she might wanna re-examine now."
Even your own evidence for this claim doesn't support it. She rejected explicit sex ed. Your construction renders the word "explicit" surplussage based on... On I don't know what. Based on your own hostility and prejudice towards Palin, so far as I can see. What is it about a woman being a conservative that bothers you so much, Oaf? Is it the thinking for herself?
My father was a university professor and I grew up around professors and their families plus largely professionals in my neighborhood.
Elistist.
Enig: Just because I'm independent doesn't mean I play down the middle. One of the reasons I'm independent is because the Religious Right has stunk up the GOP.
I think the Palinsanity is on you guys. You're playing reckless with my country just to get another Social Conservative in the White House. Maybe Palin will prove herself. Maybe she'd even be a good VP or Prez. You have little to go on and you don't care that you have little to go on. You don't even know if she has the slightest idea of anything related to foreign policy. I am open to her proving she is an expert on all the pressing foreign policy issues facing our nation and world. But the fact is WE DON'T KNOW yet but you don't care - you're ready to put her next in line to a 72 year old as Commander in Chief. If you weren't Palinsane you would've said what I said when Palin was anounced: Nice speech, she seems like a likable person who is popular in Alaska, but I need to learn who she is, what she knows about world affairs and all the pressing issues, etc. Until she demonstrates she's fit for the office, it would be Palinsane to vote for her.
But look at how Palinsane some of you are: You're running around the blogosphere claiming that Palin is already more qualified to be President and more experienced than Obama. Even though you haven't the slightest idea is Palin knows one single thing about, say, Iran, or Pakistan. We've known for years what Obama's thinking is on these sorts of issues. Palin has a few months to make her case. Until she does, I'm not gonna put her in the Vice PResidency on a whim and a prayer.
All of this internet terrorism could have been stopped by three people before it took off into a cannibalistic frenzy. These three people had the power, and two had the responsibility to put an end to it. Yet, they did absolutely nothing. Barak Obama, waited almost two days before issuing his hands off family statements. He also did not apologize. The perpetrators of this terroristic attack were his supporters. He did owe all of us an apology. He also did nothing to stop the attacks from continuing. He could have called the second person responsible and told him to end it. Barak Obama failed his very first leadership test and has demonstrated he is not fit for high public office. Palin terrified them stirred real fear in them. They could actually lose. Doing nothing to stop horrendous lies was better than being adults and decent people.
The second person responsible I expected to do nothing. But, he is respected in Democratic circles and in media circles. Markos Moulitsas. Kos could have pulled the plug on his site, which fed most of this excrement and hazardous waste. He also could have publicly condemned the nutroot terrorists. He should have apologized to show the world that he is above such behavior. He did nothing. Both Kos and Obama are considered new Democrats or new progressives. If this is what they allow to happen, then this country is in very deep and bad trouble.
The third person who could have stepped up to the plate and did not do so was Hillry Clinton. She has been rightfully and wrongfully vilified, she has the experience to handle vilification, and she represents what the Democratic Party is supposed to be; adults. She has gravitas. If Hillary Clinton would have made one statement she would have looked like a saint to people on both sides of the political spectrum. Hillary could have reversed a lot of her negatives with one angry statement against attacking a woman, her daughter, and her family. She could have chided Obama for his inaction and lack of leadership and she could have castigated KOS. She would have demonstrated her class.
Unfortunately, we can expect no class, morals, morals, ethics, decency, shame, or humility from Democrats and progressives. This tawdry affair proves one thing; Obama is not presidential material and the Democrats cannot lead.
There is something very humorous with the urology ad behind the lad in the bottom pic. Just sayin.
BTW, just about everyone I have ever met who describes himself as a "redneck" has turned out to be a racist. Just saying.
Oaf, would that be the same Pakistan Obama was fixin' to invade? That Pakistan?
LoafingOaf wrote (at 8:21am): "But look at how Palinsane some of you are: You're running around the blogosphere claiming that Palin is already more qualified to be President and more experienced than Obama."
I do think she's more qualified than Obama, including on issues of national defense and national security, especially if one assumes (as is reasonable) that from Day One she would have access to the same foreign policy team that John McCain had assembled to advise him.
Of course, saying that she's more qualified than Obama is setting the bar awfully low, but it's the Democratic Party who's set it there.
More to the point, and as I've just said in about the same words in a comment (I think) on another one of Prof. A's posts this morning: "Ready to Be POTUS from Day One" is only part of the equation. Getting Elected to be there on Day One is also part of the equation. Helping Govern as VPOTUS from Day One" is yet another part. Almost all state governors have minimal substantive experience on foreign affairs. And face it, even senators like McCain who've been on the appropriate committees for years have experience mostly from an advisory and oversight point of view, rather than an executive one.
Open your mind to something other than ultra-conventional paper credentials. On paper, Joe Biden looks just terrific, but you only have to listen to him for 15 minutes at a stretch -- any stretch of 15 minutes -- to realize that he's a self-absorbed buffoon, and when you look at the policies he's recommended, with all his supposed gravitas and foreign policy experience (e.g., trisecting Iraq into three unstable proto-states for its neighbors to dominate as proxies), you may re-think the usefulness of those so-called credentials entirely.
The BF may be gorgeous, but the UK gutter press is openly branding him a redneck, and his MySpace page would seem to indicate he's not one of the brighter bulbs on the planet.
Obama WASN'T saying he would do an all-out invasion of Pakistan. He said he would act on good intelligence to get Bin Laden and his associates in Pakistan with special ops type operations.
Obama made this very clear and you guys (along with Hillary) lied about his position from the get-go. You guys also don't mind that Bush broke his pledge to smoke Bin Laden out dead or alive.
At the time Obama said this, the White House's own assessment report had declared Bush's Pakistan policy a FAILURE and Bush started to finally change his policy in Obama's direction.
Also, at the time Obama said this, the current administration had just missed an opportunity to act on good intelligence and wound up only being able to fire a missile (a la Clinton) from afar.
The importance Obama places on Pakistan and getting Bin Laden is one of his strengths.
LoafingOaf said...
Oh, please, Tex. Palin doesn't want sex ed in schools. That's an issue she might wanna re-examine now.
