Sarah Palin!

gdnp said:
I think it also rings a bit hollow to say that her family will be there to support her daughter in this difficult time when in fact she will instead be running a state, running for election, and if she wins helping run the government. While simultaneously raising 4 other kids, one of whom is 4 months old and has Down syndrome.
Click to expand...

It doesn't ring hollow to the McCain supporters since McCain garnered $10 million in campaign contributions after the announcement of Palin. That means McCain received $48 million in August to Obama's $51 million.
 
This amused me:

Davis generally dismissed the controversies surrounding McCain's vice presidential pick -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- as a media creation but did acknowledge that her acceptance speech, which seems likely to come tomorrow, is critically important to defining who she is to the American public.​

What a good idea. Unfortunately:

As for the speech itself, Davis said a generic, "masculine" speech was being prepared before the pick was made and, now that Palin is the choice, she is adapting the speech to her own needs and personality.​

I didn't know they did that.

A "masculine" speech, eh?

Let's hope they've removed all references to the candidate's penis.

I wonder if Joe Biden writes his own speeches ... oh, wait ...

Anyway, back to Sarah Palin ... or not, as the case may be:

Davis demurred when asked when Palin will sit for interviews with major news organizations, pointing out that now would not be the right time given the "combative" attitude the media has seemingly adopted toward Palin. Pressed on the issue, Davis insisted that "we allot a lot more access in our campaign than any campaign in modern political history....we'll get around to it."​

So basically all we know about her is this:

* She has over a hundred words for pork.
* Her ex-brother in law once illegally shot a moose.
* Some stuff about a bridge.
* She's probably her own grandmother.
 
Wow, now intrade.com has a specific contract that "Sarah Palin will be withdrawn as VP nominee," and it's up to 15%.

I'll take that bet.
 
headscratcher4 said:
Someone else may have noted this, but I'm not going to read through the whole thread. To me, the strangest, most disturbing thing about Palin (other than McCain thought this was a good pick, that is) that as a mother, she would subject a pregnant teenager to the kind of thing that is now happening to her daughter. In short, she has put her abmition before meeting the needs of this kid...why couldn't she say "no"...and leave it at that...run for the Senate in four years, or even President, but let her daughter get through this ...instead, she has put her daughter right in the media bulls-eye.

I say this as someone who hated Bill Clinton for what seemed to be his overweening selfishness in having his affairs and subjecting his family to the scandal...any politician, male or female, who chooses to subject members of their family to this kind of spotlight are cruel and, I think, dangerous.

I'm not saying she should have gotten out of public life, but she didn't need to be VP at the expense of her poor daughter's dignity and privacy...really sad and bothersom. In the end, it seems to me, it isn't that she is or isn't capable of being VP or Presidnet because of this matter..it is that she would choose to do so at this time that is so despicable...she sacrificed her daughter's dignity and privacy on the alter of her ambition.
Click to expand...

I agree with every single point you have made here. Its the first thing I thought when they said her daughter was pregnant. Her daughter is going to be shredded. If she truly cared about her child and had the wherewithall of a mother she would have refused the position and accepted what "sacrifices as a parent" really means.

If she doesn't care about her own child, then anything she says about caring about the general public is a bunch of crap.
 
headscratcher4 said:
Someone else may have noted this, but I'm not going to read through the whole thread. To me, the strangest, most disturbing thing about Palin (other than McCain thought this was a good pick, that is) that as a mother, she would subject a pregnant teenager to the kind of thing that is now happening to her daughter. In short, she has put her abmition before meeting the needs of this kid...why couldn't she say "no"...and leave it at that...run for the Senate in four years, or even President, but let her daughter get through this ...instead, she has put her daughter right in the media bulls-eye.

I say this as someone who hated Bill Clinton for what seemed to be his overweening selfishness in having his affairs and subjecting his family to the scandal...any politician, male or female, who chooses to subject members of their family to this kind of spotlight are cruel and, I think, dangerous.

