Holy Crap!

[blacknblue]

After a few minutes of searching on google, i found one item immediately.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/quayle.asp

(Note that this refers to only one case)

Quote: Vice-President Dan Quayle once said, "I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I have was that I didn't study Latin harder in school so I could converse with those people."

Status: False.

Origins: When George Bush, the 1988 Republican nominee for President, announced his vice-presidential running mate, he took nearly everyone by surprise. The man Bush tapped, a young senator named Dan Quayle, was little known outside his home state of Indiana. Senator Quayle soon became a household name, but — much to the chagrin of Bush and the Republicans — not for the reasons they expected. Dan Quayle soon proved himself to be a terrible public speaker: he appeared nervous (even frightened) in front of television cameras, he often fumbled his way through prepared speeches, and his extemporaneous comments frequently defied comprehension. Senator (and, after the election, Vice-President) Quayle and his gaffes soon became the butt of numerous jokes. Just as President Gerald Ford had been forevermore tagged a clumsy bumbler after a few physical mishaps a decade earlier, so Dan Quayle was characterized as "stupid" by the public and the media, a label that would prove impossible to remove once it had been
affixed.

With much of the media gleefully reporting every Quayle misstatement and malaprop, it was only a matter of time before demand exceeded supply and someone made up a ridiculous statement and attributed it to the Vice-President. Someone did.....

........... admitting that the story was merely a joke, but not all the newspapers reported it that way. Several publications, either through carelessness or a desire not to let the truth get in the way of a good story, reported the story as true. The culprits included such venerable publications as Newsday, the Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, and Time. The fabricated misquote took hold because it sounded exactly like something Dan Quayle (or, more accurately, the Dan Quayle of public perception) would say, and no amount of correction could dislodge it from the public vocabulary.....

Again. This is a single case, and I only spent a very few minute looking before I found this. I will continue browsing for additional bits of data and PM them to you as i come across them, rather than clutter the main board any further.

[Elessar]

I just have to warn ya now, BnB, that this is an absurdly long post . Hey, I enjoy debating these pts with you. I know I made a rule against discussing this stuff... but if you won't tell, I won't . Hey... oh crap wait a second!

Now that all of these things are out here though, I'm gonna just give up trying to stop this and just hope we're all mature enough to do this without becoming uncivil. Please don't let me down.

But I find your dead certainty in this very old conspiracy theory quite helpful, since it gives me a context for all your other statements, all delivered with equal certitude.

*sigh*

I have often, and I will continue to, invite anyone and everyone to double check anything I write. Please do not take anything I say at face value. I generally try to cite my sources and whenever possible include direct links. When this is not possible, I try to at least state the source of my opinion. For example, I stated that my opinions on feminism are derived from the input I receive from the two most important women in my life, my mother and my wife.

My opinions on Dan Quayle and the way the media treated him are, as i said above, water under the bridge. I did not bother to cite specific references, because I did not consider the matter important enough. I will try to research and see if I can find any direct references now since you have brought my honor into question.

I will make one concession. It is possible that I may have overstated the case slightly by implying that the media company owners instructed the news agencies to trash Quayle's reputation. That may have been an exaggeration. I will continue to maintain that they encouraged the presentation of a negative opinion of Quayle due to their (the media mogul's) own bias. Not being privy to the inner workings of the company, I obviously do not have precise information as to the form which this encouragement may have taken.

However, I have often checked and double checked things that I have previously posted as facts and found errors on my own initiative. When I do this I go back and correct them, and I make sure to post the corrections openly AS CORRECTIONS and openly note them as such. If you doubt this, i invite you to check with anyone else on this board. Lying or misrepresentation is not something that I would deliberately undertake. Certainly not over something as relatively unimportant as a forum debate.

The root issue was whether historical examples supported the suggestion that being likened to "out of the box" VP picks was a compliment or not. What I said about Quayle is a detail - the real question that should have come up is - "Is it good or bad that Palin's considered out-of-the-box?"

BnB, I cited her positions on some things but I didn't rail against them. Let's try not to rail. Both of us.

I didn't say I was against drilling in ANWR, I said I was surprised she was for it - but it was an ignorant thign to say anyway because I just assumed local politicans were against it. Come to find out, apparently everybody there is for it.

