Everything I Can Think of to Say About Sarah Palin
Give the Mayberry Machiavellis running McCain’s campaign credit: They’re willing to go for it. They play the game with gusto.
Sarah Palin, based on the little bit of video I’ve watched, is fairly bright. Like Obama and Biden (but very much unlike the current iteration of McCain) she can speak in front of the camera without cue cards. She’s inexperienced, yes, but she has the potential to surprise anyone in the Obama campaign who assumes she’s going to be a pushover, and that all they have to do is point and laugh in order to make the case that she has no business being McCain’s veep.
Yes, she’s got that “troopergate” scandal hanging around. Yes, she’s outside the mainstream in terms of her views about teaching Intelligent Design in public school science classes and denying abortions even in cases of rape and incest. Yes, she apparently doesn’t know jack about all those serious foreign-policy issues that the McCain campaign has been claiming Obama doesn’t know enough about.
None of which really matters. She’s only the veep. This country’s voters were willing to put Dan Quayle a heartbeat away. Don’t tell me a sharp, cute, former state-champion point guard can’t clear that bar. She can.
What the Palin selection is about is just this: Changing the subject. When I walked into work on Friday, the day after Obama arguably destroyed the McCain campaign on the last night of the Democratic Convention, no one was talking about Obama. Everyone was talking about Sarah Palin.
Mission accomplished.
Even if it comes out, as seems likely, that Palin has lied publicly about her role in the troopergate thing, and her role in the repurposing of the Bridge to Nowhere funds, and even if she commits a headline-grabbing gaffe every day from now until November 4, she’s a win from a political standpoint. Because she’s changing the subject.
As long as we’re all watching and listening to and talking about Sarah Palin, we’re not talking about the slam-dunk case Obama made against McCain Thursday night. We’re not talking about how McCain represents a continuation of the Bush presidency. It’s style over substance: See? I’m willing to choose a hot little firecracker like Sarah Palin as my veep. I’m not a stuffy old dude who has sold out his principles to ally himself with the forces of darkness in a last, desperate grab for the brass ring. I’m a maverick. I’m different. People are talking about me. (Well, about her.)
Not about that other guy.
I’d like to think it’s not going to work. I’d like to think Obama is too smart to fall into the trap of talking about Sarah Palin’s lack of qualifications.
Do you remember the vice presidential debate when Lloyd Bentsen absolutely eviscerated Dan Quayle with that “you’re no Jack Kennedy” line? Here it is in case you’ve forgotten:
All you Obama supporters who are gleeful at the prospect of going after Sarah Palin, watch that clip. You’re not going to get anything better than that. (Actually, you’re not going to get even that. Sarah Palin is no Dan Quayle.) And then remind yourself who won that election.
Do not be distracted by Sarah Palin. She’s a sideshow. She’s a misdirection. She’s a wave of the magician’s hand to get you to look right while he’s loading up his sleeve on your left.
I’d like to think the trick isn’t going to work. But I’ve got grudging admiration for the people who tried it.
August 30th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Obama responds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV_uryFRPjY
Are you better off than you were 8 years ago?
well the richest 0.1% of Americans sure are, and will be doing even better under the McBush plan:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
hey rich folks! There is a war going on right? Time to pony up.
I would gladly pay more taxes to go back to the growth I enjoyed under the Clinton years. It would more than make up for it. Question is whether we can make up for the losses from the w years.
My wife laughed when she told me it was some beauty queen lightweight from Alaska with corruption problems. Puma is nothing but a distraction and a sop to the pumas (who should take one look and also laugh (a virulently anti-choice beauty queen lightweight? that is your replacement for HRC? it is to laugh).
August 30th, 2008 at 11:25 am
lil ‘freudian’ slip there, I meant “Palin is nothing but a distraction”
August 30th, 2008 at 11:39 am
if you have not already please send “everything i can think of to say about sarah palin” to the obama campaign.