Oh, please Oaf, sex ed is big business. it is a money maker on the tax payer's dime. Palin's view is only extreme to people who have a vested interest in sex ed. in schools. Aside from the employment factor and the money to be made on materials and books; it is not the sex education that most people are against. It is the type. Sex ed has been reduced to explicit porn. This is real reason many oppose it. Calls for change have met deaf ears which led people to be against sex ed in and of itself. Sex ed is now an industry making big money with their own special interest groups. They know better. The sex ed people will do what they want regardless of what the parents want.
Oh, and they are our kids, not the schools’, not the educators, not the special interests. They are our kids and we have a right to determine what they are taught.
On Pakistan:
Only an absolute naif would EVER say anything on international television about violating Pakistani sovereignty by conducting unauthorized raids inside Pakistan.
Even if that's what you intend to do, you damn sure do brag in an election debate about how you intend to humiliate a critical ally that's (a) Muslim, (b) essential to the prosecution of the terrorists, and (c) has the Bomb already.
John Kennedy and Richard Nixon went through a huge farcical song and dance routine in 1960 about the supposed "Missile Gap." In fact, they both knew (Nixon as VP, Kennedy from confidential briefings as a senator) that there was a missile gap, but it favored the U.S., not the Soviets, and by a HUGE margin (whether measured in launcher numbers, launcher range, warheads, yields, accuracy, or any other way). Each of them tried to win votes on the basis that he would be the best man to close the Missile Gap anyway, because there are some things that only idiots talk about candidly where your enemies and even your allies can hear them.
ACK, critical typo: "you damned sure do brag" ---> "you damned sure DON'T brag"
(unless you're Obama, in which case you do brag, and you're shown to be a fool by doing so)
The reactions to the Palin pregnancy and the Jamie Lynne Spears pregnancy are interesting to contrast.
Here's the althouse post on JLSpears.
As has been stated elsewhere, if this wins the votes of families that have been started with unplanned pregnancies, it will be a landslide for McCain. That would include my parents and my wife's parents.
In any event, I hope the Palins and Sen. McCain forge on, for this to be a deal breaker would set back social progress a generation. Tolerance is a big deal, let's see who means it.
You're running around the blogosphere claiming that Palin is already more qualified to be President and more experienced than Obama. Even though you haven't the slightest idea is Palin knows one single thing about, say, Iran, or Pakistan. We've known for years what Obama's thinking is on these sorts of issues.
You don't need to be an "expert" on foreign policy issues, you need to have the right principles and a spine to stick to them. Obama has the wrong principles. He believes in a foreign policy based on negotiating at the UN, etc... this is a policy of weakness. Our enemies will take advantage of that immediatly if he is elected.
We will see what Palin says, but if she believes in peace through strength (a la maggie Thatcher) that is what we need.
Beldar--and to riff on the "missile gap:" It lead to increased US production, scared the hell out of the USSR, and to overcome the gap which the soviets knew favored the US, they tried to put tactical missiles in cuba to offset the ICBM gap. Which in turn damn led to a nuclear war via the cuban missile crisis.
The lesson is, that a candidate made irresponsible statements that serious strategic consequences. Too bad Obama did not heed that lesson.
LoafingOaf said...
"Obama WASN'T saying he would do an all-out invasion of Pakistan. He said he would act on good intelligence to get Bin Laden and his associates in Pakistan with special ops type operations. ¶ Obama made this very clear and you guys (along with Hillary) lied about his position from the get-go."
In an MSNBC forum, sitting next to Obama, Hillary said that Obama had "[b]asically threatened to bomb Pakistan." What Obama actually said was, "[t]here are terrorists holed up in those mountains [in Pakistan] who murdered three thousand Americans. They are plotting to strike again. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets, and President Musharraf will not act, we will." That was August 1, 2007, and was too widely-reported to deny. The claim that Hillary misrepresented Obama is facile; it relies on an overparsing of what precise action Obama proposed against high-value targets (i.e. bombing raid vs. special ops insertion).
I have a cousin who met her fiancee very soon out of high school. When she and her fiancee would hang out together with her parents, it was the creepiest thing. It looked like they were brother and sister being shepherded around by their parents, only this brother and sister were holding hands. (Incidentally I'm almost certain they remained virgins until marriage.)
Well, that was many, many years ago. They are happily married, have several wonderful kids, and are fantastic parents. I am kind of ashamed, frankly, that I was creeped out before. I kind of think that as a society we've lost a little something with our determination to push out the socially acceptable marrying age to the late 20s or 30s. (Fertility, for one thing.)
I am not saying that Bristol and Levi will have the same success. Look, they kind of blew the launch, it's safe to say. They certainly seem less mature than my cousins did when they tied the not. But I think that the concept that marriages of young people can succeed long term is truly foreign to most people. It can, though it does require a certain level of societal support that may not exist anymore in most places. But maybe it exists in Wasilla.
Here's a potentially very interesting research project for someone to do: go back and see what some of those who're claiming Palin is too inexperienced for the VP slot were saying about Geraldine Ferraro. When Ferraro was picked for the VP slot, all she had was 5 years in the House of Representatives.
Palin isn't a liberal feminist, so she must be destroyed. As "host with the most" wrote, "The Democrat Party - it's not too late to join in the hate!"
They are hardcore left wing Democrats who hate everything about the America represented by the Palin family.
Hey, it's not "hardcore left wing Democrats" who set up unrealistic standards for our young people. Social conservatives started "True Love Waits." Hardcore right wing Republicans hold Purity Balls. The Mrs. Grundys of this world who count the months between the wedding date and the birth of the first child are no fans of Roe v. Wade.
Unfortunately, we can expect no class, morals, morals, ethics, decency, shame, or humility from Democrats and progressives. This tawdry affair proves one thing; Obama is not presidential material and the Democrats cannot lead.
Hold the drama, mama. This tawdry affair proves two things: Social conservatives cannot live up to their unrealistic standards, and that over a holiday weekend, the blogosphere will seize on perceived hypocrisy.
Palin doesn't want sex ed in schools.
"If those poor ignorant children had just learned to put condoms on bananas and been taught to appreciate the joys of homosexual relationships in the fourth grade then she would have a girlfriend and he would have a boyfriend and this terrible pregnancy thing would never have occurred." Is that the argument? Because that's pretty much 'sex education' in public schools today. ('Lifestyle indoctrination' is actually the proper term.)
Or is it just that you are a typical liberal idiot?