BnB, on the feminism thing, obviously I can't argue with you on your mother and wives' opinions, because well they're the source - women. But I can say that you don't have to look very far into the headlines for the last 72 hours to see media (both liberal and conservative) citing "women's bafflement" at "McCain's choice". I found it on the Boston Globe, Washington Post, and Reuters.

By the way, I also read in the Anchorage Daily News some interviews with folks from her hometown of Wasilla. They were apparently shocked and surprised by this news. The reviews of her were about even-handed, though. You had close friends of the Palins saying she's a quick learner, a genuine carer, and will probably rise to this occasion. Then you have some people saying she was in way over her head, even going so far as to say that with the decision McCain had "won Alaska, but lost the country."

Interestingly, her MO in Alaska isn't as a conservative. I mean she's a conservative, but apparently so is everybody. In the words of the article, "In Alaska, a pro-gun, pro-life conservative politician is just a normal politician, and you'd have to look pretty far to find a politician in Alaska not for drilling in the ANWR." What she's really known for, I guess, is being independent and "a maverick". Hey, that sounds familiar. That's fantastic, if they get elected, I'd be... absolutely thrilled if she were a maverick. But... ya know... telling the deputy secretary of the Wasilla City Council that it's unfair to ask people to only drag moose carcasses through town between 3 and 6 AM on the 3rd saturday of every month is a lot different from staring down foreign leaders or senior democrats on international legislation. It's good that she has this personality trait, but I don't think that beacuse she had it on this tiny level we can assume she'd be strong enough to stay that way. This woman can be as ambitious and eager to faces new challanges as all hell, but this job is going to intimidate the hell out of a half-term governor and 2 term small town mayor. Maverick today or not, it'll be a miracle if that characteristic survives just the campaign. Nobody would fault her if she were taking orders from McCain like a subordinate by the time the whole thing is through, it's just so much higher than she's used to.

This drilling thing is an interesting dispute because you have so much more going on than the actual debate itself. While I'm sure there are Dems who don't think that drilling as a stop-gap is a bad idea, I think probably the party is maintaining the position against more domestic drilling not just for the environmentalist reasons, but because giving in to agreeing to more domestic drilling could seem like an admission that we don't need to do anything else, which not a Democrat I know believes. Unfortunately, the gamemanship in politics makes it impossible for people to just come out and say, "Hey, sure, let's drill more, be safe while we do it, but it's not a long term solution. We should take serious looks into renewable energy sources too." But you can't do that because one party has one platform and the other is opposed and the first one to blink loses. I don't even think it should be a partisan question whether we should plan to continue to rely on oil for the forseeable future because... you've got India and China making up one out of every 3 people on the planet, and they're all buying new cars. If there's a conspiratorial accusation that all this renewable energy sources crap is a scam to kill the oil companies, I'd like to know just who the cabal behind the whole thing is - especially because the very same energy companies are just going to end up owning the renewable energy markets too, it's not like there's some NEW group of renewable energy companies trying to stage a multi-billion dollar energy coup. I see nobody who stands to gain by making all this crap up about the fragility of our oil reliance. We've been pumping trillions of gallons of the stuff out of the earth for about 160 years now... I don't think it's ridiculous to start wondering if the jig is going to soon be up. Especially when there's no logical reason to automatically expect there to be MORE, there's only logical reasons to expect there to be LESS, left. The stuff is finite, ya know, why is it so hard to come to grips with the fact that it might be a good idea to start weening ourselves off of it? We're like a blind cokehead doing lines on a coffee table. No matter how much we hope they will just keep comin, that coffee table's only so big, dude. They gotta run out some time and when they do, we're FFFF'd.

I don't understand the thing about the polar bears. I don't see there being a conspiracy in the Senate to keep oil prices high. I am marginally more capable of seeing a loosely agreed upon trick to declare the polar bear endangered in order to keep ANWR inaccessible in order to make a better argument for renewable energy. Sort of like saying, "Oh, too bad, we can't drill there, endangered animals... Sorry!" But let's stop short of accusing an entire party of complicitly costing the country billions of dollars for a petty environmentalist ideal that, c'mon, have you forgotten who you're talking about? They're politicians, how many of em are going to break their balls that hard over environmentalism?

