GOP Ticket: McCain | Palin
posted by Bietz on August 29th, 2008
DAYTON, Ohio — John McCain has announced that his running mate for the 2008 Presidential election is Sarah Palin, current governor of Alaska.
From The Guardian:
McCain introduced Palin at a rally in Dayton, Ohio before a crowd of 15,000. He praised her as a woman of “strong principles, fighting spirit and deep compassion”.
“She’s got the grit, integrity, common sense and fierce devotion to the common good that is exactly what we need in Washington today,” McCain said.
Popularity: 10%
no more tag found, sorry
Posted from: 72.193.177.14
August 29th, 2008 11:06
This is an excellent pick by McCain — at a time when we all thought the sexism of the Democratic Party would fade quietly back into the condescension of quotas and false promises, no less. I am very excited.
Posted from: 216.80.149.191
August 29th, 2008 11:14
what an awful pick, considering that talk of mccain’s ability to stay alive is of some significance.
if mccain is to kick the bucket, this is our president? a right wing, anti-abortion, anti-gay, nra-promoting, pro-wildlife refuge oil drilling mother of 5 from alaska?
i’d be a little frightened.
Posted from: 129.115.251.181
August 29th, 2008 11:28
It’s good to see McSame play the female card by picking a running mate that has less experience in government then Obama.
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
August 29th, 2008 11:34
hahahaha I don’t think this is going to fool anyone.
hopefully Obama and other leaders will have the balls to call-out McCain on just choosing this random woman to pick up discontent Hillary supporters.
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
August 29th, 2008 11:37
a couple of random thoughts: (these aren’t necessarily well thought out… just some initial reactions)
1. this could be a pretty cynical pick. believing that upset hillary supporters are going to vote for mccain now just because she is a woman.
2. it also could be strategically smart if you believe there were conservative women who were going to vote for hillary for that reason.
3. if the democrats have shown they are going to go on the offensive (picking biden is step one for that), then picking her is brilliant both perceptually and in reality. She doesn’t have much of a voting record. Perceptually, she will likely contrast biden quite well. The rush to protect women from aggression by men still holds strong. Either O’Biden has to tone down the rhetoric or they risk going too far much quicker in the public eye. There is also a racial (black man/white woman) dynamic that is in play here as well.
4. She is not likely to face the same sexism that hillary faced because she is “fits” the traditional woman role. She isn’t a threat to masculinity like Hillary is/was perceived.
Posted from: 24.165.9.37
August 29th, 2008 11:41
i’m glad mccain picked palin too, because she’s an absolute gift to the democrats. by choosing palin, mccain shore up his standing with disgruntled clinton supporters, dumb women (the type who vote for a candidate because she’s a woman) and maybe help his turnout with social conservatives a little bit. in doing so, he picked a candidate who:
a) will not help mccain leverage either “experience” or “change” against obama;
b) does not have strong economic credentials and will not help mccain in the rust belt (where this election will come down to, and where romney really could have made obama’s life difficult);
c) does not put a contested state (FL, OH, PA, VA) back into the republicans’ hands;
d) will get the living shit beaten out of her in the debates;
e) is under investigation for corruption.
honestly, i thought the republican machine was smarter than this. i wonder what mitt romney thinks.
Posted from: 24.165.9.37
August 29th, 2008 11:42
*maybe helped
Posted from: 67.96.70.200
August 29th, 2008 12:00
At first I was excited for this pick in the same way that I was excited for a potential McCain-Jindal ticket. It is just plain cool that we will finally have a person that isn’t a white male in one of the top 2 positions.
I hope that the Democrats don’t just attack Palin on her lack of experience. The experience/celebrity-candidate debate has been enormously detrimental to Obama. By focusing on Palin’s experience, the Democrats would be completely ball-parking themselves. Last night, Obama tried to shift the debate from ‘who’s experienced’ to ‘who’s right’ and I think he would be wise to continue on with that message.
With Palin, that message is incredibly easy. Palin is anti-choice, anti-environment, and a member of the NRA. She is wrong on all the quintessential ‘women’s’ issues. Of course McCain knows this, and so they will try to emphasize her compelling personal story - and at that point people (Hillary supporters especially?) will realize how vacuous this pick is.
Posted from: 71.104.158.6
August 29th, 2008 12:01
I dont know what the message of the GOP is now.
They are going to have a hell of a time winning either the experience debate OR the change debate.The fact of the matter is that Palin shares basically the same views as McSame, and therefore shares the same views as Bush.
Bush politics with a ponytail and breasts doesn’t add up to change, and I think (hope, at least) that the average american is smart enough to realize that. The concept of “change” is something that transcends identity politics. This is something the Democrats get right and the Republicans get wrong. Barack Obama isn’t an agent of change because he is black, he is an agent of change because he has better ideas than the Republicans. The GOP is not-so-subtlely promoting the superficial message that Palin is an agent for change because she is a woman.
Just something interesting to consider: Sarah Palin was twelve years old when Joe Biden became a senator. Take that, experience debate.
Posted from: 71.104.158.6
August 29th, 2008 12:03
btw, Palin reminds me vaguely of Tina Fey
Posted from: 68.38.86.140
August 29th, 2008 12:13
I find it interesting that mccain picked someone so far right.
Strategically he did this to make the republican party seem more open towards change however I don’t really think it’ll help him with the moderates. He’s been having some trouble with the right wing conservatives which is why I think she’s been picked. The vice president is supposed to provide leverage in constituencies that you are weak in, Palin might do just that, but I don’t think the moderates will be very happy seeing a right wing with a moderate on the ticket.
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
August 29th, 2008 12:34
this pick is god awful…mccain’s so old that he’s suffering from mcbrain loss
Posted from: 67.10.129.165
August 29th, 2008 12:45
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/feature-articles/mccain-attack-honorable.php
Posted from: 24.6.64.186
August 29th, 2008 12:50
Smitty has it right on in his description of Palin. What was the McCain Campaign thinking?! They can’t even use their biggest argument against Obama (his inexperience) anymore. Even Carly Fiorina would have been a better pick because of her “economic credentials”. Hell, Pawlently and Romney were the best candidates for McCain to choose. Thanks for handing the White House to the Democrats this year! =]
Posted from: 71.104.158.6
August 29th, 2008 13:22
I feel about Palin the same way I felt about Mike Huckabee. I think that she’s probably both a decent person who measn well, but I am scared shitless at the prospect of her being President of the United States (which is a great possibility, given McCain’s age and tendency to occasionally get cancer)
Posted from: 76.227.172.35
August 29th, 2008 14:14
Oh my god I cannot wait for the debate between her and Biden. She’s going to get slaughtered…
Posted from: 74.68.137.29
August 29th, 2008 14:22
I was very nervous about the idea of McCain picking Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
I am not nervous about Sarah Palin. She has less meaningful government experience than Obama — and, by this Democrat’s admission, must be the first national office candidate since Spiro Agnew who could make Barack Obama look like an experienced foreign policy expert — and she stands far to the right of the two female leaders she casually name-dropped today:Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro.
I am excited that history would be made with either ticket, now. I predicted McCain would pick a woman in June — except in the case of Obama picking a female running mate first — after Senator Clinton lost. But I am not excited about Governor Palin’s positions on the issues, and I am pretty confident that the vast majority of supporters of Senator Clinton — a liberal icon — are not going to embrace an anti-choice, anti-ANWR, “ethics reform” figure who apparently used her power as governor to fire a state official who refused to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She does not have a history of advocating for the causes Senator Clinton represents. I would probably use the term “anti-feminist” to describe some of Palin’s positions, I’m sure. (So would Bietz. Inside joke. Sorry.)
