Drilling in Alaska

[mraynrand]

Her best value is in appealing to disenfranchised Hillary supporters, women and otherwise. Ohio is the most key state in the whole country, and she solidifies that if she even wins over a few of that category.

I know someone who fits this description, but she is a democratic operative, so she's obviously going Obama. Funny thing is, when you really talk issues with her, she knows that Obama's got nothing - it's just the strong desire to get Bush the hell out of there and have the entire government in Democratic hands. They really want the redistribution floodgates to open, and they figure it will be pretty easy to push Obama around. What they are really licking their chops over is the possibility of getting a veto proof, fillibuster-proof Senate majority, so that even if McCain wins, they can force all sorts of legislation through and block any but the most moderate judges. The Dems are feelin pretty confident.

[cpk1994]

Of course, one could also take the low road, otherwise known as the Tex approach: "If this were Biden's or Obama's daughter who were pregnant, do you really think the Right wouldn't be wringing their hands and making political capital out of it?"

Its funny that they say "How can she lead when she has 5 children". I mean, The lefties don't seem to have a problem with Nancy Pelosi, who also has five children while being Speaker of the House.

[HowardRoark]

That's a laugh, though he may well have said it. We all know the real reason he chose her: cuz the Christian Right would have had a shit fit if he had chosen a pro-choice nominee such as Lieberman or Ridge.

You seem like a pretty smart guy. Someone who is able to answer a question without saying "it's above my paygrade."

When does life begin?

It really is not a "moral" issue at all (even though I am on record as saying EVERYTHING is a moral issue....and morals have to come from someplace after all......that is unless you are Ty).

No morality is a morality. Pro-Choice people are imposing their morality.

[Freak Out]

Clean up corruption? Are you talking about the ethics bill that the legislature wrote and she signed into law? Or about the Alaskan Republican party? Last time I looked the same "corrupt" republicans are running the party that were running it when she became Governor. Including the one she outed while on the oil and gas commission. The oil tax? Alaskans backed raising the tax rate on leases on State land so the legislature and Governor had no choice but to rework the royalties structure....irregardless of how much money BP and CP spent on TV time.

[mraynrand]

Clean up corruption? Are you talking about the ethics bill that the legislature wrote and she signed into law? Or about the Alaskan Republican party? Last time I looked the same "corrupt" republicans are running the party that were running it when she became Governor. Including the one she outed while on the oil and gas commission. The oil tax? Alaskans backed raising the tax rate on leases on State land so the legislature and Governor had no choice but to rework the royalties structure....irregardless of how much money BP and CP spent on TV time.

Sounds like a lot of good things happened while she was Governor. Imagine what would have happened with a Governor in the tank for the Oil industry (pun intended).

[retailguy]

Vile as the attacks might be on Palin and her daughter,

I see it as this is not only the "best" they've got, it's ALL they've got. If this is "all" they've got, then, well, the republican ticket is in GREAT shape.

Let's see what she says tonight. She'll either give them more material, or, she's home free until the debates.

Just like most Americans you focus on the trash that equals news in this country instead of her record/lack thereof. Have you read anything about her time as mayor or Governor? She's a politician just like most that have come before her...just better looking and a little more ambitious.

Quite honestly, I've read some of that. Some good, some bad, overly with my limited vantage point, it seems OK on the whole.

My comments were meant to illustrate a couple of things. 1st, you typically lead with the best you've got. This is what they're leading with. Does it make her a hypocrite? Perhaps in some areas, clearly not in other areas. The biggest downfall is that most of us have kids and realize at some point you just can't control the decision that they make. Clearly at 17, this girl is taking control of her life, and didn't include either of her parents in HER decision making process. Going down the "values" angle is a disaster for those trying to find fault with her.

2nd, if the lead story doesn't work, then, they'll move elswhere trying to find something that will stick. Problem is that they now do that with reduced credibility from those "undecided people" who are paying attention and went "so what?" over this one. Even if the next one is better, which it doesn't look like it will be, the credibility bar is higher.

3rd, doesn't the dearth of coverage regarding the issues you feel so passionate about indicate to you that most people don't find it newsworthy? I've googled about everything I can think of related to her trying to understand what you find so objectionable, and I can't figure it out. Care to fill me in? I'll read it if you post it.

Finally, an anecdotal piece. Several of you know that my wife is in Law School, and I've posted on multiple occasions that the vast majority of those who participate in my wife's study group are very liberal minded. Turns out, that 2/3'rd of those women, now intend to vote McCain as they are more excited about electing a woman than they are Obama. Many of them did not support Obama, and were strong Hillary supporters. Curiously, most of them are unconcerned about Palin's conservative leanings, even saying Palin's stance on abortion "didn't matter". take it for what it is worth, after all, it is anecdotal.

[HowardRoark]

Many of them did not support Obama, and were strong Hillary supporters. Curiously, most of them are unconcerned about Palin's conservative leanings, even saying Palin's stance on abortion "didn't matter". take it for what it is worth, after all, it is anecdotal.

Proof that women's suffrage is a bad idea.

(how do you work those damn smiley things.....if I could I would put up something that indicated I'm kidding......for the most part)

[SkinBasket]

Proof that women's suffrage is a bad idea.

(how do you work those damn smiley things.....if I could I would put up something that indicated I'm kidding......for the most part)

And you intend to vote?

[retailguy]

Many of them did not support Obama, and were strong Hillary supporters. Curiously, most of them are unconcerned about Palin's conservative leanings, even saying Palin's stance on abortion "didn't matter". take it for what it is worth, after all, it is anecdotal.

Proof that women's suffrage is a bad idea.

(how do you work those damn smiley things.....if I could I would put up something that indicated I'm kidding......for the most part)

you select the one you want, then "click on it" with your mouse.

Incidentally, the humorous part is that Palin gets more of a pass from me than she does from my wife, who struggles with the idea that she is taking time from her family.... I find that really interesting, and not at all what I expected.

[HowardRoark]

Proof that women's suffrage is a bad idea.

(how do you work those damn smiley things.....if I could I would put up something that indicated I'm kidding......for the most part)

And you intend to vote?

Only if my wife explains to me (real slowly) where the polling place is.

[hoosier]

Way to avoid the issue of the post. But your point is absolutely correct. One of the reasons he selected her is that she has solid conservative values - the values that most Americans relate to and agree with, if they are allowed to hear them. But a huge consideration had to be her Maverick, clean up corruption credentials, because McCain knows that he can't win promoting himself as your typical Republican. Common sense, and a look at polling ought to make that obvious.

I avoided the issue because I wasn't really sure what point you were trying to make, other than trying to link the Wash Post with the left--which is a bit of a stretch. And the last line of your post did jump out at me, so I responded to that. Here are three key paragraphs of the article, which is too long to reproduce here in its entirety:

ST. PAUL, Minn., Sept. 2 -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was not subjected to a lengthy in-person background interview with the head of Sen. John McCain's vice presidential vetting team until last Wednesday in Arizona, the day before McCain asked her to be his running mate, and she did not disclose the fact that her 17-year-old daughter was pregnant until that meeting, two knowledgeable McCain officials acknowledged Tuesday.
(...)
The new details of the selection process provide a fuller picture of how and when McCain made his decision. Despite the late interview of the little-known Palin, senior McCain advisers said Tuesday night that she was chosen only after a lengthy and deliberative process that included the same background investigation given to others on McCain's shortlist and considerable debate among the candidate's inner circle about all his choices.

McCain did not speak face to face with Palin until Thursday morning, at his retreat in Sedona, Ariz. He also talked to her by telephone the previous Sunday. McCain had spoken with all of the others on his shortlist over the course of a selection process that went on for several months, but he was least familiar personally with the person he finally chose.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090203591.html

What am I missing here? How is the author "spinning" anything? His claim is that McCain's campaign didn't meet with Culvahouse until Wednesday, the day before she was introduced as nominee, and that McCain himself didn't talk to her until that same day. By normal standards of scrutinizing political nominees, this seems very hasty, and that is Balz's point. Why do say he's "spinning" some aspect of this story?

[hoosier]

Hoosier, you miss the point. The New York Times USED TO BE and still PRETENDS TO BE mainstream media--NOT "the left". I guess they showed their true colors. Wouldn't you agree?

Agree that the NYT is left of center, but not out of the mainstream by any stretch of the imagination--excepting, of course, those among us who look to our left and see Mussolini, and beyond that everything else looks identical. But what you haven't yet demonstrated here is that the NYT was indeed attacking Palin or her daughter.

[mraynrand]

Way to avoid the issue of the post. But your point is absolutely correct. One of the reasons he selected her is that she has solid conservative values - the values that most Americans relate to and agree with, if they are allowed to hear them. But a huge consideration had to be her Maverick, clean up corruption credentials, because McCain knows that he can't win promoting himself as your typical Republican. Common sense, and a look at polling ought to make that obvious.

I avoided the issue because I wasn't really sure what point you were trying to make, other than trying to link the Wash Post with the left--which is a bit of a stretch. And the last line of your post did jump out at me, so I responded to that. Here are three key paragraphs of the article, which is too long to reproduce here in its entirety:

ST. PAUL, Minn., Sept. 2 -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was not subjected to a lengthy in-person background interview with the head of Sen. John McCain's vice presidential vetting team until last Wednesday in Arizona, the day before McCain asked her to be his running mate, and she did not disclose the fact that her 17-year-old daughter was pregnant until that meeting, two knowledgeable McCain officials acknowledged Tuesday.
(...)
The new details of the selection process provide a fuller picture of how and when McCain made his decision. Despite the late interview of the little-known Palin, senior McCain advisers said Tuesday night that she was chosen only after a lengthy and deliberative process that included the same background investigation given to others on McCain's shortlist and considerable debate among the candidate's inner circle about all his choices.

McCain did not speak face to face with Palin until Thursday morning, at his retreat in Sedona, Ariz. He also talked to her by telephone the previous Sunday. McCain had spoken with all of the others on his shortlist over the course of a selection process that went on for several months, but he was least familiar personally with the person he finally chose.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090203591.html

What am I missing here? How is the author "spinning" anything? His claim is that McCain's campaign didn't meet with Culvahouse until Wednesday, the day before she was introduced as nominee, and that McCain himself didn't talk to her until that same day. By normal standards of scrutinizing political nominees, this seems very hasty, and that is Balz's point. Why do say he's "spinning" some aspect of this story?

Your own post undermines your own position. The only important point is whether she was properly 'vetted.' The title was clearly biased. The average person is going to read it and think - Hey, McCain didn't even interview her till the last minute! Well, later in the article, they point out that her entire background WAS checked out, in much the same way as other possible candidates and that McCain DID talk to her by phone. We don't know how long that conversation was. That was my point - that the title was intentionally misleading. (and the POV it espoused was pretty much identical with the democratic talking points on the VP pick).

[hoosier]

When does life begin?

It really is not a "moral" issue at all (even though I am on record as saying EVERYTHING is a moral issue....and morals have to come from someplace after all......that is unless you are Ty).

No morality is a morality. Pro-Choice people are imposing their morality.

After the third cup of coffee?

[hoosier]

Your own post undermines your own position. The only important point is whether she was properly 'vetted.'

That's one important point. Another is whether McCain appears to have made a hasty or rash decision--the VP decision, after all, is the litmus test for political judgment, no? The appearances suggest that McCain was favoring another nominee but had to back off because of political pressure. And, while I don't know for sure, I'm guessing that most VP nominees have gone through a much longer vetting process than Palin's--and a rushed vetting is much more likely to be sloppy. Then there's another important consideration: to what degree is McCain pandering here to the Christian Right? All of these are IMO completely legitimate issues, and I think they're all in the background of Balz's article. I agree that the article could have done a better job of foregrounding them, and if it had, maybe it wouldn't have struck you as duplicitous. Biased, perhaps, but at least forthright.

[HowardRoark]

Pregnant Pause
Trying to end the Palin candidacy before it begins.

By the Editors, National Review


Bristol Palin, the world now knows, is five months’ pregnant. The McCain campaign released a statement from Governor Palin and her husband expressing loving support for their daughter, who will have her child and plans to marry the father — like Miss Palin, a high-school senior. It is obviously a wrenching situation for the family, but the Palins appear to be handling it appropriately, living by their values.

Shouldn’t that be the end of the matter? John McCain certainly thinks so. The circumstances were raised when Gov. Palin was being vetted, and he nevertheless selected her as his running-mate — an inspired choice, if enthusiasm from Republicans and conservatives is any guide. Barack Obama and his chosen running-mate, Sen. Joe Biden, have admirably stipulated that candidates’ children should be off-limits and that the Palins’ family matters are irrelevant to the upcoming election.

Would that the ticket’s surrogates and supporters followed their candidates’ lead. Instead, there is a feeding frenzy — a race to the bottom between the left-wing blogosphere and the mainstream media, with the bloggers ahead by a hair.

The New York Times’s webpage on Tuesday led with no fewer than three stories about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy. CNN has tried to exploit Miss Palin as a laboratory specimen for a high-profile examination of sex-education. MSNBC and the Huffington Post are titillating viewers with exposes on Miss Palin’s boyfriend. Slate, owned by the Washington Post, is running a “Name Bristol Palin’s Baby” contest. US Weekly has “Babies, Lies, and Scandal” on its cover. But unsavory as all this is, it can’t hold a candle to Andrew Sullivan.