August 31st, 2008 at 4:39 am
I have never thought a vice president selection helped a candidate get elected as much as people give it credit. Sure there have been examples where it made a difference, Kennedy-Johnson for instance. Also, it was just less than two days ago I was listening to Mike Rosen and Jonathan Last discussing the pronunciation of Palin’s name, so she is quite an unknown quantity. Time will tell, but while I was watching her on Friday I kept thinking, do we have the ticket reversed like we did with Ford-Reagan? Unless she is only good “off the cuff” when she is being asked questions she has been prepared for like J.C. Watts (or Obama for that matter) I think we may have just met our first woman president, 2012.
August 31st, 2008 at 6:47 am
While it might be interesting to see her come back and run for president in 2012, the motives for McCain’s pick of her as VP this go around are so transparent as to only be interpreted as an act of desperation. I find it extremely insulting that he thinks he can use this woman as a prop stand-in for Hillary, and can’t believe it will really change the mind of any voter still on the fence.
One question of mine is: what is this mother of five thinking, when she has a four month old baby with special needs to take care of? I myself am the proud father of a preemie, born at just 30 weeks. He spent the first two months in the hospital, and the first year of his life was the hardest time in Mr. and Mrs. Sven’s life. We both took a lot of time off work, and drastically reduced our working hours. Neither of us could have imagined starting a new, extremely demanding job at that time. Anyhow, our son just started Kindergarten this year, and thankfully is as normal as can be, and one of the taller boys in his class. We’ve never been prouder.
Sarah Palin’s newborn son Trig has Downs-Syndrome, in addition to being a preemie. And she wants to start campaigning for the toughest job in the land now? I’d say wait till her baby is a few years older, perhaps 2012 if she’s serious, then come on back. But I guess she has different family values than I do.
August 31st, 2008 at 7:56 am
First female president, seriously?
August 31st, 2008 at 8:34 am
There was a governor of a big state that used to be an actor that gave a speech and became a two time president, there was a senator from Illinois that gave a speech and now quite likely will become president, it’s not like I’m predicting the Rockies winning the World Series. I am predicting this with as many disclaimers as a release form for a bungee jump, I have about 3 minutes of taped interviews to go off of. It’s hard to tell from what we have seen what she’s made of, how scripted was Friday? Did she get lucky and was only asked questions she had prepared for? Was the press caught off guard? And will she crack under pressure when they have time to prepare? We’ll see, but I was shocked that such a person out alone a woman existed in the Republican party.
Sven, glad to hear the boy turned out great, we were never confronted with those kinds of challenges, I’m not sure I would be up to it.
I think you are absolutely right this is an act of desperation, I would prefer to think of it as brilliant strategy, but the reasons and end result is the same. If a driver has been running in 8th place all day and he short pits or only takes two tires late in a race, then goes on to win, was that desperation, you bet, was it brilliant strategy? Turns out it was, of course he could try the same thing next week and get shuffled back to 18th before the end of the race. Then it wouldn’t be quite so brilliant.
McCain has been behind all through this race, Obama’s past and lack of details (lofty dreams only get you so far) allowed McCain to pull to his rear bumper, even nose ahead briefly, but even if everything goes great for McCain and everything just goes average for Obama, McCain will be probably be golfing in Arizona when Obama places his hand on a bible. Had Obama picked Hillary, McCain probably would have picked someone else because it would seem he was playing catch up. This was a gutsy and brilliant tactical move but it won’t last until the election, maybe a week or two after the convention and then all four candidates will have to stand on their own as people, not black, old, or woman, it’s going to be fun.
August 31st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
… and then in a queer twist of fate a hurricane 1100 miles away steals the Palin story from the Republicans…
August 31st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
After your 16th August post about McCain’s “Shortness and Bad Clothes,” I’m disappointed you missed the obvious. Of all the (appropriate?) Republicans, Palin was not only the prettiest — it’s OK to say it, pretty goes a long way — but also the shortest. Now, at a short podium McCain looks, forget 5’9″, 6′ tall next to his running mate. Running mate? Given his marital history, it might even give the tabloids something to run with. J. Edgar Hoover would be proud.