I agree with the surprise in comment 14 but I’d simply say that, from my perspective, Hutchinson would have been a slam-dunk for McCain. I mean that over Romney (sorry, Ryan), Pawlenty, and the rest.
It’ll be interesting to see if some of the gender perception issues come into play during the VP debates the way they did between Ferraro and Bush in ‘84. Bush was a foreign policy expert, like Biden, and Ferraro was light (though not quite as light) on those issues, like Palin. Bush’s tone towards Ferraro struck many as extraordinarily patronizing. Granted, Reagan and Bush went on to win an unprecedented landslide, but the ticket caught criticism at the time for this. Today, a female running mate is groundbreaking, though not unprecedented, and after a primary season in which issues of sexism and racism were in the forefront, it should be interesting to see what type of tone Biden takes in the debates.
Posted from: 74.68.137.29
August 29th, 2008 14:23
“Ready from Day One” appears on McCain’s bio on his web site. That was one of Hillary Clinton’s taglines. (Actually, hers was “Ready on Day One.”) Has that been on his site for a long time? Or recently?
Posted from: 76.227.172.35
August 29th, 2008 14:45
I don’t think McCain is happy with Palin…to me it seems like he really wanted to pick Joe Liberman but couldn’t because of obvious reasons. I think Obama picked the candidate he wanted to. I don’t think you can win with a running mate you’re unhappy about.
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
August 29th, 2008 14:48
Lieberman has a giant man-crush on McCain. I think McCain didn’t want to send Lieberman the wrong message and lead him on… :)
Posted from: 24.151.41.11
August 29th, 2008 15:00
I’m pretty sure that all of this has already been said, but this is possibly the worst decision the Republican Party could have made given the plethora of viable VP candidates.
1) Palin is Pro Life
2) is part of the NRA
3) is Anti same sex marriage
4) is anti-environment
5) is under investigation for corruption
6) has less political experience than Obama, unless you count her 2 terms as an Alaskan “city” mayor
7) is governor of Alaska (seriously winning Alaska isn’t very important consider some of the other candidates had support in swing states)
Only purely pro-woman (in the political context) Clinton advocates would really give her any sort of approval. Ironically, her and Clinton couldn’t be farther apart politically.
I also love how McCain said that “she is a good girl.” It comes off as condescending even if aimed as a complement.
Posted from: 76.227.172.35
August 29th, 2008 15:20
We shouldn’t laugh off this pick though…remember Dan Quayle and Spiro Agnew? They were laughed off by Dems and ended up winning…
Posted from: 71.104.158.6
August 29th, 2008 15:21
I think that John McCain, as an old wealthy white man who is married to a Stepford wife, is gloriously out of touch with how modern american women think. My mother, a lifelong democrat and former Hillary supporter, did not suddenly throw her support to McSame simply because his veep is a woman.
John McCain is wrong in thinking that women are superficial enough to sacrifice equal pay and the right to choose in order to have a women in the number two spot. And if it turns out that I’m wrong and he’s right, then all of the women who vote for Palin get what they deserve: A house full of screaming babies and not enough money to feed them.
Posted from: 68.92.37.167
August 29th, 2008 15:53
Does anyone who posts on VBD aside from Ryan Hamilton vote Republican?
Posted from: 76.227.172.35
August 29th, 2008 15:54
Palin will “pale in” comparison to Biden.
Posted from: 69.253.230.13
August 29th, 2008 15:57
Re: 24
I probably would, if I was able to vote. I’m not a huge fan of McCain’s choice for VP, and I disagree with some of his politics, but I tend to lean more Republican than Democrat.
Posted from: 205.221.1.129
August 29th, 2008 16:18
When Romney dropped out of the race precipitously, I wondered if the Republican establishment might not just be accepting defeat and preparing for 2012. The narrative I envisioned was that the Republican establishment recognized that it couldn’t win this year, and rather than take a beating and fade into obscurity, Romney opted to let McCain serve himself up while Romney, still relatively young, waited for his star to rise at a later date.
I figured at the time that I was just engaging in wishful thinking, but this choice convinces me a little bit more that I may be right. Consider this:
First, I don’t think anyone would seriously argue that Palin would be a viable President. At this point in her career, I don’t think any party would nominate her, and I think it’s likely that the Republicans would *never* nominate her for the top spot. The Republican Old Guard is (in my estimation, anyhow) simply far too sexist.
So where does Palin fit into the universe of Vice Presidents? There are basically two types: the Elder Statesman VP (Cheney, Biden), and the President in Waiting VP (Bush 1, Gore, and (heh heh) Quayle.
There is no such thing as a Dead End Job VP. And I don’t think I can be convinced that the Republicans would seriously nominate Palin, even after one or two terms as Vice President.
It seems to me as though the serious candidates were ruled out either because they were pro-choice or because they didn’t want to commit political suicide by losing as McCain’s Number 2. I don’t know if Romney was offered the position, but I am willing to bet that he would have turned it down.
I mean, considering the heavyweights McCain had to choose from, and considering how close he is in the polls, this choice just doesn’t make much sense any other way. Unless, of course, McCain secretly wants Obama to win, in which case, it’s an excellent choice, and Thanks.
Posted from: 65.125.148.226
August 29th, 2008 16:42
Wow. I never thought of the GOP as charitable to the causes of electing liberal blacks into office — until today!
Senator McCain and his people have shown their goofiness. Judgment? Hmmm….
Muchas gracias, GOP.
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 67.87.132.148
August 29th, 2008 16:52
The only positive thing for the McCain campaign I see coming out of this is that the collective WTF?!!!??!?!?!? of the country took some of the coverage away from Obama’s speech (which was incredible).
Other than that, it would seem the McBrain loss might have kicked in. Even his advisors were surprised, and since huffington was reporting that he was going to pick Romney, it would seem McSame made a pretty desperate pick.
I thought he was going to pick Pawlenty because of all the other choice’s obvious negatives, (Romney’s houses and religion, Jindall’s lack of experience, Lieberman’s traitor creds with the dems and the fact that the republicans hate him, Ridge’s pro-choiceness, etc.) but it seems he’s managed to roll all that into one candidate with executive experience with only 700,000 people. Giuliani has more than that, and Obama probably has more from being the executive of his staff. Honestly…
The Republican Convention might actually increase Obama’s poll numbers, and she is going to get clobbered by Biden. I plan on bringing popcorn.
Posted from: 68.117.63.127
August 29th, 2008 17:01
i really think that this was a bad choice for McCain. i understand a few of the reasons behind it but i really dont think it will work for a few reasons.
First, I live in a extremely conservative area and talk politics quite a bit. Even in all of this, I have NEVER met anyone that is completely prolife like she is even in cases of rape. It may just be my democratic bias but I honestly can understand someone who is prolife because it is such a moral gray area. But how someone can justify a position that far right alludes me.
Second, She is under investigation for the situation with her brother in law. Even if she is at fault or not I dont think it matters. I think thats gonna scare a lot of voters away. Remember back to the mid term elections when the exit polls showed that a major reason that people voted democratic was due to corruption scandals. Yes its a completely different type of issue but I still think voters are going to think about it.
Third, I think the idea that Hillary voters will be swayed to vote McCain wont work. She is WAY to conservative to sway anybody to him that was that passionate about hillary to not vote for Obama. Im watching Hardball right now and one of the guests is from PUMA, which stands for party unity my ass, and she really hasnt said anything of substance of why any hillary supporter would now switch to McCain
Finally, As Dave just said the republicans dont really want her in the pres spot. and with McCains age his VP choice is VERY important. She needs to convince voters that she is ready to take over. and i dont think anybody will every believe she is.
Maybe they have given up and mccain wants to lose.
Posted from: 76.227.172.35
August 29th, 2008 17:06
I think McCain realizes that after Obama’s speech last night, and the growing resentment against him ($5 million comment, 7 houses etc) and his party (Bush/Cheney), his chances don’t look very good. The only way he could potentially win would be to get some of the Hillary supporters. Being a gambler, he took a chance. We’ll all have to wait and see if it works…
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
August 29th, 2008 17:30
I like how the GOP viciously attacks Obama for his lack of experience and then choses someone who is far more inexperienced as the bottom of the ticket. Talk about hypocrisy, idiocracy, and double-turning yourself.At least both Obama and McCain have the credentials to MAKE assessments on what is happening in Iraq; Palin says that she only knows what’s going on “at the state level.” It would be a nightmare if she became the commander-in-chief when she doesn’t know anything.
And then people become excited because the Republican party has finally chosen a woman for vp. The only reason they did so was to get more votes, which is completely irresponsible considering that McCain could die any time soon (because he’s so old). What would happen then? We’d be left with someone who is not even conservative, but reactionary on the following issues:
1. The environment- Sarah Palin doesn’t even care. The Huffington Post in April 2008:
“Grist reports that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin strongly opposes the Alaskan gas tax, threw money at Alaskans to quiet their concerns over rising energy costs, and “recently sued the Interior Department over its decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species.”
2. Ethics- The way she runs her state is reactionary; it is beginning to mirror Nixonian scandals of the 70’s. The FBI explains,
“Gov. Sarah Palin on Wednesday revealed an audio recording that shows an aide pressuring the Public Safety Department to fire a state trooper embroiled in a custody battle with her sister.Palin, who has previously said her administration didn’t exert pressure to get rid of trooper Mike Wooten, also disclosed that members of her staff had made about two dozen contacts with public safety officials about the trooper.”
3. She is extremely pro-life. Being moderately pro-life is debatable, but Palin is pro-life in a reactionary way. She not only wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade but wants to prevent all abortions period. She even argued that women who are raped and become pregnant do not have the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion. WOW. How dumb. If someone wants to vote for Mccain for the sole fact that she’s a woman, they should also rot.
This comment is not sexist at all. It’s good that a woman is on one of the topics and that an African American is on the other. Race and gender should not be sufficient reasons alone for voting for a candidate. What they bring to the table is far more important. And that’s why Obama and Biden will shred idiot Mccain and Palin into pieces.
P.S. You know what Palin’s husband does? He’s the production manager of an OIL well. If anyone thinks the GOP will stop helping oil companies, think again.
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
August 29th, 2008 17:32
tickets*
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
August 29th, 2008 17:40
@24
Sam: i would have considered voting for romney
Posted from: 71.104.158.6
August 29th, 2008 17:47
ew
Posted from: 68.38.86.140
August 29th, 2008 17:48
Honestly I think this is damaging to mccain’s intelligence. By making this pick he’s hurt his own public image.
Posted from: 24.165.9.37
August 29th, 2008 18:07
jon: i’m probably not as informed as you, but romney seemed like a slam dunk: tons of executive experience, pretty flawless economic credentials, smart, charismatic and presidential-seeming, roots in Michigan, and able to play the attack dog role. i’m curious why you think hutchinson would have been better.
Posted from: 24.165.9.37
August 29th, 2008 18:12
also, as far as abortion goes, i wouldn’t worry too much. even if roe v. wade were overturned (which alito and roberts really don’t seem enthusiastic to do), no one will ever be able to enact a federal abortion ban–there’s no way it would get passed and, even if it were, it would be found unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds on an 8-1 or 7-2 at worst.
Posted from: 68.72.134.186
August 29th, 2008 18:31
Stop calling him McSame!
America:
We can do better than slant rhyme.
So weak-sounding, almost a crime
Enough of this. It’s about time
we write with proper english, not slime.
-Petey
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
August 29th, 2008 18:44
oh shut up, meaty.
Posted from: 71.213.162.99
August 29th, 2008 19:13
oh man… now obama can’t go for those KEY alaska electoral points!
i personally can’t wait for this week’s round of times op-ed columns and snl in the upcoming months. there are some good laughs in store.
Posted from: 63.246.171.199
August 29th, 2008 20:00
I think this might not be that strategic of a choice for McCain.
It seems that few people (close to none) vote for the bottom of a ticket. If they did, then Kerry-Edwards should’ve carried (or at least done marginally better) in the South in ‘04. Thus, if part of the justification was to pick up disaffected Clintonites, I don’t think the Republicans will do it by putting a woman on the bottom of the ticket. Any Democrat who was voting for Hilary because she was a woman was probably voting because that democrat wanted a woman for president, not a woman for vice president.
However, I do think that people vote *against* a ticket based on who’s on bottom. For example, if we found out tomorrow that Biden was involved in a Spitzer-like deal, it would severely, severely hurt Obama. So, I think that choosing a woman (regardless of how qualified Palin may be for the job) for the bottom of the ticket is likely to appear like just a gimmick to pick up democratic voters, who may resent such treatment/obvious manipulation.
So it’s a move that has almost no possible gain with very possible harm.
Posted from: 69.226.47.83
August 29th, 2008 21:12
Why why, why!!!!!! Pawlenty, Romney, gah, you’d expect to chose a leader of millions, not thousands. Jeesh.
Posted from: 76.173.173.211
August 29th, 2008 21:43
I agree this was a terrible choice but I would like to point out a few things:
1) To everybody saying she will get creamed in the debates: Why? We simply have no information on how she would fare against Biden. She may even exploit Biden to say something ridiculous as he often does.
2) That scandal will blow over. Even in Alaska, it isn’t very big. Her brother-in-law was a plain a**hole. Though firing the commissioner for not firing him is dumb, it’s not some Bush/Rove/Cheney evil political move.
She seems like a fantastic person who would’ve helped the Republicans in the future as would Bobby Jindal, but not now.
She has absolutely no foreign policy experience, Obama had some and even garnered some over 18 months. How can you trust McCain’s judgment if he’s appointing someone who has so little experience especially since he’s so goddang old?
I don’t want the Mayor of Wasilla in charge of deterring Iran, fixing Iraq, or quelling Russia.
(actually, russia doesn’t need to be quelled. Western media has “russia bad” bias)
Posted from: 98.150.248.220
August 29th, 2008 22:22
I think Palin was a great pick. Bietz and Ryan Hamilton are spot-on in my opinion.
Politically, I think she is a strategic pick because she will be able to win a lot of suburban white women who are currently leaning towards Obama. Her position as the governor of Alaska gives her the only executive position in the race and she also is familiar with energy issues.
Posted from: 71.110.133.164
August 29th, 2008 22:31
A couple thoughts based on this thread and the political analysis from today…
1 - From post 29, and based on what conservative pundits have been saying all day, the fact that there have been 45 posts on this thread and a mere 20 on the previous thread (asking for thoughts on the Obama/Biden ticket after the end of the DNC), the GOP VP choice has clearly quieted the press in talking about Obama’s speech.
2 - Will the choice of a woman for VP force Biden to be careful during the debates as to not be perceived as ganging up on a woman?
3 - The inexperience argument for both Palin and Obama will probably have little effect (Look at Regan, Carter, and Swarzennegger in California)
Posted from: 69.141.98.248
August 29th, 2008 23:16
Dave- Parties have actually picked VPs to get them out of the way as trouble makers. The Republicans did that in 1900 when they made Teddy Roosevelt the VP with William McKinley because they were sick of him creating controversy with trust busting, conservation and calls for civil service reform. (It didn’t end up working out so well when McKinley got assassinated in 1901 but according to several sources that was the idea).
So yeah it’s possible that Palin is just a throw away choice but that seems unlikely considering McCain’s age and that the 1900 political environment is hardly the 2008 political environment.
Also on CNN or whatever network my grandparents were watching (it wasn’t Fox) Palin was being universally praised for fighting corruption and the bigwigs in the Alaskan government, including Ted Stevens, so that might become the story the Republicans use. So then she can become a candidate of change by rallying against big government, young, women, and uncorrupted by Washington.
Though the negatives still seem to outweigh the positives. Being far right wing is definitely not the place to be in this election.
Posted from: 24.180.32.103
August 30th, 2008 00:43
RE: Saad
The reason she would get creamed in debates against Biden is because he’s been working on policy in Congress almost as long as she’s been alive.
It’s because she’s admitted that she doesn’t know much about foreign policy.
It’s because she’s already flip-flopped on important ‘McCain’ issues like pork-barrel spending (she was for the bridge to nowhere 2 years ago, and is now against it)
It’s because even though Biden might not be able to be as harsh, it won’t make a huge difference. Bush Sr. was criticized for his debate against Geraldine Ferraro, and Reagan/Bush won majorly.
Posted from: 96.226.36.179
August 30th, 2008 04:15
As Isaid on the other forum:
McCain just picked a woman from Alaska for VP. I watched the speech and almost got sick. She is there ONLY because she is a woman and blatantly went after the Hillary voters. Don’t be fooled…I personally know Hillary Clinton and Karen Pahlen is NO Hillary Clinton. I hope that the media treats Ms. Palin in the same way they treated Mrs. Clinton and not claim that the Democrats are being to mean to her. That is demeaning to both women in general and Hillary Clinton.
The intent is to make Biden look mean to women. This completely cuts Biden’s debate ability because he is now not only going to have to worry about arguments, but if he is being perceived as being unkind to a mother of 5 with the baby have Down’s Syndrome. The Republican party has just SET BACK women’s rights and place in politics by 88 years!
Posted from: 96.226.36.179
August 30th, 2008 04:24
To comment on Jon Cruz assessment of Kay Bailey Hutchison.
She wants to run for Gov. of Texas and said she didn’t want to be VP - or she would have been on the ticket I am sure.
You have reason to have been very worried about that ticket because KBH is VERY popular with even liberal women in Texas. I am a huge KBH fan and even have a picture of the two of us in my office - which surprises almost everyone.
So - I know KBH and Gov Palin is NOT KBH.
Posted from: 76.227.172.35
August 30th, 2008 07:52
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/30/politics/animal/main4400759.shtml
Posted from: 68.72.131.179
August 30th, 2008 08:12
Questions for VP Debate:
1) How many black and hispanic people have you ever spoken to?
2) Have you ever used a mass transit system?
3) Why would you name your mentally disabled child after a branch of mathematics he will never understand?
4) We’ve heard you support sniping wildlife from helicopters. Is this your plan to deal with urban crime?
let’s get some more
Posted from: 74.68.137.29
August 30th, 2008 08:43
People who love reading into facial expressions might enjoy watching McCain checking a printed copy of his script while introducing Sarah Palin several times. Including looking down before saying her name!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDof7Y7pn-Y
Just saying.
But the music is very dramatic. If I ever came onto the stage to music at Big Bronx, it would be to that music.
Posted from: 76.94.89.102
August 30th, 2008 09:07
don’t you spend like 5 hours on the stage at Big Bronx?
Posted from: 74.68.137.29
August 30th, 2008 09:11
I can always play it in loop. :o) Or have a live orchestra!
That music is really epic until it abruptly cuts off. I forgot to mention that. Couldn’t someone have faded it out instead of exiting iTunes abruptly?
Posted from: 98.200.243.13
August 30th, 2008 10:15
5. should clubbing baby seals be added to the winter games?
6. it is documented that you are in support of drilling in wildlife refuges. should we begin draining the ocean[s]?
Posted from: 67.101.97.122
August 30th, 2008 10:29
A smart political pick for McCain, a terrible pick for the country.
Though many have characterized the Palin pick as either a Hail Mary pass underscoring the desperation of the McCain campaign or an example of McCain’s love of gambling and risk taking, I think that both of these explanations are wrong and run the risk of taking a serious Republican threat lightly. This was smart politics by McCain and Democrats should not underestimate it.
Despite McCain’s cultivation of his reputation as a maverick, I seriously doubt that he was flying by the seat of his pants on this decision. I don’t mean that picking Palin was not risky, only that it was a calculated risk and not an act of desperation or impulse.
I think that the Palin pick was predicated on the idea that this will be a close race both nationally and in a number of key battleground states. This race is not going to be won in the states that Democrats and Republican take by wide margins–it will be won in the states where a relatively small number of popular votes will pay large dividends in electoral votes. Little things will matter, and here are some of the little things with which Palin helps McCain:
1)Prompt suppression of Obama’s post-convention bounce. Polls demonstrate that the bounce occurred, but the speed with which the Palin story wiped the golden glow of the Democratic Convention from the front pages represents a real lost opportunity for Obama to continue to sell his message of unity to Hillary supporters. It’s also cut into coverage of his pretty substantive convention speech, which is important, given that many voters are still unclear about the policies that Obama supports.
2)Energizing the Republican base. It wasn’t just that McCain risked a convention in which social conservatives and members of the religious right were vocal in their dissatisfaction with the nominee, he risked a November in which these voters simply stayed home. A quick look at the reaction of James Dobson (Focus on the Family) and the mountains comments being posted on newspaper websites demonstrates that the religious right is over the moon about this pick. While it is true that VP candidates generally do not shift votes from one party to the other, it is clear that this pick has created a level of enthusiasm that will deliver more (already Republican leaning) voters to the polls. They are fired up to vote for a national candidate who is firmly anti-abortion and in favor of teaching intelligent design in public schools.
3)Possibly keeping Hillary voters home in November. Many read the Palin pick as a blatant attempt to woo Hillary’s 18 million. I think that’s just silly. Palin’s positions on the issues that these voters care about mean that very few Hillary supporters will flip Republican just to have an opportunity to vote for a woman for national office. In fact, McCain risks angering these voters by appearing to pander to them. Palin is more likely to help McCain by goading the Obama camp into offending Hillary supporters. I do not doubt that the Obama campaign will attempt to control its message, but there are just too many folks out there to control. As Democrats and the press attack Palin for her lack of experience, the risk that these attacks are gendered and demeaning to women is huge. And the risk that Joe Biden appears either condescending or too aggressive in the Vice Presidential Debate is even greater (as avoiding one increases the risk of doing the other). Many of Hillary’s supporters have developed a personal antipathy to Obama. They see him as a beneficiary of the sexism of the press, as the popular boy who won the student body election by defeating the girl who did all the real work. Things that fuel this perception of Obama may not make Hillary’s supporters vote for McCain, but they will certainly depress Democratic turnout in November.
4)Re-branding McCain as an outsider running against Washington, a message that Ronald Reagan perfected. In a contest between Obama and McCain, McCain really didn’t have access to this argument. Instead, he focused on his greater experience, but this tied him to eight years of Bush. Though the experience message (as told through the Obama = celebrity story) brought McCain up to a dead heat in the polls, my guess is that the McCain campaign knew that this was as much as they could hope for with that message. When Obama picked Biden as his running mate, this allowed McCain to run against Washington. Given the electorate’s rejection of Bush, the fragile state of the economy, etc., I expect that the anti-Washington message will resonate better with voters than the experience message. Palin gives McCain access to this message by being the only true Washington outsider of the bunch, and as a result of her reputation for going up against corrupt Republican interests in Alaska. I think McCain now has a real shot at selling himself as the true candidate of change. If McCain pulls this off, the Palin pick may do more than help him at the margins (by energizing the Republican base while depressing Democratic turnout)–it may allow him to revive the Reagan majority.
Think about what a coup this represents for McCain. He now has the opportunity to run against Washington (thereby diminishing his perceived ties to Bush and the nation’s current misery), while gaining the support of Bush’s supporters on the religious right (who were no more than lukewarm about him prior to this). At the emotional/symbolic level where most voters seem to decide, this is a big winner.
I am not a McCain hater (though I would not vote for him over pretty much any Democratic candidate), but the Palin pick really diminishes my respect for him. I never doubted, even when I disagreed with his policies 100%, that he really wanted to keep us safe. I believed that he, more than most politicians, placed principle over politics. I probably should have known better, given the way he has courted the religious right since his last failed attempt at the presidency, but I gave him the benefit if the doubt (thinking that he felt that getting in bed with the religious right was a necessary evil if he was to be able to protect us). I now know better. In order to be elected, John McCain is willing to place our security in the hands of a politician with no national or foreign policy experience. Scary, sad, and possibly a winner in November.
Posted from: 24.165.9.37
August 30th, 2008 11:32
unfortunately, lexy might be right:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/palin_makes_good_first_impression_is_viewed_more_favorably_than_biden
note to obama: “it’s the economy, stupid”
Posted from: 24.118.55.215
August 30th, 2008 12:13
my mother informed me this morning that according to the astrological signs of mccain-palin and those of obama-biden, mccain is guaranteed a win because the “stars will be aligned for him”.
Posted from: 74.68.137.29
August 30th, 2008 12:36
Lexy’s insight is very wise. I agree that on a perceptual level, it’s a coup. For the sake of full disclosure, I really did feel my emotions swell during McCain’s introduction, when, after he initially (but not obviously) avoided the use of any pronouns, finally made clear that his was a historic choice for the GOP by referring to the anniversary of women’s suffrage. I felt my emotions swell further when the Palin family dramatically appeared to the previously cited amazing music. And I’m a Great Society-style Democrat, and I know full well how conservative this woman is!
Contrast this with the clumsy text-message announcement from Obama, which was a surprising PR blunder from the generally well-oiled Obama campaign machine. Folks knew hours and hours ahead of time that it was going to be Biden, and that choice wasn’t particularly exciting at all. I admittedly wonder if the text-message gimmick was chosen because an introduction by rally wouldn’t have been particularly exciting or surprising. The text message — seemingly sent at 3:00 AM! — also came at the same time when Clinton supporters, still sore, discovered that the senator was never even formally vetted (and, we can assume, never even really considered) for the Vice Presidency. McCain’s choice of Palin really felt like something historic, even if it comes twenty-four years after Walter Mondale selected Geraldine Ferraro.
But when the music dies down and we return to regular campaigning — especially in the light of the RNC next week — I wonder how the GOP will go after the “experience” card it’s been playing for weeks. Even more importantly, how about the “judgment” card? In his first and most fundamental decision as potential President, McCain selected someone who actually makes look Obama look like a foreign policy veteran by comparison. He has stressed that international relations is the criterion by which we should judge this election, and that we need to judge candidates by their ability to make judgments. What kind of judgment does this show beyond putting political considerations first?
As a diehard partisan of Senator Clinton, I know that almost everyone I met who held similar views believe strongly in what Senator Clinton said in Denver: a campaign isn’t just about a person, its about the ideals and positions held by that person. Despite what some on these boards have said, I will maintain that Hillary Clinton is an old-school, Great Society-style liberal Democrat. I am now convinced that, when Obama wins, she will become the “liberal lion of the Senate” in the tradition of Ted Kennedy. I am also convinced that the vast majority of Senator Clinton’s will come to support Obama and Biden after McCain selected a conservative who is, it seems, far farther to the right than he is.
All of that having been said, I DO think Lexy is 100% dead-on that Democrats shouldn’t laugh McCain’s choice off and shouldn’t underestimate the potential strengths of McCain’s choice.
The article to which Alex’s post links is interesting. The poll cited claims that “67% of voters didn’t know enough about the Alaska governor to have an opinion” prior to McCain’s selection. Wait. That means one third of voters claimed to know enough about Sarah Palin before yesterday to make a decision? Who are these people? Come on!
Posted from: 67.101.97.122
August 30th, 2008 13:08
Jon–
The text message was a ruse. It really had nothing to do with finding a dramatic or inclusive way to make the announcement. It was all about getting potential Obama voters to volunteer their cell phone numbers. You can be darned sure they will now receive texts before election day reminding them to cast absentee ballots and on election day reminding them to vote. Nothing to do with symbolism, it was an example of the practical on the ground organizing skill that is the greatest strength of the Obama campaign.
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
August 30th, 2008 13:33
Post 59-
That’s the same thing they said about Hillary Clinton…did she even become the democratic nominee for president? I think not.
Posted from: 74.68.137.29
August 30th, 2008 14:04
I’m concede that Lexy is right about the true reason for the text message.
That having been said, I’d imagine most of the people who signed up for a middle-of-the-night text message are likely so into politics and into Obama that they are going to remember to vote on election day or to cast an absentee ballot whether or not they get a text message. On the other hand, I guess their cell phone numbers could be used for other messages from the campaign, too, though. So it was probably a smart idea, even if some folks felt jaded that CNN & Co. broke the “surprise news” ahead of the text messages.
Unrelated to the text messages…
This is a fun editorial from Gail Collins: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/opinion/30collins-.html
Posted from: 68.175.16.58
August 30th, 2008 14:11
It is seriously the funniest thing ever.
Posted from: 74.68.137.29
August 30th, 2008 14:33
Ryan Hamilton has confirmed to me that the music to which Governor Palin made her introduction is from Jerry Goldsmith’s soundtrack to RUDY. Just throwing that out there.
Posted from: 68.175.16.58
August 30th, 2008 15:17
Oh wait, it’s real…not funny at all…
.
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
August 30th, 2008 15:40
PALIN IN ‘08:
“But as for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?”
Posted from: 71.104.144.66
August 30th, 2008 16:34
The Rasmussen Poll doesnt matter.
the “first impression” that people got was one speech in which she talked about the glass ceiling and sounded very friendly. Go figure that they liked her. Once people actually hear this incompetent woman campaign and debate Joe Biden, their opinions will change.
Posted from: 71.229.103.39
August 30th, 2008 16:45
“Governor, I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a great friend of mine. I served in the Senate for 6 years with Hillary Clinton. You, Governor, are no Hillary Clinton.”
C’mon Biden, you know you can say it in the debates lol.
Posted from: 71.104.144.66
August 30th, 2008 16:51
But then everyone will think he’s mean and a sexist for beating a girl.
Hooray latent, subconscious sexism!
Posted from: 98.195.66.198
August 30th, 2008 18:06
http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=180208
just the first section
Posted from: 71.104.144.66
August 30th, 2008 20:30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
McCain’s so good, he just debates himself!!!!!
Posted from: 75.189.154.195
August 30th, 2008 21:05
I personally feel the Democrats have mishandled their response to the choice of Palin. Didn’t 2000 teach us the dangers of setting expectations so low that virtually any idiot could out perform them? Not that it means much, but Governor Palin certainly seems more impressive to me than Governor Bush did in 2000. Let’s not forget that playing the game of exceeding low expectations got that fool elected twice. If Palin turns out to be even half way decent/competent the Democrats have just set the Republicans up for a huge perceptual victory.
Posted from: 24.165.9.37
August 31st, 2008 01:14
in a bizarre twist of events, the blogosphere is reporting that palin’s 5th child may actually be her granddaughter by way of an elaborate coverup. if this is true, this could be the best thing since mcgovern picked that crazy guy back in 72.
for more: http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2008/08/who-is-the-mother-of-trig-paxon-van-palin
Posted from: 75.53.117.185
August 31st, 2008 01:21
LOL…her water broke in Texas and she gave a speech AND took a 11 hour flight to Anchorage and THEN delivered her baby……
Posted from: 75.53.117.185
August 31st, 2008 01:23
Although it would make sense that that it’s her child because older women tend to have children with Down’s syndrome
Posted from: 75.53.117.185
August 31st, 2008 01:24
(that is not to say that younger women don’t)
Posted from: 24.6.159.5
August 31st, 2008 01:44
Smitty-
I hope that somehow makes the news.
Posted from: 24.6.64.186
August 31st, 2008 09:48
If smitty’s post is true, wowwwwwwww. Someone better dig deep into that. I mean it wouldn’t be so hard to clarify…
Posted from: 68.175.16.58
August 31st, 2008 09:53
I am curious about smitty’s link, but you know, the support wasn’t really there (here is a photo we are not sure when it was taken but we think might be February) and some completely unsubstantiated rumors. This is the kind of whisper crap that pubies always use against us - should take it with a whole shaker of salt, and pushing it could backfire horribly. Restraint, restraint, restraint.
Posted from: 76.94.89.102
August 31st, 2008 13:12
Strategy working for GOP. Dems afraid to attack palin
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080830/dems_palin_080830/20080830?hub=Politics
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
August 31st, 2008 13:35
Good. She is the most dramatically ridiculous choice that will go down in history as the best example of McCain’s judgment, but we need to let this one roll out by itself. I seriously doubt that she will be on the ticket in November. But for now, there is nothing to be gained by looking like a bully.
The temptation to give in to sexism and elitism is too great in gearing up an attack against her (listen to commentators talk about beauty queen and “cheerleader in chief”) - this will be off-putting to voters. They get it on qualifications issue, they don’t need to be beat over the head with it (and the cancellation of McCain’s attacks on Barack’s more limited experience is a much greater development than discrediting the vp - nothing to be gained by engaging in the who is more qualified debate). This was a historic choice, it does mean something, and that should be respected. Giving in to campaign nonsense and smears is not the right way to approach this desperate attempt to shake up the race. You approach it as a non-issue (so it doesn’t shake up the race) and and let voters make up their minds about her and McCain picking her after talking with her for fifteen minutes.
though it is simultaneously the funniest and saddest thing ever…I love how people don’t just defend it, but defend it as THE BEST PICK EVER…hilarious…but incredibly, incredibly scary…
Posted from: 76.173.147.34
August 31st, 2008 13:36
lol gg palin
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137
Posted from: 99.157.67.3
August 31st, 2008 13:51
its not gonna make the news
Posted from: 74.68.137.29
August 31st, 2008 14:03
I’ve also read that the story behind the ad Bietz’s article discusses is that the Obama camp had preemptive ads ready for Romney, Pawlenty, etc., but had no cohesive talking points on Palin because she was such a dark horse choice, so they threw something together at the last moment. There has been plenty of criticism of her from the Obama campaign’s top surrogates and officials today, including a focus on her extreme right-wing views on “creationism,” global warming, energy, and social issues in general. (She endorsed Pat Buchanan when he ran for President!) I’m interested to see how the upcoming ads portray her. John Kerry just called her a member of the “flat Eearth caucus” today.
Tom Daschle — who, for the record, I despise — also went to task on her relative experience level. “I think of Elizabeth Dole, I think of Jodi Rell, the governor of Connecticut, I think of Kay Bailey Hutchison, I think of Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe,” he commented. “I can recite off the top of my head a number of Republican candidates, women, who are far more qualified, with all due respect to Sarah Palin,” Dodd said.
Posted from: 99.11.172.227
August 31st, 2008 16:24
Geezer-Gidget ‘08
Posted from: 71.104.171.130
August 31st, 2008 17:18
Looks like maybe her eggo wasn’t preggo.
Posted from: 204.15.223.85
August 31st, 2008 17:33
Okay, so my claim to inside information is that I actually am from McCain’s home state of Hell (Arizona). Here in Hell we wonder where old Johnny’s been these last 25 years. He certainly hasn’t been helping us out. See Johnny believes that pork-barrel spending is just plain wrong. He won’t have any truck with it. So while the rest of the union has their infrastructure coffers padded with a little of Uncle Sam’s trillions, the poor folks out here in Hell get the shaft. He could have turned this place into the world’s largest solar power farm with power output rivaling that of Hoover Dam. Nope. Johnny has his ethics to think of. He sure won’t help those suckers down in Tucson whose water supply was irrecoverably contaminated by the aerospace industry. He won’t have I-10 widened to four lanes to save us from the tweeker truckers weaving their way from LA to Texas. He has stood by and and watched as an animal has violated the civil rights and dignity of thousands who should be protected by the Constitution. If anyone should have a beef with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, it should be McCain. Inmates are not enemies of the state. They are not POWs. They are Americans. But here they are treated to the worst jail in America, and the second worst in the entire world according to Amnesty Int’l. But Johnny won’t dare challenge Arpaio’s support base. He gets elected by a mandate every time. McCain has no conscience. Its all show. John McCain’s made sure we’ve received what the rest of the country will get if he’s elected: JACK! The man is a crook (see The Keating Five) and a self-absorbed grandstander. This choice for VP is yet another prime example of how he has no interest in anything but getting elected. He chose Palin because she has no power. She can’t challenge his will. He should have chose Condi Rice. Now that would have shook this race up. A black woman. Take that Obama.
Posted from: 12.216.167.34
August 31st, 2008 18:26
I support Obama probably as much as it is possible to do so (at least morally) and I think Palin is a frightening, irresponsible, and, frankly, hilarious pick.
But the stuff about her daughter and new son is offensive and ridiculous. Not only that, it’s dangerous to the Obama ticket.
1) It’s nonsensical conspiracy-theorizing.
2) It’s her family’s business, no one else’s.
3) Continued discussion of it has much more potential to damage the Democratic ticket than the Republican one, because it seems mean and … well, for want of a better term, icky.
The folks at Democratic Underground and Daily Kos, God bless ‘em, need to get it under control.
I also agree with the poster post-Bietz: the fact that Palin is ridiculous is a story that tells itself. As people start to think to themselves, “Hmm… President Palin?” — they will get the picture. I mean, Yikes!
Posted from: 98.195.66.198
August 31st, 2008 18:34
David, I think the stuff about the “granddaughter” is somewhat important in that it demonstrates the ramifications of her anti-abortion stance.
Posted from: 67.101.97.122
August 31st, 2008 19:31
Hi fives to Dave. Folks need to shut up about the stupid pregnancy story. If it is true, her supporters will say she did the right thing–circling the wagons to protect family. Regardless of its truth or falsity, Obama supporters look like jackals when they delight over this story. Most important of all, no teenage girl should have to endure stories in the press examining photos of her and declaring that she has a baby bump. Try to put yourself in her shoes, and then try taking your big, clumsy foot out of your mouth.
Posted from: 99.11.172.227
August 31st, 2008 21:15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RN5xbWtNSU&eurl=
Posted from: 76.173.147.34
August 31st, 2008 21:36
lol awesome, lets assume no one on this board who has posted has ever dealt with teenage pregnancy. thats not a tad bit presumptuous now is it?
the reason why its important is that this story has been spun as a reason to support her anti-abortion stance “ohhh see she knew her baby would have a birth defect… but she still had it!”
its important because, if proven true, its a lie… clinton’s affair was also personal yet republicans had no issue with using that to, hmm, let me remember, impeach him. the similarities between that and this is that it would pretty clearly deconstruct the image of who this woman is. wouldnt any loving parent who was so anti-abortion embrace her daughter’s pregnancy and champion her choice to have a child even at a young age? that would be the “right” thing to do… not lie about it.
Posted from: 24.165.9.37
August 31st, 2008 22:36
+1 to daryl. i see a few important issues here:
a) republicans make a big deal about “family values” and use the personal foibles of democrats to divert focus away from substantive issues. democrats always lose to these tactics because they never go on the offensive. if people didn’t like “dirty tricks”, why do they work so well when the republicans pull them? why didn’t the “icky factor” shut down the clinton impeachment, or john mccain’s illegitimate black daughter, or the swift boat vets?
b) republicans, unlike democrats, don’t circle the wagons when faced with scandal: they eat their young alive. remember what happened to mark foley? the exact same thing would happen to palin. yeah, there might be some sympathy for her, but the right will not put on a unified front and palin’s national career will be over.
c) it’s not about palin so much as it is about mccain. palin could be a total saint and mccain still has egg on his face for letting this happen and not finding out during the vetting process. it directly calls into question his judgment (ready to lead on day 1?) and will likely force him to pick another vice presidential nominee. whether or not the democrats look like jackals (and i don’t think they will, particularly if obama himself stays above the fray), it’s going to be a disaster for the republican party. it will be a particular disaster if mccain says something like “see, i wanted to pick lieberman/ridge, you said no, i picked sarah palin, and now this happened. fuck all of you, i’m doing it my way”. the fallout would be disastrous, obama will profit without saying a word about it, and the republican brand will be tarnished for at least another 8 years.
Posted from: 12.216.167.34
August 31st, 2008 23:08
AT Smitty’s (a):
This issue is different because the target of the potentially hurtful and embarrassing smears is a teenage girl. Do you remember how badly Limbaugh got nailed when he made comments about Chelsea Clinton? Going after the grownups may be tolerated… going after the children is not (and should not be).
Posted from: 71.63.151.101
August 31st, 2008 23:10
“The Republican party has just SET BACK women’s rights and place in politics by 88 years!”
Ya, notice how all of a sudden there are no more female senators or congrysspyyple? And hiring discrimination against women is suddenly legal again? And it’ll be decades until there’s a woman on a presidential ticket? Those crazy Republicans, how’d they do that??
In other news, Democrats just SET BACK black people’s rights and place in politics by 143 years by nominating a black guy for president. Poll taxes are being reinstituted as we speak.
Also, will people please cut this gossip-column conspiracy theory crap about her daughter’s supposed top-secret pregnancy? You always hope that debate folks can rise about the argumentative level of People magazine…Also, if Palin were a Democrat and Obama had just picked her as his running mate, I’m somehow pretty certain that none of you would be so absurdly eager to believe, disseminate and generally make a big deal of this rumor. In fact, I’m pretty sure you’d be going after anyone who suggested that it should be taken seriously. So, don’t be a hypocrite.
Posted from: 75.73.68.33
September 1st, 2008 05:29
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/31/145838/319/386/581332
pictures at the top are fairly devastating
Posted from: 75.73.68.33
September 1st, 2008 05:31
and lol mcginnis how exactly are alex or i “going after her daughter”? by exposing her mom to be a fraud?
Posted from: 67.80.215.195
September 1st, 2008 08:04
how can you be anti polar-bears? :o(
Posted from: 24.12.193.28
September 1st, 2008 09:18
bears are the number one threat America
Posted from: 67.101.97.122
September 1st, 2008 09:35
Probable end to the Bristol Palin story.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/palins-17-year-old-daughter-is-pregnant/?hp
If she’s five months pregnant now, it’s very unlikely she is Tag’s mother. Of course if she miscarries in the next little while, all bets are off.
Posted from: 71.110.250.247
September 1st, 2008 09:49
Getting knocked up = family value
Posted from: 67.101.97.122
September 1st, 2008 10:06
Folks who want to follow this story to the ends of the earth also need to understand that it is unlikely to do any good (if by good you mean keeping McCain from being elected). The truth is that no one cares about this stuff unless it happens to the other guys. For example, if a Democratic candidate’s daughter gets pregnant at a young age, the right will say it’s an example of the permissiveness of the left, that it is a result of sex education in schools, and that it sets a terrible example for our young people. When the candidate is Republican it is spun as an example of family values because they chose to get married, have the baby, etc.
It is, of course, not fair to single Republicans out for this inconsistency. Were it a Democratic candidate those on the left would say it was a private matter having no bearing on the candidate’s fitness. Because the candidate is a Republican, those on the left are in an uproar because they think Palin should have stayed home longer with the baby, should have breastfed longer, etc. Of course they’d never criticize a woman for placing her career first if she were not a Republican candidate for office.
Scandals like this one don’t do any good when it comes to changing people’s minds. We tend to forgive (or even lionize) our candidates for the same behavior that we would vilify in candidates of the opposing party. If we want to make an effective argument against Sarah Palin, we’d do better focusing how far her political views on important issues are from those of most Americans.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-compassionate-conservative.html
Posted from: 68.175.16.58
September 1st, 2008 10:13
I have a lot of sympathy for the Palin family - for such a young woman to be suddenly thrust into the public spotlight, and to be the subject of so many rumors, is very difficult, and reading people talking about her with delight is very unsettling.
Regardless of the *other* story (which is probably only going to get more intense, not less, after this disclosure), there is the point that 1) One of Sarah Palin’s qualifications, as presented, was that she was the mother of 5 children; 2) Sarah Palin opposes sex education and thinks that that abstinence only should be taught - no birth control; 3) Sarah Palin believes that women should not have right to choose even in cases of rape, incest or health of the mother - carving only an exception for life of the mother. She is on record saying that she would not support her daughter having an abortion even if she was raped.
All of this necessarily intersects, and unfortunate as it is, will and should be discussed in context of the central qualification that was presented of Sarah Palin - as a mother, and as a feminist. She can not credibly say this should not be discussed because of the privacy of her daughters when she seeks to strip away the privacy rights of our daughters.
On the strictly political, I wonder how much America will have patience for the Alaskan soap opera that is being thrust on us…it is very clear that McCain’s decision was rash and unvetted (Heckuva job Sarah). While there is great cost for removing her from the tix, there is greater cost for having this debacle go on for a month and then removing her.
Posted from: 75.53.120.157
September 1st, 2008 13:17
mccain says he knew about this before picking her
i seriously doubt that
Posted from: 70.247.167.194
September 1st, 2008 18:33
Listen, although the Democrats will (and probably should) play the Experience card, I’m not so sure it will work.
