Master Index of Archived Threads


McCain's running mate

Who will be McCain's running mate?

Mitt Romney	8 votes
Mike Huckabee	1 votes
Tim Pawlenty	1 votes
Joe Lieberman	1 votes
Tom Ridge	0 votes
Charlie Crist	0 votes
Sarah Palin	3 votes
someone else	2 votes

Nymr83 Aug 22 2008 04:55 PM

don't vote once he anounces it please

Kong76 Aug 22 2008 05:28 PM

I have no idea, but I hope he picks a woman to piss Hillary off.

AG/DC Aug 22 2008 05:29 PM

I'm telling you, it's Marilyn Musgrave.

metsguyinmichigan Aug 22 2008 05:42 PM

Sarah Palin would be outstanding, but she might be tainted by the Ted Stevens stuff, and some investigation that she got her brother-in-law fired or something.

Nymr83 Aug 22 2008 06:26 PM

I don't think she has anything to do with Stevens stuff, any more than the governor of Idaho has to do with Larry Craig, has anyone read anything to the contrary? I haven't heard the brother-in-law thing. But thats hardly suprising since she isn't (yet) a national figure. I'd think both presidential campaigns would do a good job of pulling out any potential skeletons and evaluating them before picking a running mate. I've done some limited reading up on her, and I'm impressed. I would be very happy with her as the pick.

AG/DC Aug 22 2008 07:13 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 28 2008 07:56 AM

She's the mother of a newborn. Would make for a challenging and interesting campaign. Her state is deadeye Republican with or without her on the ticket.

Nymr83 Aug 23 2008 12:27 AM

sure, but there are other things to consider: she's young, she appeals to conservatives, she's a she. If McCain could really pick someone to gaurantee their important swing-state (particularly Ohio) then he probably should do it, but its never a gaurantee, Edwards when running for VP lost his home state right?

Mendoza Line Aug 23 2008 07:38 AM

I don't think there have been many elections where a candidate won a VP's home state that he would have otherwise lost. Maybe Gore helped Clinton win Tennessee in 1992 and 1996 (and maybe not), but that's about it. Sarah Palin, although she's wildly popular among Alaska's voters, has less experience as governor than Obama has as a U.S. Senator. And when Obama was teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago, Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (population 8,300, not counting the moose). Yeah, I know, no fair comparing a presidential candidate to a VP candidate, but you do want a VP who is capable of taking over the top job. Yes, she's a she, but a strongly anti-abortion candidate isn't going to win over many of Clinton's supporters, ovaries or not. I've never really bought into the "energizing the base" argument. The base isn't going anywhere, except to the polls on Election Day. If McCain wants to put a scare into Dems like me, he'll pick one of the moderates.

AG/DC Aug 23 2008 08:51 AM

Mendoza Line wrote: I don't think there have been many elections where a candidate won a VP's home state that he would have otherwise lost. Lyndon Johnson didn't win Texas for John Kennedy, but he did bring other Dixie states on board.

Nymr83 Aug 23 2008 01:21 PM

]except to the polls on Election Day. thats the place you want to get them to go, instead of staying home and saying "fuck it" or showing up and saying "bob barr"

metsguyinmichigan Aug 23 2008 06:08 PM

"I've never really bought into the "energizing the base" argument. The base isn't going anywhere, except to the polls on Election Day. If McCain wants to put a scare into Dems like me, he'll pick one of the moderates." I disagree. They already have a moderate on the ticket -- at the top. The conservatives already have concerns about McCain, so he needs to reassure them. I could see him going all crazy and bold and picking a moderate like Leiberman, but that would be more of an attempt to steal away Dems who don't like Obama than cementing the conservatives. A moderate from within the party doesn't do that. I interviewed Romney a number of times when he came through Michigan during the primary. I was impressed. We threw him some tough questions, and he was very specific in his responses, rather than vague, feel-good replies.

AG/DC Aug 23 2008 07:01 PM

Well, what's going to get a candidate our own particular vote isn't often their key concern.

Mendoza Line Aug 23 2008 09:49 PM

]Well, what's going to get a candidate our own particular vote isn't often their key concern. Not when it comes to those of us who live in safe blue states (or federal districts). But Michigan's a swing state with 17 electoral votes. Somewhere, a McCain staffer is alerting his boss..."Hey, Mac...metsguyinmichigan says Romney's his man." It must be really cool to have your vote count in a Presidential election. It's all speculation, but the 2008 version of McCain seems to be conservative enough that he's not going to drive the movement conservatives to stay home or to vote for a weak 3rd party candidate. I still think he needs to win the middle more than the right. But other than Hagel (who disagrees with McCain on Iraq) and Lieberman (who disagrees with McCain on everything else), there aren't any moderates under discussion.

metsguyinmichigan Aug 23 2008 10:29 PM

Not sure what you meant by that, Mendoza. Never said Romney was my man. I just said he was impressive when I interviewed him. So was Huckabee. So was Hillary, though that was several years ago. Duncan Hunter was pretty good, too.

Nymr83 Aug 24 2008 12:25 AM

]and Lieberman (who disagrees with McCain on everything else Lieberman is also pro-life, one of the biggest issues for many conservatives

Mendoza Line Aug 24 2008 05:18 AM

]Not sure what you meant by that, Mendoza. Never said Romney was my man. It was meant as a side comment on how quick candidates were to react to the preferences of voters in swing states versus safe states (not that this doesn't make sense strategically). Sorry if I misstated - or even implied that I knew anything about - your preference.

MFS62 Aug 24 2008 10:15 AM

Nymr83 wrote: ]and Lieberman (who disagrees with McCain on everything else Lieberman is also pro-life, one of the biggest issues for many conservatives And he also agreed with him on Iraq. Strongly. Later

AG/DC Aug 24 2008 10:32 AM

That was the original statement that Nymr is quoting.

MFS62 Aug 24 2008 10:37 AM

AG/DC wrote: That was the original statement that Nymr is quoting. In this thread? I read all his posts here. Must have missed it. Later

bmfc1 Aug 24 2008 11:35 AM

Nymr83 wrote: ]and Lieberman (who disagrees with McCain on everything else Lieberman is also pro-life, one of the biggest issues for many conservatives Removed. Got it off my chest. Decided better of it.

AG/DC Aug 24 2008 11:44 AM

Mendoza Line wrote: But other than Hagel (who disagrees with McCain on Iraq) and Lieberman (who disagrees with McCain on everything else), there aren't any moderates under discussion. Implied is that it's understood that Lieberman agrees with McCain on Iraq policy. It's also known by anyone paying attention by now.

Farmer Ted Aug 28 2008 07:22 AM

Supposedly it's a done deal. Wonder which news service cracks it first.

metsguyinmichigan Aug 28 2008 07:53 AM

Not gonna be Leiberman. Look for Kay Baily Hutchinson, senator from Texas.

Frayed Knot Aug 28 2008 07:57 AM

Announcement noon tomorrow - which means all the news hounds and news bunnies have 26 hours to see if they will be the one to spring the leak.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 28 2008 08:25 AM

Gotta be Romney, no? Though, naming a chick would be interesting.

Frayed Knot Aug 28 2008 08:27 AM

If nothing else it'll give the NYPost an excuse to run a 'MITT HAPPENS' headline.

metsguyinmichigan Aug 28 2008 08:30 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 28 2008 08:56 AM

Romney's cool campaign prop: Foam rubber baseball gloves with "Mitt 08" on them. As a purist, I'd point out that the foamy thing depicts a glove and not a mit, and that they should have used a catcher's mit or first baseman's mit. But I'm happy for any quality baseball/presidential politics link.

sharpie Aug 28 2008 08:30 AM

What I hear is that McCain and Kay Bailey Hutchison have never liked each other. Hard to figure it'll be anyone other than Romney or Pawlenty.

AG/DC Aug 28 2008 08:30 AM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Gotta be Romney, no? Though, naming a chick would be interesting. Naming a chick would be a fantastic flanking maneuver. Naming a working mother like Sarah Palin would gobble headlines. Whether she can hack it is another story.

metirish Aug 28 2008 11:50 AM

I'm listening to Irish radio and they have a guy on who claims to have talked to McCain 'insiders' that say they have checked Mitt Ronmney's schedule and there is no way he can be with McCain tomorrow , this fella claims that Tim Pawlenty is the guy.

sharpie Aug 28 2008 12:07 PM

My wife's Minnesota family who are mixed Republican/Independents (one of whom is involved in MN politics) have no use for Pawlenty and say that that picking him would drive them to Obama (they appear to lean McCain presently).

AG/DC Aug 28 2008 12:10 PM

Also a key swing group.

Farmer Ted Aug 28 2008 12:15 PM

Hutchison would appeal to the female block, but she's 66. Given McCain just turned 72, he's prolly looking for someone a tad bit younger.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 28 2008 12:31 PM

I don't know if I find Romney more distasteful than others do, but I'd think he'd hurt McCain's chances of attracting independent voters. (Assuming that VP picks have much influence, which is far from certain.) My guess is that Pawlenty is probably a safer pick.

Nymr83 Aug 28 2008 12:41 PM

pick the hottie!

Benjamin Grimm Aug 28 2008 12:43 PM

Paris Hilton?

Farmer Ted Aug 28 2008 12:44 PM

Hotty? Palin? I'm in for the milf soccer mom governor.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 28 2008 01:05 PM

I haven't seen her picture, I don't think? She's an MILF? That would make her a potential VPILF. I don't think we've had one of those since, well, Agnew.

HahnSolo Aug 28 2008 01:15 PM

Here she is, I think. looking like the "before" version of the teacher in one of those 80s metal videos, before magically transforming into a leather miniskirted hottie.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 28 2008 01:21 PM

Or like the frumpy girl that Marcia Brady helped "makeover" and who later became her cheerleading rival, or something like that. I've seen it on TV many times, the beautiful woman who puts her hair up and wears dark-rimmed glasses so that we think she's "ugly" and are then surprised to see how beautiful she is. That's what this governor looks like. And she'd definitely be a hotter VP than Agnew was!

seawolf17 Aug 28 2008 01:23 PM

I don't know or care who she is, but I'd vote for her. Sorry, Ralph. Find a hotter VP candidate in '12.

metsguyinmichigan Aug 28 2008 01:25 PM

Well, that's an older photo. But she's a former pagent winner or something.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 28 2008 01:28 PM

They should just put her there to give Joe Biden something to remark inappropriately about. Though I think she's for killing polar bears and stuff.

Farmer Ted Aug 28 2008 01:28 PM

Checked her bio on Wiki. Five kids, the last one born just a few months ago with Down Syndrome. Age 44. "She hunts, eats moose burgers, ice fishes, rides snowmobiles, and owns a float plane."

Benjamin Grimm Aug 28 2008 01:30 PM

An early photo, and a more recent one:

AG/DC Aug 28 2008 01:36 PM

Husband's an oilman and a fisherman. She's done commerical fishing with him, smoked (legal) dope but disowns it now, played a high school baseketball championship with a stress fracture, given birth to a handicapped kid, and has a son going to Iraq. it's a compelling bio. It doesn't mean she has the heft to do the job, though.

HahnSolo Aug 28 2008 01:39 PM

AG/DC wrote: it's a compelling bio. It doesn't mean she has the heft to do the job, though. If she can birth five kids by age 44 and still look like that, I say let's give her a shot.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 28 2008 01:42 PM

She can't be any worse than what we already have.

AG/DC Aug 28 2008 01:44 PM

I hear you, but distinctions will be drawn, and dulls the blade by which John McCain can underscore Obama's inexperience. Ten years ago, she was mayor of a town of 5,000 or so.

AG/DC Aug 28 2008 01:46 PM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: She can't be any worse than what we already have. It's like I'm a bull and you all tease me with red capes everywhere.

Farmer Ted Aug 28 2008 01:48 PM

Mayor of a small town for 8 years. Head of some gas and oil group for two years. Governor for 2+ years. Hmm. That's comparable to Barry. I just want to hear the sordid stories that come out about her in Us! Speaking of Us! Some bitter family shit. http://www.usmagazine.com/news/cindy-mccains-half-sister-im-voting-for-obama

AG/DC Aug 28 2008 01:55 PM

"All Things Considered" running family sniping these days?

seawolf17 Aug 28 2008 01:57 PM

="Benjamin Grimm"]An early photo, and a more recent one: Okay, I'm taking my vote back and giving it back to Ralph Nader. Now, if Michael Palin decides to run, then maybe we'll talk.

Farmer Ted Aug 29 2008 06:27 AM

Some CNN newsie reports that a chartered jet left Anchorage last night for Dayton. Of course, he didn't name the source for information.

AG/DC Aug 29 2008 06:45 AM

If I'm the DNC, I'm preparing an ad along the lines of Joe Biden saying, "They compare Barack Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, and then they introduce, as their candidate for vice president of the United States, a former beauty pageant contestant? Republicans may have brought back budget deficits, but they sure have surplus of gall."

Farmer Ted Aug 29 2008 06:48 AM

The kicker will be to see, during the debate, how many times Biden glances down to check out her rack. (on edit) NOW...CNN gives sources. Looks like the chick is going to be it. Thursday night's arrival of a private jet from Alaska at the Middleton, Ohio, airport raised speculation that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would be a McCain's pick. Middleton is 25 miles from Dayton. Rich Bevis, an airport manager at the Middleton airport, said that a woman, two men and two teenagers were onboard. "This is the most secretive flight we've ever had," he said.

AG/DC Aug 29 2008 07:08 AM

As a source, Rich Bevis has never steered me wrong.

Farmer Ted Aug 29 2008 07:10 AM

I like his friend, Butthead. OR..do you believe Kate McCarthy? ABC News' Kate McCarthy Reports: As vice presidential speculation swirls, Gov. Sarah Palin is watching the fireworks from her home in Wasilla, Alaska. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is in Dayton, Ohio, awaiting a high noon event at which the campaign has said the Republican contender will announce his running mate. All eyes are on a short list of contenders including Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Govs. Mitt Romney and Tom Ridge, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Palin. But the possibility of a surprise pick also looms as the McCain camp remains mum at this hour about just who will be joining their candidate on stage in battleground Ohio. But one person who will not be there: Palin. The Governor's spokesperson, Sharon Leighow, tells ABC News she's going to the State Fair in Anchorage, Alaska.

AG/DC Aug 29 2008 07:17 AM

Reading back... Nymr83 wrote: ]and Lieberman (who disagrees with McCain on everything else Lieberman is also pro-life, one of the biggest issues for many conservatives I've always considered Lieberman to be supportive of abortion rights.