August 31st, 2008 at 4:00 pm
lol, good ‘ol shcb has an analogy for everything. That’s awesome.
August 31st, 2008 at 7:44 pm
What a sideshow (jbc’s words) that Palin woman is shaping up to be! Wow! She might just be the biggest liability McCain never dreamed of – only matched by what it says about his incompetence in choosing her as a running mate.
Having belatedly looked at what people are saying about this Sarah Palin uber-conservative, I got two questions.
First, why does she have an 80% approval rating yet 87% of Alaskans think she is lying through her teeth about Troopergate? (What is troopergate anyway? That doesn’t count, it’s rhetorical.) I guess Alaskans like liars; wonder if it will go over as well on the campaign trail? (That was rhetorical too.)
Second, isn’t it incredible that she was able to wait until in her seventh month before announcing she was having a baby and that no-one believed her, even her office staff? I mean jogging, no change in slim fitting clothes, long airline trips just before the birth with nary a concern, my it was a magical event. I’ve never heard nor seen a slim woman who became seven or eight months pregnant and didn’t show a significant change in her body. Maybe republicans reproduce differently, as in having “proxy” mom’s in order to hide the “shame” of teenage pregnancies. Quite the soap-opera sideshow brewing here in McCain’s camp… http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223 Does this get swept under the carpet or do we get to find out if the claims are true or not?
August 31st, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Republicans really aren’t human, we come from a galaxy far, far away. (cue music).
Isn’t that about the same percentage of Democrats that were saying boinking an intern in the oval office was a private matter?
NL, thanks, I didn’t know how many Nascar fans there would be here so I added the two tire change, I figured the short pit comment would confuse them :-)
But seriously folks, I saw a tiny bit of an interview with her where she was talking about revenue sharing for oil in Alaska, it sounded similar to what you guys were talking about in Canada, the minerals belong to the people. Except they all get a check. She was discussing the balance of working with the oil companies and protecting the rights of the Alaskans, making sure they get their fair share. I didn’t see enough of it to know if she personally approved of this arrangement or if she was trying to get more out of the oil companies because it was her duty since the mineral rights belonging to the people is in the state constitution. It may be interesting and on you tube. I don’t have anything else to go on, I don’t know what show it was on or anything. If you find it be careful it is long enough, I can see it being taken out of context by either side, it was that sort of interview.
September 1st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
None of the last few days’ Palin news changes my basic opinion about her selection and its impacts on the campaign. Even if she ends up being dumped, Harriet Miers-like, and replaced by some boring old white dude, she will have served her purpose: demonstrating McCain’s gender-sensitivity, and (mostly) making everyone forget about the fact that McCain has lost the argument with Obama, and has nothing to say in response.
September 1st, 2008 at 4:11 pm
jbc – no one can touch your opinion, Palin served (or serves) a purpose. Obama’s argument’s superiority is duly noted here (and as you suggest it is likely forgotten elsewhere.)
And that last internet rumour seems to have been put to rest fast:
So if she was pregnant then we are left with her reckless and dangerous (for her baby) decision to take the long flight from Texas to Alaska while she expected an imminent birth (she said her water had broken or something like that.)
Hmmm, reckless and endangering other people’s lives, sounds like a perfect match for the federal Republican party.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/orl-sarah-palin-daughter-pregnant-090108%2C0%2C1807659.story
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:59 am
funny, that KOS article seems to have been removed. I wonder if an apology was issued :-)
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:09 am
Palin’s special purpose: she is shorter than McCain (I noticed this in some campaign photos). And stepping on the Obama bounce. But it is just more slime.