I'm not saying she should have gotten out of public life, but she didn't need to be VP at the expense of her poor daughter's dignity and privacy...really sad and bothersom. In the end, it seems to me, it isn't that she is or isn't capable of being VP or Presidnet because of this matter..it is that she would choose to do so at this time that is so despicable...she sacrificed her daughter's dignity and privacy on the alter of her ambition.
Click to expand...

Since when is it shameful for a 17 year-old to have a baby? Obama's mother had him at 18. Liberals are an odd group. They want all manner of sex ed taught in public schools. But if, and when, birth control is used, and it fails, the 17 year-old girl is supposed to get an abortion so as not to be shamed by the very same Libs who said there was no shame in the sex act. Then the libs are outraged that the daughter is not married. If only she worked in Hollywood, the libs would be celebrating her choice to raise a child as a single parent.

For some libs it is always 1955.
 
Cicero said:
Since when is it shameful for a 17 year-old to have a baby?
Click to expand...
Headscratcher, of course, said absolutely no such thing in the post that you are ostensibly replying to.

Obama's mother had him at 18. Liberals are an odd group. They want all manner of sex ed taught in public schools. But if, and when, birth control is used, and it fails, the 17 year-old girl is supposed to get an abortion so as not to be shamed by the very same Libs who said there was no shame in the sex act.
Click to expand...
Nor that.

Then the libs are outraged that the daughter is not married.
Click to expand...
Nor that.

If only she worked in Hollywood, the libs would be celebrating her choice to raise a child as a single parent.

For some libs it is always 1955.
Click to expand...
Nor, if it comes to it, that.

Why did you put your bizarre ravings about "libs" under a quote of headscratcher's post? It's a complete non sequitur.
 
Cicero said:
Since when is it shameful for a 17 year-old to have a baby? Obama's mother had him at 18. Liberals are an odd group. They want all manner of sex ed taught in public schools. But if, and when, birth control is used, and it fails, the 17 year-old girl is supposed to get an abortion so as not to be shamed by the very same Libs who said there was no shame in the sex act. Then the libs are outraged that the daughter is not married. If only she worked in Hollywood, the libs would be celebrating her choice to raise a child as a single parent.

For some libs it is always 1955.
Click to expand...

Wow. where the heck did this come from?

It is evangelical christians who believe that premarital sex is a sin, and thus for a 17 year old to get pregnant is shameful.

I do not recall anyone voicing an opinion of whether Palin's daughter used birth control. Only that Palin has argued for abstinence-only sex education. I also do not recall anyone stating that Palin's daughter should have an abortion. Or anyone stating that raising a child as a single parent is a good idea. Utter fantasy on your part, basically a 3 headed straw man.

It is interesting to speculate what the reaction would have been if Chelsea Clinton had become pregnant at 17. I wonder if the conservatives would be rallying around Bill and Hillary, demanding that this was a personal matter, and denying that her parent's demanding careers hadn't led to them neglecting their parental responsibility. Fat chance.
 
Now it turns out Sarah herself did the nasty and got preggers with Track before she got married. Like mother, like daughter.

This is the gift that keeps on giving.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Headscratcher, of course, said absolutely no such thing in the post that you are ostensibly replying to.

Nor that.

Nor that.

Nor, if it comes to it, that.

Why did you put your bizarre ravings about "libs" under a quote of headscratcher's post? It's a complete non sequitur.
Click to expand...

Well, if there isn't any stigma attached to this 17 year-old having a baby out of wedlock, why would Headscratcher believe her mother placed her daughter in a compromising and undignified position?

The only idiots who have provided the static over this issue are those who parrot the DailyKos talking points. If Republicans are cool with this, the mother is cool and the daughter is cool, the only objections are raised by those of the opposing political party and their minions.

If Palin is such a horrible pick, why are the libs besides themselves with real indignation? Why would they want McCain to chose a VP that would increase his chances of defeating Obama? Unless, of course, they truly beleive that is what he has done.
 