Farmer Ted Aug 29 2008 07:28 AM

Bevis continues as an unlikely tattle tale. The Dayton Daily News nailed him. Damn muckrakers. MIDDLETOWN — A Gulfstream IV jet owned by a firm in Kirkland, Wash., landed at Hook Field Municipal Airport late Thursday night is believed to have had Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on board as a passenger. National media outlets have identified the first-term Alaska governor, the first woman elected to the position, as a possible vice presidential candidate for Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. McCain is in Dayton today and is expected to announce his running mate sometime later today at the Nutter Center at Wright State University. According to Rich Bevis of B&B Aero, the fixed-based operator at Hook Field, the jet, a Gulfstream IV which has the flight range to fly from Alaska to Europe, landed at about 10:15 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 28. Bevis said the woman "was a real close match to Palin" and added that the flight crew that's based in the Seattle area was told to fly to Anchorage to pick up their party and fly to Middletown. Bevis said the jet had a woman, two teenagers and two men on board and that a couple of white vans met the plane, gathered their gear and took the party to an undisclosed location.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 29 2008 07:33 AM

She's in "an undisclosed location?" That proves she's VP material.

metirish Aug 29 2008 07:54 AM

Obama uses text messaging to tell of his running mate and McCain will use a Gulfstream IV jet to announce his running mate with jetstream signals in the sky.

metirish Aug 29 2008 08:32 AM

Irish radio reporting it's Sarah Palin.

sharpie Aug 29 2008 08:44 AM

They put up a Hawaiian, we'll put up an Alaskan. Odd choice. Undercuts the "not ready" message they've been hammering, especially since McCain turns 72 today.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 29 2008 08:47 AM

Both VP candidates come from states with the minimum 3 electoral votes. I bet that's never happened before.

holychicken Aug 29 2008 08:48 AM

Odd choice? Not at all. They are trying to steal the people who were planning on voting for Hillary because she is a woman. Smart political move, although it kind of weakens his whole "Obama is inexperienced" attack.

metsguyinmichigan Aug 29 2008 08:54 AM

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Sarah Palin would be outstanding, but she might be tainted by the Ted Stevens stuff, and some investigation that she got her brother-in-law fired or something. Yea! The Mets Guy kinda called it!

AG/DC Aug 29 2008 09:02 AM

It's not, as I read, that she got her brother-in-law fired, but that she supposedly transferred the guy who didn't fire her brother-in-law.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 29 2008 09:04 AM

After eight years of cronyism, it's kind of nice to see someone who'd fire her own brother-in-law.

sharpie Aug 29 2008 09:05 AM

]They are trying to steal the people who were planning on voting for Hillary because she is a woman. The strategy of picking a woman because women will vote for her worked real well for Walter Mondale.

AG/DC Aug 29 2008 09:08 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 29 2008 09:08 AM

I'm certain that's part of their thinking. I'm certain there's more to it than that. The proof is in the pudding. What exactly was going to save Walter Mondale?

Gwreck Aug 29 2008 09:08 AM

Especially with a strong anti-abortion stance like that of Palin. Do they really think NOW is going to shift their support to Palin just because of the second x chromosome?

AG/DC Aug 29 2008 09:10 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Sep 25 2008 02:03 PM

I'm sure they don't. Do you think all women vote for the candidate endorsed by NOW?

Farmer Ted Aug 29 2008 09:10 AM

Mr. Palin, First Dude. Todd Palin unique among nation's 5 first husbands THE MAN: He's worked the oil patch, won the Iron Dog and takes care of the kids. By JEANNETTE J. LEE The Associated Press, May 27, 2007 It was mid-February and Todd Palin, Alaska's newest first gentleman, was speeding across 2,000 miles of ice and snowy tundra en route to victory in the world's most grueling snowmobile race. That same week, his wife, Gov. Sarah Palin, was in Juneau requesting more money for the state budget and assuring legislators they'd soon see her plan for a natural gas pipeline that could one day be the most expensive construction project in North America. Then she flew to Fairbanks to wave her exhausted husband across the finish line. It's not just his title as the state's reigning snowmobile co-champion that sets 42-year-old Todd Palin apart from the nation's other first spouses. And it's not that he's one of just five who are men. White-collar jobs in law, education or health care are typical among the current crop of first spouses, but Palin spent nearly 20 years as a blue-collar employee in the oil fields of the North Slope. And every summer he heads west to his birthplace in Dillingham to work the Bristol Bay commercial salmon fishery from his property on the Nushagak River. A lifetime of manual labor in the state's two largest and most physically demanding industries is helping Palin carve out his role as Alaska's first spouse, or "first dude," a nickname he has in common with the Kansas governor's husband, Gary Sebelius. Like other first spouses around the country, Palin has been asked to champion an array of causes or institutions since his wife took office in December. His favorite is steering young Alaskans toward stable jobs in the oil and gas industry. It's a singular choice among his counterparts, whose pet issues include schools, public health, domestic violence, poverty or the arts. BP-TRAINED "For those of us who learn by touching and tearing stuff apart and for those who don't have the financial background to go to college, just being a product of that on-the-job training is really important," Palin said one morning over pastries at an Anchorage coffee shop, before meeting with trainers at several companies and trade groups in Anchorage and Wasilla. Palin, who took college courses, but does not have a degree, said he is grateful for the training he received from the multinational oil company BP starting in 1989. Until recently, he earned hourly wages as a production operator in a BP-run facility that separates oil from gas and water. Palin was making between $100,000 and $120,000 a year before he went on leave in December to make more time for his family and avoid potential conflicts of interest. London-based BP is heavily involved in the gas pipeline negotiations with his wife's administration. Palin's advocacy dovetails neatly with his wife's No. 1 priority: forging a construction contract with private companies to transport natural gas from the North Slope to the Lower 48. The export of natural gas would presumably replace revenue from the state's dwindling oil reserves, which funded 80 percent of the state budget last year. "He will be passing information on to me and participating in getting work force development programs up and running in Alaska," Sarah Palin said. "That's in addition to doing all the things that make Todd Todd. There are lots of things I would never want to take away from him, but this is something he's enthused about." Those things include taking care of their four kids and escaping into the Alaska wilderness to fish commercially, hunt or train for the Tesoro Iron Dog, billed as the longest, toughest snowmobile race in the world. The Palins have a son, Track, 18, and three daughters, Bristol, 16, Willow, 12, and Piper, 6. A PALIN PASSION Palin is so passionate about the Iron Dog that he made sure to squeeze in snowmobile runs between official events this winter, such as statewide inaugural galas, and moving the family to the governor's mansion in Juneau. The capital is 600 miles southeast of the family home in Wasilla. "I've got a really good group of buddies and we train either early in the morning or late at night so we can still make things like the kids' basketball games and try not to impact the family life," Palin said. In past years, Palin has trained about 3,000 miles before the race to accustom his body to hours of constant jolting and to detect any mechanical kinks in his vehicle. This winter, Palin covered more than 2,500 miles on the frozen swamps and rivers around Wasilla. Scott Davis, his race partner of five years, said Palin has the willpower to stay levelheaded while racing at high speeds over terrain that can range from glare ice to bare ground to flooded coastlines strewn with driftwood. The Iron Dog traces the Iditarod trail from Wasilla to Nome, plus an additional leg to Fairbanks. "I have to trust my life in his hands, and I do, because he can still think when he's dehydrated and tired," said Davis, a seven-time winner. "You know, I think this is the longest I've been partners with anybody. A lot of teams certainly don't have fun when they're doing it and I like to think Todd and I do." This year's win is Palin's fourth since he started running the Iron Dog in 1993. Palin was born in the western Alaska town of Dillingham to Jim Palin and Blanche Kallstrom, who is a quarter Yu'pik Eskimo. He met Sarah Heath at a high school basketball game and they eloped in 1988, six years after graduation, to avoid having to pay for a wedding. "We had a bad fishing year that year, so we didn't have any money," Todd Palin said. "So we decided to spend 35 bucks and go down to the courthouse." At home, Palin takes care of the cooking, the bills and other domestic paperwork, in addition to driving the kids to extracurricular activities like basketball and soccer, according to his wife. He divides much of his time between Wasilla, where Track is recovering from shoulder surgery, and the capital in Juneau, where the Palin daughters are in school. "He can go on just an hour or two of sleep a night. He says, 'I can sleep when I die,' " said Sarah Palin. "There is no way I could have done this job without his tremendous contributions to the home life. He's able to keep it organized, like a well-oiled machine."

seawolf17 Aug 29 2008 09:11 AM

It's one of those weird posting situations where it looks like Roger McDowell is having a conversation with himself. Freaky.

metirish Aug 29 2008 09:13 AM

I don't know much about her but have heard described as an ultra conservative , is that true?

Benjamin Grimm Aug 29 2008 09:15 AM

metirish wrote: I don't know much about her but have heard described as an ultra conservative , is that true? This is me trying to talk like a TV pundit: "He's throwing red meat to the base."

Frayed Knot Aug 29 2008 10:39 AM

Michael Palin was on the short list but during the vetting process they discovered he wasn't an American

Benjamin Grimm Aug 29 2008 11:00 AM

This really is an extraordinary year. We're now guaranteed to either have a black president or a woman vice president. But how can McCain argue that Palin is ready to be President, if necessary, while still arguing that Obama lacks the proper experience?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Aug 29 2008 11:03 AM

White men suck!

metirish Aug 29 2008 11:11 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: This really is an extraordinary year. We're now guaranteed to either have a black president or a woman vice president. But how can McCain argue that Palin is ready to be President, if necessary, while still arguing that Obama lacks the proper experience? I've asked my conservative work mate that question and the party line seems to be 'well she's a governor' like that's a huge experience coming form Alaska.

AG/DC Aug 29 2008 11:13 AM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Aug 31 2008 01:58 PM

I imagine he'll stop pushing that position for the time being. He can also argue that Obama's inexperience is as much of a quanity issue as a quality issue.

metsguyinmichigan Aug 29 2008 11:54 AM

She might be the first candidate to openly wear glasses since Goldwater, and even he wasn't wearing them full-time in every poster. Would have to go back to Truman.

AG/DC Aug 29 2008 11:55 AM

AG/DC wrote: I imagine he'll stop pushing that position for the time being. He can also argue that Obama's inexperience is as much of a quanity issue as a qualtiy issue. Or he can angrily repeat talking points.

Benjamin Grimm Aug 29 2008 12:08 PM

Okay, I just learned that one of her sons is named "Track" and another is named "Trig." She seems to subscribe to the Roger Clemens school of thought regarding baby names. I wonder what the names of the other three kids are? My guesses: Truck, Trap, and Trip.

metsguyinmichigan Aug 29 2008 12:13 PM

Daughters named Piper, Willow and Bristol.

seawolf17 Aug 29 2008 12:24 PM

Trig is four months old! That's hard-core, dude. Toddler in the White House!

metirish Aug 29 2008 12:28 PM

The little fella has Down's syndrome .

Kong76 Aug 29 2008 12:31 PM

I would have bought the pay-per-view to see her and Hillary go at it in a steel cage mud pit-death debate.

metirish Aug 30 2008 04:07 AM

Palin sounds incredibly annoying to me so far.

MFS62 Aug 30 2008 05:48 AM

metsguyinmichigan wrote: She might be the first candidate to openly wear glasses since Goldwater, and even he wasn't wearing them full-time in every poster. Would have to go back to Truman. Attention Tina Fey. SNL just called. They want you back immediately. Later

cooby Aug 30 2008 09:27 AM

AG/DC wrote: I'm sure they don't. Do you think all women vote for the candidate endoresed by NOW? No, some of us out here still consider the male gender capable.

AG/DC Aug 30 2008 09:35 AM

oops post.

Frayed Knot Aug 31 2008 01:01 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Aug 31 2008 06:52 PM

'Farmer Ted' [url=http://cranepoolforum.qwknetllc.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=8400&start=20]scooped everyone[/url] six months ago!!

metsguyinmichigan Aug 31 2008 03:00 PM

WOW!!! Nice job, Ted!

Fman99 Aug 31 2008 06:58 PM

She's hawt. Crazy, and shrill, but hot. I'd like to show her my peninsula.

MFS62 Sep 01 2008 08:57 AM

She won't deserve the same salary as someone like, say, Dick Cheney. Because, after all, she's a woman. Seriously - her last child has Down's Syndrome. At all of her public appearences so far, her older daughter has been carrying to baby around. The question of how much time she is personally devoting to its care will surely come up. Later

AG/DC Sep 01 2008 09:02 AM

Sure, you just brought it up. What do you mean "its health care"?

Benjamin Grimm Sep 01 2008 09:40 AM

I'm guessing he doesn't know if the child is a boy or a girl. I'm not sure either, although I think it's a son.

DocTee Sep 01 2008 11:58 AM

The 17- year old kid shown holding her disabled brother is herself pregnant, according to cnn.com

Frayed Knot Sep 01 2008 12:05 PM

So the baby is being used to hide the baby? It would also make Gov Palin a G-MILF

Gwreck Sep 01 2008 12:06 PM

On a more serious note, I would hope this serves as a wake-up call to the abstinence-only proponents.

Frayed Knot Sep 01 2008 12:23 PM

There seem to be some out there who believe that the new-born baby was also Bristol Palin's and merely passed off as the child of her parents as a form of coverup. "Proof" apparently exists in the Governor not looking very pregnant prior to his birth and that the daughter "had mono" and was out of school during much of that time.

MFS62 Sep 01 2008 12:56 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter There's the news link. Funny, a few short weeks ago, McCain compared Obama to Britney Spears. Now his running mate could be Britney's mom. You can't make this stuff up. Later

SteveJRogers Sep 01 2008 01:13 PM

MFS62 wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter There's the news link. Funny, a few short weeks ago, McCain compared Obama to Britney Spears. Now his running mate could be Britney's mom. You can't make this stuff up. Later Lets not compare politicians with trailer park trash shall we.

Nymr83 Sep 01 2008 01:22 PM

i thought it was Britney's sister? ]Lets not compare politicians with trailer park trash shall we. whats the difference between politicians and other forms of trash?

SteveJRogers Sep 01 2008 01:38 PM

Nymr83 wrote: i thought it was Britney's sister? ]Lets not compare politicians with trailer park trash shall we. whats the difference between politicians and other forms of trash? Fair point, I was going for Pallin being a higher class of trash than the Spears clan.

Nymr83 Sep 01 2008 01:55 PM

to be serious, i have no problem with palin's daughter being pregnant and am glad that both she and the guy are being responsible and that the parents are being supportive. its good to encourage your kids not to be having sex, but that ship has sailed once they are pregnant and you need to be supportive of them. i would have a problem if Palin's youngest child is also her daughter's, because i have a problem with politicians lying.

metsguyinmichigan Sep 01 2008 01:58 PM

They're also reporting that her husband had a DWI in -- 1984. He was what, 22? Incredible.

SteveJRogers Sep 01 2008 02:00 PM

I like how fast everything is coming out. Seems a little "too quick" actually. Like the stories are actually put out there by RNC members in order to get everything out in the open now.

Nymr83 Sep 01 2008 02:03 PM

metsguyinmichigan wrote: They're also reporting that her husband had a DWI in -- 1984. He was what, 22? Incredible. welcome to politics, soon they'll be showing us his detention slips from junior high school. her DWI would be relevant information, his isn't.

SteveJRogers Sep 01 2008 02:09 PM

Nymr83 wrote: ="metsguyinmichigan"]They're also reporting that her husband had a DWI in -- 1984. He was what, 22? Incredible. welcome to politics, soon they'll be showing us his detention slips from junior high school. her DWI would be relevant information, his isn't. Yeah, but what kind of a woman would marry someone who has a DWI on their record? To say nothing about what a sin it is to even commit a DWI! =;) Actually, in all seriousness, there are many (rightfully so of course) who do use a person's DWI or DUI as a way to think less of that person. Even if it is a one time offense. Wouldn't be surprised if those people use what I said as a joke in their actual commentary.