You're running around the blogosphere claiming that Palin is already more qualified to be President and more experienced than Obama.
As a matter of fact I DO ALREADY KNOW that Palin is more qualified to be president than is Obama. She has more real and meaningful political experience and she has more life experience. In fact it isn't even close.
Gee FLS, what "Social Conservatives" are you talking about? I guess as a former law student you must have gone into painting, because you sure use a broad brush.
What social conservatives?
Admirers and followers of such social conservatives (as identified yesterday by the seemingly authoritative Washington Times): Tony Perkins, Roberta Combs, and Dr. Dobson.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "We are committed to praying for Bristol and her husband to be and the entire Palin family as they walk through a very private matter in the eyes of the public."
Perkins also said, however, that "unfortunately, teenage pregnancy has become all too common in today's society regardless of a family's economic or social status. It is a problem that we remain committed to reducing through encouraging young people to practice abstinence."
Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition of America, called the pregnancy "a family issue" and said the Palins "should work this out among themselves."
Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family who endorsed Mr. McCain following his naming of Mrs. Palin as his running mate, commended the Palin family for living out their pro-life values.
Hold the drama, mama. This tawdry affair proves two things: Social conservatives cannot live up to their unrealistic standards, and that over a holiday weekend, the blogosphere will seize on perceived hypocrisy.
Sorry, FLS, I do not buy it. The Democratic leadership, through their silence, have demonstrated a severe lack of any redeeming traits. These vicious attacks could have been stopped. Remember, it did not start with the pregnancy of her daughter, it started with the so called proof and logic that Palin’s child was actually her daughter’s.
Not one responsible person said enough. No, FLS, there are no morals, ethics, etc. in your party. None. The Democratic leadership has proven that it is not humane, let alone human.
Bristol is a minor and isn't running for anything.
Hounding her and her mother on this topic by the Obama campaign surrogates and the MSM is obscene,
My last comment on the topic
You're running around the blogosphere claiming that Palin is already more qualified to be President and more experienced than Obama.
I do not care if she had never been a governor or mayor. Her resume without the political offices is enough to vote for her. Finally, a person of the type the founding fathers really wanted to run this country; everyman/woman. I hope McCain wins, not because I like or agree with all of his policies, but because finally a real person will be in line to be president. Someone who understands what it is like to work for a living, raise a family, and pay taxes to a government that does nothing but waste money on failures across the board.
BTW, FLS, do not forget that the Democrats are the party, since the 1930s who have worked diligently to strip you of your right to own firearms.
"The BF may be gorgeous, but the UK gutter press is openly branding him a redneck, and his MySpace page would seem to indicate he's not one of the brighter bulbs on the planet."
And any of this is relevant to national politics, how, exactly? Or anybody else's business, how, exactly? At what point will SOMEBODY, somewhere, draw the line on this crap, acquire some decency from someplace, and stand up for leaving these young people alone?
These vicious attacks could have been stopped.
Can George W. Bush muzzle the freepers? How about Powerlineblog? Little Green Footballs?
But as you may recall, I suspect that the whole Bree baby scenario was started as a Rovian dirty trick, precisely to make Democrats look bad. And here you are, feeding the meme.
stand up for leaving these young people alone?
"Candidates' families are off-limits" B.H. Obama
Combs, Dobson and Perkins? What no Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell (oh he's dead, not that it makes any difference)? The only people who pay attention to them are the media.
If your counting on "hypocrisy" to derail this thing, I hope you are prepared to be disapointed.
Palin's biography is in fact the only one that the average American can relate to.
No one can relate to McCain's bio - being the son and grandson of admirals, a POW and war hero - that is extraordinary. The average American cannot be McCain.
Very few can relate to Obama, being the son in a bi-racial family, living in Indonesia, going to the most famous prep school in Hawaii, and attending Columbia and Harvard law. This path is not available to the average american.
the average american cannot relate to Joe Biden, who was elected to the U.S. Senate at age 29. That is extraordinary luck.
However, anyone can relate to Palin. Someone who graduated from a non-ivy league college and started at the bottom, first in entry level jobs, as mother then as councilwoman, then small town mayor, then oil and gas commission chair, then as Governor. She worked her way up without a head start.
Palin's path to success is open to all of us, which is why people will like her a lot.
Tex said..."'But I'm saying that from Wisconsin and reflecting my East Coast upbringing. I don't know how they do things in Alaska.' Thank you for saying this, assuming you are not being sarcastic. The reactive elitism from journalists & bloggers surrounding the Palin story is killing me."
I'm not being sarcastic. I'm saying this with genuine love and appreciation for the diverse cultures of the different states. I like that Sarah Palin shows us Alaskan styles and values -- lots of rugged individualism, connection to nature in a harsh climate... whatever. I want to see it. Show me. I think it's very cool. I wish Barack Obama brought more of a sense of what Hawaii and Kansas mean. I think he's trying to bring the Chicago. He's worked hard at making himself into a Chicago person. He selected his place, and it's not his place of origin.
Drill, I'd say extrememly tacky, not obscene, but yes. And the comments that the dad is a redneck based on his myspace page? Please. Have you seen the basic high school student's myspace or facebook page?
I will also try to sit on my hands about Bristol Palin's pregnancy and not comment -- other than to make fun of people who take it too seriously. (Hmmm...her initials are BP and her Dad worked for BP...Coincidence?????)
Ann, I get completely what you mean about place of origin and the place you "market" yourself as. Although I am a native of a state out east, and my voice will slide right back into a Pennsyltucky accent when I'm home talking to childhood friends, I feel much more at ease with a mid-west vibe and that's why WI is my home state. Maybe it's cause I have family originally from here and was brought up midwesternly in PA.
I wish Barack Obama brought more of a sense of what Hawaii and Kansas mean.
Kansas? When did Obama ever personally live in Kansas? His mother may have been born there, but she went to high school in Seattle and lived her life after that in Hawaii.
I'm always amazed, time and again, that Democrats act with surprise at the behavior of Evangelicals. Time and again, they go "See! See! They're hypocrites! They didn't live the life they espouse!" And time and again, Evangelicals look, and the embrace the miscreants, leading the Democrats to fume that the churchgoing fools aren't behaving to type.