However, I think there's another way of looking at this. Suppose the people of Alaska are indeed eager as all getup to drill in ANWR. Suppose they have run the numbers and decided that polar bears aren't endangered. Suppose, however, that they're also drooling like hyenas at the multiple multiple billions of dollars of state revenue that would follow a massive drilling operation there. I'm not making accusations, but people are weak, and politicians are convincing. If some politician told you there was 50 square miles (guessing) of empty land out in the middle of nowhere that nobody cared about, nobody was living on, no animals grazed over, and if we just cut a few stupid holes, the Federal Government would pay out cash like it's falling from the sky. People might be imagining hot tubs in the kitchen of every Alaskan, brand new state of the art airports statewide, billions in reconstructed infrastructure, etc. Long story short, the Alaskans have one hell of a temptation to say "Ah, F it" when it comes to really giving a damn whether their facts are straight. Like I said, I got no evidence. Just pointing out a reality of human nature. Even if there were wildlife that would be disturbed... How much trouble would you, as governor, or head of wildlife fish & game, have sleeping at night if you fudged the numbers, knowing that a few hundred caribou or snow foxes or polar bears would pay off so well that you could rejuvenate your national parks and save 10x more species? People have rationalized a lot worse.

Just my thought on the ANWR thing. I do think we should drill where it's safe and where we can make reasonable guarantees not to destroy critical ecosystems to food chains. Off-shore stuff is being talked about. They claim to have the technology to do it now without damaging the ecosystem. If that's true, I'm all for it. But I also want gas to get cheaper before 2023, which is about when the inclusion of oil from every offshore drilling cite we've scouted will effect the global price, and if you believe in SCIENCE, such as economics, it'll effect it about 5 cents according to a bipartisan committee. If you believe as John McCain does, that it's all in our heads about this oil crunch, then just "telling us" that we're drilling will immediately make the price drop considerablly. I'm not making this up, he thinks it's mental more than real, that oil prices are high. He thinks the problem is that people are panicking, that there's no change in supply or availability at all. Well... re-regulate, then we'll see.

Granted that Obama has served in the Senate rather than at state level. however according to his voting recrod he ALMOST NEVER SHOWED UP FOR WORK. The man was a member of an important committee, granted. But he routinely missed meetings, missed crucial votes, never introduced bills, and never once bothered to visit Afghanistan or Iraq until he started campaigning. THIS is foreign policy experience? Please...

Every time John McCain has run for president, he's missed like 6 or 8 months of votes at the Capitol. My only knowledge of Barack's attendance is that at least during this election, he has repeatedly made inconvenient trips back to Washington to cast his vote. Not, I don't think, on everything, but on important stuff. People criticize his recent vote on FISA b/c it's a flip. McCain didn't even vote on FISA. What do you consider worse when arguing with your neighbor about politics - that he voted for the other guy, or that he didn't even vote?

The problem we're going to run into arguing about this though, is the meaning of qualitative statements like "ALMOST NEVER SHOWED UP TO WORK." I'd like to know if there's an attendance record somewhere that says "votes: 540, Barack Attended: 25". That would make me ask questions, not loose words like almost, though. Again, I can't argue with the "missed this, missed that, etc" because it's just being picked out of the sky. I know you said you'll source things, and I'm sure you just forgot on this, but if you source something, it is going to have to be a media source not owned by Rupert Murdoch or a subsidiary or holding of Newscorp for me to take it seriously. I'm being absolutely serious with you. If you want to see corporate ideologues influencing politics by skewing "news", you pick up a copy of the London Times, the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, or turn on Fox News. That guy has his little fingers in the typewriter, I'm telling you. WSJ isn't terrible yet, b/c he just bought it, but I think it's on the way. Day by day their non-conservative op-ed columnists are disappearing.

My last word on the last bit I quoted is that nobody ever stood up and said Obama DOES have "a lot of foreign policy experience". So you can't really criticize the absence of what he didn't claim to have.

It is perfectly possible, according to them, to support economic and political equality without necessarily compromising one's religious convictions.