Nymr83 Sep 01 2008 02:26 PM

i do consider a DWI to be pretty serious, but only for the person committing it not their future spouse.

MFS62 Sep 01 2008 04:18 PM

(back to the election) There are more important issues here - If McCain knew about the pregnancy before naming Palin, it brings his judgement into question. If he didn't know because the information was withheld from him by Palin, it brings her honesty into question. And, if as we have been told, we didn't know because Palin just found out, it brings her observation and deductive skills into question. What did she think that bulge in her daughter's belly came from? No matter which way you slice it, one of them has given indication of a crack in their ability to lead the greatest nation in the world. I expect her to withdraw her name from the ticket shortly. And if she doesn't, she is fair game for anyone to comment on. Later

Nymr83 Sep 01 2008 04:39 PM

thats the biggest load of partisan shit i ever read.

OlerudOwned Sep 01 2008 05:03 PM

Yeah, I mean, the last thing I want is McCain/Palin winning this thing, but that's sort of ridiculous. There's plenty of reason to think she isn't the best fit for the position. The fact that her daughter had sex ain't part of it. The worst part of this, to me, has been the left-based rumor milling about how Palin faked a pregnancy to cover up for her daughter having a different kid. When you're pulling for a candidate who had to make his own damn website that cuts through the bullshit chain email smears that he'd been targeted with, you don't sink to that same level. That's stupid shit. Stupid.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 01 2008 05:03 PM

Yeah, that's pretty silly. I don't think she should withdraw her name because she has a pregnant daughter. I guess it's possible that outside pressures might build to the point where she feels she has to do that, but I don't see it happening. And if it DOES happen, it would be wrong.

Nymr83 Sep 01 2008 05:04 PM

Obama says he will fire any rumor-spreaders within his campaign. thumbs up to him if he follows through.

OlerudOwned Sep 01 2008 05:05 PM

Nymr83 wrote: Obama says he will fire any rumor-spreaders within his campaign. thumbs up to him if he follows through. I like that a lot.

MFS62 Sep 01 2008 05:09 PM

Ok, so to avoid partisanship, how about you finishing the following, 83: If McCain knew about the pregnancy before naming Palin, ........ If he didn't know because the information was withheld from him by Palin, ............. And, if as we have been told, he didn't know because Palin just found out, .................. Later

Benjamin Grimm Sep 01 2008 05:13 PM

I'll try this. ]if McCain knew about the pregnancy before naming Palin, ........ Good for him for not disqualifying her because of something her daughter did. ]If he didn't know because the information was withheld from him by Palin, ............. She probably should have disclosed it to him, just to head off surprises. More of a reflection on her than on him, I'd day. But it's an internal matter between McCain and Palin and doesn't affect her VP credentials. And, if as we have been told, he didn't know because Palin just found out, .................. Then she's not a great mother. But I voted twice for Clinton knowing that he's not a good husband or father. If I was inclined to vote for McCain, which I'm not, this wouldn't change my mind.

MFS62 Sep 01 2008 05:27 PM

I actually might have completed the last two very similar to the way you did. But I still think #1 shows poor judgement on his part not to recognize the reaction once the pregnancy was known. Later

AG/DC Sep 01 2008 05:41 PM

MFS62 wrote: (back to the election) There are more important issues here - If McCain knew about the pregnancy before naming Palin, it brings his judgement into question. If he didn't know because the information was withheld from him by Palin, it brings her honesty into question. And, if as we have been told, we didn't know because Palin just found out, it brings her observation and deductive skills into question. What did she think that bulge in her daughter's belly came from? No matter which way you slice it, one of them has given indication of a crack in their ability to lead the greatest nation in the world. I expect her to withdraw her name from the ticket shortly. And if she doesn't, she is fair game for anyone to comment on. Later I really didn't think you could outdo trying to use her handicapped child against her, while calling him an "it," but this is all very very sad.

metsguyinmichigan Sep 01 2008 05:53 PM

Making an issue out of her daughter is nonsense. Obviously McCain knew. And the people spreading the rumors about faking the last pregnancy to cover to the daughter are vile.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 01 2008 06:17 PM

From the Associated Press: ]Prominent religious conservatives, many of whom have been lukewarm toward McCain's candidacy, predicted that Palin's daughter's pregnancy would not diminish conservative Christian enthusiasm for the vice presidential hopeful, a staunch abortion opponent. Focus on the Family founder James Dobson issued a statement commending the Palins for "for not just talking about their pro-life and pro-family values, but living them out even in the midst of trying circumstances." He added: "Being a Christian does not mean you're perfect. Nor does it mean your children are perfect. But it does mean there is forgiveness and restoration when we confess our imperfections to the Lord." I wonder what the same people were saying about Jamie Lynn Spears? Hopefully, if they commented at all, they were equally forgiving.

Nymr83 Sep 01 2008 06:55 PM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I wonder what the same people were saying about Jamie Lynn Spears? Hopefully, if they commented at all, they were equally forgiving. can't find any direct quotes from Dobson on Spears. But if he, or others, were not "equally forgiving" with Spears it makes them hypocrits, not McCain or Palin.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 01 2008 07:05 PM

Yes, of course.

AG/DC Sep 01 2008 07:28 PM

These things are easy to find out, if you use The Google. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/21/juno_film_and_spears_story_spark_a_moral_debate_on_teen_pregnancy/ ]I expect her to withdraw her name from the ticket shortly. Let's bet. How about $200 to charity?

Frayed Knot Sep 01 2008 08:32 PM

MFS62 wrote: (back to the election) There are more important issues here - If McCain knew about the pregnancy before naming Palin, it brings his judgement into question. Not to me. ]If he didn't know because the information was withheld from him by Palin, it brings her honesty into question. Yes it would (see Eagleton, Tom) but there's no indication she did this. ]And, if as we have been told, we didn't know because Palin just found out, it brings her observation and deductive skills into question. Everything I've read/heard said that this topic WAS brought up during the vetting process. IOW, NOT just found out. ]No matter which way you slice it, one of them has given indication of a crack in their ability to lead the greatest nation in the world. Yao Ming doesn't stretch that far. ]I expect her to withdraw her name from the ticket shortly. I don't ]And if she doesn't, she is fair game for anyone to comment on. People can comment all they want, but comments that go after a pregnant teenager in order to score 'Gotcha' points against her mother's candidancy are going to reflect worse on those doing the slinging than on the intended target.

MFS62 Sep 02 2008 07:24 AM

="AG/DC"] What do you mean "its health care"? Yes, Ben was correct in his post following yours. I was unsure whether the baby was a boy or girl. No disrespect meant. I missed this your comment yesterday, and went back when I saw your later post. Later

Benjamin Grimm Sep 02 2008 07:29 AM

If anything is going to knock Palin off the ticket, it will be the trooper/brother-in-law thing. I don't expect that to happen, but if some ugly revelation pops up, it may pressure her to withdraw. But my guess is that there's not much there that most people are going to care about.

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 07:36 AM

Of course you meant disrespect. The notion that having a down syndrome child should disqualify you from positions of responsiblity is offensive at many levels. It exhibits a bias against women, against mothers, and against the handicapped. The lamentable thing is you probably don't particularly feel any of these things, but you're willing to exercise them all for political purposes. The gender ID of these children was already noted in this thread. Ignorance is no excuse. If you don't have facts, don't you think you should reserve your opinion? Horrible people in my office are calling them trash right now outside my office. It makes me sick. I hate political season. Here's a couple of comments. "They're two of the least educated human beings." "They don't have private schools up there in Alaska. Unless they're (snort!) Christian Evangelical Schools." "She's anti-everything." "Serves her right." I swear I'm going to take a shit in the hallway one of these days.

MFS62 Sep 02 2008 08:24 AM

You jumped to a whole bunch of conclusions there. I am not biased against any of those things you mentioned. In fact, just the opposite. Strongly the opposite. I was proud and supportive when my daughter marched for women's rights. I think motherhood is an honorable profession if that is the one the woman chooses. And when my wife didn't apply for a teaching job (read "high pay and pension"),and instead worked in a reading room as an aide, providing help to students with reading difficulties (including Downs syndrome children) I supported that, too. Yes, I've put my money where my mouth is being "pro" the things you say I'm against. You couldn't be more wrong on this one, Edgy. Later

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 08:31 AM

Nonsense. I didn't say you were, by defintition, biased. I said your comments are. And they are. And you know they are. Did you read all of my post? I wrote quite clearly "The lamentable thing is you probably don't particularly feel any of these things, but you're willing to exercise them all for political purposes." So turning this into an attack on your character or your life won't work. What I don't like is your post and the way you're exercising your politics on this site. I didn't ask you about your money or your mouth, either.

sharpie Sep 02 2008 08:55 AM

Good article in today's NYT on the fairly slipshod vetting process used for Palin. McCain had months to choose a VP candidate, the fact that he did it in what seems a pretty haphazard fashion speaks ill for him. If Sarah Palin were a man, he wouldn't have been considered. I don't care one whit about her daughter's pregnancy -- plenty of good families have things not go according to plan -- but the way they went about choosing her and not interviewing any actual Alaskans plus the lying about an FBI vetting is most disturbing. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02vetting.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 02 2008 08:59 AM

The whole thing kinda comes off like a desperate hail mary, but fwiw I think those plays are fun to watch.

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 09:06 AM

Exactly. "Ridge laterals to Lieberman. Lieberman looks like he's down... but NO, he laterals to Pawlenty. Pawlenty eludes a few tackles, and HOLY COW, WHERE DID PALIN COME FROM?! Palin's got blockers!"

Farmer Ted Sep 02 2008 09:19 AM

I'm not buying into this whole notion of Palin stealing Hillary's voters away. Hillary's voters are going to stick to Dem politics and vote along party lines. Where Palin is going to help the Repubs. are the undecided 10 percent, which a majority include soccer/hockey moms who lug their kids around all day in the minivan and see all the money being pumped into the gas tank. That cuts into their spending money and the money to send Billy and Suzie to that extra gymnastics lesson each week. If Barry hasn't cracked 50 percent by now, he isn't going to. "Valerie Smith" of Canterbury Lane in suburban Cincinnati is going decide this election and Barry can't get a hold of that voting block.

OlerudOwned Sep 02 2008 09:20 AM

Sarah Palin and Gregg Jefferies in one video? You betcha.

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 09:29 AM

i don't think anybody believes Palin on the ticket is going to steal 18 million Clinton votes. The hope is more likely that she can get 20% of disappointed Clinton loyalists.

DocTee Sep 02 2008 09:32 AM

]Horrible people in my office are calling them trash right now outside my office. It makes me sick. I hate political season. Here's a couple of comments. "They're two of the least educated human beings." "They don't have private schools up there in Alaska. Unless they're (snort!) Christian Evangelical Schools." "She's anti-everything." "Serves her right." I swear I'm going to take a shit in the hallway one of these days. Instead of taking a shit in the hallway, or posting your observations here, why not confront these fools when they utter such nonsense? You're an intelligent guy-- maybe they'd listen and learn.

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 10:02 AM

Thanks. These folks are my superiors. I have a way of opening my mouth and re-inforcing the dead-endness of my career track here. My participation in such conversations generally gets received, metaphorically, well, like a shit in the hallway. On equal footing, I'm hell on wheels. Here in the office, I'm like Huck Finn, letting the Duke and Dauphin live their lies to keep peace on the raft. Long-term, not a healthy way to be, I guess.

soupcan Sep 02 2008 10:05 AM

First of all - how does the McCain chose her? Ultra-Conservative to appease - okay I get that, but is that really all they were looking for from a VP candidate? Did they really think that her being a woman would sway Hilary suppoprters? Every Hilary person I've asked that of has laughed. Her state has what - 3 Electoral votes? That couldn't have been the reason. Her being 44 and 'inexperienced' doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in terms of being 'a heartbeat away' when the presidential cabdidate is in his 70's and has a history of cancer. You've got to think that the McCain knew about the daughter's pregnancy and decided it wasn't going to be a problem. If they didn't know then wow - bad job. If they did and thought it wouldn't be a problem then wow - bad job. And how about Palin having a 4 month old Downs Syndrome baby at home? Whether or not the kid is hers or daughter's shouldn't her not running for VP and focusing on the child's care be the bigger priority? Even if you feel that the baby and the daughter's pregnancy aren't issues, they are. If not for you for many others. Do the people who chose Palin to be McCain's running mate know what they are doing? After all this is what they do. They must have taken all of this into account , right? They can't be this stupid. Can they? Let's assume she is qualified and competant and the personal issues raiseed are none of anybody's business and should not be brought into the debate. In a perfect world, fine. But this is not a perfect world and one would think that the McCain camp knows that. This woman has brought so many distractions to this campaign that that will be all the media and public will focus on. Right or wrong. I know people who were on the fence before McCain named Palin. I know people who were looking for reasons not to vote for Obama. With the announcement of Palin, all of these people have expressed such dismay that they are either not voting or going Obama.

sharpie Sep 02 2008 10:25 AM

The on-the-fence Minnesota relations have now come out for Obama.

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 10:26 AM Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Sep 02 2008 10:42 AM

soupcan wrote: First of all - how does the McCain chose her? Huh? soupcan wrote: Ultra-Conservative to appease - okay I get that, but is that really all they were looking for from a VP candidate? She's not ultra-conservative. And clearly her conservatism is part, not all, of the package. Of course. soupcan wrote: Did they really think that her being a woman would sway Hilary suppoprters? Every Hilary person I've asked that of has laughed. What would they have asked him to do? soupcan wrote: Her state has what - 3 Electoral votes? That couldn't have been the reason. No. Alaska is loyally Republican anyhow. soupcan wrote: Her being 44 and 'inexperienced' doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in terms of being 'a heartbeat away' when the presidential cabdidate is in his 70's and has a history of cancer. Expeience is a double-edged sword. They hope they can handle it. They thought they could work with having the lesser experienced VP candidate while they had the more experience presidential candidate. Maybe not, but it's a gambit the other side takes also. They get attacked for putting old white guys out there. This time they didn't, but gave the second seat to a younger white woman. What would you have them do? soupcan wrote: You've got to think that the McCain knew about the daughter's pregnancy and decided it wasn't going to be a problem. If they didn't know then wow - bad job.. They did by all accounts and I wouldn't care if they didn't. Why should anybody be disparaged for not prying into the sex lives of eighteen-year-olds? soupcan wrote: If they did and thought it wouldn't be a problem then wow - bad job. I disagree. Why is this a problem? Shame on somebody who claims to be pro-life denying a mother an opportunity because her daughter is bearing a child. Shame on anybody, period. soupcan wrote: And how about Palin having a 4 month old Downs Syndrome baby at home? Whether or not the kid is hers or daughter's shouldn't her not running for VP and focusing on the child's care be the bigger priority? This is miserably retrograde sexist thinking. Why is this an issue? And why even bring up the story about her daughter secretly being the mother except to validate it? soupcan wrote: Even if you feel that the baby and the daughter's pregnancy aren't issues, they are. If not for you for many others. Then boo on them. Are we supposed to pander to ignorance? Does that disqualify Obama? Does it disqualify McCain for having a transracially adopted child? soupcan wrote: Do the people who chose Palin to be McCain's running mate know what they are doing? After all this is what they do. They must have taken all of this into account , right? They can't be this stupid. Can they? See, I'm surprised that you buy all this. soupcan wrote: Let's assume she is qualified and competant and the personal issues raiseed are none of anybody's business and should not be brought into the debate. In a perfect world, fine. But this is not a perfect world and one would think that the McCain camp knows that. Absurd. Deal with inappropriate press behavior by shaming the press and ignoring them. Like you would with Obama. soupcan wrote: This woman has brought so many distractions to this campaign that that will be all the media and public will focus on. Right or wrong. And Obama hasn't? If you don't get distracted by a stupid story, they'll stop running them. soupcan wrote: I know people who were on the fence before McCain named Palin. I know people who were looking for reasons not to vote for Obama. With the announcement of Palin, all of these people have expressed such dismay that they are either not voting or going Obama. If this is because they don't like her energy policy or her gun position or her stance on mooseburgers, fine. If it's any of this family nonsense, or what you're writing above, then shame on them. Folks who wouldn't let Obama be treated this way should be disgusted that she has been.