Bill Clinton could explain it to them. He was raised Southern Baptist and used that experience to the hilt. An Evangelical expects people to fall short, to sin, as it were. It's in their holy book that everyone does. So when someone sins, if they show contrition and take responsibility, then they are admired rather than condemned.
That people fall short of the standard, is not, to an evangelical, sufficient justification for abolishing the standard.
"Candidates' families are off-limits" B.H. Obama
Agreed, FLS. He did in fact say the right thing and quickly, too. My question is, when will the MSM, the blogosphere, the Internet mobs, and the TV talking heads start to pay any attention at all to what he said?
And as for Obama, on the one hand, he obviously has no ability to control what others do and say. On the other, the complete lack of response to his call for decency is beginning to look like a leadership issue to me. He is being roundly and unanimously ignored by everyone. Not blaming him. Just wondering whether he'll be ignored like this if/when he tries to exercise leadership in the White House, too.
Well, my place of origin is California and Hollywood. And, you don't seem to have much respect whenever I try to bring a sense of style and California culture......the obsession with rouge, cosmetic surgery, old movie starlets, tract homes, picture windows, sweeping drapes, flowing hair, etc...
Isn't it funny? You don't want to hear about those things. --Don't want to hear about a sense of place when it comes to California...... but very eager to learn about Alaskan culture.
I hope Bristol Palin is a strong person who can endure all this talk about her. Has a teenager ever had to put up with such a thing?
Moon Unit Zappa had to be The Valley Girl, whether she was or not!
The whole way that Althouse seeks a sense of place is unusual. She goes to LA and heads for the Watts Towers, or the Barrio, and thinks she's discovered the nucleus of the town.
And now, she expects the heart and soul of Palin's Alaskan-ness to shine through and reflect the culture.
Alaska is about Eskimos, and nothing more. ---Just like LA is about starlets, not much else.
Thirty years of concerted effort to brand evangelicals as intolerant shot to hell.
It was so much better when we could keep the media on a short leash.
Peter, considering that the USA has more teen pregnancies that virtually any other industrialized nation, maybe you should re-examine your views on sex ed, too.
I do not care if she had never been a governor or mayor. Her resume without the political offices is enough to vote for her. Finally, a person of the type the founding fathers really wanted to run this country
So Peter says even if Palin had never been mayor or governor at all, he'd be willing to make her next in line after a 72 year old to be President, Commander in Chief, and Leader of the Free World!
Because that's what the Founding Fathers would want.
First of all, I don't think George Washington or Thomas Jefferson were plucked out of the blue after being almost complete unknowns to the nation 3 months before they became presidents.
Secondly, America is quite different in 2008. We're involved all over the world. We're the Leader of the Free World. This is not some small, neutral little country like Sweden or whatever.
Thirdly, I've already said it's entirely possible Palin would be a good VP and even a good President. But you apparently don't need to know much before giving her those offices. You'd go with her even without her record as mayor and governor! Just because she is a family values Social Conservative! You couldn't win your own party's primary but you're gonna parachute this unknown person in at the last moment and ask us to not worry if she knows anything at all about the issues facing us on the world's stage.
I'd feel a lot better about Palin if she had entered the Presidential primary race in the GOP and shown us she's fit for command over the last year. Then it would've made a lot more sense for McCain to pick her. McCain's first choice was Lieberman but the religious right said that wasn't allowed because he's pro-choice. So they forced him to pick Palin. Just a few months before the election she is an unknown. Her only comment on record about Iraq policy was that she paid little attention to it but wanted a clear exit strategy and wanted the troops to be taken care of and well-equipped. If anything, her pure, Alaskan wilderness view of Iraq prior to this campaign was more in line with Obama than Bush. Bush didn't treat our troops well or give them adequate equipment. McCain doesn't care about a clear exit strategy; he says we can be there for 100 years.
I think it would be nice if we stop hearing about how perfect Palin is for VP and potentially the Presidency just because she hunts moose and didn't abort a down syndrome baby, and we heard more about what makes her fit to potentially being Commander in Chief. Our current President was pushed by you same folks on the basis of his Christian values and "regular guy" feel. He's wrecked America's reputation and credibility on the world's stage.
The above and this post is LoafingOaf. I'm on someone else's Macbook at the moment......
He's wrecked America's reputation and credibility on the world's stage.
He has? How so. What evidence do you have to show that America's reputation and credibility has been wrecked? Or are you just repeating an untrue statement you heard on TV.
McCain's first choice was Lieberman but the religious right said that wasn't allowed because he's pro-choice. So they forced him to pick Palin.
Aren't you just repeating someone else's opinion. There is no actual evidence that Lieberman was McCain's first choice.
Bush didn't treat our troops well or give them adequate equipment. McCain doesn't care about a clear exit strategy; he says we can be there for 100 years.
What equipment are you talking about? Are you talking about the smart bombs that we used to devestate the enemy when ever they were needed.
Don't you think you are mischaracterizing Mccain when you say he "doesn't care" about an exit strategy? You really think he doesn't care?
He's wrecked America's reputation and credibility on the world's stage.
So what would be different if he had not? Bin Laden would have left us alone, OPEC given us a better deal? 25 million illegal immigrants instead of 20? Please clarify because I really don't give a crap about that, but perhaps there's something I am missing.
I heard Lieberman was the first choice on the Laura Ingraham show this morning. She's in the tank for Palin and was bragging about how they got McCain to pick her. Dodson called in to brag as well.
An example of how Bush wrecked our credibility? When Colin Powel's presentation to the United Nations turned out to be filled with B.S. which the Bush administration presented to the world as solid evidence they had 100% confidence in. At Central Command press conferences, international journalists kept asking General Franks when all the stuff Powell presented would be shown to have been accurate. Franks kept saying just a matter of time. I kept believing him. Then I realized the facts Powell presented to the UN were not facts at all, but guesses.
But I think we should talk about Peter's notion we should go with what the Founding Fathers would want. Wouldn't the Founding Fathers have preferred Obama's position on Iraq to Bush's? Discuss.
Dobson, I mean.
McCain picked Palin to please Dobson. His first choice was Lieberman. It's being reported in the news. Do try and keep up on things.
He's wrecked America's reputation and credibility on the world's stage.
The only people who actually believe that are the far leftists, the KOS kids, MYDD, DU, and Huffingglue, and those who had a bad dining experience from a rude waiter in France.
Wouldn't the Founding Fathers have preferred Obama's position on Iraq to Bush's? Discuss.
Maybe you should read history and what the Founding Fathers said about the type of government, representative government, they had in mind. This government was set up for the common man, notthe lawyers, the elitistists or career politicians.
As to the rest of the world? You seem to think the rest of the world is the UN, that useless body that accomplishes nothing of substance except taking up space on valuable real estate.
The only people who actually believe that are the far leftists, the KOS kids, MYDD, DU, and Huffingglue, and those who had a bad dining experience from a rude waiter in France.
You oughgt to look beyond the partisan blogosphere. Get out into the world and talk to people face to face. Most people believe Bush has severely harmed America's reputation and credibility. The Leftists want him put on trial, but most everyone else want him out of office ASAP and the next Prez to repair the damage. LOL - McCain doesn't even want Bush and Cheney speaking at his convention! Okay, they're doing a lil satellite thingie for Bush before the national network coverage begins. LOLOL! Get that clown Bush off the stage.
And if you think the Founders would have preferred Bush's approach to Iraq over Obama's, you're crazy. I don't even think Ronald Reagan would've chosen Bush's approach over Obama's, let alone our Founding Fathers.
I'm not a fan of the UN at all. But when you make a major presentation in support of military action to the UN, you'd better not present things as proven fascts when they are just blind guesses. Back in the day, it was taken for granted that America had credibility behind their claims to the UN. It's not just Bush who did this harm. Clinton as well. Clinton blew up that medicine factory in Sudan on the flimsiest of evidence. Obama says he will not hesitate to defend this nation but will also ensure that our intelligence that he is acted on is accurate and sound.
This government was set up for the common man, notthe lawyers, the elitistists or career politicians.
Uh huh. So why was the 17th amendment necessary?
-Wouldn't the Founding Fathers have preferred Obama's position on Iraq to Bush's? Discuss.--
Wouldn't the Founding Fathers have been surprised to see wide body jets hitting Independence Hall?
I think they would have treated the situation much like they treated the Barbary Pirates.
MadisonMan said...
"So why was the 17th amendment necessary?"
It wasn't, and it was a ghastly mistake.
I don't think anyone posted a link yet, so here's what Meghan McCain has to say to Bristol.
I heard Lieberman was the first choice on the Laura Ingraham show this morning. She's in the tank for Palin and was bragging about how they got McCain to pick her
That is not evidence, that is Laura's opinion. Everyone knows Laura despises McCain.
When Colin Powel's presentation to the United Nations turned out to be filled with B.S. which the Bush administration presented to the world as solid evidence they had 100% confidence in.
What? All the major players at the UN agreed with Powell's presentation. Even Russia believed through their own intelligence that Iraq had stockpiles of these weapons.
Most people believe Bush has severely harmed America's reputation and credibility. The Leftists want him put on trial, but most everyone else want him out of office ASAP and the next Prez to repair the damage.
Who is "most people?" I think what you mean is that most leftists believe this.
I don't see why this has anything whatsoever to do with sex ed in schools, except in the fevered minds of liberals. Being against sex ed (or a type of sex ed) in schools <> being against sex ed (or a type of sex ed) at home. Since none of us have any idea at all what the Palins taught their kids at home -- they could have instructed them on the proper use of condoms for all we know -- to say this has anything whatsoever to do with sex ed in the schools is, well, idiotic.
My first thought when Palin was announced was that this was going to turn liberals inknots. My second thought was that, well, no it won't because they can contradict themselves six time in a single sentence any time.
Obama says he will not hesitate to defend this nation but will also ensure that our intelligence that he is acted on is accurate and sound.
This is great stuff. So how will the former community organizer ensure that he is acting on accurate and sound evidence. Will he rely on the CIA? Foreign Intelligence Services? Human Rights Watch? Will he conjure up a magic spell to reveal to him whether the evidence is 100% accurate?
No in fact, Obama will do nothing ever. A weakness that our enemies see in him now and will take advantage of if he is elected.
Sloan, re 12:49. Dunlap put it well on that RedStateUpdate video she linked to a few days ago.
Jackie: I like that ole Sarah Palin. I think she's great, yes sir!
Dunlap: You know you can't vote for her without voting for McCain, too.
Jackie: Aww hell. There's always a catch.
it's interesting how the press is so obsessed with bristol's baby..a girl who is not in office nor is running for one. yet, the whole media - except for the natl. inquirer- goes silent on edwards up until his confession.
and what of the outrage and coverage of obama's half brother living in a shack?
in a way, the press is implying that she's white trash (dowd's column is dripping with this).
can hillary just stand up nw and say, "ENOUGH!" and give us a nice speech on gender bias?
Back in the day, it was taken for granted that America had credibility behind their claims to the UN. It's not just Bush who did this harm. Clinton as well. Clinton blew up that medicine factory in Sudan on the flimsiest of evidence.
Back in what day? And who was taking it for granted? This is such bull.
And what about the evidence about Iraq that was correct. It was alleged that Saddam had killed a million of his own people. This turned out to be true as the mass graves were uncovered. It was alleged that Saddam had attached most of his neighbors. This turned out to be true. He attacked Iran, Kuwait, Jordan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, all during his tenure.
What about all the stuff that came out we did not know about, like the fact that Saddam was bribing half the UN
Dunlap put it well on that RedStateUpdate video she linked to a few days ago.
McCain is a moderate, which is why the conservatives dislike him. In contrast, Obama is the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate (at least when he is there).
Sloan, re. conservative dislike for McCain: if Palin and McCain went up against each other, who do you think would win?
I have absolutely no knowledge about wehter Joe Lieberman was McCain's first pick--If he would have done that he would have been a real fool by permitting CT to put a solidly democratic senator in and chipping away and the magic 60 for cloture.
Lieberman is far more important in the Senate than he would have been as VP
LoafingOaf,
The 'world' has always hated the US, with or without Bush.
Notable Exceptions:
England loved you in the 40's
Germany in the 50's
nobody did in the 60's,
South Vietnam was at least polite for the first half of the 70's;
80's . . . again nobody
Kuwait in the 90's
and again, nobody in the 2000's
Oh, oh I forgot- Iran loved you in the late 1970's, everyone loved Carter.
