OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:21 pm

RobVarak wrote:
I have a totally unscientific, apolitical theory about this. My opinion is that between by often neglecting birth control education and generally being bigger tight-asses than the parents in Footlose means that a disproportionate percentage of staunchly religious people have to deal with this sort of thing than similarly situated moderates.

It's only natural that they're sympathetic...

Ain't that the truth. Our new church here in St Paul has a free nursery for teens that want to finish high school. There are 16 kids enrolled. I think we get a pass though because it's a black church that leans left.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:28 pm

So long as Palin (and McCain) aren't nutty enough to think the birth control pill should be treated the same as abortion the way the DHHS seems to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/washi ... ref=slogin

Post by **Jared** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:31 pm

More Palin...a report of her as mayor asking the librarian how she could go about banning books.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic ... 18,00.html

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." The librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire her for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

And reports that she may have been a member of the Alaska Independence Party (though the McCain camp is pushing back against this), which supports having a vote to let Alaskans decide whether they should secede from the United States. Country first!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4iCDBIAde8

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arc ... _party.php

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... -frin.html

And video of a McCain spokesperson getting eviscerated on CNN discussing the commander-in-chief qualifications of Palin. I saw this live, and cringed...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYYiw_y2qDI&e

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:33 pm

RobVarak wrote:I am beginning to worry that they excommunicate some folks from the Church of Barack. Did nobody hear The Voice say, "Back off!"?

And I can see that Church of Palin worshipers don't take kindly to anything but ejaculatory adulation

I'd hate to see what the collection plate looks like....

How is the abstinence thing not been on the radar for this election? It's part of the cultural divide between liberals and conservatives. Liberal blogs have been criticizing abstinence-only education programs for years. This had not come up as much with McCain, because his cultural positions are some of his most moderate. But in picking a social conservative like Palin, it was bound to come up, pregnancy or no, along with topics such as her views on abortion, creationism, holding a dance outside of town (I couldn't resist). It's just that this announcement vaulted sex education to the top of the list.

So, again, I'm not really advocating talking about Palin's daughter, but about the Republican stance on sex education.

I also think it's great that Palin is standing by her daughter. That sets a good example for other parents out there.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:33 pm

JackB1 wrote:This bombshell of Palin's 17 year old daughter being pregnant can't help.
It is a direct reflection of her parenting skills or lack thereof. I feel bad for these 2 kids who are now forced to get married because their Mom is running for VP. You know this thing is doomed from the start.

BTW, it has been revealed that Palin was initially all for that ridiculous "Bridge To Nowhere" until she found out it wasn't politically expedient. She then did an about face (aka "flip-flop") and said she was against it.

So now she's automatically a bad parent because her daughter made a mistake? Did you ever get into trouble while a teen? If you did then I guess that means your parents did a poor job. Everything else that's been said bout Sarah Palin has shown her to be a good parent. And BTW, her daughter is about 5 months preggers. She's not getting married because her mom has been a VP candidate for a week.

Please provide a link for the Bridge to Nowhere accusation (I hope it isn't from Olbermann's or Moore's blog).

Edit: read a bit further a saw the link. So I was close, it's from MSDNC. After readin it, what's the big deal? While running for office she was ok with it, but after taking over and getting into the details she decided it was a bad idea and duid the right thing.

If this is the best the Dems can come up with against her, she's fine with me. I'm more concerned about Obama and his dealings with Resko. I'll have to dig up a link about how he got his home. His "neighbor" happens to be Resko, who just happened to buy the lot right next to him on the same day. Obama seems to have gotten quite a sweet deal on the land. That kind of stuff concerns me more than teen pregnencies and changes of opinion.

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:39 pm

Pk : I don't think anyone is saying having children out of wedlock or as a teenager is the end of the world. It happens everyday in our society. I think people like Jackb1 are just demonstrating the hypocrisy of the ultra right wingers who bring up family values at every turn, but then have a VP nominee that is opposite of what they preach.

I think we're going after those ultra conservatives that think of themselves as upholding the strong morals of this country, not really Palin or anyone else who deals with teenage pregnancy.

---

That is interesting about the GOP threatening McCain if he picked Liberman or Romney.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:40 pm

TheHiddenTrack wrote:What proves my point is all the studies that have been done that say abstinence only sex education doesn't work. And this is, yet again, another example of Palin having a position that is ideological rather than fact based (global warming, creationism v. evolution, and I suspect stem cell research). And yes, I think it's important to know about these issues because they are examples of denying reality.

What is the deifinition of "doesn't work"? Did it prevent some teens from getting pregnent? If so, then it had some success. I agree that it should not be the only form of sex education for teens, but I'd like to see that studies that say it just plain doesn't work.

Excuse me, but since when was global warm....*ahem* climate change a reality? To SOME it's a reality, but many people, even *gasp* scientists disagree with the theory. I suppose you're going to say they are all GOP cronies who are making up their stances.

We have no clue as to why the climate is changing. It could just be nature taking it's course. It's a good thing we wern't around for the Ice age. Nature sure did a number on it's own there. 30 years ago people were clamoring about how global cooling was giong to kill us all by now.

Please stop with the "I believe it so it must be fact" condescending attitude.

Post by **Jared** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:40 pm

Matt,

Jack provided a link to the Bridge to Nowhere flip-flop...essentially, she was for it before she was against it (as the article says).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26486063/

http://www.reuters.com/article/politics ... 7020080901

This is pretty well-documented, and I think it was pretty silly for Palin to make that claim when easy research would find that this wasn't her original position.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:41 pm

Jared wrote:And video of a McCain spokesperson getting eviscerated on CNN discussing the commander-in-chief qualifications of Palin. I saw this live, and cringed...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYYiw_y2qDI&e

Saw this video this morning on CNN.com. Props to Campbell Brown: I thought she was way more of a lightweight than that.

Amazing to see a reporter on CNN go after any political official of either party. Refreshing.

Take care,
PK

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:43 pm

Inuyasha wrote:Pk : I don't think anyone is saying having children out of wedlock or as a teenager is the end of the world. It happens everyday in our society. I think people like Jackb1 are just demonstrating the hypocrisy of the ultra right wingers who bring up family values at every turn, but then have a VP nominee that is opposite of what they preach.

True, true. Just like the Dems who are criticizing Palin for not being family-first for deciding to run for veep despite her 17-year-old daughter being pregnant, as Web humorously pointed out.

The hypocrisy is flying fast from both sides. Maybe the end result will be that people from both sides will realize the irrelevancy of all of this.

Doubtful, though.

Take care,
PK

Post by **Jared** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:43 pm

Yeah, I would love for CNN (or any of the major news organizations) to go after spokespeople when they spin, whether they be Democrats or Republicans.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:44 pm

Vetting, the McCain way:

Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin’s background. A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice. The campaign was still calling Republican operatives as late as Sunday night asking them to go to Alaska to deal with the unexpected candidacy of Ms. Palin.

It's not surprising McCain chose her so quickly. After all, he has a history of dropping everything to snag attractive women half his age.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:46 pm

Jared wrote:Yeah, I would love for CNN (or any of the major news organizations) to go after spokespeople when they spin, whether they be Democrats or Republicans.

It would be a fitting tribute to Russert. Honestly, I don't see anyone at any of the network or cable news networks who can fill those shoes right now.

But Brown sure made a good move toward the head of that pack with this interview. I wonder if she'd be this aggressive with a political nominee and not a party/campaign talking head.

Take care,
PK

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:47 pm

pk500 wrote:
Amazing to see a reporter on CNN go after any political official of either party. Refreshing.

Take care,
PK

It would be refreshing if a CNN or Fox reporter would go after their affiliated parties that strongly. Seeing either go after one of the "others" is no big deal. It might've been if they had posed a question harder than "If you were a tree" to someone last week

That guy was a boob and I can't believe they let him go out there that unprepared to answer such a fundamental question. "What experience does she have?" What experience did the other 16 governors who have become President have? What experience does their candidate have? We don't and shouldn't select Presidents solely on their experience dealing with foreign policy matters. I'm sure the Democrats agree.

SPTO · Post by **SPTO** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:48 pm

Somehow it seems to me that McCain and Co. are going to rue the day they trotted Palin out to the public. She's getting hit at by all sides. Could there be a chance she may be replaced? I know they're saying that she's going to stay and get the nomination and all but in my short lifetime i've only seen one other VP pick get killed like this in the media and that was Geraldine Ferraro.

I was going to say Dan Quayle but he was more of buffoonish figure rather then someone who had a lot of skeletons rattling in his closet the way Palin seems to.

This doesn't auger well for the GOP.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:50 pm

RobVarak wrote:
pk500 wrote:
Amazing to see a reporter on CNN go after any political official of either party. Refreshing.

Take care,
PK
It would be refreshing if a CNN or Fox reporter would go after their affiliated parties that strongly. Seeing either go after one of the "others" is no big deal. It might've been if they had posed a question harder than "If you were a tree" to someone last week

I thought that too...Big deal someone at CNN going after a republican...

Oreilly goes after democrats all the time while kissing GOP ass.

sportdan30 · Post by **sportdan30** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:51 pm

Just how much homework did McCain and his advisors do before they selected Palin? Sheesh!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26501863/?GT1=43001

SPTO · Post by **SPTO** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:53 pm

sportdan30 wrote:Just how much homework did McCain and his advisors do before they selected Palin? Sheesh!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26501863/?GT1=43001

A bit late bro

I posted that earlier.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:53 pm

pk500 wrote:
Jared wrote:Yeah, I would love for CNN (or any of the major news organizations) to go after spokespeople when they spin, whether they be Democrats or Republicans.
It would be a fitting tribute to Russert. Honestly, I don't see anyone at any of the network or cable news networks who can fill those shoes right now.

But Brown sure made a good move toward the head of that pack with this interview. I wonder if she'd be this aggressive with a political nominee and not a party/campaign talking head.

Take care,
PK

Honestly, two of the only people who do that are Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Stewart makes no effort to hide his liberal affinities, so he is harder on conservatives than liberals. But Colbert's act allows him to go after both sides pretty well. He did an interview with the head of some atheist lobby that was hilarious, asking her what she called out during sex ("Oh, science!") and things like that.

Chris Matthews will attack people he really hates, like the Clintons, but he's such an incredible buttwipe in the process. It seems that we either get fawning or yelling from TV "journalmalists."

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:54 pm

Brando70 wrote:
And I can see that Church of Palin worshipers don't take kindly to anything but ejaculatory adulation I'd hate to see what the collection plate looks like....

That's rich.

Inuyasha · Post by **Inuyasha** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:55 pm

I remember after the pick of Palin, McCain went to a rally with Ridge there. When Palin was introduced, Ridge had this look of WTF to him. I wonder if he was pissed that McCain didn't choose him or was really like WTF did he choose her for.

It does sort of feel like the Dan Quayle pick (btw I supported Bush Sr. in 88 ) only because it was a surprising pick.

sportdan30 · Post by **sportdan30** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:56 pm

SPTO wrote:
sportdan30 wrote:Just how much homework did McCain and his advisors do before they selected Palin? Sheesh!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26501863/?GT1=43001
A bit late bro

I posted that earlier.

Ooops. Sorry about that. This is going to be a very interesting few months. Looking forward to the debates.

SPTO · Post by **SPTO** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:00 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
It does sort of feel like the Dan Quayle pick (btw I supported Bush Sr. in 88 ) only because it was a surprising pick.

Since I was only a kid and didn't understand the nuances of it all could you explain the circumstances behind the Quayle pick for me? Also who were the leading candidates back then?

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:00 pm

It will be interesting to see her speak at the convention.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:02 pm

Jared wrote:
And reports that she may have been a member of the Alaska Independence Party (though the McCain camp is pushing back against this), which supports having a vote to let Alaskans decide whether they should secede from the United States. Country first!

Wow, I haven't seen the left throw this much s*** up to see what sticks in a dog's age. This pick has them a lot more scared than I figured it would.

Jared, she's been a registered Republican since 1982 and never donated any money to the AIP. That video is about the most generic address that's ever been delivered. Seriously? This is what we're going to do today?

A lot of this backlash from the fact that Obama's checkered past is being investigated, but I think some of it just smacks of desperation by the KosKidz and their like.

As for the vetting, I would think that the left would be thrilled. It's delivered them a choice that they think they can feast upon and it's a break from "more of the same" like picking safe, empty suits like Joe Biden. Well not empty, thoroughly lined with MBNA cash, but you know what I mean.

The book banning thing troubles me, but I'm going to withold judgment until we have something more reliable that Time magazine ("Yep, We're Still Around") printing a quote from a vanquished rival without any corroborating source. LOL

Edit:

Incidentally, this pick is looking better to me (and I liked her from the get-go) after seeing the Obamite and media reaction. It's got the Obamanistas comparing their candidate to our VP and the media barring its teeth like they did in the run-up to the 2004 election. Nothing bodes better for the GOP than when the MSM starts to really go to work to help the Democrats. Dan Rather, your table is ready.