British news is reporting this morning that:

- normal vetting procedures were not followed in Palin's nomination
- McCain only spoke to her twice before picking her
- she may be considering stepping down to stem further embarrassment

What a blunder! How's this playing in the States?
 
Cicero said:
Well, if there isn't any stigma attached to this 17 year-old having a baby out of wedlock, why would Headscratcher believe her mother placed her daughter in a compromising and undignified position?
Click to expand...
I believe that he feels that running as VP should be considered a selfish act insofar as it turns the media spotlight on her daughter in a way that we might well guess is unwelcome. 'Cos that's kinda what he said.

The only idiots who have provided the static over this issue are those who parrot the DailyKos talking points. If Republicans are cool with this, the mother is cool and the daughter is cool, the only objections are raised by those of the opposing political party and their minions.
Click to expand...
I believe his hypothesis is that Bristol is not quite enjoying herself as much right now as if her mother had been content to stay plain ol' Governor of Alaska.

Personally, I don't see much in it, but then I can't read Bristol's mind.

If Palin is such a horrible pick, why are the libs besides themselves with real indignation? Why would they want McCain to chose a VP that would increase his chances of defeating Obama? Unless, of course, they truly beleive that is what he has done.
Click to expand...
As I have remarked, I am not a mindreader, but I believe that people are criticising her because they think that she has faults worthy of criticism. I've noticed that people do that sort of thing.

Does that help clear up your confusion?
 
Last edited:
Dr Adequate said:
... people are criticising her because they think that she has faults worthy of criticism.
Click to expand...

Translation: The liberal media, the DailyKos, and liberal JREFers want to throw out any possible perceived character flaw in the hopes that McCain will be forced to replace her with a man. This will ensure an Obama victory.

Or do you actually beleive that those who feign concern for her pregnant daughter would otherwise be celebrating McCain's VP choice if her daughter were not expecting?
 
SezMe said:
I'd like to come back to the executive experience issue with a thought I had overnight.

Obama has been a candidate for Prez longer than Palin has been governor. In that period, he has built up a campaign organization from scratch, created offices and staffing in every state and at the national level and has managed a budget measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Successfully.

Palin took over the reins of an existing organization with a financial structure already in place and functioning properly. This organization spans just one state with three real towns (Juneau, Anchorage and Fairbanks) and hundreds of little Moosebutt Creeks. The state population is smaller than some congressional districts. The biggest budget problem is what to do with all the money.

Now, tell me who has more executive experience.

As a basis of comparison, consider that each member of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors represents about 2 million people (more than twice the population of Alaska) and each of the five has office and staff budget of about $3 million. These County-level people have far more executive responsibilities than Palin.
Click to expand...

In addition, Palin took over as governor after Frank Murkowski - who was easily the Worst Alaskan Governor Ever.
A big steaming plate of fresh moose dung looks good in comparison to Murkowski.
 
R.Mackey said:
This isn't a fair comparison. Bill Clinton had little practical experience (as has Obama), but he nonetheless campaigned. He presented himself and his ideas. This is no different than giving a job to a wet-behind-the-ears kid out of college solely because of a dynamite job interview -- sometimes, it's worth going for it.

But the VP is selected, and didn't lobby for the job. She's withstood no interview. Her only recommendation, so far, is that of McCain's.

I'm still trying to understand why I should accept his recommendation, and I'm not getting much. Mostly that her interests are consistent with McCain's (agreed), and a scatter of snide comments. It's a serious question.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I see this as apples and oranges.

Yes, Clinton campaigned and put himself before the people before getting elected to the White House but that is now. When he was running, he was in the same spot she is now.

After the election, she will have ahd that opportunity to put her views and polices out there and then you can compare the two.

But if you look at Sarah Palin and Bill CLinton pre election, she has the same level of experience he does except she is not a lawyer.

My point is, compare Clinton to Palin before Clinton was elected, they have the same experience level.

Now Palin has the opportunity to campaign and show herself to the people, it's her job interview, make it a fair one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom