A Milf For Vp?

[vbnautilus 48]

The pregnant daughter is relevant for several reasons. First, it's an additional family responsibility for her. She has 5 children, including a newly born son with a mental disability, and now a pregnant 17-year old daughter to deal with. That's effectively 6 kids to either dump on her husband or share some responsibility in dealing with. Is that the kind of focus we want from a VP/possible pres? Maybe some people will think managing all this makes her more qualified; either way it is relevant. Second, the choice to run for VP when this is all happening within her family is also a reflection of her values which may be of interest to voters. She knew the media attention this would bring to her daughter's situation. Third, part of her agenda is pro-life. ( In fact, this may be one of the more important factors for which she was chosen, as it seems JM wanted to choose someone pro-choice but the hard right threatened a challenge if he did that). Given that she is a firm supporter of abstinence-only education, the effects of this teaching choice within her own family are entirely relevant. The situation with her family gives us a good glimpse of what the whole pro-life anti-birth control policy leads to. Fourth, she made her family an issue by the way she presented herself (or the way the republicans decided to present her).

[copernicus 0]

This isn't funny, is it.

FYP. If youre going to write a fake blog at least use spell check.

[copernicus 0]

The pregnant daughter is relevant for several reasons. First, it's an additional family responsibility for her. She has 5 children, including a newly born son with a mental disability, and now a pregnant 17-year old daughter to deal with. That's effectively 6 kids to either dump on her husband or share some responsibility in dealing with. Is that the kind of focus we want from a VP/possible pres? Maybe some people will think managing all this makes her more qualified; either way it is relevant. We disagree.Second, the choice to run for VP when this is all happening within her family is also a reflection of her values which may be of interest to voters. She knew the media attention this would bring to her daughter's situation. Yes, a totally positive reflection on her values.Third, part of her agenda is pro-life. ( In fact, this may be one of the more important factors for which she was chosen, as it seems JM wanted to choose someone pro-choice but the hard right threatened a challenge if he did that). Given that she is a firm supporter of abstinence-only education, the effects of this teaching choice within her own family are entirely relevant. The situation with her family gives us a good glimpse of what the whole pro-life anti-birth control policy leads to. And the failures of sex education in the schools. Ridiculous use of anecdotal evidence.Fourth, she made her family an issue by the way she presented herself (or the way the republicans decided to present her). This is the biggest load of crap youve ever posted. After 3 days of watching the Obama family on stage and the messiah himself on the big screen talking to his cute little daughter dont ever ****ing dare to call his family and associations off limits.

[vbnautilus 48]

Yes, a totally positive reflection on her values.

And thus relevant. The issue is not whether its positive or negative, its wether it is out of bounds to talk about. If it reflects positively on her values it is therefore informative and we should use it in our decision making.

And the failures of sex education in the schools.

That's right! But rather than advocating that the schools educate kids better about sex, she wants them to only teach abstinence.

This is the biggest load of crap youve ever posted. After 3 days of watching the Obama family on stage and the messiah himself on the big screen talking to his cute little daughter dont ever ****ing dare to call his family and associations off limits.

But I haven't. I've made it very clear that I think family is not off limits. That's my whole point. Please stop confusing Obama's position with mine.

[copernicus 0]

And thus relevant. The issue is not whether its positive or negative, its wether it is out of bounds to talk about. If it reflects positively on her values it is therefore informative and we should use it in our decision making. I still disagree, personal decisions and values on having a DS baby or how she supports her daughter through a teen pregancy are irrelevant to the job of VP whether they are positive or negative.That's right! But rather than advocating that the schools educate kids better about sex, she wants them to only teach abstinence. Ive found nothing to indicate thats true. She doesnt believe in ANY government funded sex education in schools.But I haven't. I've made it very clear that I think family is not off limits. That's my whole point. Please stop confusing Obama's position with mine. We'll see what your tune is when the GOP reacts in kind.

[Mercury69 3]

Not a MILF. Don't be gross.

[vbnautilus 48]

Ive found nothing to indicate thats true. She doesnt believe in ANY government funded sex education in schools.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:Lh8LX...;cd=1&gl=us3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

We'll see what your tune is when the GOP reacts in kind.

That's actually pretty lame. You're accusing me of a hypocrisy I haven't committed. Instead of retracting when I point that out, you try to hold me guilty of a future crime.