Another thing I notice from the campaign coverage so far: McCain’s adopted daughter is no where to be found. The daughter Rove n Co slimed as being an illegitimate black love child.
as to dkos, most wingers just don’t understand how a people driven opinion site works. Markos isn’t in some high tower (or low dungeon depending on your point of view) pulling the levers and spell checking every post or diary. The story is still relevant: either she was hiding her daughter’s first pregnancy (doubtful and silly really, but quite possible) or she is a complete reckless fool for getting on a plane at all in her last weeks of pregnancy. With a downs baby… after her water broke… her fifth child… you can’t ‘hold in’ a baby for very long once labor starts… but she gets on a long flight, gives a speech, flies again (!), then drove to her local doc… all highly unusual. This (far more likely) scenario goes to her (lack of) judgement. You aren’t very smart to get on a long (long) plane ride after your water broke with your 5th child. Very poor judgement. Plus she was head of some pro-Ted Stevens 527! corrupt much?
She just isn’t qualified. End of story, now let us get back to examining the two campaigns, the two (ok, fine, possibly four) prospective leaders and do some creative what-if-ing. Palin is a pathetic gimmick.
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:15 am
I wonder when Palin’s teenage daughter and the father decided to get married? Anyone know? I’m guessing it was right after this story came out. ;)
This whole thing shouldn’t be an issue anyways, I’m just curious.
I know lots of people who had kids and got married in their teens, mind you most of them are divorced now… but not all of them. Some are very happy.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
NL,
You’re right, the issue is not Palin teenage daughter’s pregnancy, or decision to marry. The issue has always been Gov. Parin’s apparent tendancy to lie (i.e. Troopergate) and the teenage pregnancy is none of our business. Except of course if Palin is telling a bigger lie to cover the previous lie (it would be surreal if her daughter wasn’t pregnant now!) I will wait to see if the daughter really is pregnant, I’d say the odds are about 5% that we never see that kid and the child again or they announce a miscarriage or something shortly after the election.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Actually, Enk spelled it out better – if the Governor wasn’t lying about being pregnant then she’s committed what may be a far greater error in endangering the life she was carrying.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:55 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI
omfg – S Palin, the gift that keeps on giving (was she vetted for even an hour for crying out loud?) So her husband is a Secesh (he goes IND in 2002). She addresses the AKIP secessionists in a warm and fuzzy video – as governor! Nothing like cozying up to the radical secessionist elements in society… hmmm where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, the fricking dumbass redneck secessionists in ‘tha Sath’!
wow, in his first Executive Decision McBush really has studied at the feet of his master, gwb. And the whole “this was his decision to spite Karl Rove” (McBush wanted Joe Lieberman, Rove wanted Romney, so he picks Palin). Brilliant misdirection. Now look for the hook and lets close the deal for Nov. Note to Obama: put the R campaign out of its misery, please. Now. What a joke. An incompetent, busted down, corrupt, pathetic joke.
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:52 am
Enky,
This is what Knarly’s link retruns
Then where did it go? I don’t know who markos is or how he operates, but I know how Soros operates and he pays the bills. People driven, everything is people driven, just depends on who is in the driver’s seat.
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:37 am
Yeah, I am going to agree that she was barely vetted after watching that video.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:21 am
So heartthrob Palin was vetted for a single day (fact).
Her husband was part of a secessionist AK party called AKIP until 2002 (fact).
She addressed their convention while governor – ie recently (fact. see you tube link two posts up)
She is under investigation for ‘Troopergate’ (fact).
But your reply is… this is all George Soros’s fault?
Look I’ll take a moment to explain how dKos works. afaik There are writer/reporters/investigators who work with editors to write the opinion pieces that go on the site’s home page. There are also lists of links, some funny, some serious, that are thrown on the home page by the same folks. You can become a member (make up a name and a pswd, done) and write your own diary (basically a mini site within a site that you write) and other folks can read it if they are interested. People also add details or images or information to diaries and stories by submitting them to the author who weighs their content and decides what goes in his or her mini-site. The other half of the viewers role is to comment and recommend or not the diary (or basically any page or comment you see on line). If many people read it, and rec it, then it may be placed in a sidebar of recommended diaries. Conversely if your article is full of bull, expletives, and outright buffoonery, people give you the virtual thumbs down and eventually some admin might come by and either give you a warning to stop the stupidity or have your privileges yanked or content deleted. mb this is automated, tho i doubt it. The point is, people drive what lives or dies on the site. There is plenty of profane crap as anyone can say pretty much anything (as long as it isn’t threats or outright hate speech, but the crowd will censor gibbering trolls pretty quickly). There are plenty of trolls, pumas and posers who come and go.
The Palin story is important. This tyro is a 72 year old heartbeat away from the most difficult job on the planet. It goes to judgement: either she hid her daughter’s pregnancy (doubtful and silly, tho funny) or she lacked the judgement not to fly after her water broke (suspicious but not outside of the realms of the possible – can we see a DNA test please?) She risked her baby’s life and possibly her own for partisan political purposes. I mean how disappointed would the audience have been to hear “sorry the AK gov can’t come tonight, she’s having her baby right now!” awwwwwwwwww
The whole Sesesh thing is just hilarious icing on the sh!t cake that is McBush’s first Executive Decision. Hello? You already have the dumb white guy vote!
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 am
i understand all that, what I want to know is why did they pull the article Knarly linked to after only a day or two.
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:06 am
I viewed it, the pics weren’t convincing, the story not very believable. Maybe they finally had a fax with the paternity test or maybe the comments got out of hand (no! really? ;-) If you wanted you could probably still find it in the google cache or duped on someone else’s site.
The point is she did something highly unusual and downright dumb. Flying in the last month or so is usually not wise for pregnant ladies. Flying on several different flights, making a speech, etc after her water broke… with her Down’s baby… it goes to judgement. Very poor judgement.
No way do we need more rwnjs like this at the wheel. 8 years of dumbya and our country is in seriously bad shape. And McBush’s big foreign policy initiative is to bomb Iran?
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:41 am
The sideshow continues:
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Enky,
…or, Soros had no problem with people on his site spreading malicious rumors as long as they were hurting the other candidate, but when his guy took the high road, he had no choice but to pull those pages because it was going to start to hurt his guy. There is also the aspect of putting it out there and then pulling it back after the rumor takes on a life of its own so later you can say, “we pulled those pages almost immediately after we found out the truth”. Notice Knarly is still parroting what he read there. It’s kind of like an attorney saying something that he knows will be struck down, the judge tells the jury to disregard, but they heard what they heard, it’s still in the back of their head.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
shcb, soros doesn’t own kos
the last good R abolished slavery, remember?
people write the content, not some all powerful liberal billionaire
it still goes to judgement – flying to Alaska after your water broke, a premie, a special needs infant. Every mother I have spoken to thinks this is batsh!t crazy.
Will a October Surprise still work at this point?
So you neocons fake a Iranian attack on a US ship, then what?
Will it be enough? Will you sacrifice a city? Two?
Anything to win seems their motto: expect anything.
September 4th, 2008 at 4:43 am
But that isn’t what the article was about, it was about Palin’s son being her daughter’s, wasn’t it? And yes Soros owned kos just like he owns (owned) Air America, is it still around?
September 4th, 2008 at 8:29 am
shcb,
Wrong. This goes back to my copmlaints about your reading comprehension. The article put forth two alternatives: (1) an accusation that she was pretending to be pregnant and is therefore a liar of the sort unsuitable for the VP position (with a challenge to provide facts to disprove the accusation); or (2) if she was pregnant, her actions immediately prior and shortly after the birth indicated a recklessness and wanton disregard for what should be most precious, the unborn child she was carrying.
The article was good because it presented evidence for the accusations (photo’s and videos which showed no evidence she was pregnant and her actions which were 100% contrary to normal good judgement and accepted doctor’s advice for pregnant women) and invited her to provide some proof that it was actually her son or come clean and admit she was the grandmother. The author caveats that either way i.e. if she does the right thing now and clarifies the matter, it will still indicate her horrendous lack of judgement either for lying originally or for endangering her own baby. A no win situation for Sarah Palin. More important, it is a no win situation of her own making.