To the bozos who refuse to assign guilt to Kos for the outrageous diaries posted by other authors:
ArcXiX's diaries, including the most vicious one about the alleged pregnancy coverup, have been deleted. Same with everything else he posted. So apparently Kos agrees with those of us who think high-profile diary entries do reflect poorly on the entire blog.
This isn't the first time this has happened, by the way. That is, Kos and/or his editors delete offensive editorials all the time.
So let's cut the crap about the claims that the most trafficked blog in the world was innocent here. They could have done this quite some time ago.
So let's cut the crap about the claims that the most trafficked blog in the world was innocent here. They could have done this quite some time ago.
Or maybe just never allowed it to happen in the first place?
Ruth Anne, what wise words. And so very true.
I wouldn't go that far, vbspurs. I don't think you can outright prevent a diary like that from getting posted unless you're willing to moderate every single one. I don't think that's practical. But I do think it is practical for them to be a bit more quick on the kill switch when their moderation inbox fills up.
Or maybe just never allowed it to happen in the first place?
Ooh great idea. Censor people!
A better idea is not to react to preposterous postings. Now, I should try to follow that advice :)
Sloan: Back in what day? And who was taking it for granted? This is such bull.
Yes, back in the day.
For example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, here's something they may have mentioned to you in school, from Wikipedia's Adlai Stevenson entry:
His most famous moment came on October 25, 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis, when he gave a presentation at an emergency session of the Security Council. He forcefully asked the Soviet representative, Valerian Zorin, if his country was installing missiles in Cuba, punctuated with the famous demand "Don't wait for the translation, answer 'yes' or 'no'!" Following Zorin's refusal to answer the abrupt question, Stevenson retorted, "I am prepared to wait for my answer until Hell freezes over." In a diplomatic coup, Stevenson then showed photographs that proved the existence of missiles in Cuba, just after the Soviet ambassador had implied they did not exist.
High drama in the UN, and are credibility came out enhanced while our enemy's credibility was in ruins.
It's too bad that the world will no longer trust our claims to the UN even when we have satellite images to present and the like. At least not till the Bush administration is long behind us and the demage to our reputation is repaired.
If you think it doesn't matter whether our not the world community believes we have credibility when we present evidence about what an enemy is up to, you're nuts!
Ann wrote:
And the husband-to-be is gorgeous.
That photo is just driving some liberals insane, I know it. A hockey player with a MULLET!
(Snobs or people who want to belittle others as podunk, go for the hair first. Never fails)
I can hear them saying that with Sarah Palin's retro-vibe, and the mullet, this family are just too old-fashioned and worst yet, unfashionable, for words.
In the Holy Elitist Liberal cannon, there is nothing worse than being unfashionable. Every NYC journalist is thinking, "not knowing hoochi-hoops and mullets went out with Reagan should be punishable by a trip to Applebee's on Mother's Day".
Cheers,
Victoria
But I do think it is practical for them to be a bit more quick on the kill switch when their moderation inbox fills up.
You're right, MCG. I take my exact wording back.
What I should've meant is that Daily Kos attracts a very specific kind of person to its site. They should be on guard for that, and nip a reprehensible diary in the bud.
E.G.:
Recently, they allowed a diary to go ahead, purportedly by a right-winger -- probably a Paleo-Conservative like the anti-semitic Pat Buchanan.
It explained how Jews control the world (including claiming that the Mossad killed JFK).
Kos attracts these kooks, anti-semites, conspiracists in amazing numbers, and THEY allow it to happen because of their traffic.
Surely, they cannot think this makes them look good to rational people.
And I for one do not confuse Democrats with all moonbats.
What thread is Simon in? He kept claiming people were lying when they said McCain did not vet Palin very thoroughly and didn't stop saying this when he posted his campaign propaganda. The NY Times is currently reporting that SImon was wrong so he should stop with his misinformation.
NY Times: A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice. The campaign was still calling Republican operatives as late as Sunday night asking them to go to Alaska to deal with the unexpected candidacy of Ms. Palin.
Can Simon please stop calling people liars about this now?
Ooh great idea. Censor people!
A better idea is not to react to preposterous postings. Now, I should try to follow that advice :)
I think a site as influential as DailyKos does have an interest in shaping its image. And just about any political coalition is going to have its kooks that they want to keep locked in the attic. I think it's important to communicate that they may agree with us on issues A-C, but their views on D are so wrong we cannot be seen as tacitly endorsing them by allowing it to be aired here. Let them get their own site.
Removing controversial diaries from DailyKos is commonplace.
So let's cut the crap about the claims that the most trafficked blog in the world was innocent here.
Yeah, they screwed up big time.
I phrased that poorly. Simon thought posting his campaign propaganda meant we all had to back off with our opinions that McCain didn't vet Palin very thoroughly. The facts are emerging and they do not support Simon's claims.
LoafingOaf, you're such an idiot. The people quoted in that article are Palin's political enemies.And she's made quite a few of them. (link)
Besides, you weren't claiming that McCain failed to vet her thoroughly. You claimed he didn't vet her period. That is, of course, a lie, which means you are a liar.
Whether or not he did so thoroughly is a matter of opinion. But according to this AP article, she did receive their full vetting process. In fact, one of the first things she disclosed was her daughter's pregnancy. They knew about her husband's DUI arrest, info about Troopergate, even her citation for fishing without a license.
You and AlphaLiberal ought to go out. You'd get along well recycling liberal talking points that are easily refuted.
To Hear Dem Talk
A baby is a blemish,
An inconvenient mass of protoplasm,
And it's a snap to make it vanish --
'Twixt Dems and decency's a chasm.
McCain says Palin was thoroughly checked
LoafingOaf said...
"What thread is Simon in? He kept claiming people were lying when they said McCain did not vet Palin very thoroughly and didn't stop saying this when he posted his campaign propaganda. The NY Times is currently reporting that SImon was wrong so he should stop with his misinformation."
Let's get this right: after a weekend of openly shilling for Obama and waging an undisguised smear campaign against Palin, the New York Times, the house organ of the Democratic Party and the Barack Obama campaign, posts a thinly-supported claim (source: "[a] Republican with ties to the campaign") that harmonizes with a meme being pushed by surrogates for and supporters of Obama and you think that shows that I'm wrong? Are you kidding? Did you just space out and ignore how that rag behaved this weekend?