Farmer Ted Sep 02 2008 10:31 AM

"And how about Palin having a 4 month old Downs Syndrome baby at home? Whether or not the kid is hers or daughter's shouldn't her not running for VP and focusing on the child's care be the bigger priority?" Are you truly fucking serious with this comment?

sharpie Sep 02 2008 10:49 AM

The pregnant daughter and the having the Down's Syndrome kid shouldn't be part of the equation. The Alaskan secessionist party, the interfering in the trooper firing, the lying about an FBI check by the McCain campaign, the being for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it, the abject pandering of picking a person who'd been governor of a tiny state for 18 months, all of that is what matters.

sharpie Sep 02 2008 10:53 AM

Here's some stuff about the possible VP's future son-in-law: The New York Post has the scoop on Levi Johnston, the soon-to-be-husband to the pregnant daugther of the woman who may become the next vice president of the United States of America. He loves hockey and is pretty good at it: 24 goals in 24 games last season. On his MySpace page, Johnston boasts, "I'm a f---in' redneck" who likes to snowboard and ride dirt bikes. "But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some s--- and just f---in' chillin' I guess." "Ya f--- with me I'll kick [your] ass," he added. He also claims to be "in a relationship," but states, "I don't want kids."

Nymr83 Sep 02 2008 10:57 AM

this is nobody's business, nor is it relevant.

sharpie Sep 02 2008 11:05 AM

I agree. Just part of the feeding frenzy that seems to be drowning out the GOP convention.

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 11:06 AM

Weell, I guess it's people's busness if they want it to be. it's on a myspace.com page. I agree on it's irrelevance.

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 11:18 AM

sharpie wrote: I agree. Just part of the feeding frenzy that seems to be drowning out the GOP convention. Drowning out a lot of sensible exchange around here, too, it seems.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 02 2008 11:46 AM

Farmer Ted wrote: "And how about Palin having a 4 month old Downs Syndrome baby at home? Whether or not the kid is hers or daughter's shouldn't her not running for VP and focusing on the child's care be the bigger priority?" Are you truly fucking serious with this comment? This really can't be an issue. Women with children are entitled to work. It's a personal parenting decision. It doesn't make sense to not vote for a woman because being elected would interfere with her maternal duties. It's entirely up to her and her family how best to raise their children.

soupcan Sep 02 2008 11:52 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 02 2008 11:55 AM

Oof. I've started a unintentional firestorm. I was just asking questions. Okay, let me try... ="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]First of all - how does the McCain chose her? Huh?? Typos. sorry. ="AG/DC"]She's not ultra-conservative. And clearly her conservatism is part, not all, of the package. Of course. Instead of 'Ultra' let's try 'Viewed as being more conservative than McCain.' ="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]Did they really think that her being a woman would sway Hilary suppoprters? Every Hilary person I've asked that of has laughed. What would they have asked him to do? What I'm saying is - her just being a woman doesn't make her equivalent to Hilary does it? "Oh, Hilary's a woman so we'll just get one of those..." I think the people that support Clinton do so for reasons more than her just being a chick. ="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]Her being 44 and 'inexperienced' doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in terms of being 'a heartbeat away' when the presidential cabdidate is in his 70's and has a history of cancer. Expeience is a double-edged sword. They hope they can handle it. They thought they could work with having the lesser experienced VP candidate while they had the more experience presidential candidate. Maybe not, but it's a gambit the other side takes also. They get attacked for putting old white guys out there. This time they didn't, but gave the second seat to a younger white woman. What would you have them do? Its not really what I would have them do. It just takes away the 'Obama is inexperienced' argument. Which was a good one for them. ="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]You've got to think that the McCain knew about the daughter's pregnancy and decided it wasn't going to be a problem. If they didn't know then wow - bad job.. They did by all accounts and I wouldn't care if they didn't. Why should anybody be disparaged for not prying into the sex lives of eighteen-year-olds? Its not an issue for me, but that doesn't mean its not an issue. Clearly it has become one whether you and I agree it should be or not. If the campaign wanted to avoid distractions, you would think they would have realized that this would be a very big one. ="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]If they did and thought it wouldn't be a problem then wow - bad job. I disagree. Why is this a problem? Because we live in a society that makes it one. That's simply the reality of it. ="AG/DC"]Shame on somebody who claims to be pro-life denying a mother an opportunity because her daughter is bearing a child. Shame on anybody, period. I agree. But unfortunately I think that you and are in the minority in this country. ="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]And how about Palin having a 4 month old Downs Syndrome baby at home? Whether or not the kid is hers or daughter's shouldn't her not running for VP and focusing on the child's care be the bigger priority? This is miserably retrograde sexist thinking. Why is this an issue? And why even bring up the story about her daughter secretly being the mother except to validate it? Look, I'm not saying these are my views. I'm saying that these are questions that have been brought up rightly or wrongly. It forces the campaign to focus on damage control rather than the opponent or the real issues at stake. ="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]Even if you feel that the baby and the daughter's pregnancy aren't issues, they are. If not for you for many others. Then boo on them. Are we supposed to pander to ignorance? Does that disqualify Obama? Does it disqualify McCain for having a transracially adopted child? Absolutely. Boo on them. Still its an issue that the McCain camp is being, and will continue to be, battered with. My question is why select her when she comes with so much controversial baggage? ="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]Do the people who chose Palin to be McCain's running mate know what they are doing? After all this is what they do. They must have taken all of this into account , right? They can't be this stupid. Can they? See, I'm surprised that you buy all this. I do buy it. I'm surprised that you are giving them the benefit of the doubt. I buy it because this is about winning to them. As it is to Obama. I don't believe that they have decided that she is the perfect candidate for them, and because of this have chosen to take the high road with her and not acknowledge that the controversies that she comes with are potentially dammning to their cause. I believe that they made an error in judgment and are now trying their damndest to spin it. ="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]Let's assume she is qualified and competant and the personal issues raiseed are none of anybody's business and should not be brought into the debate. In a perfect world, fine. But this is not a perfect world and one would think that the McCain camp knows that. Absurd. Deal with inappropriate press behavior by shaming the press and ignoring them. Like you would with Obama. Fine, but are they in this to win or shame the press? ="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]This woman has brought so many distractions to this campaign that that will be all the media and public will focus on. Right or wrong. And Obama hasn't? If you don't get distracted by a stupid story, they'll stop running them. But this something that McCain could've easily avoided. Why didn't he? What does she bring that is so needed to their campaign that they decided they were going to risk the entire election? ="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]I know people who were on the fence before McCain named Palin. I know people who were looking for reasons not to vote for Obama. With the announcement of Palin, all of these people have expressed such dismay that they are either not voting or going Obama. If this is because they don't like her energy policy or her gun position or her stance on mooseburgers, fine. If it's any of this family nonsense, or what you're writing above, then shame on them. Folks who wouldn't let Obama be treated this way should be disgusted that she has been. Its more about who she is and what her positions are than the other stuff. But the other stuff being there just does not help. ="Farmer Ted"] ="soupcan"]"And how about Palin having a 4 month old Downs Syndrome baby at home? Whether or not the kid is hers or daughter's shouldn't her not running for VP and focusing on the child's care be the bigger priority?" Are you truly fucking serious with this comment? Yeah, I'm serious. This isn't the first place you read it. I didn't come up with that. Again - it doesn't matter to me. It's something that's been brought up that people seem to be concerned with. It's just another issue that MCain has to now deal with. I continue to simply wonder why they chose her if they knew about all this. What is so incredible about her? What does she bring them that they needed to have? And if they didn't know, why didn't they know?

Frayed Knot Sep 02 2008 11:54 AM

And males with young children - special needs or otherwise - never get asked to justify their career decisions.

sharpie Sep 02 2008 12:11 PM

="Farmer Ted" If Barry hasn't cracked 50 percent by now, he isn't going to. "Valerie Smith" of Canterbury Lane in suburban Cincinnati is going decide this election and Barry can't get a hold of that voting block. At 50% today. 42% McCain.

seawolf17 Sep 02 2008 12:17 PM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: ="Farmer Ted"]"And how about Palin having a 4 month old Downs Syndrome baby at home? Whether or not the kid is hers or daughter's shouldn't her not running for VP and focusing on the child's care be the bigger priority?" Are you truly fucking serious with this comment? This really can't be an issue. Women with children are entitled to work. It's a personal parenting decision. It doesn't make sense to not vote for a woman because being elected would interfere with her maternal duties. It's entirely up to her and her family how best to raise their children. Absolutely. But there are enough backwards people in this nation who feel otherwise, and that has to hurt her, right?

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 12:18 PM

="soupcan"]Instead of 'Ultra' let's try 'Viewed as being more conservative than McCain.' Well, that's clearly part of her package and clearly not all. ="soupcan"]What I'm saying is - her just being a woman doesn't make her equivalent to Hilary does it? "Oh, Hilary's a woman so we'll just get one of those..." I think the people that support Clinton do so for reasons more than her just being a chick. They're not going to nominate Clinton. ="soupcan"]Its not really what I would have them do. It just takes away the 'Obama is inexperienced' argument. Which was a good one for them.? That becomes harder now, but it also takes away two thirds the "party of old white guys stuck in the past" argument from Democrats, so they went for it. I don't think that makes anybody stupid. ="soupcan"]Its not an issue for me, but that doesn't mean its not an issue. Clearly it has become one whether you and I agree it should be or not. If the campaign wanted to avoid distractions, you would think they would have realized that this would be a very big one. This, it doesn't bother me, you understand, but for some people it's quite the concern tack has got to stop. It doesn't bother me that Obama has a Muslim name, is half-black, was born to a teenage mother and abandoneed by his father, but we shouldn't nominate him because some people would fear that. I wonder what that name means, though. You see how absurd that is? ="soupcan"]Because we live in a society that makes it one. That's simply the reality of it.. You made it one for political expediency. Give the world an ounce of credit. ="AG/DC"]I agree. But unfortunately I think that you and are in the minority in this country. Nonsense. It's the real world. Teens get pregnant. People who run from that perpetuate abortion and destroy lives. Deal with it like adults. ="soupcan"]Look, I'm not saying these are my views. I'm saying that these are questions that have been brought up rightly or wrongly. It forces the campaign to focus on damage control rather than the opponent or the real issues at stake. Come on. Own up and get out of the passive voice. There's no damage except by pro-Democratic critics suddenly, and bizarrely, assuming this anti-woman stance because of its political expediency. It's embarassing that I'm arguing with people supposedly to left of me, like MFS62, that a woman is entitled to both a career and motherhood. They're doing it to advance their candidate, and they'd make up some other stupid shit if another was chosen. Why are you doing it? You can't win running away. Clearly the only satisfactory choice would have been a Democrat. ="soupcan"]Boo on them. Still its an issue that the McCain camp is being, and will continue to be, battered with. My question is why select her when she comes with so much controversial baggage? Why would the Democrats nominate a date rapist with an addict brother in 1992? Oh, the distraction! Maybe they believed in him anyway. ="soupcan"]I do buy it. I'm surprised that you are giving them the benefit of the doubt. I buy it because this is about winning to them. As it is to Obama. What is it about to you? ="soupcan"]Fine, but are they in this to win or shame the press? I'm in this to advance goodness and decency. ="soupcan"]This woman has brought so many distractions to this campaign that that will be all the media and public will focus on. Right or wrong. This, this... WOMAN! ="soupcan"]But this something that McCain could've easily avoided. Why didn't he? What does she bring that is so needed to their campaign that they decided they were going to risk the entire election? If you don't like her, you don't like her. They thought she was worth it. They already have their backs to the wall, losing to a more appealing candidate getting better coverage, while getting hammered with the association of the previous president. Again, what would you have them do? Dan Quayle was squeaky clean. If they run away from her, they're heels. And it would be found out and reported. And you'd hammer them for that. Except you would be right in that case. ="souacan"]Its more about who she is and what her positions are than the other stuff. But the other stuff being there just does not help. But this stuff is just more fun to talk about.

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 01:00 PM

="soupcan"]I continue to simply wonder why they chose her if they knew about all this. What is so incredible about her? What does she bring them that they needed to have? And if they didn't know, why didn't they know? What is so incredible about any of these people? Do you really want to talk about that or would you prefer to disparage parents of handicapped infants?

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 01:01 PM

seawolf17 wrote: ="Benjamin Grimm"] ="Farmer Ted"]"And how about Palin having a 4 month old Downs Syndrome baby at home? Whether or not the kid is hers or daughter's shouldn't her not running for VP and focusing on the child's care be the bigger priority?" Are you truly fucking serious with this comment? This really can't be an issue. Women with children are entitled to work. It's a personal parenting decision. It doesn't make sense to not vote for a woman because being elected would interfere with her maternal duties. It's entirely up to her and her family how best to raise their children. Absolutely. But there are enough backwards people in this nation who feel otherwise, and that has to hurt her, right? Are you rooting for this?

soupcan Sep 02 2008 01:13 PM

="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]What I'm saying is - her just being a woman doesn't make her equivalent to Hilary does it? "Oh, Hilary's a woman so we'll just get one of those..." I think the people that support Clinton do so for reasons more than her just being a chick. They're not going to nominate Clinton. But why Palin? If it is because she is a conservative woman and they just wanted to say 'see, we can be the party of change and opportunity too!' Then I think they miscalculated the reasons that Hilary Clinton had so much support. ="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]Its not an issue for me, but that doesn't mean its not an issue. Clearly it has become one whether you and I agree it should be or not. If the campaign wanted to avoid distractions, you would think they would have realized that this would be a very big one. This, it doesn't bother me, you understand, but for some people it's quite the concern tack has got to stop. It doesn't bother me that Obama has a Muslim name, is half-black, was born to a teenage mother and abandoneed by his father, but we shouldn't nominate him because some people would fear that. I wonder what that name means, though. You see how absurd that is? Obama's name is his name. McCain had the choice of choosing her or not choosing her. Why choose her when she comes with all these questions./distractions. etc.? WHY her? What is it that they needed to have that makes all of this worth it to them? ="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]Because we live in a society that makes it one. That's simply the reality of it.. You made it one for political expediency. Give the world an ounce of credit. What world do you live in? I'd like to visit it sometime. ="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]I agree. But unfortunately I think that you and are in the minority in this country. Nonsense. It's the real world. Teens get pregnant. People who run from that perpetuate abortion and destroy lives. Deal with it like adults. Of course they do but it is not a desirable situation and whether you agree with it or not people do in fact judge (the people in your hallway for instance). They have no right and it is unseemly but it is a fact. ="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]Look, I'm not saying these are my views. I'm saying that these are questions that have been brought up rightly or wrongly. It forces the campaign to focus on damage control rather than the opponent or the real issues at stake. Come on. Own up and get out of the passive voice. There's no damage except by pro-Democratic critics suddenly, and bizarrely, assuming this anti-woman stance because of its political expediency. It's embarassing that I'm arguing with people supposedly to left of me, like MFS62, that a woman is entitled to both a career and motherhood. They're doing it to advance their candidate, and they'd make up some other stupid shit if another was chosen. Why are you doing it? You can't win running away. Clearly the only satisfactory choice would have been a Democrat. I'm just asking questions. I'm just wondering what the thiought process was within the McCain camp. In the world I live in, shit like this will cost the candidate an election, I'm just stating the reality of the situation. My morals and your morals aside. Palin has become a problem for them and will continue to be. If they knew of all this WHY did they choose her? What is it about her that they needed to have, regardless of the 'controversy'? ="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]Boo on them. Still its an issue that the McCain camp is being, and will continue to be, battered with. My question is why select her when she comes with so much controversial baggage? Why would the Democrats nominate a date rapist with an addict brother in 1992? Oh, the distraction! Maybe they believed in him anyway. Maybe because he won the primaries, as is. ="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]I do buy it. I'm surprised that you are giving them the benefit of the doubt. I buy it because this is about winning to them. As it is to Obama. What is it about to you? Does that matter in the context of this discussion? ="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]Fine, but are they in this to win or shame the press? I'm in this to advance goodness and decency. Kudos to you. Last I noticed though you weren't on the ballot. ="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]This woman has brought so many distractions to this campaign that that will be all the media and public will focus on. Right or wrong. This, this... WOMAN! Come on. ="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]But this something that McCain could've easily avoided. Why didn't he? What does she bring that is so needed to their campaign that they decided they were going to risk the entire election? If you don't like her, you don't like her. They thought she was worth it. They already have their backs to the wall, losing to a more appealing candidate getting better coverage, while getting hammered with the association of the previous president. Again, what would you have them do? I don't know. I want to know what exactly it is that made them discount all of the negative publicity they knew they would get (if in fact they knew). ="AG/DC"]Dan Quayle was squeaky clean. Yes he was and I didn't wonder 'why him?' ="AG/DC"]If they run away from her, they're heels. And it would be found out and reported. And you'd hammer them for that. Except you would be right in that case. If they rejected her as a possible VP candidate you mean? I don't think I'd hammer them and I don't think it would be investigated too deeply. Again my main issue is to ask why her? Why is she worth this and I still don't have an answer. ="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]Its more about who she is and what her positions are than the other stuff. But the other stuff being there just does not help. But this stuff is just more fun to talk about. For you maybe, but I'm just asking questions. I'm not jumping on her and judging her life. I'm asking why she was chosen by McCain given the controversies that she comes with.

soupcan Sep 02 2008 01:16 PM

="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]I continue to simply wonder why they chose her if they knew about all this. What is so incredible about her? What does she bring them that they needed to have? And if they didn't know, why didn't they know? What is so incredible about any of these people? Do you really want to talk about that or would you prefer to disparage parents of handicapped infants? Where am I disparaging anybody? I'm putting forth the questions that have been asked by others and wondering if having those questions asked and the obvious distractions they have become was/is worth it to the McCain campaign.

OlerudOwned Sep 02 2008 01:20 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 02 2008 01:20 PM

In all the discussion about Palinbabypalooza '08 that I've read, seen, heard, or been a part of, I have picked up on a ton of tsking tsking about how she should be running because someone else is going to judge her harshly on it, but haven't actually seen anyone, you know, actually judge her harshly on it.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 02 2008 01:20 PM

One theory is that she was chosen for the attention that the pick would get. I think it was the New York Times article linked earlier in this thread that said something about how the McCain camp chose to skip a thorough vetting because it would lead to a leak and they'd rather deal with whatever issues might come up than spoil the surprise. If there had been rumors about Palin for weeks prior, this wouldn't look like such a bold decision, and McCain wanted to look bold. That's the theory, anyway. I'm most curious about the Alaska secessionist organization she was supposedly involved with. Did she really want to take Alaska out of the union? I bet a lot of people would see that as treason. That story, if it gains legs, could end up as a legitimate problem.

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 01:22 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 02 2008 01:32 PM

="soupcan"]I'm putting forth the questions that have been asked by others and wondering if having those questions asked and the obvious distractions they have become was/is worth it to the McCain campaign. Right. And which others are these? I'm used to this from Steve. Not from you. ]And how about Palin having a 4 month old Downs Syndrome baby at home? Whether or not the kid is hers or daughter's shouldn't her not running for VP and focusing on the child's care be the bigger priority." You are not attributing that to anybody. You are asserting it yourself. Are you really reduced to attacking Republicans for not pandering to the hateful and the ignorant?

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 01:22 PM

="OlerudOwned"]In all the discussion about Palinbabypalooza '08 that I've read, seen, heard, or been a part of, I have picked up on a ton of tsking tsking about how she should be running because someone else is going to judge her harshly on it, but haven't actually seen anyone, you know, actually judge her harshly on it. Have you read this thread?

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 01:31 PM

]What world do you live in? I'd like to visit it sometime. I'm not the only person in the world who thinks it's low to attack her on this basis to advance a political agenda. Obama claims to be with me. You're welcome anytime.

OlerudOwned Sep 02 2008 01:35 PM

="AG/DC"] ="OlerudOwned"]In all the discussion about Palinbabypalooza '08 that I've read, seen, heard, or been a part of, I have picked up on a ton of tsking tsking about how she should be running because someone else is going to judge her harshly on it, but haven't actually seen anyone, you know, actually judge her harshly on it. Have you read this thread? This thread is a great example of it. No one seems willing to come right out and say that it's how they feel. It's all backpedaling and "well this isn't going to play well with most people." Thinly veiled.

OlerudOwned Sep 02 2008 01:37 PM

And there's something about watching a democratic base rally to attack a female veep candidate for not staying home and playing mommy that makes me want to lay down in the middle of a freeway. I knew there was a reason I didn't affiliate when I registered.

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 01:39 PM

My brother?

soupcan Sep 02 2008 01:41 PM

="AG/DC"] ="soupcan"]And how about Palin having a 4 month old Downs Syndrome baby at home? Whether or not the kid is hers or daughter's shouldn't her not running for VP and focusing on the child's care be the bigger priority." You are not attributing that to anybody. You are asserting it yourself. Are you really reduced to attacking Republicans for not pandering to the hateful and the ignorant? Of course you couldn't know this because you and I have never met and/or had a live conversation, but the question regarding the care of her baby is not something I would say or feel. It is absolutely a thought I heard or read somewhere else. I'll attribute your misunderstanding that to my inability to properly communicate mty thoughts and questions. Personally - as long as the child is properly cared for I don't have an issue with her furthering her career. Okay? Clear now? And I'm not attacking them for not pandering. Their position is that her personal life is nobody's business and shouldn't be an issue. I got that, I agree with it. I do think that they did not know of the issues in her personal life prior to tapping her and if they had, they wouldn't have chosen her. I don't agree with that. I believe that winning the election is of the utmost importance to them and that they knowingly would not have chosen her if they felt there was any hint of controversy surrounding her. So I do not believe that they they went into this with all of this information in hand and decided that they would ignore it and take the moral high ground by admonishing everyone who brought it up. Although that would be the proper thing to do if they felt that she was the candidate that they could not do without. I think that they found out all of this information at pretty much the same time everyone else did and saw a way to spin it so that they could be perceived as taking the moral high ground. If I'm wrong then I'm still waiting for them to tell me why she is worth all of this discussion. What is it that she stands for, believes, or adds to the ticket that no other candidate could give them that makes it worth the negative publicity?

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 01:55 PM

What are you asking for from me? You expressed it as your own thought. After I've asked you a few times, you still haven't attributed any of this to anyone specifically. You "heard or read" it somwhere? Which is it? You're not commenting or wondering about the controversy, you're deliberately perpetuating it. She's worth all this discussion because she's running for vice president. You're just controlling the conversation in the way that's most damaging to her.

soupcan Sep 02 2008 01:56 PM

AG/DC wrote: ]What world do you live in? I'd like to visit it sometime. I'm not the only person in the world who thinks it's low to attack her on this basis to advance a political agenda. Obama claims to be with me. You're welcome anytime. I never said it wasn't low to attack her on that basis. I said that it will be done.

OlerudOwned Sep 02 2008 02:02 PM

Here's a piece on actual important things that a vetting process would have caught, baby-making hijinks aside. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/an-wasillan-on.html#more ]Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a “fiscal conservative”. During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. ]She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn’t even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. ]While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. (!!!) City residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter.

soupcan Sep 02 2008 02:09 PM

="AG/DC"]What are you asking for from me? You expressed it as your own thought. After I've asked you a few times, you still haven't attributed any of this to anyone specifically. You "heard or read" it somwhere? Which is it? So rather than just being able to ask questions on an internet baseball forum I'm perpetuating the controversy? I now have tio cite my sources? I can't just ask a question? ="AG/DC"]You're not commenting or wondering about the controversy, you're deliberately perpetuating it. No, actually I am just commenting and wondering. As I have written several times now. ="AG/DC"]She's worth all this discussion because she's running for vice president. I didn't ask why she's worth the discussion I asked why she's worth the controversy. Your answer is that she's worth it because she's running for VP? What? ="AG/DC"]You're just controlling the conversation in the way that's most damaging to her. I'm controlling the conversation? I couldn't give a rat's ass about her. The bottom line is that whether you agree or not - the personal information that has come out about her will not have a positive effect on the McCain campaign. If you disagree with that, I don't know what to tell you, you're not being a realist.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 02 2008 02:09 PM

]While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. That's pretty disturbing. I wonder what books she was trying to eliminate.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 02 2008 02:14 PM

This is from Time magazine: ]Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor. St. George, however, points out that Palin couldn't have seen everything through an Evangelical lens. She did, he says, notably resist calls to restrict operating hours for the bars in town. And even if faith did play an unusually large role in her decision-making as mayor, it may have only reflected the continued rise of Evangelicalism in the valley, a growth that continues to this day. The Stein who's being quoted is described as an influential person in Wasilla. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html

Nymr83 Sep 02 2008 02:21 PM

thats disturbing on it's face but i need to hear the full story. were the books inappropriate for children? is the source for this "information" reliable? the article says that it pulled the information, without verifying it, from "the comments section on the Washington Independent." in other words someone with an axe to grind posted it to the internet.

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 02:38 PM

="soupcan"]So rather than just being able to ask questions on an internet baseball forum I'm perpetuating the controversy? I now have tio cite my sources? I can't just ask a question? You didn't ask a question. You made a statement and are now backing away from it.. You don't have to do anything. You're claiming to have a source and I'm asking for it. ="soupcan"]No, actually I am just commenting and wondering. As I have written several times now. OK. I think what you've written speaks for itself. ="soupcan"]I didn't ask why she's worth the discussion I asked why she's worth the controversy. Your answer is that she's worth it because she's running for VP? What? You wrote, "If I'm wrong then I'm still waiting for them to tell me why she is worth all of this discussion." ="soupcan"]I'm controlling the conversation? I couldn't give a rat's ass about her. That's clear. And that's the problem. The "politics of personal destruction" are deplorable when they go right to left. But just the cold reality when they go the other way. I think that double standard is untenable. People have to draw the line. And no, I'm not the only one in my world. ="soupcan"]The bottom line is that whether you agree or not - the personal information that has come out about her will not have a positive effect on the McCain campaign. If you disagree with that, I don't know what to tell you, you're not being a realist. No, the bottom line is whether the criticisms are just. They're not. They're terrible, damaging to the commonweal, and should be actively dismissed. The McCain campaign, like Obama's and every other one that I know of, is trying to make a virtue of necessity. That's not crazy. And how much they knew going in doesn't matter. How much you're trying to squeeze out of it does. I'm glad if they didn't know the whole story.

soupcan Sep 02 2008 02:52 PM

AG/DC wrote: ="soupcan"]The bottom line is that whether you agree or not - the personal information that has come out about her will not have a positive effect on the McCain campaign. If you disagree with that, I don't know what to tell you, you're not being a realist. No, the bottom line is whether the criticisms are just. They're not. They're terrible, damaging to the commonweal, and should be actively dismissed. That's a different discussion altogether. You are asking if the criticism is legit. I'm not. My question is not is it legit but that it is and as a result, why choose her?

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 02:59 PM

Wait. It is legit to argue all that her children should disqualify her? I thought you were just saying that it wasn't, but it's a reality and that the campaign should have anticipated it and bowed to it.

themetfairy Sep 02 2008 03:30 PM

The fact that Palin is a mother shouldn't disqualify her from national office. But it's legitimate to ask whether she has what it takes to balance the demands of raising five children with the demands of being a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Some women handle this kind of balancing seamlessly. Others don't. It's not whether any mother could handle this position. It's whether THIS woman can handle it. Of course, this is on top of the library issue, the trooper thing, etc. And does a governor from Alaska have what it takes to handle national issues. The fact that she's a mother shouldn't shield her from legitimate inquiries.

metsguyinmichigan Sep 02 2008 03:41 PM

Well, one of the kids is going off to Iraq and another apparently getting married soon, so you're talking about raising three kids. Which is one more than Barack Obama, who has two young girls. I don't see anyone questioning how he can be president and still raise two young children. My point is that if she was the Dem nominee, we'd be getting stories praising her for for her "courage." Since she's a Republican, there's a feeding frenzy to depict her as a borderline child abuser for accepting the nomination. Meanwhile, the Dem nominee, who carries more baggage than Charlie Samuels on a 10-game West Coast trip, gets a total free pass? The coverage on this has been horrible.

metsmarathon Sep 02 2008 04:28 PM

themetfairy wrote: The fact that Palin is a mother shouldn't disqualify her from national office. But it's legitimate to ask whether she has what it takes to balance the demands of raising five children with the demands of being a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Some women handle this kind of balancing seamlessly. Others don't. It's not whether any mother could handle this position. It's whether THIS woman can handle it. Of course, this is on top of the library issue, the trooper thing, etc. And does a governor from Alaska have what it takes to handle national issues. The fact that she's a mother shouldn't shield her from legitimate inquiries. i'm not sure if this is where you're going, but i would hardly think that having a teenager who is pregnant would necessarily indicate whether or not a mother is capable of balancing the needs of her family and her career. kids do what kids do, often times regardless of the quality and quantity of parenting which was afforded them. do we ask the male candidates if they have what it takes to raise their families while balancing their careers?

themetfairy Sep 02 2008 04:49 PM

I'm less concerned about the pregnant teen as I am about the concept of five kids in general. It doesn't mean that she's not capable of balancing the needs of her family and her career, but that's an awful big load on the family side. And you're right that we don't ask whether male candidates can balance family and career. Because we do not live in an ideal world, and generally speaking fathers aren't the ones responsible for the day-to-day management of a family. Perhaps she has a great network of people who are helping her raise her brood. It's possible. But it's a legitimate avenue of inquiry.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 02 2008 04:57 PM

Is your concern that McCain is in the hospital, Palin is in charge, and there's a terrorist attack just as Trip and Trap are whining for their dinner? I think the Vice President of the United States will have enough of a staff so that her kids can be tended to by others so that Palin can give her full attention to her VP duties. (She can always hire a few illegal aliens for nannies.) It may not be ideal for the kids to be raised by the Secret Service, but that's really not our concern. As long as her kids don't distract her in the event that there's an emergency she has to handle, then the citizens should have no gripe. And that won't happen a whole lot, if ever, while she's VP. If she ever becomes President, that's another story. Her husband or the nannies will have to carry a heavier load. That's the sacrifice they make, as a family, when she decides to throw her hat into the ring for a high-profile job.

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 05:17 PM

This is astounding. Kennedy had a toddler acting up under his desk while he was trying to address the nation and he's a the spirtual father of the current Democratic party. Damn near started World War III and nobody was crass enough to suggest it was because the babies kept him up all night. Todd Palin has taken a leave of absence from his work and has taken a greater share of the parenting. If he was the husband of a Democratic nominee, he'd be praised as a model for America and they'd all coo over him on The View. A rugged outdoorsmen who changes diapers? I'm palpitating already. The truth is that they're adapting on child care and supervision, the way families do. In the real world. Does anybody really believe she won't have enough staff to assist her. Didn't Teddy Roosevelt have something like 212 kids that he doted on?

Elster88 Sep 02 2008 05:43 PM

="AG/DC"]Wait. It is legit to argue all that her children should disqualify her? I thought you were just saying that it wasn't, but it's a reality and that the campaign should have anticipated it and bowed to it. You are expending a lot of energy worrying about soupcan and when he used the passive voice. He's already answered this above question. ="soupcan"]Personally - as long as the child is properly cared for I don't have an issue with her furthering her career. Their position is that her personal life is nobody's business and shouldn't be an issue. I got that, I agree with it. That’s laid out in black and sky blue. Instead of worrying about whether he’s (purposefully or accidentally or subconsciously) perpetuating an agenda or what he thinks about mothers having jobs, why not just answer/discuss his questions? One that I liked is this ="soupcan"]What is it that she stands for, believes, or adds to the ticket that no other candidate could give them that makes it worth the negative publicity? It’s a reasonable question. I have little knowledge of politics. Isn’t VP a purely ornamental position? McCain is very frail, so that adds a bit of a different element. But if the goal is to get McCain elected, why not choose someone who can do everything Palin can do who is also as likable as possible? The last question (of mine) makes two assumptions. One is that some people won’t like Palin (perhaps because she is a woman/mother, perhaps because her 18 year old is going to make her a grandmother, perhaps for other reasons) and it will negatively influence McCain voters and non-McCain voters. The other is that Palin brings nothing to the table that someone else couldn’t bring. Perhaps one or both is incorrect. Another of soupcan’s questions combined the following: Does the Republican party think that having a woman as the VP candidate will help get McCain elected? And is that one of the reasons they chose her? All of these are interesting to me.

Frayed Knot Sep 02 2008 05:55 PM

="metsguyinmichigan"]The coverage on this has been horrible.

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 06:00 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 25 2008 02:29 PM

Elster88 wrote: He's already answered this above question. Yes, and then he wrote "My question is not is it legit but that it is and as a result, why choose her?" which reads like a backtracking so I'm asking for clarity. Elster88 wrote: That’s laid out in black and sky blue. Instead of worrying about whether he’s (purposefully or accidentally or subconsciously) perpetuating an agenda or what he thinks about mothers having jobs, why not just answer/discuss his questions? Because it's a creepy agenda that poisons our political process. Because that whole game of "I'm not saying so, but people will talk" is going on across America, and virtually nobody is making this argument except people claiming they aren't. Because my agenda is to fight against that. Elster88 wrote: One that I liked is this ="soupcan"]What is it that she stands for, believes, or adds to the ticket that no other candidate could give them that makes it worth the negative publicity? What negative publicity is there that isn't biased? I think it's wonderful that her family has personally chosen life twice in the last year. I don't intend to vote for her but I celebrate that story. Do you know over 90% of Down Syndrome children are aborted? It's awful. This is true despite a large false posittive rate in the screening, leading to abortions of "normal" children. ]But if the goal is to get McCain elected, why not choose someone who can do everything Palin can do who is also as likable as possible? What about her family makes her generally unlikeable? ]Does the Republican party think that having a woman as the VP candidate will help get McCain elected? And is that one of the reasons they chose her? I think I addressed that fine. Clearly, they do.

Elster88 Sep 02 2008 06:31 PM

="AG/DC"] ="Elster88"]He's already answered this above question. Yes, and then he wrote "My question is not is it legit but that it is and as a result, why choose her?" which reads like a backtracking so I'm asking for clarity. Gotcha. I missed that. ="AG/DC"] ="Elster88"]That’s laid out in black and sky blue. Instead of worrying about whether he’s (purposefully or accidentally or subconsciously) perpetuating an agenda or what he thinks about mothers having jobs, why not just answer/discuss his questions? Because it's a creepy agenda that poisons our political process. Because that whole game of "I'm not saying so, but people will talk" is going on across America, and virtually nobody is making htis argument except people claiming they aren't. Because my agenda is to fight against that. I feel that no one on this board is supporting the creepy agenda, so you don't have to fight it here. ="AG/DC"] ="Elster88"]One that I liked is this ="soupcan"]What is it that she stands for, believes, or adds to the ticket that no other candidate could give them that makes it worth the negative publicity? [What negative publicity is there that isn't biased? I think it's wonderful that her family has personally chosen life twice in the last year. I don't intend to vote for her but I celebrate that story. Do you know over 90% of Down Syndrome children are aborted? It's awful. This is true despite a large false posittive rate in the screening, leading to abortions of "normal" children. I'm not sure what you mean about the biased publicity. Your points about choosing life and the statistics about 90% are unrelated to my questions, so I won't respond to them. ="AG/DC"] ="Elster88"]But if the goal is to get McCain elected, why not choose someone who can do everything Palin can do who is also as likable as possible? What about her family makes her generally unlikeable? I never said anything is unlikable about her or her family. I am not interested in the particulars of her family. I am interested in the process of picking a vice-president. I already said so >>>E88: It’s a reasonable question. I have little knowledge of politics. Isn’t VP a purely ornamental position? McCain is very frail, so that adds a bit of a different element. But if the goal is to get McCain elected, why not choose someone who can do everything Palin can do who is also as likable as possible? The last question (of mine) makes two assumptions. One is that some people won’t like Palin (perhaps because she is a woman/mother, perhaps because her 18 year old is going to make her a grandmother, perhaps for other reasons) and it will negatively influence McCain voters and non-McCain voters. The other is that Palin brings nothing to the table that someone else couldn’t bring. Perhaps one or both [of the assumptions] is incorrect. Soupcan asked the same thing: >>>soupcan: What is it that she stands for, believes, or adds to the ticket that no other candidate could give them that makes it worth the negative publicity? ="AG/DC"] ="Elster88"]Does the Republican party think that having a woman as the VP candidate will help get McCain elected? And is that one of the reasons they chose her? I think I addressed that fine. Clearly, they do. I wonder if others agree with you [that they chose her at least partly for this reason]. I personally thought the same thing but mine is a very uneducated opinion. Your agenda has been explained many times. I think everyone gets it. Can we now discuss some of the reasons for McCain's selection of Palin? What does she bring to the table that no one else brings? Does she attract negative publicity? Will the negative publicity (ASSUMING IT EXISTS) hurt McCain? Is it necessary for Palin to bring anything to the table? Did McCain choose partly because she is a woman (AG thinks so)?

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 06:37 PM

]I feel that no one on this board is supporting the creepy agenda, so you don't have to fight it here. We've had three people here suggest her parenthood makes her less qualified or unqualified for the job. I'm just responding with disagreement and disappontment. This is 2008. What negative publicity are you referring to if it isn't to her family?

Elster88 Sep 02 2008 06:44 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 02 2008 07:01 PM

="AG/DC"]What negative publicity are you referring to if it isn't to her family? Are you deliberately ignoring parts of my posts or just not reading them? Or am I being unclear and confusing in my posts? ="Elster88"]Your agenda has been explained many times. I think everyone gets it. Can we now discuss some of the reasons for McCain's selection of Palin? What does she bring to the table that no one else brings? Does she attract negative publicity? Will the negative publicity (ASSUMING IT EXISTS) hurt McCain? Is it necessary for Palin to bring anything to the table? Did McCain choose partly because she is a woman (AG thinks so)?

Elster88 Sep 02 2008 06:47 PM

AG/DC wrote: ]I feel that no one on this board is supporting the creepy agenda, so you don't have to fight it here. We've had three people here suggest her parenthood makes her less qualified or unqualified for the job. I'm just responding with disagreement and disappontment. This is 2008. Who has suggested? Can you quote passages for me where they directly said this? I miss stuff all the time [sc = zero]. ]This is 2008 Understood.

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 06:59 PM

No, I'm not deliberately ignoring you. You quoted soupcan, asked me to respond to his question, and I did. There was none of your obnoxiously ballooning parenthetical in his question. Because I don't go ahead now and answer your questions at the end yet is nothing personal, so why don't you shrink your parenthetical down a little bit? I found it more important to respond to your assertion that I'd ignored his questions (I hadn't but I wanted my answers clear), and to dispute your assertion that nobody onthe board is supporting the creepy agenda. If folks against her are really getting away with arguing that her motherhood disqualifies her, it doesn't matter what other qualities she has. Yes, the negative publicity can and probably already has hurt McCain. That's largely because the negative publicity is all publicity along the lines of "Stupid McCain doesn't know enough to fear the negative publicity." Yes, they can overcome it and she can still be a net positive. Yes, of course it's important for her to bring something to the table.

Elster88 Sep 02 2008 07:03 PM

Shrunk. I'm too tired to understand what has happened here and the flow of the conversation. I'll reread tomorrow. One question I'll leave on the table. Should a prez anticipate any negative publicity that might come from his veep selection and attempt to avoid it?

soupcan Sep 02 2008 07:08 PM

="soupcan"]My question is not is it legit but that it is and as a result, why choose her? Just to be clear, I think I'm being misunderstood because of how I worded this. I'm NOT saying that the criticism is legitimate, I'm saying that the criticism exists. Right, wrong, whatever. Its there. That it doesn't matter if its legitimate or not. McCain knew it would come out so why opt to deal with it? ="Elster88"]But if the goal is to get McCain elected, why not choose someone who can do everything Palin can do who is also as likable as possible? Another of soupcan’s questions combined the following: Does the Republican party think that having a woman as the VP candidate will help get McCain elected? And is that one of the reasons they chose her? These two thoughts are basically what I was trying to ask but apparently was unable to formulate them in a way that was clear.

AG/DC Sep 02 2008 07:16 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 02 2008 08:13 PM

MFS62 wrote: Seriously - her last child has Down's Syndrome. At all of her public appearences so far, her older daughter has been carrying to baby around. The question of how much time she is personally devoting to its care will surely come up. ="soupcan"]And how about Palin having a 4 month old Downs Syndrome baby at home? Whether or not the kid is hers or daughter's shouldn't her not running for VP and focusing on the child's care be the bigger priority? You have since disowned that opinion, but then seemingly have backtracked with: ="soupcan"]You are asking if the criticism is legit. I'm not. My question is not is it legit but that it is and as a result, why choose her? You've since clarified that you're not backtracking. To be clear, I'm not asking if it's legit. I'm saying it's completely unjust. ="themetfairy"]I'm less concerned about the pregnant teen as I am about the concept of five kids in general. It doesn't mean that she's not capable of balancing the needs of her family and her career, but that's an awful big load on the family side. And you're right that we don't ask whether male candidates can balance family and career. Because we do not live in an ideal world, and generally speaking fathers aren't the ones responsible for the day-to-day management of a family. Perhaps she has a great network of people who are helping her raise her brood. It's possible. But it's a legitimate avenue of inquiry. Soup, if an opponent is willing to go where these opponents have gone, there's nobody in the world (at least in the party) who is both talented and has a life free from vulnerablitiy to that kind of attack. If you have kids, you have embarassment. Geraldine Ferraro's kid was a coke dealer. Ronald Reagan's daugter did a nude spread just to embarass him. The point is to not to run from such attacks but to counter them with your case. Should he run from all mothers? All single parents? Anybody with time demands from their family. Divorced parents who have to share the kids? Widows? Widowers? I've discussed this before, but Joe Biden was made a widower by a car wreck between his first election to the Senate and his swearing in. His young sons were in the hospital for a long time and he was sworn in at their bedsides. He spent his first several months (year?) at their bedside, commuting from Delaware to Washington. His work got done, and, apparently, it hasn't been in issue.

soupcan Sep 02 2008 08:00 PM

AG/DC wrote: Soup, if an opponent is willing to go where these opponents have gone, there's nobody in the world (at least in the party) who is both talented and has a life free from vulnerablitiy to that kind of attack. If you have kids, you have embarassment. Geraldine Ferraro's kid was a coke dealer. Ronald Reagan's daugter did a nude spread just to embarass him. The point is to not to run from such attacks but to counter them with your case. Should he run from all mothers? All single parents? Anybody with time demands from their family. Divorced parents who have to share the kids? Widows? Widowers? I've discussed this before, but Joe Biden was made a widower by a car wreck between his first election to the Senate and his swearing in. His young sons were in the hospital for a long time and he was sworn in at their bedsides. He spent his first several months (year) at their bedside, commuting from Delaware to Washington. His work got done, and, apparently, it hasn't been in issue. That is all well and good and I appreciate your saying it. However it has nothing to do with what I was initially trying to say/ask in this thread. My opinion is that the McCain camp chose her - for whatever reasons - without knowing about her daughter. I think that had they known about her daughter they would not have chosen her in order to avoid any and all criticisms/controversy/questions that this pregnancy revelation would produce. I say this because McCain wants to win the election and whether you support Palin and her families choices or not, the situation creates a less than ideal scenario for McCain. It can't help him, it can only hurt him. That's my opinion, which is not based on morality just based on politics. McCain has said that he did know about the pregnancy and chose Palin anyway. My question was 'what does she bring to the ticket that is worth the ensuing negative publicity?' I haven't yet been given a good answer to that question. As a result I think that the McCain camp did not know about the pregnancy, was surprised as everybody else was and is now trying to spin it as positively as he can. I'd like to think that he is telling the truth. That he did know about the pregnancy and decided that it would not be an issue. That'd be great. But I think that winning the election is more important to him and these two ideals in this country at this time do not mesh. I'm not saying that a woman with a pregnant unwed teenager is unfit to be vice-president. I'm saying that had the Republicans really known this they would not have chosen her. I sincerely doubt their high-mindedness. When I wrote about Palin's 4 month old, I was not expressing my personal opinion, just an opinion that I read (New York Post, maybe?) as an example of what type of criticism Palin would be faced with.

Nymr83 Sep 02 2008 08:09 PM

Bush speaking to the RNC right now by video, which is about as close to this convention as he should be getting for McCain's sake. Keep it short, George. "I'm sorry I couldn't make it, but with Laura Bush speaking you have clearly traded up" edit- and now he's done speaking in under 5 minutes. all according to plan i'd say.

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 06:21 AM

soupcan wrote: My question was 'what does she bring to the ticket that is worth the ensuing negative publicity?' I haven't yet been given a good answer to that question. Hadn't we and folks everywhere been praising her charms and the unconventionality of the pick --- including a Ralph Nader voter joking about jumping ship --- right up to the time where she became human? I can think, without trying, of 30 things about her which make her marketable to McCain's left, his right, and to the broad population (except those rioting in the streets of St. Paul), but her opponents have suddenly decided that reinforcing Victorian morality and Victorian gender roles is OK. And they've successfully kept the conversation there. Maybe MFS62 is right. Maybe she should drop out. What a lousy day yesterday was in American politics.

Frayed Knot Sep 03 2008 07:03 AM

Mark Shields on PBS last night knocked Palin for "choosing ambition over her daughter", a theme he reportedly kept going back to even as others in the discussion tried steering it elsewhere.

Farmer Ted Sep 03 2008 07:14 AM

Mark Sheilds ran the campaigns for Bobby Kennedy, Sarge Shriver, Ed Muskie and a host of other Democrats. C'mon, of course he would say that.

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 07:15 AM

Shields has been a Washington insider for over 40 years. And this is where he finds a personal moral issue? Folks are losing their minds.

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 07:20 AM

="Farmer Ted"]Mark Sheilds ran the campaigns for Bobby Kennedy, Sarge Shriver, Ed Muskie and a host of other Democrats. C'mon, of course he would say that. Bobby Kennedy --- who ran for president with TEN children, plus one on the way. That's eleven kids he was expected to parent, one a mewling puking newborn, while running the country, during heightened Cold War tension, and a desperate hot war in Vietnam. Eleven kids that we know about.

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 07:21 AM

Maybe you shouldn't have posted that Mark Shields thing. I think I may have another bad day.

Methead Sep 03 2008 07:30 AM

AG/DC wrote: What a lousy day yesterday was in American politics. And that's saying a lot. Honestly, there are a lot of questionable issues surrounding Palin that have nothing to do with her kids or anyone else's kids. Those are the issues that we should be talking about with respect to her qualifications. But in all honesty I believe that the people running the McCain campaign are all too happy to have us (and the media) stomp our feet about the pregnant daughter while everything else gets swept under the rug. And now, once those other issues start to get discussed, the campaign can simply say "how dare anyone criticize a working mother" in much the same way they say "how dare anyone criticize a former POW"... Never mind a lousy day in American politics, prepare for a lousy few months.

themetfairy Sep 03 2008 07:33 AM

AG/DC wrote: Bobby Kennedy --- who ran for president with TEN children, plus one on the way. That's eleven kids he was expected to parent No. In 1968 men weren't expected to have all that much day-to-day parenting duties. Ethel was in charge of the brood. I'm not saying it's right. But in the days when "Women's Lib" was a radical notion, Bobby wasn't expected to be taking care of the kids.

themetfairy Sep 03 2008 07:35 AM

Methead wrote: But in all honesty I believe that the people running the McCain campaign are all too happy to have us (and the media) stomp our feet about the pregnant daughter while everything else gets swept under the rug. And now, once those other issues start to get discussed, the campaign can simply say "how dare anyone criticize a working mother" in much the same way they say "how dare anyone criticize a former POW"... Very well said. The fact that Palin is a working mother shouldn't shield her from inquiry about other issues.

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 07:38 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 03 2008 07:39 AM

I certainly don't think they're succeeding by keeping the conversation on her daughter. At all. She was destroyed yesterday. Which would you rather defend publickly --- your record and decisions or your daughter's sex life? You don't think she's poised enough to defend herself against a former mayoral rival accusing her of strong-arming a librarian when that librarian isn't giving a statement? I'll take that fight every time. I don't think the McCain campaign is happy about this at all, but your notion that they are happy for the argument to be over her daughter sure departs from Soup's idea that they had no idea her daughter was pregnant.

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 07:38 AM

themetfairy wrote: The fact that Palin is a working mother shouldn't shield her from inquiry about other issues. Nobody is saying it should. Nor has it.

Farmer Ted Sep 03 2008 07:45 AM

Was Biden not vetted by the Obama campaign with two pending lawsuits accusing him, his brother and son of bilking investors in a poorly run hedge fund defrauding investors of millions? Anyone can throw stones here. Let's stick to the issues.

Frayed Knot Sep 03 2008 07:55 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 03 2008 07:58 AM

Farmer Ted wrote: Mark Sheilds ran the campaigns for Bobby Kennedy, Sarge Shriver, Ed Muskie and a host of other Democrats. C'mon, of course he would say that. Fine, but here's the difference; if Shields wants to say that he's anti-Palin because he generally believes Democratic ideas are good and correct while Republican ideas are lousy and harmful I wouldn't have a problem with him. But what he's doing here is applying a standard to her that he wouldn't apply to a male (and perhaps not to a female Democrat). I also have a clear memory of the same Mark Shields, back during the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings, declaring that Republicans "don't get it" about sexual harassment because they're all so Cro-Magnon that when it comes to female employees they think 'Harass' is two words. It was a funny line but this whole 'that side has a double standard' thing kind of takes a hit here unless he would be saying the same things were Mr. Palin the nominee -- and I have a sneaky suspicion that he wouldn't.

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 07:56 AM

themetfairy wrote: ="AG/DC"] Bobby Kennedy --- who ran for president with TEN children, plus one on the way. That's eleven kids he was expected to parent No. In 1968 men weren't expected to have all that much day-to-day parenting duties. Ethel was in charge of the brood. I'm not saying it's right. But in the days when "Women's Lib" was a radical notion, Bobby wasn't expected to be taking care of the kids. Women's lib wasn't a radical notion in 1968. It was one of the forces propelling him to the White House. Can you really tell your daughter that no matter how hard she works or talented she is that she can't be both a mother and a professionally fulfilled person? Because it's not hard to find thousands of exceptions. Do you really want to advance your politics this way?

Methead Sep 03 2008 08:02 AM

AG/DC wrote: I don't think the McCain campaign is happy about this at all, but your notion that they are happy for the argument to be over her daughter sure departs from Soup's idea that they had no idea her daughter was pregnant. Yeah, "happy about it" is probably not the exactly correct phrase... "making the best of the situation they now find themselves in" might be better. I don't believe McCain's campaign knew about it beforehand either... just a feeling I get. I don't get the sense they did a whole lot of research on Palin other than the superficial. Then again I have issues with trust when it comes to politicians, and I'm way too cynical for my own good.

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 08:09 AM

AG/DC wrote: Women's lib wasn't a radical notion in 1968. Though it appears to be a radical notion starting yesterday. (Great, I'm conversing with myself. I've become batmagadan.)

themetfairy Sep 03 2008 08:11 AM

AG/DC wrote: ="themetfairy"] AG/DC wrote: Bobby Kennedy --- who ran for president with TEN children, plus one on the way. That's eleven kids he was expected to parent No. In 1968 men weren't expected to have all that much day-to-day parenting duties. Ethel was in charge of the brood. I'm not saying it's right. But in the days when "Women's Lib" was a radical notion, Bobby wasn't expected to be taking care of the kids. Women's lib wasn't a radical notion in 1968. It was one of the forces propelling him to the White House. Can you really tell your daughter that no matter how hard she works or talented she is that she can't be both a mother and a professionally fulfilled person? Because it's not hard to find thousands of exceptions. Do you really want to advance your politics this way? Of course not. But if my daughter were to advance a challenging career while having children, I'd want to know that her ducks are in order and that she's in a position to handle both of those responsibilities well. I know plenty of women who balance both career and family (although, honestly, none with five kids), and it's no cakewalk. Of course it can be done, but it's not so easy to do it well.

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 08:15 AM

No one is saying it's easy. No one is saying it should shield her from inquiry about other issues. Nor has it.

themetfairy Sep 03 2008 08:15 AM

AG/DC wrote: AG/DC wrote: Women's lib wasn't a radical notion in 1968. Though it appears to be a radical notion starting yesterday. (Great, I'm conversing with myself. I've become batmagadan.) According to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_lib]Wikipedia[/url] - ]The phrase "Women’s Liberation" was first used in the United States in 1964 and first appeared in print in 1966. By 1968, although the term Women’s Liberation Front appeared in the magazine Ramparts, it was starting to refer to the whole women’s movement. Thus, it was still pretty cutting edge in 1968.

themetfairy Sep 03 2008 08:17 AM

AG/DC wrote: No one is saying it's easy. No one is saying it should shield her from inquiry about other issues. Nor has it. So let's go. What about the library issue? What about the trooper issue?

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 08:25 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 03 2008 08:29 AM

I don't know how you get from the idea that the phrase was first applied to a broader movement in 1968 to the idea that it was still on the fringe. Whether they called it "women's lib" or "the women's movement" or "equal rights" matters not. It was on fire and the Democrats were catching the benefits of it. More importantly, you're treating it as radical now. And I'm certain this wouldn't be applied to a Democratic candidate. I'm certain of it because it hasn't been. And disqualifying her because it's hard is flat sexism. The way to judge if she can hack the job with the rest of her life going on is to examine if she's been able to hack the jobs she's had with the rest of her life going on. Should amputeess be disqualified? Because it's really hard to get around. Should old people be disqualified? Because they can get sleepy.

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 08:27 AM

Librarian? I think anybody would want to talk to the librarian. Trooper? That's being played out. But you're perfectly welcome to vote against her if you think she abused her power. I encourage it. Particularly if you think it's an indicator of greater abuses to come.

Iubitul Sep 03 2008 08:52 AM

metsguyinmichigan wrote: Well, one of the kids is going off to Iraq and another apparently getting married soon, so you're talking about raising three kids. Which is one more than Barack Obama, who has two young girls. I don't see anyone questioning how he can be president and still raise two young children. My point is that if she was the Dem nominee, we'd be getting stories praising her for for her "courage." Since she's a Republican, there's a feeding frenzy to depict her as a borderline child abuser for accepting the nomination. Meanwhile, the Dem nominee, who carries more baggage than Charlie Samuels on a 10-game West Coast trip, gets a total free pass? The coverage on this has been horrible. This coming from the reporter. Well done.

metsguyinmichigan Sep 03 2008 08:58 AM

It upsets me when objectivity goes out the window. We, as a profession, can and should do better. My only guess is that after getting upstaged by the National Enquirer with Edwards, the big outlets don't want to get caught again.

soupcan Sep 03 2008 09:00 AM

="AG/DC"]Librarian? I think anybody would want to talk to the librarian. Today's New York Times - Librarian: 'No Comment' ]Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books, though she never followed through and it was unclear which books or passages were in question. Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said. The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support. Ms. Emmons, who left her job and Wasilla a couple of years later, declined to comment for this article.

themetfairy Sep 03 2008 09:24 AM

Where have I said anything about anyone being disqualified? Whom did I say should be disqualified? Where does the concept of questioning whether someone can handle all of his/her responsibilities equal disqualification? You're putting words into my mouth, and you're doing it inaccurately.

Iubitul Sep 03 2008 09:48 AM

metsguyinmichigan wrote: It upsets me when objectivity goes out the window. We, as a profession, can and should do better. As it should - I wish more in your line of work held that view.

metsguyinmichigan Sep 03 2008 10:05 AM

I think a lot of them think they ARE being objective. I'm sure there are people I cover who think I'm out to get them and that I never see what they think are the good things going one because I'm always writing about the things they screw up. But some of the things going on the last couple days I just can't justify.

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 10:25 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 25 2008 02:37 PM

I don't think there's any way to accurately put words in anybody's mouth. I wasn't quoting you, but it is a distortion to ask whether it's a disqualifier in a post addressed to you when you didn't use that term. I withdraw that term, certainly as applied to you. You nonetheless are happy enough to apply a double standard that to my knowledge hasn't been applied to any recent Democratic women. I'm certaily willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I have no idea which woman have sought office in your area. But I can say with confidence that this hasn't been a general issue among Democrats for any recent woman at the National level, making it a double double standard. I don't care if folks don't want to vote for her because of her administration of libraries or because she's pro-life or because they don't like her energy policies, or simply because no matter how fantastique she is, nobody's going to get a vote on a ticket with McCain because he's behind that damned war. I don't intend to vote for him, but this has me so disappointed I may ignore McCain and write her in as a vice presidential candidate alongside some other fine working mother. But this isn't about her or about McCain. It's about Democratic voters so needing to win that they are willing to throw out values that they've stood for over forty years --- that women shouldn't be denied opportunites based on their gender. And holding mothers to one standard and fathers to another is doing just that. And by unmaking their core values in order to win, a Democratic win is hollow. All politics becomes hollow. The following exchange comes from A Man for All Seasons: ROPER So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on ROPER) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you-where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man's laws, not God's-and if you cut them down-and you're just the man to do it-d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. Substitute "core Democratic values" for "laws" and "Republican" for "Devil" and maybe my point has value.

themetfairy Sep 03 2008 10:40 AM

I am not applying any double standard. I an inquiring about the whole picture. The trooper, the library, the whole nine yards. And balancing a large family is a factor. Balancing a career and one or two children is different from balancing a career and five children. It is legitimate to inquire how she's doing it, and whether she's doing it well, because it's relevant to her ability to hold national office. Sarah Palin happens to be raising questions on a whole lot of fronts, all at the same time. The family issues shouldn't distract all attention away from the other issues. However, this complete (and apparently unvetted) unknown is coming into the public light, and it would be foolhardy not to consider whether she is up to the challenge. I'm not saying she's not. But I am saying that it's not improper to ask the questions.

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 10:44 AM

themetfairy wrote: And you're right that we don't ask whether male candidates can balance family and career. Because we do not live in an ideal world, and generally speaking fathers aren't the ones responsible for the day-to-day management of a family. That's a double standard.

themetfairy Sep 03 2008 10:48 AM

I will say this much - the concept of raising five children while working boggles my mind. I've worked outside the home with two children, and I know how rough those logistics are. I simply cannot imagine what it would like to raise five children and to have a demanding career on top of that.

themetfairy Sep 03 2008 10:50 AM

AG/DC wrote: ="themetfairy"]And you're right that we don't ask whether male candidates can balance family and career. Because we do not live in an ideal world, and generally speaking fathers aren't the ones responsible for the day-to-day management of a family. That's a double standard. How far back are we going in this discussion? Every time I say something you don't like are you going to dig back to find something else? I know that there are guys out there who are incredible hands-on fathers. But in my experience, they're not the norm. I wish they were - it would make this world a much better place. But we're not there yet - not even close.

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 10:57 AM

Well, you just wrote it yesterday. The notion that we can't give mothers the benefit of the doubt because we can't give fathers the benefit of the doubt? Well, I'm just bailing out now.

Iubitul Sep 03 2008 11:01 AM

metsguyinmichigan wrote: I think a lot of them think they ARE being objective. I'm sure there are people I cover who think I'm out to get them and that I never see what they think are the good things going one because I'm always writing about the things they screw up. But some of the things going on the last couple days I just can't justify. We just think like that, because we both lived in the same town where there isn't much difference between the left and right sides of the aisle ;-)

themetfairy Sep 03 2008 11:16 AM

AG/DC wrote: Well, you just wrote it yesterday. The notion that we can't give mothers the benefit of the doubt because we can't give fathers the benefit of the doubt? Well, I'm just bailing out now. I don't even know what that means. I don't think that "benefit of the doubt" should be doled out lightly when we're talking about an unvetted candidate who aspires to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. I haven't said that she can't measure up, but I'm not going on faith that she will. I need more than that. Plus the pandering for the women's vote offends me on many levels.

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 11:24 AM

Out. I'm out. I'm not in. Not me.

themetfairy Sep 03 2008 11:28 AM

Fine.

soupcan Sep 03 2008 11:47 AM

AG/DC wrote: Out. I'm out. I'm not in. Not me. I could've used one of those yesterday.

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 11:51 AM

Well, you know, she's a mother and all.

soupcan Sep 03 2008 01:51 PM

Senator John McCain greeted Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston, the man whom she plans to marry, upon his arrival in Minnesota on Wednesday as Gov. Sarah Palin looked on. "Nice to meet you, ass. You and your little girlfriend here have really fucked things up for me.."

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 01:54 PM

You're drafted, you little jerk.

metsmarathon Sep 03 2008 04:21 PM

no (male) employer in this country could ever get away with asking of a female job applicant, "how many children do you have? are you sure you can handle this job on top of all that?"

MFS62 Sep 03 2008 04:48 PM

metsmarathon wrote: no (male) employer in this country could ever get away with asking of a female job applicant, "how many children do you have? are you sure you can handle this job on top of all that?" Actually, asking that (or similar questions) represents illegal hiring/ interviewing practices. Not sure if it a Federal or State law. HR folks are trained not to go anywhere near asking them. Later

Nymr83 Sep 03 2008 05:19 PM

..

Kong76 Sep 03 2008 05:57 PM

mm: no (male) employer in this country could ever get away with asking of a female job applicant, "how many children do you have? are you sure you can handle this job on top of all that?"<<< Depending on how far they wanted to spin it, those network news types and the other party, McCain likely would have gotten ripped a new ass crack the size of The Grand Canyon if it leaked out that he passed on a capable governor and her family with a handicapped child and a young lady carrying a baby and said, "er, sorry, no can do, we don't think someone can pull this off with that much of family situation on her plate, we're going with a white guy."

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 06:16 PM

Some butt awful speakers so far tonight, until the Texas Railroad Commissioner (?) came on.

Nymr83 Sep 03 2008 08:10 PM

Giuliani doing a good job as tonight's "attack obama" speaker.

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 08:30 PM

I'm watching through the internet, and the crowd isn't mic'd, so they sound tiny and far away.

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 08:37 PM

Track looks pretty sobered.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 03 2008 08:46 PM

She is lapping up every bit of these perceived slights.

soupcan Sep 03 2008 08:48 PM

She's doing nothing for me. Politic(ian)s as usual.

Kong76 Sep 03 2008 08:58 PM

I'm watching Episode 1 of The Honeymooner's Classic 39.

Gwreck Sep 03 2008 09:05 PM

Getting into the content of the speeches could be maddening -- but as for presentation, I think Palin was stiff and dropped what sure seemed like several awkward non-sequitors at the beginning of her speech. In terms of performance and elegance, I think the best speaker was Huckabee.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 03 2008 09:12 PM

Fairly nauseating overall.

Frayed Knot Sep 03 2008 09:17 PM

Gotta be a pretty heady trip for the Palin clan. It's one thing to be the center of all that attention and applause when you've been in the public eye your whole life (ie. career DC politicians). But those folks can't be used to anything like it on that kind of scale and had a very short amount of time to prepare for it.

Nymr83 Sep 03 2008 09:23 PM

her speech was "eh" to mr, but who cares. i vote for policies not "eloquence."

metsguyinmichigan Sep 03 2008 09:25 PM

Boy guys, I don't know. I thought that was pretty impressive. Even the liberal commentators are saying she hit a home run. From a strategic perspective, I think she did what she needed to do.

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 09:30 PM

Some drilling fetishists in that room, eh?

Nymr83 Sep 03 2008 09:36 PM

AG/DC wrote: Some drilling fetishists in that room, eh? "drill baby drill"!!

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 09:59 PM

Michael Williams 1.93 Sarah Palin 1.77 Mike Huckabee 1.48 Michael Steele 1.42 Rudy Giuliani 1.36 Mitt Romneey 0.91 Luis Fortuno 0.68 Carly Fiorina 0.17 Linda Lingle 0.28

Nymr83 Sep 03 2008 10:07 PM

AG/DC wrote: Michael Williams 1.93 Sarah Palin 1.77 Mike Huckabee 1.48 Michael Steele 1.42 Rudy Giuliani 1.36 Mitt Romneey 0.91 Luis Fortuno 0.68 Carly Fiorina 0.17 Linda Lingle 0.28 huh? those are some nice ERAs, can any of them pitch?

AG/DC Sep 03 2008 10:30 PM

Schaefer Speaker of the Night points.

OlerudOwned Sep 03 2008 10:33 PM

I saw a conservative fellow on another board compare Palin's speaking to "Dick Cheney with a vagina." Then I shuddered for a long time, and for more than one reason.

Nymr83 Sep 04 2008 12:24 AM

AG/DC wrote: Schaefer Speaker of the Night points. was michael williams really that good? i was busy half the night, i made the time to listen to Palin and i caught Giuliani and most of Steele but that was it.

AG/DC Sep 04 2008 05:52 AM

Relative to the game, yeah. He was really the only guy that, with any consistency, made me feel good to be a Republican. If I was a Republican. Apart from that, I happen to be a zealot about making a national project out of modernizing our railroad lines. I'm not sure if it's possible to do with private interests leading the way. But it's nice to see a guy with vision who's a train guy.

soupcan Sep 04 2008 07:02 AM

]On foreign policy, she said. . . "Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America; he's worried that someone won't read them their rights." Yeah. This didn't sit particularly well with me. Its not just pandering, its dangerous.

AG/DC Sep 04 2008 07:25 AM

Yeah, it was both. The audience ate it up. I got kind of sick. Early in the campaign cycle, McCain presented himself as the candidate to restore the great American right of due process (one of the greatest, if you ask me, because we've been ahead of the world through much of our history). When he damned the ruling in Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States as "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country," he made clear that he wasn't so interested in filling that role any more. Palin stated that he was one candidate who wouldn't change himself to win an election. Well, that's one way he did.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 04 2008 07:26 AM

One of several ways. I wonder if it's even possible to be elected President anymore without shifting significantly on at least a few issues.

AG/DC Sep 04 2008 07:34 AM

Williams is a blogger, mostly on energy solutions: http://www.williamsfortexas.com/posts/

Nymr83 Sep 05 2008 01:52 PM

regarding the AIP, Fox says that Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982. Her husband, however, was once a member.

sharpie Sep 05 2008 02:48 PM

That's right. Seems the secretary of the AIP said to new organizations that she was a member but she wasn't. She has, however, attended their conventions and said good things about the group.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 09 2008 08:06 AM

Bill Maher is actually advancing the theory that Bristol, not Sarah, is baby Trig's mother.

themetfairy Sep 09 2008 08:12 AM

I'm less concerned about Trig's parentage than I am about Palin's membership in a church that [url=http://www.gfn.com/recordDetails.php?page_id=19&section_id=25&pcontent_id=242]believes you can pray gays straight[/url].

AG/DC Sep 09 2008 08:17 AM

Is he willing to stake his career on it? Or just hers?

AG/DC Sep 09 2008 08:18 AM

I'm concerned with news sources that are so busy distorting their themes that they don't spell their subjects names correctly.

themetfairy Sep 09 2008 08:24 AM

AG/DC wrote: I'm concerned with news sources that are so busy distorting their theme that they don't spell their subjects names correctly. Fine. [url=http://wcbstv.com/national/sarah.palin.church.2.812110.html]Read the story here, then[/url].

Centerfield Sep 09 2008 08:53 AM

Man, I really hope she doesn't cure the gays. I really like Project Runway.

soupcan Sep 09 2008 09:03 AM

Forget all of her scandals and/or supposed scandals. She's a right-wing, bible-thumper and proudly embodies all that entails. Good for her and God bless. I ain't voting for that.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 09 2008 09:17 AM

AG/DC wrote: Is he willing to stake his career on it? Or just hers? You'd have to ask him that. Maher says that Bristol was in seclusion for five months prior to Trig's birth, and the stated reason was mononucleosis. "And we already know she's fertile." I hadn't heard that, but I haven't been closing following the soap opera aspects of this story. Bill Maher is a comedian who interviews newsmakers. When his comedian hat is on, he doesn't have to worry about being truthful; his only obligation is to be funny. But he made this statement while he was interviewing someone from CNN; he was being a snarky interviewer, not a comedian. Maher is a strange guy, but I'm surprised he's taking this particular position. It's not what I would have expected.

AG/DC Sep 09 2008 09:32 AM

Bill Maher is a failed comic actor posing as an opinion-maker. If he has no standards about what he can aver, or merely a comedian's standards, he should be shunned by policy-makers of every stripe. The exposure just isn't worth the degradation of the process.

Frayed Knot Sep 09 2008 10:49 AM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Maher says that Bristol was in seclusion for five months prior to Trig's birth, and the stated reason was mononucleosis. "And we already know she's fertile." I hadn't heard that, but I haven't been closing following the soap opera aspects of this story. It was mentioned on page 6 of this thread. Basically it's been an internet rumor being spread by various left-wing blogs and whatnot. That Maher wants to mine those kinds of sources for his material says more about him than Palin and family. It reminds me of when former JFK press secretary Pierre Salinger was touting his "insider information" that that flight that went down off Long Island wasn't felled by some electrical explosion but was, in fact, shot down by land & boat based missles. That his "proof" turned out to be some baseless screed that had been floating around the intenet for months did nothing to deter him from treating it as a fresh angle.

Nymr83 Sep 09 2008 10:52 AM

here is an idea: anyone who wants to claim that Sarah isn't really Trig's mother should put their money where their mouth is, raise $X million for a charity that helps children with DS and she takes a DNA test.

metsguyinmichigan Sep 09 2008 11:05 AM

Bill Mahr is a comedian who benefits from the exposure he gets by saying outrageous things. Did anyone ask Adam Sandler what he thinks?

metsguyinmichigan Sep 09 2008 12:56 PM

Other people who seek attention: Rock stars who ask politicians not to play their songs: "Sarah Palin's views and values in no way represent us as American women," Ann and Nancy Wilson told Entertainment Weekly. "We ask that our song 'Barracuda' no longer be used to promote her image." But the McCain camp said last week that it had paid for and obtained all necessary licenses before using the song. Trust me on this, Ann and Nancy will happily cash the checks from whatever sales bounce the exposure gives their 30-year-old song. And, they get a round of stories and photos of them telling the GOP not to play it. And they are certainly not the only ones, only the latest example.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 09 2008 01:00 PM

I thought we might hear from the Wilson sisters on the whole Barracuda thing.

metirish Sep 09 2008 01:02 PM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I thought we might hear from the Wilson sisters on the whole Barracuda thing. They have asked that they stop using it. http://www.slate.com/id/2199492/

AG/DC Sep 09 2008 01:13 PM

Yeah, that's clear two posts up. They also managed to get file photos of them from at least 15 years ago in some of the stories. Maybe Led Zep should make a public complaint about Heart using the riff without permission. Anyhow, I saw a clip from a women's health benefit performance in which Heart plays the song with Wynonna Judd, Cheryl Crow, Melissa Etheridge guesting, and after hearing the rest of them sing, really appreciated Ann's pipes (in a Lou Gramm-like your-hysterical-band-still-isn't-playing-my-bar-mitzvah way).

Farmer Ted Sep 09 2008 01:18 PM

This thread was dormant for four full days. Hmm. McCain camp said it paid fees to the record label. As we know, artists don't really own their own songs after the label suits sign the bottom line. They're still playing the Van Halen tune, too.

metirish Sep 09 2008 01:18 PM

AG/DC wrote: Yeah, that's clear two posts up. I should have noted that the link I posted says it's not as cut and dry as the Wilson's asking it not be used.

AG/DC Sep 09 2008 01:26 PM

Farmer Ted wrote: McCain camp said it paid fees to the record label. As we know, artists don't really own their own songs after the label suits sign the bottom line. It's not the label, but the licensing agency. The artust can no more legally stop them from playing it than they can a radio station. It's just a public performance of the record. You can take the playing of the song as an implied endorsement, but such things are always going to backfire on event planners who don't read lyric sheets beyond the title line. (Case in point: "Born in the USA.") Have you ever read the lyric sheet to "Barracuda"?

metsguyinmichigan Sep 09 2008 01:30 PM

Wild video! Wynonna is, well... wow. I interviewed her mom once. She was...more petite. Trust me on this, Ann and Nancy were doing cartwheels the moment that song started blaring over the speakers in St. Paul. And they'll be thrilled if it keeps getting played, and people keep interviewing them about it getting played. I've learned that usually groups doing the protesting are more interested in generating attention for themselves rather than defeating whatever cause they're protesting. Oh man, I better get off this soap box before I get the graphic of Pops Simpson yelling at the sky! :)

AG/DC Sep 09 2008 01:38 PM

Trust me on this: Ann and Nancy's cartwheel days are behind them.

metsguyinmichigan Sep 09 2008 01:46 PM

Well, yeah. Unless they had help. I'm sure the official press release said: "We also ask the campaign to not play "Magic Man," "Bebe LeStrange," "Alone," "These Dreams" and especially not "Crazy on You," all of which are available on Heart.com or iTunes. See Heart on tour near you!" :)

metirish Sep 09 2008 01:48 PM

Any interviews with Heart will only show Ann form the head up.

AG/DC Sep 09 2008 01:51 PM

CNN's poll of polls shows McCain inching ahead (for the first time) by two points

metirish Sep 09 2008 01:53 PM

Been a while since he did a cartwheel I bet.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 09 2008 02:05 PM

He'd be quick to point out that can't do cartwheels anymore because of the five years of torture while he was a POW.