The thing about my experience with feminists... is that they've never had this problem becuase every one I've ever known (say about... 20, tops), identified themselves as atheists or agnostics.

That's not to say that christian women can't care about the equal treatment of women in society, but the movement and ideology itself is steeped in secular humanism. I mean, not to say "sorry, your mom and wife aren't feminists", because I don't intend to insult them, but one of the ways I would define a feminist is a woman who thinks her body and her life are her business - that mean's "Not God's" as much as it means "not-the-State's" or "Not a man's". That's just the way I see it, but I am sure there are plenty of women who think they should earn equal pay and receive fair treatment and have recourse to sexual harassment in the workplace and all that good stuff who are women of faith.

But typically, I have not seen much feminism in the christian conservative women I have known. Feminism itself is, in many many self-described feminists, as strong and pervasive a personal philosophy as religion, and it doesn't leave room for both. In fact if you seek out the real radicals, they'll burn your bible in front of you. A lot of feminists blame Christianity for the position women have been in for many years, owing to the original subservient nature of women in the bible, the whole "It was Eve's fault" thing and all that entails. This discussion is NOT headed toward religion, so if you think I completely have no idea what I'm talking about and the bible doesn't say that, just... PM me that part, because we're not going there here. But, relating specifically to what we're talking about -- Palin's ability to appeal to feminists -- I think most feminists are secular 20-34 yr old women with college educations who won't respond well to a good lookin woman in her 40's (women could even be intimidated by her looks, I wouldn't be surprised) standing up on a podium and telling them what they can and can't do with their bodies or how to raise their kids the right way.

[Alelou]

Eh, Elessar, I have to say I don't think faith and feminism are contradictory -- though you do tend to find feminists who have faith are also very critical of their religion's more patriarchal traditions. Some of the most wild-eyed feminists I know are Catholics and even nuns who 'fight from within'. I think I'd include some Catholic priests I've met in that category too, actually. And most mainline Protestant churches are quite feminist at this point, even ordaining women.

But I believe most real feminists are actually older than you think -- forties and older. Younger women don't have to be feminists, they just ride along benefiting from the efforts of their mothers and aunts and grandmothers without thinking too hard about it. Which is natural. Many of my friends and I feel like old dinosaurs because we kept our own names, or hyphenated them. I haven't seen a bride do that in years. (And I think feminism in general has mellowed in the face of certain realities -- like, hello, kids really do need their mommies and daddies.)

I'm going to be fascinated to see how this plays out.

Believe it or not, I'm a moderate. I bought the planted crap the incompetent Judith Miller reported in the New York Times and supported the war, despite my better instincts. And I really don't care how many houses the McCains have. But I think McCain just made a big mistake. I've often comforted myself with the idea that even if McCain wins, we'd still have a relatively intelligent, principled and experienced candidate in the Oval Office -- one whose instincts will be to try to prevent the continued looting of the federal treasury. But now he's shown himself willing to make what looks like a really sudden, rash, questionable choice, either for craven political reasons or out of an irrational desire to choose someone who is just as independent as him, never mind her qualifications. Between that and his determined militarism, I'm not nearly as comfortable with our fall-back position as I used to be. In short, the man is scaring me. Which is bad for him, because his best case against Obama was that he was the scary choice.

[blacknblue]

OK, I will try to be as civil as I possibly can. I will also try to cite my sources, sicne i have been called on it twice now, once by each of you. Although to be fair I don't see anyone else in this thread including links or direct references the way I did in my last post. In fact, i don't see you, El, including direct links to support your assertions very often at all. Just saying.

RE: Christian feminism. The idea that the bible promotes the domination of women by men is patently false, and based on a misreading of the bible. Many people read the bible like a phone book or dictionary. They pick out the info they want, then ignore the rest.

The bible does specify that the man is directed to act as head of the household, and he is specifically abjured to take responsibility for the welfare of his family. He is also admonished to love his wife, treat her gently and honor her. Women are instructed to love and honor their husbands. Yes, they are told to submit themselves to their husband's authority in matters of the family unit.