The theme of the article was that a person foolish enough to get into such simple “no win” situations is NOT qualified to be VP.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Riiight…. My comprehension is just fine, where I surpass you is that I look beyond what the writer has written. For instance a newspaper article may say scurrilous things in the headlines and the first page they give a balanced view point on the jump page knowing most people won’t get to the jump page. I still haven’t had an answer for if it was so fair, balanced, and truthful why was it pulled? And you two can’t even decide if the photos were conclusive.
The problem with this kind of attack is at some point an insensitive soul will ask this child who his mother really is, ten, twenty years from now? Who knows. And given his disability it will be hard for him to understand. Sad.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:09 am
I don’t think either knarls or myself are claiming it was fair balanced and truthful. It was some investigative photojournalism. Some folks saw one thing, some saw another. It was mostly pics of the gov – who frankly didn’t look very pregnant. She’s a vain person being a beauty contestant and all, so I imagine she might try to hide it, tho older pics of her at 8 and 9 months (with previous children) make her look massive and with clear changes to the fat on her face, breasts and arms, not so much w the most recent ‘pregnancy’.
I saw the pics, I suppose knarls did, but you didn’t. Why is it so incredible that two different people come to two different conclusions? I said the photos were inconclusive. Her actions were odd and at variance with the possibility that she had a real baby in her tummy. For instance, lets just run this hypothetical for a moment (lets give the conspiracy folks the first turn thru the logic machine).
A) she is covering for her knocked up, out of school unmarried teenage daughter (who hasn’t been seen in months).
B) she is pregnant, in Texas, with a downs syndrome fetus and its a premie, her water breaks so she flies 14 hours+ to get home (also stopping to deliver a speech, where is that on youtube?)
A
So gov Palin (wearing some kind of pillow prosthesis?) is in Texas when she hears that her daughter in hiding is going into labor. Gov Palin declares my water has broken! And then heads to the airport (bypassing some of the best hospitals and neonatal care units on the planet). She then flies to Denver (I think?) and then goes someplace and delivers a political speech. Does she then head to the hospital? Nope. She goes back to the airport, back through security, boards another plane and flies to Alaska. Does she go to a hospital in Anchorage? Nope. She hops in her husband’s car and drives almost an hour away to go to her private doctor’s clinic. Gosh a 13 to 14 hour travel day. After your water broke and you are in labor. But no biggee as she wasn’t really carrying the baby. Palin does exactly what one might do if you were carrying a pillow instead of a baby: you avoid any medical care other than ‘your’ doctor, who is also in on the scam. Palin is back at work three days later.
verdict: tricky to pull off, and quite involved, but she certainly makes a bunch of bizarre moves right at the end there that would support theory A, photo evidence is inconclusive
probability: low but no where near zero
B
You are pregnant with your fifth child, a Downs Syndrome child who isn’t full term yet. So you’ve flown in your last month (a big no-no). You are in Texas. In a big city. Your water breaks and labor begins. Instead of heading for the hospital you go to the airport as scheduled, go thru security, board a plane for Denver, take a car to make a speech, make speech, go back to the airport, back thru security, on a much longer plane ride to Anchorage, where you once again don’t go to the hospital instead you drive almost an hour to get to your local clinic and doc. Thankfully after all this the baby is delivered. Palin is back at work three days later.
verdict: taking such stupid risks disqualifies this person to be vice president or president. She could have killed the baby and/or herself. I don’t need someone with such colossally poor judgement a 72 year old heartbeat away from the hardest job on the planet. Photo evidence is inconclusive.
probability: high, but sweet jesus you are a stupid risktaking ignoramus
so
either, A she lied about the whole damn thing (not likely), or B she lacks basic good sense or didn’t give a crap (mb she just prayed extra hard!)
answer: B is the more likely scenario, but neither has been proved conclusively
hence: inconclusive (I think this is what knarls means when he questions your reading level. I am certain that it isn’t stupidity, it is willful wishful ignorance)
September 4th, 2008 at 11:34 am
shcb,
Why was the article pulled? Political pressure, threat of lawsuit, out of loyalty to Obama’s condemnation of involving children in the political fray, or as a gesture of goodwill for the time-being, or other reasons we may never be told? Who knows, and no-one but you seems to care.