Sure, the Republicans have been bashing Obama about his experience. But even though Palin may have had less experience, she has still accomplished much more in office than Obama. And THAT, I think, is going to be what the Republicans play up. And it’s a valid point.
Anyone here who keeps bringing up experience - i don’t think it matters that much. In the end, she has done much more than Obama. And That’s what matters.
Posted from: 12.216.167.34
September 1st, 2008 18:48
It’s been a rough news cycle for Sarah Palin. Regardless of whether any of these issues are “relevant,” they are hurting her perceptually because they’ve hijacked the narrative the party was trying to build around her. Rather than seeming like a ready-to-roll candidate, she seems like a walking scandal factory. Just today:
- Palin releases “news” that her daughter is pregnant
- It’s discovered that her husband had a DUI arrest at the dawn of time
- It’s reported that she’s hired a lawyer to defend herself against the growing allegations involved in “Troopergate”
- It’s reported that she was “for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it”
Some of these are substantively relevant, some of them have only political relevance, and some of them are just smoke, but the point is it’s been about 30 hours now of fairly steady negative coverage of Palin.
This was a poorly vetted choice.
Posted from: 68.175.16.58
September 1st, 2008 19:03
As it becomes apparent that Palin will need to withdraw as a candidate (though we can dream that he will be a maverick enough to keep her on the ticket), I am wondering if any conservatives feel a sense of betrayal with McCain as to how he handled this - the shoddy, gimicky pick that crashed and burned and was a potentially fatal hit to the campaign. Most of the commentary on National Review and other right wing blogs seem almost uniformly positive (in an amusing way); arguments range from she’s a babe to she has more relevant experience from 20 months of governing a state that has a population only slightly larger than the audience of a speech for Barack (and her most significant accomplishment is embroiling herself in an ethics challenge for some petty family dispute that spilled into her official disputes). I wonder where the rage is at McCain making such an uninformed and unvetted decision, jeopardizing the entire party. I don’t know if the party has wise ones who can weigh on McCain (or her) to make the right move….but is there any sense that people have a more grassroots rebellion of this choice? She has the chance to drop out right now in a fairly sympathetic way…are they going to take it? Should they?
Posted from: 24.165.9.37
September 1st, 2008 19:53
more palin fun:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/members-of-frin.html
seriously, i couldn’t make this shit up.
Posted from: 205.221.2.45
September 2nd, 2008 11:45
RE: 108 - they won’t because that would unredeemably doom the ticket.
For the short term, at least, the party faithful and the right wing of the party have embraced Palin for her conservative values. That’s why the delegates support her, and why right-wing blogs reflect support. And it’s possible that having “energized the base,” this may increase the voter turnout for McCain. But for the most part, I think, those people who are embracing Palin in the face of what seems (pretty obviously) to be her lack of qualification and vetting are people who were going to vote McCain anyhow.
I’ve got to believe that moderates who aren’t ideologically Republican are going to be seriously freaked out by the idea of a President Palin, and moreso as she continues to generate negative press. The polls seem already to reflect that the undecided middle is breaking for Obama; hopefully that trend will continue.
And don’t forget, there’s more to come. Palin today said she was never in the AIP, which gives legs to that story — there are a number of AIP members who say she was involved. And there’s a steady stream of information coming out of Alaska about her ethical failings.
And don’t forget, the story about the ethics investigation into her conduct in Troopergate is scheduled to last until right before election day.
Yikes!
Posted from: 38.117.182.130
September 2nd, 2008 13:23
Her husband was a registered member of AIP from 1995-2002.
Her withdrawing from the ticket is trading at 14 last time I checked on intrade.
Mitt Romney is doing push-ups somewhere. But I hope and pray you are right and they are stupid enough to ride this thing to November…
Posted from: 69.181.125.79
September 2nd, 2008 16:19
17.1 on intrade
Posted from: 68.175.16.58
September 2nd, 2008 17:01
Don’t go Sarah, please don’t go….
Posted from: 99.157.65.48
September 2nd, 2008 18:33
Dave is right…they would never pull her from the ticket. They don’t want to repeat what happened with McGovern.
Palin stays.
Posted from: 75.82.45.242
September 2nd, 2008 22:39
It is amazing to me what an un-thinking community this can be at times. The pseudo-intellectual arrogance in this discussion is remarkable. Agree or disagree with Palin’s positions, she’s pretty accomplished at 44. Granted, she must be completely retarded since she never won a debate tournament, doesn’t live somewhere
urban, and (God forbid) shares many of the same
values that working America has. I don’t agree with many of those values. They are the product of a different way of life. What is so amazing is that many of same “intellectuals” that abandon moral absolutism when convenient return to the confines of liberal human rights assumptions when popular (the “right to choice,” etc.).
The debate community is a smarter version of middle-America… not an ounce more intellectually consistent, not an ounce more politically genuine. The herd mentality of enlightened “blue state” liberals is every bit as embarassing as Heartland Hayseeds.
I think Lexy, Bietz, etc take a fair approach in assessing the strategic value in this. Comments that strike as utterly absurd:
1. Everything Quinn said–good job regurgitating MoveOn.org talking points. The left has its mindless Rush Limbaughs too.
2. Ajay: “It’s good to see McSame play the female card by picking a running mate that has less experience in government then Obama.”
McSame? Really? Anyone remember how bitter the race between McCain and Bush was? And who cares about “playing the female card” as if Obama doesn’t play the race card (”I dont look much like the typical presidential candidate”=his STUMP SPEECH) or as if Biden wasn’t playing the national security/blue collar card. Again, mindless partisanship.
3. Matt Hershey: “mccain’s so old that he’s suffering from mcbrain loss”.
Ageism much? Remember this the next time someone tells you that ‘you’re too young to understand’. The guy is 72. Pretty healthy despite some skin cancer and after-effects of his 5 years as a POW.
4.Then Akshay spews plenty of bumper-stickers…
“1) Palin is Pro Life”
I personally trend pro-choice, but I’m not sure why it’s so controversial to err pro-life given the finitude of science and liberalism as ethical guides.
“2) is part of the NRA”
HOLY SHIT CALL THE POPE! She’s a hunter. Just like a lot of NRA people are. I find hunting aesthetically unappealing, but give it a rest. Owning guns isn’t the worst thing.
“3) is Anti same sex marriage”
And yet, she ensured same-sex couple have benefit access on par with married couples. This is a non-issue. McCain/Palin aren’t going to push for an amendment. States issue, as it should be.
“4) is anti-environment”
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
“5) is under investigation for corruption”
So you like the “right to choose,” but don’t like due process? The FBI investigated a dude for YEARS thinking he was behind the anthrax mailings, and… SHOCK.. he wasn’t. And omfg for all we know this trooper was a total asshole who deserved to get fired. Bottom line=she said she didn’t authorized the call from her office, and the McCain people knew about this and apparently didn’t see much risk… soooo I doubt it’s gonna blow up.
“6) has less political experience than Obama, unless you count her 2 terms as an Alaskan “city” mayor”
Yah, guess small towns don’t count. Maybe we should elect the governer of a BIG STATE… like… like TEXAS! I also love that people compare Palin’s experience with Obama… if experience matters at all, Obama would get schooled by McCain. I wouldn’t bark up that tree.
5. Jane Boyd: “I watched the speech and almost got sick. She is there ONLY because she is a woman and blatantly went after the Hillary voters. Don’t be fooled…I personally know Hillary Clinton and Karen Pahlen is NO Hillary Clinton.”
Jane, I love you, but who the hell is Karen Pahlen. I love how liberal women are basic