Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Palin coasts on blogger boasts (Update II: BMG Palin directory & new problems)

By

  1. The choice inherently ticks off the retinues of Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, who McCain jerked around before spinning the wheel-of-candidates.

  2. It makes clear that McCain doesn’t get to pick the VP he wants on his own campaign.  He yearned for Lieberman, got what’s-her-name.

  3. Its crass tokenism steps over a roomful of more qualified Republican women. Hutchinson, Dole, Lingle, Rell, Hull, Fiorina, Rice, Collins, Whitman, Whitman,..

  4. Sarah Palin is a woman embroiled in her own ethical scandal that’s not going away.

  5. Sarah Palin advocates for teaching creationism in schools.

  6. Sarah Palin supported the bridge to nowhere earmark.

  7. Sarah Palin doesn’t know or think much about the surge in Iraq

  8. (but she says we invaded over oil)

  9. Sarah Palin started her brief career as an overwhelmed and incompetent small-town mayor who pushed to raise taxes.

  10. Sarah Palin doesn’t think much of McCain as a presidential candidate.

  11. Sarah Palin underwhelms Alaskan Republicans who know her best.

  12. Sarah Palin opposes abortion in all cases, even rape.  South Dakota voted down such a stance, and fewer than 1 in 5 Americans agrees with it.

  13. She urged Congress to open up drilling in ANWR.

  14. Sarah Palin thinks the Pledge of Allegiance was written by the Founding Fathers, and

  15. Sarah Palin doesn’t know what the vice president does.

    …plus

  16. Palin was part-owner of a business so poorly run that Alaska shut it down

  17. Her husband was a member of the quasi-secessionist Alaska Independence Party that is burdened down with many racist elements.

  18. She takes some political heat, and disappears for two days (per CBS News).  If she can’t handle some adverse political questions during her party’s convention, how could she handle a real national crisis?

This, dear friends, is a target-rich environment.  So where to start…hmm…where to start…

I know!  A ragged, pale conspiracy theory that Palin faked her own pregnancy while governor of Alaska to cover up for her daughter!!!!  Cuz it’s got sex in it!!!  

So forget this dirty dozen…we’ve a vocal crew that says full speed on a conspiracy theory based on the testimony of anonymous stewardesses, and Us Weekly style examination of photos for a baby bump.  How stupid do you really think the entire state of Alaska is?  It ain’t all polar bears up there people…I think somebody somewhere would have said something, particularly for the right sum of money.  She apparently paid off the enormous medical community of Juneau, fooled every Democratic leader meeting with her, suckered the half of the Alaskan Republican Party that evidently detests her, bamboozled every Alaskan the met her, successfully hid her daughter for a few months, whose friends never said anything…that must have been one realistic prosthesis!

Meanwhile, all this golden stuff that comes when you pick a running mate out of a hat just became old news, out of date, and unexamined because Obama just had to go deviate from his campaign plan to react defensively to the antics of this crew of Matt Drudge fanboys.  Nice work, guys.  Even though you’re a minority of bloggers, you’ve drowned out the qualification question with sexual rumormongering, leaving nothing but a put-open, bullied nice lady with a lovely smile.

Oh, great.  Just when I think there’s already too much muck is out there, the wannabe Richard Mellon Scaifes of the right get to pound on the fact that Palin’s 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.  Big deal.  Bill Clinton was an atrocious husband but a superlative president, but somehow Sarah Palin won’t manage the vice presidency if she isn’t an awesome mother?  Cute that somebody here thinks the Jerry Falliwell crowd is going to say “I did like her, until that liberal blogger showed me what a hypocrite I was.”  These people know that they’re hypocrites…they just don’t care.

Defeat from the jaws of victory.  Oy.

BlueMassGroup writings on Sarah Palin, grouped by topic:

Palin and Alaskan Secession

Palin was a member of AIP – secessionist Alaskan Party

Is Sarah Palin even a good Republican?

Palin and Old School Corruption

Palin Director of Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.

She was for corruption before she was against it

Palin’s Troopergate Scandal – Caught on Tape

Palin and Pregnancies

Palin’s daughters choice, and a poor inner city girl’s

Palin says: My daughter’s pregnant

Palin is the Pick

McCain: Palin Background Check Begins Now

John McCain reveals more about himself by his pick for VP

What’s new at Red Mass Group?

Rep. Balser on VP-wannabe Palin

Note to McCain: women “are not interchangeable”

Sarah Palin: Reality Check

Rasmussen: Palin pick makes undecided voters less likely to back McCain

The first lie!

Let’s get crass:interchangeable women

Palin’s hometown GOP state senator blasts VP selection

Karl Rove on the importance of a qualified VP

Alaska Gov. Palin McCain’s VP

And if you’re thinking we’re being sensationalistic, here’s the Associated Press article on this first day of the Republican National Convention: “Day of stunning Palin disclosures

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Now that her spokesman says he didn’t know that Palin’s daughter was pregnant (and why would he??), expect some of the same crazies to start a rumor that the daughter really isn’t pregnant but this was invented to cancel out their previous rumor — you can guess where it goes from there.