But you can read the bible and learn about women like Ruth, and Sarah, and other ladies of God who were anything but shrinking violets. Women who were warriors, and queens, and stateswomen, and who defied the rulers of their time on behalf of their families and their people... it is hard to imagine that God intended women to be meek, weak little mice. More than one woman in the bible defied her husband's wishes. And more than one woman saved her husband's ass too. In fact, very seldom do you come across mention of a weak women in the bible.

The pattern of using the church as a club to beat women into submission came later, as a part of the patriarchal culture we live in. It was only one of many tools that were used. Along with fists.

I will attempt to look up Obama's attendance and voting record. If possible, before and after his run for the presidency. i am sure it is out there somewhere. I got my originaly information from the online news agencies, usually accessed through news.google.com, so I don't usually bother to note which specific site I extract which specific detail from. i can see that I need to start saving copies of each story from now on, since as a conservative i am going to be held to a higher standard of proof than the moderate/liberal contributors to this debate.

[dialee]

If this is helpful,

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629

[blacknblue]

Here is something interesting:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/23/v ... not-on-it/

No further comment. I merely cite the reference, and only the reference in this case. I will let Mr. Obama speak for himself in this particular matter.

[blacknblue]

Hm... That is interesting Dialee. But I am not so much into raw numbers as I am fascinated by the quality of the absences. For instance, if he missed out on debates about the relative merits of non-dairy versus dairy creamer in the staff lunchroom, i don't really care. But this link that follows seems to me to matter a little bit in a person who wants to be C in C. And who tends claims to be competent to manage foreign policy, while deriding Palin's lack of experience:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/oba ... 03-01.html

Obama absent at Afghanistan hearings

By Sam Youngman
Posted: 03/01/08 11:17 PM [ET]

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who has come under fire about his readiness to be commander-in-chief, missed two of three Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Afghanistan since joining the panel.

Obama has said the U.S. should have stayed focused on fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan while repeatedly criticizing his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), and presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) for their votes in favor of a resolution backing the Iraq war.

But since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in Afghanistan, a country he has never visited.

Obama was absent from a January 31 meeting this year, and also was not present for a hearing on Sept. 21, 2006. He did attend a March 8, 2007 hearing on a new Afghanistan strategy.

On Feb. 15, 2007, Obama also missed a committee hearing on U.S. ambassadors to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Clinton has ratcheted up her criticisms of the Illinois senator's experience and readiness to be president in recent days, specifically targeting Obama's foreign policy credentials. In their last debate before Tuesday's critical primaries in Ohio and Texas, Clinton hit Obama for not holding any oversight hearings on Afghanistan on the European Affairs subcommittee, which Obama chairs.

McCain has also stepped up his attacks on the Democratic frontrunner, trying to paint him as weak on foreign policy.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton, who acknowledged Obama has never been to Afghanistan, said Obama's missed meetings and the lack of a visit. to Afghanistan does not change the fact that Obama was right on Iraq.....

Was he right on Iraq?

[panyasan]

But who knows. I may have my facts wrong. I don't know her at all. Maybe she's got the charm and charisma that ticket really needs and it's actually her husband or mother who does the childraising or something. I'm certainly curious to learn more.

I red today that Sarah Palins husband is taking care of the childern. That made sense to me.
Interesting discussion about a very interesting election with a lot of fasinating dynamics. Nice to hear different views as well.

[Elessar]

And who tends claims to be competent to manage foreign policy, while deriding Palin's lack of experience:

That's a reversal of the order in which the claims actually occured and, politically, the order in which they matter. McCain is the one who proffered the issue of experience - it is on him not to make a decision that turns his emphasis on that issue into hypocrisy, not the other way around. When you're Obama, who's been attacked for lack of experience, you have the right to call out McCain on his choice of VP when she's even less experienced, not the other way around, because McCain's Campaign is the one who has been arguing that experience is paramount for the last 18 months.

There has been repetetive emphasis on the importance of "being ready on the first day" or "being ready to be President" when it comes to the VP - including from McCain's side. What I would argue about Palin as a choice is that it was political, plain and simple, and not made with concerns about the country in mind. My arguments for how I justify that accusation are that even McCain aides have admitted that He wanted Lieberman as his "hail Mary pass" play, but the conservative base revolted at the thought. He was also interested in Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney, but:

But neither was the transformative, attention-grabbing choice Mr. McCain felt he needed, top campaign advisers said, to help him pivot from his imageas the custodian of the status quo.