[copernicus 0]

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:Lh8LX...;cd=1&gl=us3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support. And she later clarified that "Explicit sex-ed programs" is ALL sex-ed programs including abstinence.That's actually pretty lame. You're accusing me of a hypocrisy I haven't committed. Instead of retracting when I point that out, you try to hold me guilty of a future crime.

I didnt accuse you, I said the jury is out until it happens. I know you never complained said a word about BHO or Biden introducing their families and making them a center piece of their campaign, but when SP does it you characterize it as some sort of political ploy, so you are far from clean wrt hypocrisy.

[gobears 0]

Nice vetting job done by the McCain Campaign if this is true.Todd Palin Was Registered Member of Alaska Independence Party Until 2002By Kate Klonick - September 2, 2008, 3:25PMThe McCain camp today disputed rumors that presumptive vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin was ever registered with the secessionist Alaska Independence Party by releasing years of voter registration history . . . but it looks like that doesn't apply to her husband.This afternoon, the director of Division of Elections in Alaska, Gail Fenumiai, told TPMmuckraker that Todd Palin registered in October 1995 to the Alaska Independence Party, a radical group that advocates for Alaskan secession from the United States.Besides a short period of a few months in 2000 when he changed his registration to undeclared, Todd Palin remained a registered member of AIP until July 2002 when he registered again as an undeclared voter.

[copernicus 0]

Nice vetting job done by the McCain Campaign if this is true.Todd Palin Was Registered Member of Alaska Independence Party Until 2002By Kate Klonick - September 2, 2008, 3:25PMThe McCain camp today disputed rumors that presumptive vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin was ever registered with the secessionist Alaska Independence Party by releasing years of voter registration history . . . but it looks like that doesn't apply to her husband.This afternoon, the director of Division of Elections in Alaska, Gail Fenumiai, told TPMmuckraker that Todd Palin registered in October 1995 to the Alaska Independence Party, a radical group that advocates for Alaskan secession from the United States.Besides a short period of a few months in 2000 when he changed his registration to undeclared, Todd Palin remained a registered member of AIP until July 2002 when he registered again as an undeclared voter.

So what? If top advisors to Presidential administrations like Mary Matalin and James Carville can live together why would a spouse who isnt even involved in politics matter?

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Nice vetting job done by the McCain Campaign if this is true.Todd Palin Was Registered Member of Alaska Independence Party Until 2002By Kate Klonick - September 2, 2008, 3:25PMThe McCain camp today disputed rumors that presumptive vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin was ever registered with the secessionist Alaska Independence Party by releasing years of voter registration history . . . but it looks like that doesn't apply to her husband.This afternoon, the director of Division of Elections in Alaska, Gail Fenumiai, told TPMmuckraker that Todd Palin registered in October 1995 to the Alaska Independence Party, a radical group that advocates for Alaskan secession from the United States.Besides a short period of a few months in 2000 when he changed his registration to undeclared, Todd Palin remained a registered member of AIP until July 2002 when he registered again as an undeclared voter.

This is literally making me laugh out loud. The Liberals are going to dig and dig into Sarah Palin and throw everything and anything against the wall just hoping something, anything will stick!!!Good luck Liberal Bloggers - you're starting to look very silly.

[copernicus 0]

This is literally making me laugh out loud. The Liberals are going to dig and dig into Sarah Palin and throw everything and anything against the wall just hoping something, anything will stick!!!Good luck Liberal Bloggers - you're starting to look very silly.

worse than silly...the louder they get the bigger the backlash is going to be. The stench of their desperation and the depths its driven them to is overwhelming.

[vbnautilus 48]

I didnt accuse you, I said the jury is out until it happens. I know you never complained said a word about BHO or Biden introducing their families and making them a center piece of their campaign, but when SP does it you characterize it as some sort of political ploy, so you are far from clean wrt hypocrisy.

No, I did not "complain" about SP bringing her family out at all. I think there's nothing wrong with showing us her family. What I said was that it was hypocritical to use them to your advantage when they are looking good, but count them as off limits when they are not.

[copernicus 0]

No, I did not "complain" about SP bringing her family out at all. I think there's nothing wrong with showing us her family. What I said was that it was hypocritical to use them to your advantage when they are looking good, but count them as off limits when they are not.

They werent being used as "an advantage". It was an introduction to her and her family and was very matter of fact, especially compared to the spectacle in Invesco. What were they supposed to do.."meet Sarah Palin, and btw her family is back in Alaska and you wont be seeing them until after the election"? Imagine the repulsive reaction to that.

[vbnautilus 48]

They werent being used as "an advantage". It was an introduction to her and her family and was very matter of fact, especially compared to the spectacle in Invesco. What were they supposed to do.."meet Sarah Palin, and btw her family is back in Alaska and you wont be seeing them until after the election"? Imagine the repulsive reaction to that.

If her family is irrelevant then why do we need to be introduced to them at all?

[Nimue1995 1]

Now hang on just a cotton pickin minute! State the items in her record that make you uncomfortable with her being in a national office. Is it the part where she gave each Alaskan $1200 to use towards the high price of fuel? Is it the part where she sold the jet? Maybe it's the part about the much needed budget cuts. Damn, we could use someone like her in TN!For the record, I have voted both Democrat and Republican in presidential elections.

Okay I'm not sure you read all of this but I'll highlight the items that bother me and we'll see what you think. Maybe you're one of those that are still a Bushita I dunno.

Okay I think I've found a partial source of the list that I posted earlier from the other blogger. As you can see some of it was not exactly correct. But essentially what was listed in regards to her stint as Mayor of Wasilla seems to be fairly accurate.A Wasillan On Sarah Palin02 Sep 2008 11:34 amThis was posted in the comments section on the Washington Independent by Alaskan and a Wasillan, Anne Kilkenny, someone who has followed Sarah Palin very, very closely - with too many city council meetings under her belt - not to say her piece. She seems the kind of person that a professional vetting system would have found, and debriefed. We're talking small town politics here as well, so bear that in mind. And I've reproduced only the gist here - go read the original for much more. But after you read this, you begin to realize that there can have been almost no vetting whatsoever:Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000 (at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about 670,000 residents During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign. 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%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents. The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren’t enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. 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. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing. While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated more than once. These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.Hardly the fiscal conservative she ran on. But then Bush ran as a fiscal conservative and we all know how that turned out.As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state. In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's surplus, borrow for needs. So instead of saving that budget surplus and choosing not to borrow, she distributed it back to AK citizens and chose to borrow for state projects so that tomorrow's Alaskans will end up footing the bill for making her look good today. Again this isn't what I'd call being a fiscal conservative. She’s not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them.Just what we need - more cronyism and partisanship in Washington. 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. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day. Sarah complained about the “old boy’s club” when she first ran for Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of "old boys". Palin fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal--loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of pressuring the State’s top cop (see below). Okay so this is what bothers me probably more than anything. The fact is that this behaviour is almost identical to what Bush did when he first entered the Whitehouse. He hired people based on loyalty and friendship instead of competence. Are you trying to tell me that this was a good idea? Sorry but I've had about enough of that the last 8 years. As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla’s Police Chief because he “intimidated” her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska's top cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support. This isn't exactly huge yet, but it could be. It really depends on how and what happened. Regardless, it was in the papers and if McCain's people had done the vetting that they should have they'd have been out ahead of this. It could be that she downplayed it's significance but again, it speaks to a possible abuse of power. I wouldn't be so inclined to be concerned about it if it weren't for the same situation happening in Wasilla with the librarian when she was mayor . Only reason the librarian still kept her job was because there were people there to go to bat for her. And those people paid by being put on Palin's enemies list where they remain to this day. This sounds alarmingly like Nixon in many ways. And what about the man she tried to replace him with? Not exactly what I'd call great judgement. She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn’t like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness. Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her.This just makes her sound like an ambitious backstabber. Which would probably do her well in business but not when you have to be willing to work with the other side. The more I read the more I think SHE'S Bush II not McCain. When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job which paid $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the “old boys’ club” when she dramatically quit, exposing this man’s ethics violations (for which he was fined).Looks like she's pretty good at undercutting anyone she ever works with. Maybe the guy was corrupt but I wonder if she loved the job instead of hated it if she would have reported him?As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the “bridge to nowhere” after it became clear that it would be unwise not to. As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of these projects--which had been vetoed simply because she was not aware of their importance--but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as “anti-pork”. She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal conservative.Seems like she's very good at self-promotion and making displays when it's to her advantage. But also looks like she's more than willing to throw anybody to the wolves if for some reason it suits her political ambitions. Not that any politician isn't like that but pretty much they keep it lower profile than this. And she very apparently ISN'T a fiscal conservative which again puts her in the same league as GW - talking a good game but not walking the talk. Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They call her “Sarah Barracuda” because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. When Sarah's mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her. As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package of legislation known as “AGIA” that forced the oil companies to march to the beat of her drum. Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. She campaigned “as a private citizen” against a state initiaitive that would have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or B) tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the State’s lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior’s decision to list polar bears as threatened species. If I were Alaskans even if I did support drilling in ANWAR, I'd still be concerned at her apparent lack of concern for other parts of the environment important to Alaska. Even the Republicans in our state are smarter than to take on the citizenry when it comes to keeping Montana's wildlife from being threatened. McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a heartbeat away from being President. There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable and experienced than she. However, there’s a lot of people who have underestimated her and are regretting it.