    • Maybe the “left-wing blogosphere” was suckered into “Swift-boating” Palin.
      It would stand to reason that the Bristol Palin pregnancy would eventually be known publicly. So why not float a semi-plausible rumour about Sarah Palin, let the Daily Kos crowd take the bait and get worked into a froth spreading it, and then announce Bristol’s pregnancy as irrefutable evidence that the first rumour was false?
      The news of Bristol’s actual pregancy would be less of a shock, both Sarah and Bristol would get sympathy for being the subjects of the first rumour, and then the “left-wing blogosphere” gets to be tsk-tsked by the Republican noise machine for spreading a nasty rumour.
      Given some of the previous Rovian stunts pulled by the Republicans- “McCain fathered a black child”, “Hillary killed Vince Foster”, “Barack is a closet Muslim”- this wouldn’t be too difficult to conceive or execute.

      • Cue the men in black, he’s onto us.

        <

        p>Seriously, DailyKos has just found irrefutable proof that Ms. Palin killed Bigfoot.

          • And I’m sure there’s probably a Republican partisan list of the problems that Senator Obama. And, I’m sure they both read like phonebooks.  

            <

            p>But everyone will remember DailyKos’s national news splash of the breathless, the unknown, the unsupportable, outlandish and crass partisan attack of extreme left: years to gain some credibility, moments to lose it.

            <

            p>List you say? How accurate could it possibly be from that bunch of thugs.  

            • You have Rezko, Rev. Wright, and Bill Ayers – and there’s no “there” there on any one of them.  Let’s see a comprehensive list of over 100 problems of this nature for Obama and compare them side by side…

            • Everyone will remember that the abstinence-only, “family-rights,” fringe-right whacko’s daughter was pregnant – a real Britney Spears moment for the right wing (they love those moments). That’s pretty much the only thing people will remember about Palin, especially after the Republicans throw her under the bus bump her off the ticket.  

              • As I’ve pointed out, she favors federal funding of abstinence only over i) explicit sex education (most parent disfavor explicit sex eduation in the schools BTW according to a 2003 poll.) ii) clinics in school and iii) condom being passed out in school.  I’ve posted sources for this elsewhere.

                <

                p>If you actually read the questionaire where she addressed the question, you’ll actually find that she seems to be in strong favor of parent’s choice, and in no other place does she appear to discern what her choice is.

                <

                p>Maybe you can find it.  I’ve ask others.  Show me where Mr. Palin is an advocate of abstinence only sex education.  You’ve made the assertion; back it up. You know, reality and all that.

                • That poll you like to cite is junk, but you already knew that since I explained it to you before.  I’ve found one from the Kaiser Family Foundation, NPR and Harvard that looks vastly more accurate, and it’s backed up by a more recent poll from the National Women’s Law Center and Planned Parenthood:

                  <

                  p>

                  The public prefers comprehensive sex education to abstinence-only-until-marriage programs by a wide margin. According to a poll, conducted in 2003 by the Kaiser Family Foundation, National Public Radio, and Harvard University, only 15 percent of Americans believe that schools should only teach abstinence from sexual intercourse and should not provide information on condoms and other contraception. A 2007 poll of voters conducted by the National Women’s Law Center and Planned Parenthood Federation of America yielded remarkably similar results, with more than three out of four respondents preferring comprehensive sex education curricula, while only 14 percent favored an “abstinence-only” approach.[11]

                  Americans expressed support for a broad sex education curriculum that teaches about abstinence as well as the “basics of how babies are made.” In addition,
                  * 99 percent of Americans wanted programs to cover other STIs as well as HIV.
                  * 98 percent wanted youth to learn all about HIV and AIDS.
                  * 94 percent wanted youth to learn how to get tested for HIV and other STIs.
                  * 93 percent wanted youth to be taught about “waiting to have sexual intercourse until married.”
                  * 83 percent wanted youth to learn how to put on a condom.
                  * 71 percent wanted youth to know that “that teens can obtain birth control pills from family planning clinics without permission from a parent.”[1]

                  The Kaiser poll also found that that a substantial plurality (46 percent) believes that the most appropriate approach is “abstinence-plus.” These Americans felt that schools should emphasize abstinence but should also teach about condoms and contraception. Thirty-six percent of those polled believed that abstinence is not the most important thing, and that sex education should focus on teaching teens how to make responsible decisions about sex.[1]

                  <

                  p>Source:  http://www.advocatesforyouth.o…

                  <

                  p>What you call “explicit sex education” is actually age-appropriate, medically accurate sex education.  If all of our children had that curriculum, teen preganancy, abortion and STD’s would be vastly lowered – what’s not to like about results like that?  Pl ease show me the downside of reducing teen pregnancy, abortions, and sexually transmitted diseases…

                • That poll you like to cite is junk, but you already knew that since I explained it to you before.

                  <

                  p>the poll is what it is, a secular funded poll of parents who and the outcome was that they strongly disfavored explicit sex education in the classroom.  Ms. Palin’s opinion stated that she didn’t seek for Federal funds to go toward explicit sex education.

                  <

                  p>You said, with a remarkable ignorance for statistics or at least with no basis for your assertion, that it was unrepresentative, yet, there’s no basis for your claim and no one else, (via a google search) who makes such a bold claim.

                • Correction: February 19, 2003, Wednesday An article on Thursday about parental attitudes toward sex education referred incorrectly to one sponsor of the survey, the National Abstinence Clearinghouse. It is a secular organization, not a Christian one.

                  nytimes

                  <

                  p>Focus on Family was the sponsor you say?

                • …is a secular organization, and they were one sponsor of the poll.  They have nothing to do with whether Focus on the Family is or is not a secular organization.

                  <

                  p>Here’s the full quote from the Times:

                  <

                  p>

                  Today’s survey was released by a consortium of conservative Christian groups, including the Christian Coalition of American, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women of America and the National Abstinence Clearinghouse.

                  <

                  p>They later issued the correction you cite about the NAC – but did the Times also apologize for labelling the other three as “conservative Christian groups”?  No, they didn’t – who’s either a liar or a fool now?

                • JohnT001: “the poll is unrepresentative.”  Yet, you don’t say why: No substantiation, no proof, no support.

                  <

                  p>JohnT001:  “the poll is junk.”  Again, nothing but crickets.

                  <

                  p>JohnT001:

                  What you call “explicit sex education” is actually age-appropriate, medically accurate sex education.  If all of our children had that curriculum, teen preganancy, abortion and STD’s would be vastly lowered.

                  No substantiation, no proof, no support. Wishful thinking from the kool-aid factory. The facts are, if you cared, that the study of abstinence-only education showed no significant difference between the students receiving abstinence education and the students receiving the ordinary programs in the schools with half of those programs had comprehensive contraception education.  It’s no better; it’s no worst.  Teens are teens: impulsive, lead by short term reward, with a fear that parents will discover they use birth control–all factors which abstinence only and comprehensive education do not appear to address.  Equally according to the premier study in this area.

                  <

                  p>And in response that the funding was secular, I was not aware that the funding was spread between some secular and some Christian, but there it is. Seems both were involved.  Does that cast doubt on the validity of the Zogby poll?  

                  <

                  p>Consider mine the penultimate post.  I’m sure you’ll reply.  If so, then have at it.  It’s frankly distasteful that you continue to labor with unsubstantiated assertions and baseless opinion.

                • …and it reached erroneous conclusions, not substantiated by any other poll, and flat-out refuted by several that I pointed to.  You can keep your blinders on all you want, it only makes you blind and it doesn’t make thie flawed poll you keep referring to any truer.  The fact that FOTF was involved does cast doubt on that poll – how a questions is asked will influence how it’s answered.  Here’s a tidbit from the FOTF spokesman about their methodology:

                  <

                  p>

                  “When you ask parents in a vague euphemistic way about comprehensive sex education, they will respond one way.” said Peter Brandt, director of issue response at Focus on the Family, one of the groups that sponsored the poll. “As we get more specific in terms of what children are actually taught, though, parents are more opposed.”

                  <

                  p>As to your assertion that abstinence-only works equally well with standard health curricula, you cite a study that ended in 2001, before the current crop of abstinence-only sex ed was launched and offer it as your proof?  That’s laughable, and newer studies show different results.

                  <

                  p>The majority of this country wants age-appropriate, medically accurate sex ed taught in public schools –  such an approach would reduce teen pregnancy, abortions and STD infections.  You’re in the minority on this issue…

                • That quote seems to suggest that yours are the polls with the intentionally vague questions, rather then FOTF.

                  <

                  p>I guess that just means that the definition of an unbiased study is one that confirms what you already believe.

                • That’s what FOTF wants you to believe.  You can believe them if you want, but I don’t trust known liars any farther than I can throw them.

                • Either you agree with me, and most people will likely remember mostly the pregnancy, or you don’t. If you don’t, explain what makes Palin special – why would America, for the first time in a long time, find her so substantiative and interesting that they’d actually remember something else about her (after she’s tossed off the ticket, which seems somewhat likely at this point… troopergate’s coming out in late October – just in time LOL).  

                • Remembered for her pregnant daughter?  How to comment on that…sure, people will remember that along the lines that some might remember Dick Cheney’s daughter is gay or Bush’s daughters like to party.

                  <

                  p>People won’t remember the Daily “I see Elvis; she’s not the mother; aliens are real; LOOK BIGFOOT” Kos.  That was news run rampant within the cult.

                  <

                  p>Tossed off the ticket?  I’ll wager against that I think. You got game?

                  <

                  p>I’ve posted before, and similarly think the calculus is pretty simple.  McCain’s the underdog, is down in the polls and the electoral vote.  He could have gone with a safe pick like Pawlenty and dragged along like Bob Dole.  He didn’t, and his high risk pick may or may not pay off.

                • She certainly seems to have injected an awful lot of energy into the Republican base, which goes a long way to providing what McCain needed.  The GOP ticket has won the last two elections with an energized base and very little else.  Democrats were jazzed in 2004 and lost anyway.