Like all America haters El Presidente revels in the fact that the "world," that is, jealous nations and their people, hates "you."
Always good to be reminded by dreck that we're hated by dreck.
Here's a blog post claiming in May that Arthur Culvahouse, McCain's chief vetter, was spotted in Alaska. (link) The date of that post was May 29th; Culvahouse was selected only 1-2 weeks earlier.
But, LoafingOaf would rather believe a slippery NY TImes article where Palin's own political enemies are quoted wondering why nobody ever spoke with them.
It’s a great day when The Palins and McCains both agree that women do have the right to choose.
Beldar, thanks for your review of the Palin bio! I am going in search of, today.
Cheers,
Victoria
OK, gophermommy, let's see how you actually support that clever little line.
Here's a blog post claiming in May that Arthur Culvahouse, McCain's chief vetter, was spotted in Alaska. (link) The date of that post was May 29th; Culvahouse was selected only 1-2 weeks earlier.
Not just Wizbang reported on 29 May, but I posted a blog on it too on that day.
How did who behave this weekend? At first I thought it was a big ugly that various bloggers and news sources were speculating about Palin's daughter, but it turned out they were right that she appeared pregnant. I find it odd that this wasn't mentioned by the McCain staff the day they introduced Palin to America. It would've spared the Palin family a lot of rumors over the weekend when people noticed her daughter looked pregnant and was wearing an engagement ring. McCain tells us he knew of all this before he picked her, so why not just say in passing, "And her lovely daughter is engaged to marry the father of the baby she's carrying."
As it happened, it only took about a day or so of rumor-mongering and speculations to get to the truth about the Palin family. But McCain would've made it easier on all if he had just mentioned this from day one.
What no one seems to be talking about is the affect this massive wave of partisan denunciation and disgusting insuation, overwhelming nationwide publicity, and highly politicized television programs cloaked as "public education" will have on the thousands of teen-aged girls who will over the course of the next year find themselves in the same position as Bristol Palin.
How did who behave this weekend? At first I thought it was a big ugly that various bloggers and news sources were speculating about Palin's daughter, but it turned out they were right that she appeared pregnant.
Actually, the "deep analysis" done by the Daily Kos blogger, in which he scrutinized a picture of Bristol Palin, suffered from one serious flaw: it was taken before she was pregnant.
McCain tells us he knew of all this before he picked her, so why not just say in passing, "And her lovely daughter is engaged to marry the father of the baby she's carrying."
Obviously in hindsight it would have been better to mention it on the first day. Perhaps it was going to be addressed soon, say at the convention. But I (no surprise) am willing to excuse McCain and Palin for not expecting the kind of bottom-feeding frenzy that followed.
It's important to point out that the rumors of the Trig pregnancy fakery are independent of Bristol's pregnancy. They were actually circulated in Alaska, and refuted, not long after Trig was born.
So let's be clear. ArcX1X was not picking up on some "baby bump" and expanding it out to a big conspiracy regarding Trig. He was recycling an already-refuted lie.
I never said she was never vetted at all. I asked facetiously, "Did McCain vet her AT ALL?!" Your taking something too literally does not make me a "liar." The claim of those of us disturbed by McCain's reckless judgment in choosing Palin - on an apparent whim while under pressure from the Religious Right - is that she was minimally vetted. Simon running around telling everyone they're not allowed to claim Palin wasn't thoroughly vetted because MCCAIN says she was...now that's a joke. The woman was obviously not very well vetted and the New York Times has a story with quotes from people in the know that confirms this.
I never said she was never vetted at all. I asked facetiously, "Did McCain vet her AT ALL?!"
Bullshit. I remember that particular instance. But you said it far more times than that.
The woman was obviously not very well vetted and the New York Times has a story with quotes from people in the know that confirms this.
If you can't recognize a shoddy piece of reporting that's your problem. It certainly doesn't make it fact.
Whether anyone believes it or not (I think my posts in recent weeks would confirm it, but I'm usually such a minimal participant here I wouldn't expect anyone to recall) but I was leaning towards McCain as recently as during the Obama convention. I'm just shocked and baffled (and angry) that McCain is playing so recklessly with the fate of this nation, thus my outburst this past weekend. Palin had better turn out to be fully prepared to be Commander in Chief or I will have lost respect for McCain. He VOWED he'd pick a running mate who would be credible as Commander in Chief from Day One. We're talking about running a superpower in wartime here, folks. I'm not gonna gamble on Palin just cuz she didn't abort a downs syndrome baby. It's also clear that the Religious Right views this pick as a takeover of the Party without even having to win in the primaries. Okay, well, I always thought Obama had a lot of plusses and I guess I'll vote for him.
The furthest I went was when I wondered if it was true McCain had only met with her once or twice.
Re: Jamie Lynne Spears. I'm not sure if this headline is supposed to be facetious or not.
My answer, for reasons noted above, is no.
Obviously in hindsight it would have been better to mention it on the first day. Perhaps it was going to be addressed soon, say at the convention.
So you believe McCain knew about it last week? Well I wonder.
Of course you "wonder", because you are more than happy to discount anything not propagated by the NY Times. Do you actually think he didn't know about it in Dayton? Come on.
Obama deserves your vote.
Perhaps LOaf could explain the mechanism whereby the president "gives" equipment to the military.
And ricpic, don't forget a baby is also "punishment"! The One said so himself.
Sorry, that's not fair. You don't just believe the NY Times, you take Andrew Sullivan as gospel too.
ArcXiX's diaries, including the most vicious one about the alleged pregnancy coverup, have been deleted.
...
They could have done this quite some time ago.
How sure are you? The "Desperate Housewives" story was blogged on Saturday of the last three-day weekend of the summer. The candidate was announced on Friday, then mentioned her impending grandchild on Monday.
Some people have lives and go away for that weekend. Other people give the computer a rest. Moderating a high volume blog is a chore even on a workday.
"In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?"
- Barack Obama
The Democratic nominee appears to be following his own statement in this regard, why aren't his supporters? Or do really believe anything he says?
Oh, I don't know, the editors of the most heavily trafficked blog on the planet, in the middle of convention season, after a bombshell of a VP announcement. Hmm. Seems like a good time to be on task.
But joe, Obama is history in the making. The son of a black man from Kenya and a white man from Kansas!