I realize that your line of questioning is simply a mis-direction from the central issue which you fail to acknowledge: the bottom line is that Sarah Palin is not fit to be VP. She is either not to be trusted to present the truth when she perceives it to be in her personal interest to lie or she is cavalier about recklessly endangering even her own baby’s life.
Re Reading skills again: Yes, we are aware of your penchant for looking past what is actually written to find the non-existant “narratives” that support your bias.
Misleading headlines are a different subject (and contrary to you conspiracy theory the actual reason for misleading headlines is normally to sensationalize to sell more papers.) Try to keep to the current issue please.
Also wrong again, as Enk and I (and the author for that matter) do agree that the photos and video are not conclusive. It goes to your reading comprehension again. I clearly stated the photos showed no evidence that the Governor was pregnant. That is not being conclusive of anything other than that the photos provided insufficient evidence to part of the claim. Enk did not say the photos and video were conclusive either. So you are wrong on yet another point and use that erroneous conclusion (that Enk and I don’t agree when in fact we do) in a condescending final sentence.
Finally (and with all the irony of Condi Rice stating Russia could pull out of Georgia as fast as they went in while American troops languish in Iraq long after their original mission(s) were accomplished) you play the sympathy card about the poor baby never knowing for sure who the mother actually is. Low reading comprehension at play again, for the article’s author raised this same point in admonishing Sarah Palin to either provide proof that she is the real mother or, given the suspicion (raised by her own reckless actions during the supposed pregnancy and no visual public record – video or pictures – that she was in fact pregnant) admit that the real mother is Bristol Palin.
The Governor’s recent statment that Bristol is pregnant shifted the balance of probablities to about 20 or 40 to 1 that Trig is Sarah’s daughter, the remaining uncertanty could be lifted if there evolves a verifiable public record that the timeline of Bristol’s recent pregnancy negates the remaining doubt.
Quite a sideshow for a VP pick isn’t it?
At least we are pretty sure of the answer to the question in the article’s main theme: Governor Palin is an incredibly poor choice for VP because of her demonstrated poor judgement and confused priorities where she has actually endangered her own baby’s life for her own political ambitions.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:40 am
shcb, I take back my comments about reading comprehension if, as Enk says, you never actually read the article. That would make sense.
September 4th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
No, I didn’t read it when you first posted it, by the time I got to it had been pulled. If your reading skills were better you would have known that :-)
I imagine it was pulled at the request of Obama, and that’s fine. My intention isn’t a misdirection, my intention is to discredit your sources, I may succeed or I may fail in that endeavor, but that is my intention. You see in the old days of ethical journalism there would be some proof, hospital records, something, before legitimate journalists would print something this damaging to innocent folks. There was a code of honor. We expected this kind of thing from the tabloids, that was their business, so we generally ignored them. Now some blogger in his pajamas thumbs through a few photos of Palin, changes the captions, posts it on a site saying this is her when she was 8 months pregnant and bam! We’re off and running. The previously legitimate media on a good day reports that there is story out there saying Palin is the grandmother, on a bad day they just say she is the grandmother.
Who knows, you may be right she may be the grandmother, but it’s up to the journalist to give some legitimate proof. If someone like Palin had to prove her innocence every time someone made an allegation that is all they would get done. If she showed a picture of herself when she was 8 months pregnant and it showed her to be obviously showing you would say “how do we know this is legitimate? Was this picture from an earlier pregnancy?” but you have no problem believing a picture showing her normal with a caption saying she was 7 month along is legitimate. when you are in her position you just ignore these things as best you can and move on.
And bottom line, I don’t like Soros or anything he is associated with. He is a very bad man.
September 4th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Still trying to change the subject? I read the wiki bio of Soros and can’t fathom why you would think he is “a very bad man” unless you are demonizing him for vehement opposition to the George Bush presidency and promotion of Democratic party ideals. However, even those efforts are dwarfed (in financial terms) by his other investments (in financial terms) and resulting accomplishments in promoting justice, democracy and freedom in the former Soviet Union, throughout Africa and elsewhere. http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros
It is becoming apparent that if you say something is bad, it must be good, and vice versa.