                  <

                  p>Now they need to make a play for independents and moderates.  Absurd charges and accusations by the left create sympathy for the GOP ticket here, and drive away voters more loyal to Hillary than to a political party, George W. Bush and evidence of Very Right Wing Positions push the other way.

                  <

                  p>Plus, expectations have been so dramatically lowered for Palin now that she need barely show up to exceed them.  I think her speech to the convention will be a big success in front of a very supportive crowd, and think it may be possible that she may be far more effective than has been generally assumed so far for the next 2 months.  Goodness knows, she comes from an actual working class background (albeit a rather successful one), which includes hunting and fishing, and so shares a cultural affinity with most voters that the Democratic ticket lacks.  Moreover, many of the

                  <

                  p>The ominous thing is: when Democrats assume Republicans are stoopid, the Democrats tend to lose, and that is the dynamic developing over the last few days.

                  <

                  p>So, yeah, advantage Obama, thanks to the guy who appeared by sattelite, but McCain appears to be determined to make Obama win, rather than concede defeat.

                • You have no excuse to blame the rumors on Kos. Unlike the rightwing asshats pundits, you’re actually familiar with the blogosphere. Kos didn’t touch those rumors with a 10 foot stick. There were simply diaries on his site about the rumors – like there were diaries on this site. Would you say Bob, David and Charley see Elvis, too?  

                • nobody found Obama interesting until he gave a speech.

                  <

                  p>Personally, I support Obama for the vision he has clearly been able to articulate over the past few years. He really hasn’t done anything substantive, but I believe that he has the ability to surround himself with people who can help him lead the country.

                  <

                  p>I don’t want somebody in the white house who is an expert at using STATA, SPSS, or who can come up with the best multiple regression analysis for a particular policy. I do want somebody who can pick and pick well the so called experts.

                  <

                  p>My point is that we have yet to really hear Sarah Palin. She might come out and deliver a speech that really rahrahs the conservatives and possibly independents. To think that somebody is not politically astute because they happen to disagree with your political ideologies is foolish and commonly leads to defeat.

              • I’m pretty sure I respect them for putting their money where their mouth is with respect to abortion, when it may have been a heck of a lot more convenient for them to see to it that two babies not be born.  I doubt the evangelicals will see it much differently.

                <

                p>Other than that, I see a candidate that shores up McCain’s previously flagging right flank, and has produced a firestorm to energize that previously enervated flank.

                <

                p>The only thing that might have legs out of all of the BS is the trooper thing.  I guess we’ll see about that.

              • Ryan, i have followed your posts since becoming a frequent flyer on BMG. I have been impressed that such a young man could be so thoughtful and astute on many political subjects.

                <

                p>But, Governor Palin has clearly gotten way too far under your skin. The name-calling, bashing nature of your comments is far below your usual contributions to the discussion.

                <

                p>Gov. Palin has brought you to your rhetorical knees. Reread your own entries on this thread…even you may be surprised.  This Alaskan gal has got you bottom-feeding. Don’t let her get to you!

                • I honestly don’t think I’ve gone too far in any of the discussion – which did lead somewhere, as new information was forced to be released that answered the unknown questions. Of course, that something was a little different than what was being hypothosized, but that’s why we have the scientific method, so to speak. We learned more and views changed as a result, as they always do when we learn learn something new.

                  <

                  p>Palin’s clear-cut tokenism and an even clearer attempt at bait-and-switch. There’s no way the McCain campaign would have let her sound as conservative as she actually is… trying to pick off low-information Clinton supporters who would find it morally reprehensive, for example, to be against abortion even in the cases of rape or incest. Women – and other Clinton fans (which includes me) – aren’t going to vote for Palin just because she’s a woman, especially when she’s not even in the same stratosphere as Clinton on experience, demeanor or the issues.

                  <

                  p>Rest assured, though, regularly scheduled programming will continue soon and you can go back to (hopefully) liking my posts. Not many things in politics irks me like the Palin choice – and I apologize that my anger has shown – but this is the future of America that we’re talking about. If I’m not going to be angry and combative now, when could I be? (An honest question: there’s nothing I could possibly think of as being more important than this election – nothing less than the future of our country and therefore world is at stake – because leadership matters.)

          • “Problems” according to whom? You?

            <

            p>How many voters do you influence?

            <

            p>You dredged this up from daily kos and proffered it as something substantial.  Do you actually think that the average American goes anywhere near that playpen, or cares a whit what bile the hufn’kos mob is feeding on today?

            <

            p>No, McCain doesn’t have 100 problems. No one of any consequence is swayed by the latest smear of the week coming from the left side of the blogosphere.

            • …her membership in a separtist political party isn’t a problem for you?  Did you have anything to say about Michelle Obama and the “really proud of her country” flap?  Did you comment on Rev Wright and his “God damn America” statement?  What would you think of someone who said this:

              <

              p>

              I’m an Alaskan, not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions.

              <

              p>Source:  http://www.washingtonmonthly.c…

              <

              p>That’s from Joe Vogler, the founder of the Alaskan Independence Party – Sarah Palin was a member of that party, and her husband was still a registered voter in that party as recently as 2002.  What would you have had to say about Michelle if it turned out she was registered in a separtist political party?  If you had anything to say about Michelle or Rev. Wright, I’ll expect you to be denouncing Mrs. Palin in a similar fashion – and that goes for the rest of the right-wingers on this board as well.  

              <

              p>For the record, I’m not holding my breath…

              • I guess I won’t be denouncing her tonight…

                This, it should be noted, does not square with official records.

                Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, tells ABC News that regardless of the impression given to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, “Gov. Sarah Palin first registered to vote in the state in May 1982 as a Republican, and she has not changed her party affiliate with the Division of Elections since that time.”

                <

                p>

                “Governor Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982,” Rogers says, providing voter registration documentation showing her to be a Republican. “As you know, if she changed her registration, there would have been some record of it. There isn’t.”

                http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit…

                <

                p>…maybe tomorrow your camp can photoshop some pix of Mrs Palin hanging off a pole in a strip joint.

                <

                p>Til then, I’m of the opinion that she’s got more game than Mr. Obama himself, and that somebody is mighty freekin’ worried about it.
                ;p

                • Since they’re McCain talking points, I assume they were distributed to you.  My question is what the reward system is.

                  <

                  p>Follow my link for the refutations…  

                • That is documented on the voter registration records in Alaska – if you had anything to say about Obama’s wife, you should be equally upset at Palin’s husband – if you’re not, then you’re just another Republican hypocrite.

                • Everything I’ve read indicates that its platform lies more in giving Alaska the right to vote on whether to become a part of the United States. Something they claim they were denied previously.

                  <

                  p>Just asking.

                • married to a seperatist. If the country could get in a huge fit over the fact that she was proud to be an American “for the first time,” it’s only consistent that they’d tar and feather the spouse of someone who’d go much further and be married to a seperatist.  

        • Bigfoot drowned in the Great Flood, because he didn’t get on Noah’s Ark in time. Along with the dinosaurs and unicorns.  

  2. Good stuff! I disagree with some of your dirty dozen but the direction it points in is awesome.

    • I have Yellow Epsilon clearance, level 5.  I just blog for giggles.

      <

      p>And you know what you were thinking last week about that shirt and those pants not really matching, but hoping nobody would notice because you didn’t feel like doing laundry?  They did notice and laughed about it after you left.  Sorry.

  3. Palin was director of a 527 called “Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.” LOL!

    <

    p>That’s like heading a group called “Britney Spears Excellence in Parenting, Inc” or “Steven Segal Excellence in Acting, Inc”.  

  4. mine.

    <

    p>This isn’t going to hurt Obama one iota – and it very well could result in Palin being purged from the ticket. The bus is already moving backwards. If the “conspiracy theories” were never introduced, the actual damaging news would have been buried until such a point that it wouldn’t have hurt them. This is playing on the offensive, something our party has been reticent to do in the past. Notice how we’ve lost more elections than we’ve won… I don’t think it’s a coincidence.  

    • But it’s not enough to be tough, we need to be smart.  My ideal is that Palin ends up being a VP choice that is really, really bad…but not quite bad enough to be worth replacing her.  I think that’s superior to a bad August/early September for McCain followed by a ticket the looks good on the actual ballots.  

      <

      p>Because if Palin is ditched and we get Mitt Romney or Joe Lieberman, that’ll feel great for a week.  We drove her out yeah!  And then we’ll be facing a VP guy who can brag about investing in health care, success in the private and public field, real executive experience, etc., etc or a former Democrat, friend of Israel, etc., etc.  Anybody feel good that we drove Harriet Miers out — a woman with a short track record and no firm ideology, a free agent once Daddy Dubya left the scene — and opened the door for unthinking reactionary Samuel Alito?  A great tactical victory and a huge strategic loss.

      • VPs won’t win an election, but these kind of gaffes can certainly help lose one. It’s well worth trading Palin for Romney or Lieberman for Republican turmoil just before their convention – and a reminder to the people that McCain has terrible judgement. Furthermore, the very fact that he’d throw someone under the bus will turn supporters off and make his already soft support become more even more jello-like.

      • so my memory may be rusty.  As I recall, however, it was the far right who drove Harriet Miers out, not the left.  Near as my memory serves, most Senate Democrats were content to let the right implode on that one.

    • We don’t have to pursue the low-road, when her ethical scandals and lack of qualifications will bring her down, or lose the election for McCain.

      • that’s why blogs, MoveOn and thousands of other organizations exist. We hurl the mud so our candidates don’t have to. The Swiftboat attacks didn’t come from the Bush campaign, either. You can keep your conscience at ease knowing that the truth is on our side, unlike the Swiftboaters, even if we don’t happen to like being tough. The Republicans did this stuff, the people deserve to know about it.  

        • Let’s at least be honest with it.  A day’s anonymous speculation about the phantom baby was ok but that kind of silliness shouldn’t stand, really.

          <

          p>That aside, any ethical scandal, affiliation with secessionist movement or crazy views on teaching creation in schools should be fair game.