That right there, is admission that she's a political choice for election.

Btw, there's an interesting scandal brewing on the Grapevine:

Is Bristol Palin Actually the Mother of Governor Palin's Baby?.

Other sources, which are blogs:

http://news.spreadit.org/bristol-palin- ... hter-baby/

http://www.236.com/news/2008/08/30/were ... 1_8598.php

Doesn't look like a major news outlet has approached this story yet, probably because it would seem disrespectful to report it without strong support in the "yay" or "nay" direction.

I realize this would normally be personal, but I yield to this:

Along with all the stories making their way through the news cycle is one regarding Trig Palin, her youngest child. Apparently, there has been suspicion, some reported through Alaskan media outlets even before the Vice Presidential buzz, that the child actually belongs to her daughter, Bristol Palin. Normally this would be a personal issue, but this becomes a public matter because of Sarah Palin's stance against abortion and birth control, promoting 'abstinence only' beliefs.

The initial contrary argument would say the McCain camp would never have chosen her, they would have vetted her, or that she wouldn't have chosen to for fear of it coming out. Again I defer to the article above:

The story seems ludicrious, and surely the GOP workers that vetted her would have stopped McCain from choosing her if anything like this were true. Only, now it has come out that Governor Sarah Palin was not vetted properly. The McCain camp states that they didn't feel it was necessary.

Another story claims that Democratic opposition researchers have learned that they are the first to request access to the Wasilla, Alaska paper's news archives in reference to Palin:

http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/0/ ... _archives/

Again, blog stuff... I admit, not CNN, but we'll have to wait for the news cycle to kick in Monday morning and, naturally, for the next 8 weeks to see if any of this stuff grows legs.

On top of the fact that John Edwards was running away from guilt in an adultery situation and still ran for President. Ambition often overrules caution. I don't default to trusting people in the limelight, particularly the political limelight, to make safe, sound decisions. I know I keep pushing this, but it's a valid point - it is especially characteristic of those inexperienced in the political "give and take" to make a mistake like this.

Here are the highlights to this claim:

1. 17-yr old Bristol Palin was out of highschool for the 5 months preceeding Trig Palin's birth, suffering what was reported as a severe case of mono.

2. At least cursory internet research fails to provide a single photo of a pregnant-looking Sarah Palin.

3. Photos from February at Super Tuesday, 1 month before Trig's birth, show her very non pregnant: http://www.adn.com/politics/story/339576.html

4. Some classmates claimed later that they had seen Bristol Palin pregnant.

The list goes on and on. Apparently the flight attendants on the plane she took while in labor had no idea she was. BTW, my mom made the comment that if you're pregnant a lot of airlines won't let you board so she may have hidden it for that reason, but it just so happens that Alaskan Airlines is the one airline that doesn't have that policy. Then again, they may not have known that (the Palins). There's supposedly an interview somewhere with a co-worker of Todd Palin in which he claims Todd informed him of "the situatio", i.e., the switch. Like I said, "maybes", "supposedlys" and "allegedlys", but that's how everything starts out, so we'll have to wait and see.

I know a lot of women don't always show early, or can drop pregnancy weight fast, but is anyone going to suggest you can "not look pregnant" at 8 months? Or go into labor in Texas, jump a 10 hour flight back to Alaska, then give birth? Especially when you're 44 and have had 4 children, apparently labor times decrease. Don't forget to look at the photo dated 6 weeks before Trig's birth and ask yourself who looks more pregnant: Sarah Palin or Bristol Palin?

It may be a conspiracy theory, but if there's been suspicion since March, in her home state even, long before any discussion of any kind of national politics.

PS: I kept almost saying "Trip" instead of "Trig"

[Alelou]

BnB is right about strong women in the Bible. Of course, those women were subject to fairly draconian legal restrictions on woman at the time, which are still quoted by fundamentalists to explain why women shouldn't be ordained, etc. etc. (Once you get to the New Testament, if you ask me, Jesus was an early feminist. But then Paul came along...and later the early church patriarchy got busy turning Mary Magdalene into a whore, and various other travesties.)