Just to check, I went back and looked at a speech by George Soros from 2004 titled “Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush” Wow. It is chock full of advice, assertions, and predictions many hell damn near all of which have turned out to be true.
Here’s an excerpt
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0928-16.htm
September 4th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
that’s pretty much the reason I don’t like the man’s opinions but I don’t like him because of his nasty methods.
September 4th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
yea, Rove and Cheney’s character attacks and lies are so much nicer;
so you think it is nasty the way Soro’s main method seems to be giving enormous sums of money ($ Billions) to charity and groups seeking a voice in oppressed countries like Thailand and former Soviet states, or , to a far lesser extent, providing funding for legitimate liberal groups in America?
shcb: “nasty” def. = nice
September 4th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Why would I think that? Mother Theresa was criticized because she took money from Noriaga, Sadam gave money to poor Palestinians, $25,000 was the going amount I believe. Bad people sometimes help out the poor, hell, Al Capone was quite generous.
Soros’ MO is to fund these smear merchants through a series of foundations each one getting more and more radical. This insulates him to a certain degree. I also didn’t like the way he helped fund campaign finance reform, again not directly, but he funded groups that funded groups that put out adds supporting campaign finance reform. But before he did, he made sure he had a loophole, the 521C’s. In a queer stroke of irony, the Swift Boat Veterans used this device to defeat his guy. But for all that trouble he got a few months of political ads no one else got.
As far as I know he has never done anything illegal in his political antics, I just don’t like his methods.
September 4th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
In the end I find myself disliking Palin.
September 4th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Jayson – I respect your opinion, wish I could share mine but ironically I haven’t actually looked past the sideshows to see if there is a real decent person underneath. I’m sorry I missed her speech last night, I was expecting a chuckle from it, but was also expecting to be surprised as she couldn’t be Governor and still be as bad as all reports.
I think that her appeasment of Alaskan seccessionists (sp) was political suicide federally, but in contrast to Enk, I think that pragmatically is the way to deal with those people – you have to show them that your side has more to offer Alaskans than what would be achieved through secceeding from the USA.
shcb – you say Soros has prbably done “nothing illegal”: I take that as an admission he’s probably ahead of Rove and Cheney on the morality scale. Has he shot anyone in the face?
I like Soros’ methods, from the little I’ve seen on wiki. Sure criminals can give to charity to look good (cops say the Hell’s Angels are evil despite their teddy bears for charity rides, etc. ) The difference is we’re talking a whole new order of magnitude relative to net worth. Soros has given away something like $6 billion of what was an $11 million pot (look it uop in wiki, I forgot that part as my reading comprehension is not so good these days.)
From the wiki article it sounded like Soros was open about his motives (one of which was to prevent Bush from getting elected again at virtually any cost) and was transparent about how what he was funding would be or would not be affected by campaign finance reforms, and I doubt he was blind-sided by any of that. But to call him a very bad person? His bio is fascinating, he sounds like a genious and it looks like his motives are to create a free and more compassionate world. Maybe you think he is bad because those motives are so contrary to current Republican objectives.
September 4th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
right, so criticizing w and his fellow criminals is nasty
but the swift boat slime balls are aok (gee, partisan much?)
I read that wiki article before you posted it knarls and was also quite impressed with the man, sure he is a financial shark, but isn’t that what you totally free marketeers want right? law of the jungle, victor goes the spoils and all that?
one detail: he helped fund Georgia’s Democratic Revolution, though he says his role has been blown out of proportion
btw – Saddam gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, it wasn’t just some blanket giveaway, it was a cynical ploy to curry favor amongst the downtrodden and rebellious. And yes, yes, Saddam was a bad man. Was it worth 4000 dead Americans? 40000 wounded? several trillion dollars (or more)? How many Iraqi dead? A few hundred thousand? A few million?
Was it worth it?
No.
TIme for a change and McCain is more of the same.