Once a respectable journalist, The Atlantic’s self-declared champion of respect for privacy and of civil discourse now obsesses over Miss Palin, airing baseless and abhorrent questions about the motherhood of Trig, Gov. Palin’s infant son, born this year with Down syndrome. One wonders if David Bradley bought The Atlantic — a venerable institution that once published Mark Twain and Martin Luther King — so that he could associate it with the most despicable ravings of the left-wing blogosphere. What price in reputation is Bradley willing to pay for increased unique-visitor numbers from among the fever swamps?

This shameful but predictable media performance stands in marked contrast to the rigorous “hands-off” privacy policy dutifully honored by the press throughout the Clinton years for the president’s then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. Indeed earlier this year, though Miss Clinton was now well into her twenties and an impressively poised surrogate for her mother’s campaign, NBC News suspended reporter David Shuster for asserting that Sen. Clinton’s campaign was “pimping” her daughter — a classless formulation, to be sure. But where’s the hyper-sensitivity about a candidate’s child now?

When Al Gore’s son was arrested on narcotics and speeding charges in 2007, moreover, the national press was a model of sympathetic restraint. The muted coverage was devoid of calls for a national “teaching moment” on drug abuse or responsible driving. The message was plain and correct: No news here, move along.

The Republican base and other people of good will are angry over this grotesque display. It is obvious what the media and Democrats are up to here. They want to define Sarah Palin as a failure before she even has a chance to succeed. Hence the speculation that McCain will dump her from the ticket. How absurd. All we know about Palin’s performance as a candidate so far is that she gave polished performances at her unveiling in Ohio and at a rally the next day in Pennsylvania. The supposed embarrassments — about her alleged membership in the fringe Alaskan Independence Party and her woefully incomplete vetting — are concoctions of a media stumbling over itself to prove a conclusion it has already reached.

So far, it is the press that has embarrassed itself, not the governor from Alaska.

[SkinBasket]

Then there's another important consideration: to what degree is McCain pandering here to the Christian Right?

Uhhhhh...

*sigh*

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I find it interesting that the conservatives here in this forum were hopping mad about Obama not helping out his distant stepbrother, but find the idea of talking about Palin's abstinence education stance (how is that working for ya Sarah!) and her daughter being pregnant as being outside the pale.

The hypocrisy on this forum never ceases to amaze.

[HowardRoark]

I find it interesting that the conservatives here in this forum were hopping mad about Obama not helping out his distant stepbrother, but find the idea of talking about Palin's abstinence education stance (how is that working for ya Sarah!) and her daughter being pregnant as being outside the pale.

The hypocrisy on this forum never ceases to amaze.

Let me try to help you out here.

Obama trumpets that fact that “our time is now” and that “yes we can.” He talks about how he can bridge the gap and work with all kinds of people. According to him, we need to be able to help out all people. HE did not help out his brother. It is a direct reflection on Obama’s character on how poorly he has treated his brother. His brother has nothing to do with it other than how Barack has treated him.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin has beliefs on abortion and abstinence. If Sarah Palin had an abortion, you could rip on her all you want. She too, just like Obama, would be a hypocrite. What happened here was that Sarah’s daughter spread her legs and got pregnant. In case you have been busy lately, Bristol Palin is not running for Vice President.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I find it interesting that the conservatives here in this forum were hopping mad about Obama not helping out his distant stepbrother, but find the idea of talking about Palin's abstinence education stance (how is that working for ya Sarah!) and her daughter being pregnant as being outside the pale.

The hypocrisy on this forum never ceases to amaze.

Let me try to help you out here.

Obama trumpets that fact that “our time is now” and that “yes we can.” He talks about how he can bridge the gap and work with all kinds of people. According to him, we need to be able to help out all people. HE did not help out his brother. It is a direct reflection on Obama’s character on how poorly he has treated his brother. His brother has nothing to do with it other than how Barack has treated him.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin has beliefs on abortion and abstinence. If Sarah Palin had an abortion, you could rip on her all you want. She too, just like Obama, would be a hypocrite. What happened here was that Sarah’s daughter spread her legs and got pregnant. In case you have been busy lately, Bristol Palin is not running for President.

Obama: That is a nice reworking of his policy.

Palin: Right. Her daughter and her actions don't reflect on her character? LOL

Her daughter is the clearest example of Mrs. Palin's effective leadership, morals and values. She trumpets abstinence education..and yet her own daughter can't follow it. And, now she is going to "force" her daughter into a "smart" marriage at 17/18. Nice.

BTW, the soon to be husband never wanted kids. So, let's not pretend that they are some romeo and juliet and were dying to get married.

Her character is severely challenged..bristol, troopergate, bridge to nowhere, etc.