  5. All other things being equal, the simplest explanation is probably the likely one.  It’s probably her child.  

    <

    p>Now, if it is her child,  sound strategy might be to let the true Believers flagellate, for a day or so–until say, Wednesday– before allowing the doctor to step up and say, ‘yep, the baby was hers’ immediately prior to John McCain accepting the party’s nomination (after which public money kicks in).  

    <

    p>A nice lady set upon by the left’s Believers must be generating some serious cash from the Republicans right about now.

    • Would be awkward if Mr. “country above party” has to choose between raising funds he can’t spend by the end of this week, or putting up rafts of ads that are expressly political at a time when we were promised no politics.

      <

      p>Other than that, I agree with you.  Huh.

        • Fantastic conspiracies will usually collapse under their own weight, and this one is heavy – much more likely that she had a baby with Down’s Syndrome, as described.  The flight to Alaska to give birth is troubling, she did put herself and her baby at risk, so that adds to the reasons people are wondering about the story.

          <

          p>As to the speculation that she should have aborted the baby, I have to disagree with anyone saying that’s what she should have done.  The decision to bring a handicapped child into the world should remain in the realm of “private decision by patient in consultation with her family and her doctor” – coincidentally, the same approach I take to abortion or any other health care issue.  I worked with people with Down’s Syndrome for several years when I was in college, and with the right input early on, they can grow up and live happy, productive lives.

          <

          p>As to fundraising, how can that money be spent in three days?  It takes a little while to get advertising campaigns up and running – I wonder what will happen to that money.  I’d hope that the law would require that it remain unspent in the coffers of his primary campaign committee – any lawyers know the answer?

            • She had amnio tests performed, and knew that the baby would have Down’s Syndrome.  Some commenters at Kos suggested she should have aborted – I haven’t seen that here, and I wasn’t responding to anyone on this site when I said that.  Who knows who the commenters at Kos were, though – often, some of the most outrageous comments are from trolls trying to make the site look bad.  I probably shouldn’t have even mentioned it, in hindsight…

        • 1) Letterhead stationery etc
          2) GOTV supplies, phones etc
          3) food for volunteers
          4) Pay salaries ahead of time

          <

          p>There are lots of things he can do in 3 days with 10 million dollars.  

          • I wonder if a candidate can pre-buy future air time with private funds until the public money kicks in.

          • if they’re enforced, and how that enforcement would even be effective.

            <

            p>Could he pay salaries all the way through November 31?  I don’t expect that his pay-period would have to be sliced in half by the convention day, but paying October’s salaries in early September seems like a blatant disregard for the spirit [and perhaps the letter] of the law.

            <

            p>Supplies are a bit different, in that they’re far less easy to predict future usage, but again, buying so much that you are certain it will last well into October seems to be inappropriate given the law.  Phones and other items that last the entire campaign would seem fair game [phones, cost to install, etc].

            <

            p>Food for volunteers?  You bet.  Feed ’em steaks if you’ve got to burn through that money.  They deserve it.

            <

            p>So sure, he can buy lots of things now.  Some of them [phones, food for volunteers] seem ethically in the clear.  Others [loads of envelopes] seem dodgy.  Paying October [or Nov] salaries now is downright unethical given the law.

            <

            p>I hope Mr. McCain stays within the letter and the spirit of the law.

  6. for several days, so just came back to this “her baby is really hers stuff.  i think if this is something people want to pursue, they should do it quietly until they have ral evidence.  rumors aren’t useful at this point.

    <

    p>however, i do think the twin bits of baby news (middle-aged mother giving birth to “oops” baby, and unmarried under-aged daughter getting preggers) is useful to illustrate that Palin supports federal policies that she and her own family have proven are failures.  those failed policies include

  7. abstinence-only ed
  8. lack of meaningful family planning information or methods

  9. She was a successionist a member of the Alaskan Independence Party… and even gave a recent speech to them to open their convention. What Governor would ever do that… if they didn’t harbor similar feelings?

    <

    p>Check 6 minutes into the 2nd video – where the 2nd in command of the AIP said she was a member of their party until she became mayor.

    <

    p>

    to get around to go around she later joined the Republican Party

    <

    p>I want to see her deny that she’s ever been a member of that party. Anyone care to check and see if she’s ever given money to them?  

    • The AIP do seem like a bunch of nutjobs frankly, and that’s how Alaskan voters apparently see them.  They should really talk to Convergencia i Unio or the Parti Quebecois to learn how to do what they’re doing.   Their 2006 gubernatorial candidate got .5% of the vote, and they ran only three legislative candidates, topping out at about 13% of the vote.  

      <

      p>If we find any monetary or affiliative evidence linking Palin with this group, it’s number 16 on my list.  Just because the second-in-command of a smal lgroup of crazies claims her doesn’t really convince me.

      <

      p>The speech for their convention was an awkward choice, though the remarks themselves are bland and far from an endorsement.

      • This is good enough for me.  You don’t say something like this to ABC, attach your name to it, and provide specifics unless you can back it up.

        <

        p>Mitt Romney must be glancing at the phone on a minute-by-minute basis at this point…and so much Harriet Miers’ speechwriter.

        • I frankly don’t have a problem with the idea of a secession vote in Alaska.  Statehood would win easily, and Alaskans would lose a lot more than gain by voting themselves out.  Voting on nationhood seems to be a fundamental part of human rights at the American and international level.  Not that I expect too many Republicans (or Democrats) to agree…

  10. saying Palin is qualified because:

  11. “The experience that she comes from is, is with what she’s done in the government.”
  12. “Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia”
  13. “She has a very serious direction in where she goes.”

    14. <

    p>Well, what more needs saying?  

    <

    p>

  14. (Particularly when BMGers comment on national politics….)

    <

    p>1. Question – Do you see this website, with maybe 20 people logged on at any given time, more as a watercooler or a political operation which affects the outcome of elections, a tributary into the larger left blogosphere?    

    <

    p>2. Observation – Now that this is a political story, for better or worse, you argue: worse for Obama because it clouds out other concerns about Palin.  

    <

    p>Reasonable proposition.  But I’m not so sure.  

    <

    p>a. Alex Castellanos (R) just said on CNN “This really shifts the message of the convention.  They wanted to draw contrasts to Obama.  Now they need to introduce Palin.  She becomes the story.”  

    <

    p>b. This news introduces some values issues into the election, like sex ed, teenage pregnancy, abortion — some of Gov Palin’s socially conservative beliefs that you want to focus on.  

    <

    p>c. The media will pay even more attention to the trooper story.  

    <

    p>

  15. I’m disappointed to see “conspiracy theory” trotted out as the term of ridicule to dismiss the story.  Remember those nutty conspiracy theories about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman? Yeesh!  Everyone knows conspiracy theories are just crazy!

    <

    p>You can dismiss the whole “Palin’s baby is her daughter’s baby” theory if you want, but the 18-hour flight alone was enough to convince my wife that there’s something fishy about the “Palin’s baby is her own” story.  Ask anybody who’s ever spent 18 hours or more in labor about that one.

    <

    p>The story is worth pursuing because 1.)Mother of God, it’s a juicy one.  People, and I certainly include myself here, eat this stuff up. 2.) It does absolutely speak to the character of the people involved.  The way the family is handling the current alleged pregnancy seems to me to be kind of a non-story and would not be worth pursuing.  (“she’s pregnant, we’re  handling it, it’s our business.”)  If, in fact, a real teen pregnancy were covered up and then the lie was exploited for political gain, well, yeah, that’s a story.

    <

    p>

  16. sex, love children, and deception- what else could the press ask for?

    <

    p>there will be a full-blown scandal by the end of the week, I guarantee it. Palin left many enemies in Alaska, and someone will come forth with a tell-all.

    <

    p>Oliver-Stone conspiracy? McCain campaign’s statement today is akin to the Federal government acknowledging Oswald had poor shot. More fuel to the fire.

    <

    p>Think of all the juicy implications coming out of this story- not only a hypocritical family-values candidate preaching abstinence for all except her own daughter, but a Presidential candidate who made a rash, uninformed decision.  

    • but a Presidential candidate who made a rash, uninformed decision

      <

      p>In the end, Palin becomes Willie Horton. She is not an issue in and of herself as Veep-nominee, but McCain’s judgment in selecting her becomes his tragic downfall… and that holds even if she excused in place of Romney or Pawlenty or Lieberman.

    • A friend of mine said earlier today that Palin is “The Clarence Thomas of VP picks” – clearly underqualified, out-of-the-ballpark extreme right, and a blatantly tokenist selection.

      • Switch the word “right’ to “left” in your statement… couldn’t the same be said said for another presidential candidate?

        <

        p>Do we really want to draw attention to the experience or judgment comparisons?

        • What other presidential candidate are you thinking of who picked an underqualified yet ideologically-extreme VP for political reasons?  I don’t get it.

    • Is this the best you can do to demean Palin?  A lot of us believe that keeping warm in winter is more important than saving polar bears. Don’t be such a hypocrite:  live in a cave in the woods this winter and save the polar bears.

      • …how would you feel about that?  We need alternative energy, we can’t drill our way out of this mess.  The polar bears will be pretty happy about it too, if we do it right…

      • The choice between staying warm this winter and polar bears is a nonexistant one. We can stay warm and save our climate, thank you very much. In fact, many projects of Global Warming show that our region of the world will get much, much colder – even as the polar caps melt – because of shifts in the ocean currents. So, by killing polar bears you may just make your winters vastly colder.  

  19. It’s about McCain.  According to the NY Times, his people spent a who day up in Alaska to vet her and are still looking, even after the announcement:

    Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin’s background. A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice.

    Is this how McCain plans to run the Oval Office?

    <

    p>He’s going to have to hire a lot of people to replace those stepping down after Bush leaves.  If he can’t be bothered to vet his running mate, what is he going to do with cabinet members?  Heads of agencies?  Whatever Karl says?

    • This is looking worse and worse for McCain. I’m all for taking risks, but they need to be calculated risks. This seems more like a shot in the dark.

      <

      p>Granted, maybe the thought was to get everything out there today during a major hurricane, find out where the chips are going to land, and then decide what kind of image she needs to present. But I doubt it. If A.B. Culvahouse was doing the vetting, I’m surprised he let McCain go through with it if he had not had the opportunity to do some real research.

      <

      p>While Palin certainly did not make the short list of VP candidates, she was definitely on the radar screen. The fact that (if) they waited until a couple of days to do some research on her is idiotic.

      • People keep assuming these kind of “what ifs.” The truth is she clearly wasn’t seriously vetted. If they couldn’t even bother to vet her, why on earth should we assume they’d be intelligent enough to reveal all today during the hurricane? If they knew she had this much baggage, she wouldn’t have been picked.  

      • i question if they even knew about TrooperGate – something I knew about Sarah Palin before I ever thought, for a second, she’d be McCane’s VP pick. That was on kos weeks and weeks ago – titled something like this ‘another Republican in Alaska being investigated.’

      • Billmon’s Ready, Shoot, Aim:

        There is precedent, of course: Invade Iraq, then check to see if Saddam really had WMDs; make Mike Brown head of FEMA, then check to see if he actually knew anything about disaster response, etc. But I thought the whole idea was to get away from that kind of “leadership” (or at least fool the voters into thinking McCain would do things differently.)

  20. Whoa….Whatever has happened to BMG?

    <

    p>How can we criticize the Swiftboaters and become Swiftboaters at the same time?

    • swiftboating going on?  please link to the posts in contention.  i just see lots of conjecture and an assembling of news stories and gossip.  few have made any unfounded assertions that go beyond published news accounts.  certainly bmg itself isn’t pushing any particular baseless narrative.

      • When they deliberately spread gossip and rumor and personal attacks with the intent to defame, it’s swiftboating. When we spread gossip and rumor and personal attacks with the intent to defame, it’s “conjecture.”

        <

        p>The Daily Kos is case in point on Palin baby conspiracy… Then we repeat the Daily Kos accusations as “published news accounts”…

        <

        p>We are falling head first into the trap.

        <

        p>Ignore Palin. Focus on McCain. Voters will choose between Obama and McCain…they are choosing a President. If their concern is foreign policy experience, they will of course choose Biden over Palin…but if foreign policy experience is the focus, where will our guy for President end up?

        <

        p>How does it help to beat her into submission and get the same independent female voters (Hillary voters were never their target) worked up about the bullying treatment a female candidate receives?

        <

        p>Obama understood this…and said so pointing to his own unwed mother’s experience…he told his staff and supporters to stop [personal attacks on family.  Let’s see if his legions follow his directive.

        <

        p>

        • So don’t brand me and us with stuff happening over there.  Or shall I find something onorous happening on RMG and slam you for it?  It makes about as much sense.

          • A life-long Democrat…but, being a loyal Democrat has not deprived me of my right to express an opinion about political action or political nonsense on both sides of the aisle.

            <

            p>I will vote for Obama, albeit with more enthusiasm for Biden than him, but I will not be a hypocrite for the party. How can we fault a candidate for VP for a thin resume and little experience and at the same time say experience does not matter at the top of our own ticket?

            <

            p>As far as the Palin personal family stuff…I’m 100% with Obama on that and Biden, too..who BOTH said today that they want it to stop…if Obama is your leader, why do you not respect his opinion on this matter?

              • but, the blogosphere is brimming with posts that reflect the “talking points” sent out by campaigns and echo partisan attack memos…not a lot of original thinking for oneself…it’s an echo chamber, a negative echo chamber.

                <

                p>You are certainly free to disagree with Obama and Biden on this issue. (And maybe deep down Barack is hoping you will…he still looks good.)

        • Bluemassgroup raises millions of dollars to spread those ‘gossip and rumors’ on TV, get back to me. Until then, tbe medium of blogging and commenting is simply a discussion. What’s been going on the past few days was an open-source investigation. The results of that investigation can be seen on TV today: terrible news for McSame.

        • Do you think the stories about the lack of vetting by McCain–stories that only came out as a result of the Palin “scandal” stories–pinpoint a significant fault in McCain?

          <

          p>Don’t you think Dems could make the case that this shows incredibly shallow consideration of perhaps the biggest decision of his campaign? Is there reason for worry when he took about a week to ponder a decision when he had months to do it?

          <

          p>Beyond that, it seems the “Maverick” imgage should take a hit when it is reported that his campaign kept him from taking his first two choices.

          <

          p>I agree there is the potential for Dems to look like Swiftboaters. But I’d reckon some are fine with that, that they take the “It’s not how you play the game, it’s whether you win or lose” attitude.

  21. What does this story say about American journalism, and Republican diligence (by way of TAPPED)

    <

    p>

    I told [the city clerk of Wasillia] I appreciated her help, since I’m sure she’s been bombarded with requests these last few weeks. The clerk’s office keeps all City Council meeting agendas, minutes, legislation, ordinances, etc. She chuckled. Then she told me that I’m the first person who has asked her office for anything.

    <

    p>From the Washington Independent, this afternoon.  

Archives