This pregnancy thing is so depressing because it's just so ... tabloid. I hope it's caca.

I'd be more concerned about Troopergate: (you have to get past a short other story first) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQx42Tsz5NQ

Then there's this questionable behavior during a radio talk show: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30 ... 746/579971

[blacknblue]

El, I cry foul.

This is low. I am sorry, but this is low. Personal and family issues are not relevant unless they are somehow reflective of the candidate's character in some way that will affect their performance in office.

If the baby belongs to the Palins, as they claim, the issue is nothing more than muckraking and rumor mongering of the worst and most distasteful kind. It is worthless and despicable.

If, on the other hand, the rumors happen to be true all it proves is that the Palin's chose to step in and take care of their child and grandchild, as well as cover their public reputation. At MOST, you might accuse them of being ashamed of what their daughter did. Remember that Alaska is a highly conservative state.

Either way, what possible relevance does this have toward Palin's ability as VP? The possibility that she and her husband might have adopted their disabled grandchild makes her unfit to occupy the white house?

[Alelou]

The story is utter crap anyway. It started at the Daily Kos and has been quickly discredited. And here's a picture of preggy Palin:

http://alaskareport.com/images31/palin_pregnant.jpg

[justTripn]

I'm going to have to come down on the side of "So what?" It she's covering for her daugher, well, that's nice. In my book, that's kind of noble. She is against abortion and she put her money where her mouth is.

[blacknblue]

BnB is right about strong women in the Bible. Of course, those women were subject to fairly draconian legal restrictions on woman at the time, which are still quoted by fundamentalists to explain why women shouldn't be ordained, etc. etc. (Once you get to the New Testament, if you ask me, Jesus was an early feminist. But then Paul came along...and later the early church patriarchy got busy turning Mary Magdalene into a whore, and various other travesties.)

This pregnancy thing is so depressing because it's just so ... tabloid. I hope it's caca.

I'd be more concerned about Troopergate: (you have to get past a short other story first) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQx42Tsz5NQ

Then there's this questionable behavior during a radio talk show: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30 ... 746/579971

I agree that Jesus was a feminist in the truest sense of the word. He regarded men and women as equal in the sight of God. I have always particularly loved the story about the woman who was caught in the act of adultery, and Jesus told the pack of self-righteous hypocrites who caught her that they were welcome to stone her as the law required, as long the they could find someone among them who was without sin to throw the first stone. I still grin every time I read it, picturing their faces.

As far as troopergate, I dunno. I will quote Elessar earlier in this thread who said that the trooper in question was a wife beater. I didn't research it, but i will take El's word for it. If so, then I don't personally think a man like that has any right to wear the uniform of a state trooper in any state in this union. Anyway, CNN, fox news, CBS news, ABC news and Reuters all report that Palin turned over all records pertaining to that incident to the investigators long ago. Apparently nothing was found that caused a major problem yet.

The questionable behavior you noted seems to me to indicate that those two just don't like each other. From what I read, they have a bit of a history with each other, and it is not a friendly one. Rude and blunt maybe. I will grant you. But then, so am I so I have no right to criticize anyone else for those qualities. Nor would it occur to me to do so.

[Elessar]

El, I cry foul.

This is low. I am sorry, but this is low. Personal and family issues are not relevant unless they are somehow reflective of the candidate's character in some way that will affect their performance in office.

If the baby belongs to the Palins, as they claim, the issue is nothing more than muckraking and rumor mongering of the worst and most distasteful kind. It is worthless and despicable.

If, on the other hand, the rumors happen to be true all it proves is that the Palin's chose to step in and take care of their child and grandchild, as well as cover their public reputation. At MOST, you might accuse them of being ashamed of what their daughter did. Remember that Alaska is a highly conservative state.

Either way, what possible relevance does this have toward Palin's ability as VP? The possibility that she and her husband might have adopted their disabled grandchild makes her unfit to occupy the white house?

relevant unless they are somehow reflective of the candidate's character in some way that will affect their performance in office.

I agree, 100%. I do think it would affect her performance. The woman doesn't have a record, she doesn't have experience, all she has is her reputation as a good christian conservative. Before I keep going, let me back up.

I see the pic posted. She looks big. I didn't actually see this on DailyKOS, I first saw it on iReport. And I would have told you if I had because I'm very well aware of the left-lean of DailyKOS. I'd kind of like an article instead of just a picture though . I looked on AlaskaReport.com where it comes from but I couldn't find one.

For the sake of argument, IF this were true, it WOULD matter if a Governor running for Vice President on a platform of anti-corruption and social conservativism, including a hardline stance on anti-abortion and abstinence turned out to have a daughter that she failed to properly educate about safe and/or no sex. That alone should disconcert the social conservatives that her selection is supposed to re-assure. Regardless of the decision to help her daughter and cover it up, even if it were of the utmost selfless motivation, the fact remains she had a kid go get pregnant. Yeah, kids do whatever they want, I get that, but you can't simultaneously adopt that defense and care about her credentials as a good conservative mom figure with unshakeable conservative values. If this were true, she would have also lied to her constituency about it, AND did whatever might have been necessary to cover it up. Considering how hard it would be to get a girl into a hospital to give birth without record of it, and to have her mother enter the hospital and not give birth and have there be record of it, that would probably entail bribery and/or intimidation, unless you just happened to have a lotta good friends in hospitals. Keep in mind before someone RAILS against me, I'm speaking hypothetically because you asked why it would matter.

You don't have personal problems that aren't the public's business when you're a public servant. Were you jumping to defend John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, John Kennedy, or Bill Clinton for their personal indescretions? Well if you were, you were at least consistent, but even in that case, I'd still disagree with you. When you're a public servant, your personal behavior reflects on the state and it reflects on the authenticity of your values if whatever the indescretion is pertains to those values - aka, abstinence, conservative christianity, and morality. IF this were true, IF (I see you showed the debunk photo), she may have done a selfless thing for her daughter, and not for herself, but I believe when people make gray area moral decisions you have to accept the black as well as the white. You may have bent some ethics to preserve others, but you still have to face the reality of having bent ethics somewhere. That's just my opinion. If I disobey orders to an officer above me to save a man's life, I don't think I should be completely exonerated for it. There should still be a price for that decision. Not to mention, I could just use a hand-waving argument by saying that when you run for capitol office, anything and everything you've ever done right down to kicking a neighbor's cat when you were 7 years old becomes part of the public domain, and I think everybody knows that is the reality of our interest in the democratic process.

Speaking to the thing about your private life reflecting on your public life and me saying I think one should be pertinent to the other, here's an example -- Military officers can be court-martialled if it is discovered that they are guilty of adultery. When you serve, civilian or military, you take an oath promising the authenticity of your values in the practice of your work and your life. I wholeheartedly believe that a public servant's dedication to private matters comes from the very same place as their dedication in public life. You can't be an absolute douchebag in your private life and not deserve to have your values and dedication questioned in your public post. The same ethical judgement is made, BnB, when you say a wife beater doesn't deserve to wear the state Trooper uniform. It's not just because he's been a bad boy, it's because that kind of man is not the kind of man we want serving a state or nation.

However, that doesn't make it right if she did abuse her office to fire him, what some may argue, was "the right thing".

They may find no wrongdoing, but what I heard on MSNBC on Friday was that the investigation wasn't over, but that she had been completely cooperative.

Trust me, I'm not of a mentality that we can or should make this race about controversy in order to discredit the GOP.

But ya know what? 10-15% of the country still believe in some Liberal conspiracy to hide the fact that Obama is or was a muslim even in the face of a legitimate, mainstream, sweeping debunkment of that myth by CNN, MONTHS and months ago, and the right wing surrogates are still running around using it to scare people. John McCain may not be sayin it on TV, but it's the same as this type of thing with the GOP analogues of places like DailyKOS and iReport. So, while I personally - were I in a position to do so - wouldn't throw this around just to do some damage even knowing it's false. But damned if we shouldn't keep in mind that at the core of the GOP strategy has been the same ethical ambiguity when it comes to allowing yourself to benefit from a lie that is clearly, clearly a lie.