[copernicus 0]

If her family is irrelevant then why do we need to be introduced to them at all?

Uhhhh, its standard in America to be nosy about people in the public eye, whether its relevant or not. People Magazine and the tabloids make 100s of millions of dollars on irrelevant curiosity about celebrities personal lives. Any candidate who didnt introduce them would automatically be under suspicion for something.

[vbnautilus 48]

Uhhhh, its standard in America to be nosy about people in the public eye, whether its relevant or not. People Magazine and the tabloids make 100s of millions of dollars on irrelevant curiosity about celebrities personal lives. Any candidate who didnt introduce them would automatically be under suspicion for something.

I doubt that is what the campaign would say about why they did it. It was also more than a simple introduction, it was a significant portion of her speech; "hockey mom", PTA and all that was part of the pitch. McCain made a point of saying in his interviews about how her balance of family life and work was one of the things he respected about her. Two days later, family is irrelevant!

[fatman 1]

worse than silly...the louder they get the bigger the backlash is going to be. The stench of their desperation and the depths its driven them to is overwhelming.

And it's only been, what......5 days since she was introduced. Just wait until they start thinking that the anointed one isn't going to win.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

And it's only been, what......5 days since she was introduced. Just wait until they start thinking that the anointed one isn't going to win.

Don't worry, we're enormously confident that BHO's going to win, and so are most conservatives that are paying attention.

[Flushgarden 0]

Don't worry, we're enormously confident that BHO's going to win, and so are most conservatives that are paying attention.

You're fooling yourself. Did you see Lieberman's speech at the RNC tonight?

[copernicus 0]

I doubt that is what the campaign would say about why they did it. It was also more than a simple introduction, it was a significant portion of her speech; "hockey mom", PTA and all that was part of the pitch. McCain made a point of saying in his interviews about how her balance of family life and work was one of the things he respected about her. Two days later, family is irrelevant!

You can doubt as much as you want, that doesnt make you correct.Her whole speech was an introduction, of course her family background, a reflection of her values, would be a significant part of it. 2 nights of the DNC were no more than the same "Family" and "growing up" stories that weve been listening to for 9 months or more. She was an unknown, forgive her for spending 15 minutes on the same thing weve had to suffer through over and over again since before the primaries.And you are on a strawman roll tonight. Show me where someone in the campaign has said FAMILY is irrelevant.

[copernicus 0]

Don't worry, we're enormously confident that BHO's going to win, and so are most conservatives that are paying attention.

I hope your confidence in your poker game isnt as misplaced as your confidence in the election results. They will turn on a few thousand votes in a few states and developments over the next two months that cant even be guessed at now.Obama has gotten zero bounce from the DNC. The RNC will get a small bounce. the VP debates will give the RNC a big bounce.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

You're fooling yourself. Did you see Lieberman's speech at the RNC tonight?

I thought Thompson's was better.

I hope your confidence in your poker game isnt as misplaced as your confidence in the election results. They will turn on a few thousand votes in a few states and developments over the next two months that cant even be guessed at now.Obama has gotten zero bounce from the DNC. The RNC will get a small bounce. the VP debates will give the RNC a big bounce.

Well, I have very little confidence in my poker game since I haven't played for over a year (due to lack of time, and I'm happy to leave the game an overall winner). Both sides think that the debates are going to strongly go their way. Time will reveal who is correct.But yes, I'm quite confident. I could of course be wrong, and again time will tell, but I think it's Obama's year.

[copernicus 0]

I thought Thompson's was better.Well, I have very little confidence in my poker game since I haven't played for over a year (due to lack of time, and I'm happy to leave the game an overall winner). Both sides think that the debates are going to strongly go their way. Time will reveal who is correct.But yes, I'm quite confident. I could of course be wrong, and again time will tell, but I think it's Obama's year.

no wonder you dont post strat anymore! Trust me...youre missed there more than youre needed here. (jk of course)