Madison Man @ 2:55: This election just keeps getting weirder. Lindsay Lohan is making sense! What's next, Paris Hilton talking about energy policy?
Moderating a high volume blog is a chore even on a workday
Oh, for Heaven's sake, I realize this is the internet and we can all say or make up anything we want, but do yourself a favor and check around before mouthing off. If you did, you'd find this. Finding THAT took me 12 seconds.
mcg - "We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby..."
Uh, yeah. So? You seem to be unable to differentiate between the legal "right to choose" and the simple existence of choice.
Legal seems to be what they're talking about.
Let me rephrase. Are you suggesting that McCain, Palin, or for that matter any pro-lifer would deny that it is legally possible to obtain an abortion today?
BTW, out of curiosity, I checked Alaska abortion law and a woman of 17 years of age does not require a parent's consent to obtain an abortion. But even if she were under 17, the parental consent law on the books has been enjoined by the courts, likely because there isn't sufficient judicial bypass.
MCG, these folks would deny that the sun rises in the east if they thought they could score a point on Sarah Palin by doing so.
You are right, Simon.
Incidentally: November 3, 2007: Alaska Supreme Court class Parental Consent Act unconstitutional. 10 bucks sez a lefty blog has already seen this and said that Bristol's pregnancy is Sarah Palin's punishment.
Associated Press - November 3, 2007 12:36 AM ET
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) - The Alaska Supreme Court ruled Friday that girls 16 and younger do not have to obtain parental consent to receive an abortion.
The Alaska Legislature passed the state's Parental Consent Act in 1997. In a 3-2 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the law infringes on the girl's rights to reproductive freedom.
Gov. Sarah Palin called the decision "outrageous."
She said the Supreme Court "failed Alaska by separating parents from their children during such a critical decision."
Palin has asked Attorney General Talis Colberg to file a petition for a rehearing.
Here is a rebuttal to the NYT story LoafingOaf cites.
Let me rephrase. Are you suggesting that McCain, Palin, or for that matter any pro-lifer would deny that it is legally possible to obtain an abortion today?
No. My point is, is that their daughters are in a position to 'make a decision' or choose, because it is legal. McCain and Palin's position, as I understand it, would not, if law.
Yes, of course. But there's no contradiction here. They're proud of her making the right choice in the face of a legal structure and societal forces that push against it. Their pride is not inconsistent with a desire to alter said conditions.
Besides, even in a more pro-life legal environment, choice still exists: keeping the baby versus giving it up for adoption. Under that scenario they could express pride if Bristol decided to keep the baby.
I for one hope the libtards continue to beat the oh-so-open-minded-and-tolerant drum that your daughter getting knocked up automatically disqualifies you from the Vice Presidency.
Come November, a wave of unplanned Grandmothers will go to the polls and prove them wrong.
Simon, thanks for the link. To me the most interesting tidbit is that the vetting team actually looked into the fake pregnancy rumor.
But of course, Simon, you know LoafingOaf isn't going to believe that information, because it hasn't been, um, filtered by the New York TImes.
They're proud of her making the right choice in the face of a legal structure and societal forces that push against it.
'Right' is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. Each situation is unique. Right for one is not necessarily right, for the next.
Well now you're basically leading into a standard pro/anti-abortion debate. I'll pass---and stick to the original point: that their statement of "pride" in Bristol's decision is not inconsistent with their pro-life views.
'Right' is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak.
Christians don't think so.
No need to bring that into it. For one thing, not all pro-lifers are Christians. And furthermore, nobody, including so-called pro-choicers, believes that "what's right depends on the person" is true in every situation. For instance, if someone was claiming it was "right for them" to murder their 5-year-old child, we might hear some disagreement.
"Candidates' families are off-limits" B.H. Obama"
He waited almost two days, just enough time for the damge to get done and HE DID NOT APOLOGIZE for the actions of HIS supporters. He knew wxactly what he was doing and it was wrong. Two days of filth and he just smirked and said nothing. That is the man you want to be president?
HE DID NOT APOLOGIZE for the actions of HIS supporters.
If this is the new standard, McCain will have no time to campaign once he gets done apologizing for what appears on right-wing blogs.
I actually have to agree. There are far too many nutjobs out there to expect the candidates to be responsible for their conduct to that level. I would have preferred a swifter condemnation on Obama's part, perhaps. But honestly what he did say was, in my view, honorable.
It's also interesting to note that Biden says that Palin is qualified to be VP. That's gonna make for a good extension to that McCain that uses Biden's quotes about Obama and McCain.
stick to the original point: that their statement of "pride" in Bristol's decision is not inconsistent with their pro-life views.
What would be inconsistent is if they were not to afford this decision to others.
Nonsense---and already addressed in my 5:03 post.
It's not "liberals" and "democrats" who are having a field day with this and pretending it is makes you look stupid.
America loves drama, deal with it.
Ahhh another faux feminist sacrifices the principles of feminism for political drama--very nicely done dear
"stick to the original point: that their statement of "pride" in Bristol's decision is not inconsistent with their pro-life views."
What would be inconsistent is if they were not to afford this decision to others.
I lost my wallet. A guy found it and returned it to me. I praised the guy for doing this.
But it turns out I was wrong to praise him. See, even though he returned the wallet instead of stealing it, I personally don't support the right to steal wallets. That means I can't praise people who don't steal them... apparently.
At the risk of repeating myself, having previously posted this elsewhere, I really don't think Obama could have made any kind of public statement before he did -- that is, before the announcement of Palin's daughter's pregnancy. If he had tried to quell the rumors while they were still swirling around before the public statement, he would have been accused of pretending to denounce the rumors in order to spread them. And anything he said WOULD have helped to spread them, whether he wanted to or not. I think he timed it right, and I think he was sincere. (And I am not otherwise a fan of his.)
What does it say about Ms. Palin's judgment that when she knew she would be sacrificing her daughter's privacy to media that she would foresake her kid for the job? She knew full well that there would be a focus on Bristol and she had a choice between running for VP or shielding her daughter she chose running. Ahhh judgment, where art thou?
What does it say about Barack Obama and Joe Biden? How about all the other men who run for public office?
I would actually guess that Sarah Palin has confidence in her children.
* * *
Incidentally, for those on the meme of abstinence sex-ed, it should be pointed out that Bristol and her boyfriend had modern "middle of the road" sex-ed courses.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন