U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

You know what's really funny? In the Lefty-elite circles, had Bristol Palin had the *cough* "good sense and taste" *cough* to have an abortion, even tomorrow, they'd applaud her.

I don't think they're so much outraged at Sarah Palin the VP nominee, as Sarah Palin... she and her family practice what they preach when it comes to abortion.

I was thinking about Obama before Friday. Not a chance now. He's as dirty as the rest, and only half as smart.

i have some sympathy for the notion that if the young daughter had opted for an abortion it would have sunk mummies career.

poor girl has enough to deal with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I don't think they're so much outraged at Sarah Palin the VP nominee, as Sarah Palin... she and her family practice what they preach when it comes to abortion.

---

While I agree that dragging the kids into the debate is uncalled-for, unnecessary, and unethical, I don't agree that the current media feeding frenzy is all about hatred for non-hypocritical Christians or a final, full flowering of the secret Obama pheromones that make newsmen turn into love-crazed zombies.

Rather, this is about McCain, and the fact that he hired Palin without any proper vetting, having met her once, trusting entirely in his instincts and luck. If Palin turns out to be the Harriet Myers of 2008, it's going to confirm what I have feared for months — Johnny Mac is losing it. I guess I knew something was horribly wrong when he hired the same guy who smeared him in SC.

Why is the media going nutso? Because they smell blood in the water. Trust me, if Obama had hired Palin to be V.P. without a proper background check, you'd see the same sharks circling in the water. Oh, there'd be some good press about him taking on a Republican, but that would last about five minutes, and then the frenzy would begin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Rather, this is about McCain, and the fact that he hired Palin without any proper vetting

---

I'm so very tired of this talking point- as if "no vetting" would be enough to disqualify someone alone. No vetting would mean that there would be dirty laundry the campaign didn't know about right? All of the tawdry stuff they're trying to trash her and her family on were well known by the campaign ahead of time. Sure, you can dredge up supposedly anonymous campaign aides or whatever- but lets apply just a little common sense shall we? Does anyone honestly think Palin would have tried to hide her daughter's pregnancy from the McCain campaign, only to confirm it herself a few days later? Does anyone really think that Palin was planning to hide her daughter from the public during her entire pregnancy? Or maybe, just maybe McCain already knew about it and decided that it wouldn't be a serious detriment? People need to apply some common sense..... :dizzy2:

I'm not sure what exactly is prompting the myopic focus on Palin, but there are other stories out there that we aren't hearing much about...... Like the fact that Biden's son and brother are both under investigation for fraud in regards to money they got from companies that lobbied the senator. Or Biden's ties to Obama's pal Rezko.

But no, the real story is a pregnant 17yr old and Palin's husband's 20yr old DUI. She wasn't vetted!!! :smash:

Think, Xiahou, THINK! This is all about anger at McCain for picking a woman. Anything they can do to trash his choice can and will be done. I feel really bad for Sarah Palin and her family, but somebody had to carry that cross. The only VP candidate who would not have been destroyed by the mainstream media would have been another old white guy. Any minority, any woman or any other choice that might possibly have shown McCain to be outside the Bush3 mold the media are portraying him to be was going to generate this sort of a reaction.

As long as we're talking about stories that aren't.... Obama's brother is living in a hut in Kenya, as you corretly pointed out, Biden's son's a bagman, and the National Enquirer had to break the story on John Edwards just because Obama might, MIGHT! want him for a VP canddiate. Meanwhile, McCain adopts a Bangladeshi girl and all of a sudden, NBC news declares he has jungle fever.

Like I said, I'm starting to agree with the Democratic bumper stickers ("01/20/09") for different reasons, mainly because our media might actually stop being the largest collective pack of shills ever assembled and will might actually start acting like journalists again.

But hey, at least they get their talking points down. And you when you see Brian Williams and Katie Couric questioning the choice of Sarah Palin, you can barely see Howard Dean's lips moving.

Quote:

---

The fact is, regardless of what you will hear over the next few days, Bristol's pregnancy is not a legitimate political issue. Sarah Palin is a longterm member of a group called Feminists for Life, which is not opposed to birth control. So you probably can't tag her for consigning young people to unwanted pregnancies.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Actually Rabbit the feminsts for life have no view on contraception apart from the non preventative kind like the morning after pill , they do however oppose the death penalty which should go down well with the republicans:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
And you will note however that I mentioned her church and its views not one of the many political/social groups she belongs/belonged to and the teachings of the AoG are quite clear in that respect aren't they , you should not play hide the sausage with the local hockey players outside of marriage.:yes:

Quote:

---

I guess I knew something was horribly wrong when he hired the same guy who smeared him in SC.

---

They were not the same people who claimed that McCain had fathered a bastard with dark skin were they:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

You know what's really funny? In the Lefty-elite circles, had Bristol Palin had the *cough* "good sense and taste" *cough* to have an abortion, even tomorrow, they'd applaud her.

---

Yes Don :dizzy2: Has Dave hacked your account ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes Don :dizzy2: Has Dave hacked your account ?

---

I'm serious about that. I find it fascinating that Bristol Palin's pregnancy comes through to the Left as a liability for Sarah Palin. I truly do. I don't think Lefties know the Right anywhere near as well as we know them.

Had Bristol had an abortion, it would have been heralded as a 17-year old exercising her rights as a woman. Her mother, on the other hand, would have been the draconian throwback that would have wanted to hand her a coat-hanger. I'm telling you, that's how the Keith Olbermans/Jon Stewarts of the world would have spun it.

The 'thinking Left', and I do acknowledge they exist, cannot understand why Bristol's pregnancy hasn't caused a calamity in the ranks. This is mainly because to the Thinking Left, the Right is all about being old-school, and out of touch. It's not that Conservatives don't understand that teenage sex happens, its that we don't think it should be encouraged. And when it does happen, we believe in making the best of a bad situation. Sarah Palin, and her daughter for that matter, have done just that, so why on Earth would we want to dump them?

And meanwhile, the party that claims a woman's right to privacy is their fundamental goal has shown it's true colors, by outing a 17 year old girl. What about her right to privacy?

Dean and Obama should be ashamed of themselves for this one. I think having an ASS for a symbol is pretty appropriate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

The 'thinking Left', and I do acknowledge they exist, cannot understand why Bristol's pregnancy hasn't caused a calamity in the ranks.

---

Camille Paglia sounded worried- if you count her

“We may be seeing the first woman president. As a Democrat, I am reeling… That was the best political speech I have ever seen delivered by an American woman politician. Palin is as tough as nails… Good Lord, we had barely 12 hours of Democrat optimism… It was a stunningly timed piece of PR by the Republicans.”

Quote:

---

I'm serious about that.

---

Really ? can you find an example of anyone applauding when a person has an abortion ?

But anyway back to feminists for life , Palin belongs to this group , she obviously belongs to the group because she shares its values and mission .
It is their view that the dealth penalty is bad and shouldn't be allowed ...Palin supports the death penalty ????
Why does she belong to the group ?
Do they serve good coffee or something ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

But anyway back to feminists for life , Palin belongs to this group , she obviously belongs to the group because she shares its values and mission .
It is their view that the dealth penalty is bad and shouldn't be allowed ...Palin supports the death penalty ????

---

Maybe because the abortion part of pro-life is the "main" stance of that group?

The best part about this whole Palin's daughter pile-on it shows the true colors of these so called open minded liberals and their true feeling towards woman's rights within the workplace and reproductive rights. I'm just sitting back and watching the show. The media is so transparently biased this election cycle it would be funny if it wasn't so pathetically sad. Even Bill Mahr commented on how Olby and Chrissy Matthews acted like they wanted to have sex with Obama, I guess they'll get :daisy: after Lemur...

Darling Dave, are you jealous that I might be seeing other men? Trust me, you're the only catamite for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Darling Dave, are you jealous that I might be seeing other men? Trust me, you're the only catamite for me.

---

Well, that makes me feel better. You've been a little too intentative towards this unqualified brutha, I know the saying "once you go black you never go back", just remember who really loves you, my little sugar nipple...:yes:

Quote:

---

The best part about this whole Palin's daughter pile-on it shows the true colors of these so called open minded liberals

---

No Dave , its taking the piss out of the "conservatives" who link to places like eagle forum then get defensive when the candidate they have so recently become enamoured of fails on so many of their cherished values .

The pregnant teen is a non-issue, in my opinion. She's a kid, she's got her own problems, and she is not running for VP. I guess sins of the father can now be sins of the mother.

There are plenty of more relevant things to discuss:

• Palin's involvement in Ted Stevens' 527
• All the federal earmarks she lobbied for as mayor of a tiny town
• Note how she was for the "bridge to nowhere" before she was against it
• Trooper-gate
• Her involvement in a party that wants Alaska to secede from the union.
• Talk about the fact that McCain's people are just now setting up shop in Alaska to check out her bona fides

Seriously, why bring the kid into it at all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

[*]Her involvement in a party that wants Alaska to secede from the union.

---

Quote:

---

Questions had swirled about Sarah Palin's affiliation with the Independence Party and with former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. Voter registration records and past news reports, however, show Palin never registered as a member of the Independence Party, and backed Steve Forbes' presidential campaign in 2000, not Buchanan.

---

Quote:

---

Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, said Todd Palin twice registered under the Alaskan Independence Party — in 1995 and 2000. Some members of the party have advocated secession from the United States, though that is not a goal listed in the party's platform.

---

link
Still wrong- twice. :beam:
She was never a member and the AIP doesn't have succession in it's platform.

She wasn't vetted!!! :soapbox:

Oh, I'm so terribly sorry Xiahou. How foolish of me. It's a party that wants to hold a referendum on whether or not the State should secede. Please feel free to explain why that would be a plank in your party unless you want to secede.

And with a motto that goes "Alaska first -- Alaska always," how could one gain the wrong impression?

Please feel free to explain why they need to campaign so hard and so long for a vote that would allow a state to secede from the Union if that's not their intent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Oh, I'm so terribly sorry Xiahou. How foolish of me. It's a party that wants to hold a referendum on whether or not the State should secede. Please feel free to explain why that would be a plank in your party unless you want to secede.

And with a motto that goes "Alaska first -- Alaska always," how could one gain the wrong impression?

Please feel free to explain why they need to campaign so hard and so long for a vote that would allow a state to secede from the Union if that's not their intent.

---

Here's their platform. Find "hold a referendum on whether or not the State should secede" for me. I'll wait. :wink:

You realize its irrelevant anyhow if she was never a member, right?

Wow, I had to click on a whole different tab in their website. Now tell me how none of this matters anyway, which is why you were bringing it up.

Goals

The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:

1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.

The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party's founding father, Joe Vogler, which was for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Wow, I had to click on a whole different tab in their website. But now that you're completely proved wrong, you may retreat to your already-established fallback position where none of this matters, which is why you had to call it out in the first place.

---

Ok, so it's not in their platform, but their goal is to have a vote- which, thanks to that video that you subjected me to, I now know they think was originally held in a corrupt manner. One of the four possible outcomes of that vote would be independence. Clearly they're secessionist radicals. :yes:

It's irrelevant, because it she wasn't a member so it's irrelevant to Palin and the thread. If you want to carry on debating whether their goal, if attained could theoretically lead to independence, even if their platform has no means to attain it, means AIP is "a party that wants Alaska to secede from the union" we can continue, but maybe it should get its own thread.

If it's all so irrelevant, why do you keep harping on it, lover? It was one bullet point out of something like six I listed. If you want to spin it off as a new thread, be my guest.

No, let's be honest, you were utterly convinced you'd caught me making a factual error, and you wanted to hammer on it. Now that you've been shown to be wrong, it's time to change the subject. Fine with me.

And I never heard that explanation of why you would agitate for a vote on secession unless you want to secede. And why, exactly, are you so sympathetic to/defensive of a fringe party that wants to leave the Union?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

If it's all so irrelevant, why do you keep harping on it, lover? It was one bullet point out of something like eight I listed. If you want to spin it off as a new thread, be my guest.

---

She wasn't a member- that defeats the "bullet". If you want to argue that you weren't wrong on both counts because you think they are secessionist, you can, but it has no impact on the "bullet" being demonstrably wrong..... I thought that was obvious. :shrug:

edit: I also addressed your last "bullet". For your benefit, I'll do so again.

She wasn't vetted!!!! :soapbox:

edit2:

Quote:

---

No, let's be honest, you were utterly convinced you'd caught me making a factual error, and you wanted to hammer on it. Now that you've been shown to be wrong, it's time to change the subject. Fine with me.

---

So now, utterly convinced you've caught me making a factual error, want to hammer me on it. :laugh4:

Since you seem convinced you're the hammer to my nail, we can continue the exercise....

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

You want to make a lot of their goal, one possible outcome of which would be Alaska as an independent nation. It's worth noting, however that while it's a possible outcome if they got the vote their goal asks for, nowhere do they call for succession. Not in their platform, no in their issues.

More from their website:

Quote:

---

The AIP believes full compliance with the constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Alaska is necessary.

---

Surely, some of their members would like Alaska to be a separate nation, but it is an exaggeration to claim that the sole purpose of the party today is succession (as you suggested).

Palin's representatives say she was not a member, the AIP says she was. I'm sure Palin will actually speak to the press one of these days.

Meanwhile, a little report from the Republican Convention:

Here in St. Paul, talk of Palin has dominated the Republican convention—even more so than cable news—and by Monday night discussion among Republican operatives and reporters had turned to whether Palin would survive or become the first running mate since Thomas Eagleton in 1972 to leave a major-party ticket. On Monday, the InTrade futures market opened trading on whether Palin would withdraw before the election.

With reporters and opposition researchers crawling through Alaska, and with the McCain campaign having dispatched its own team of lawyers to re-vet Palin, Republicans are wondering what shoe might drop next. If further revelations prove damaging enough, McCain could decide to replace Palin or she could choose to withdraw. While such an event seems unlikely given her popularity in some quarters of the party—Jacob Heilbrunn has suggested that social conservatives would view her ouster as “political infidelity”—her rocky reception makes the “Eagleton scenario,” and how it might unfold, a subject of more than academic interest.

-edit-

Oh, yeah, I'm sure they want to have a vote on the status of their statehood 'cause, um, they just want to affirm how much they love the United States. That's the only logical explanation. That's why both the Republicans and the Democrats also want to have votes about whether or not the Union should stay together. It's like having a re-marriage, you know.

Sheesh. Let me know if you pull anything twisting yourself into these contorted positions, friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Palin's representatives say she was not a member, the AIP says she was. I'm sure Palin will actually speak to the press one of these days.

---

Ugh! Did you read the news story I linked? I even excerpted sections for you....

Quote:

---

Voter registration records and past news reports, however, show Palin never registered as a member of the Independence Party

---

It's tough to be much plainer than that.

Does one have to be registered to have views?

Quote:

---

"I share your party's vision of upholding the constitution of our great state" and told members to "keep up the good work".

---

Quote:

---

Mrs Palin laughed when her interviewer described cancer sufferer Senator Green as a "cancer".

---

I think the above is just.....unacceptable.

Hey, Obama's future secretary of State P. Diddy Combs was on his blog this morning claiming Palin can't be VP because she doesn't have enough crackheads up in Alaska. He also claimed there were no blacks in Alaska, something I'm certain the 27,000 black people in Alaska (4.6% of the 670,000 people that live there) were surprised to hear.

He's got Diddy on there saying Palin's not black and crack enough.
He's got his boys Matthews, Williams and Couric going after her kid, who's pregnant.
He's got Ludacrious threatening to put McCain in a wheelchair.
He's got Jeremiah Wright saying the USA deserved 9/11 and could use another one.
He's got Joe "I'm the smartest man in my class and I've got the plagaraized papers to prove it" Biden offering him ethics advice.
He's got billions of dollars raised in secrecy so he's forgoing public financning, something he swore he'd never do, just so he can hide the sources.
And he's got every democratic operative that nobody's heard of yet going in front of the media talking about race riots if he doesn't win.

And time and time again, he claims it wasn't him, he just had the wrong people around him. You know what? I think Jay Severin was right (now there's a statement I never thought I'd make). I think Obama IS the Manchurian candidate, and I think all that money he's hiding is coming from Iran and Saudi Arabia.

And you know what? Every time from here on out, when the election comes up, I'm going to talk about what a shame about the misogyny of the Democratic party. Telling women to "forget you" with picking Biden was bad enough, but going after a 17 year old, and humiliating her in front of the whole country, because her mother didn't shut her mouth and stay in her place?

It's a shame. I really had thought Obama was different. He's not. He's taking money from China and Iran, and if he gets elected, we're doomed.

As the riots (and anarchists) lead protests against the Republican convention, two questions popped into my head.

1.What do they hope to accomplish, changing the Republican's views? Do they seriously believe that any protest will shift Republican views?

2. Why are they protesting at the Republican convention? Shouldn't they have run against the Democrat convention because they hold the majority in Congress? Wouldn't this force them to action against the war far more quickly than plaguing the Republicans?

McCain is the cleanest candidate to run ever. That's all I've got to say.

Quote:

---

And you will note however that I mentioned her church and its views not one of the many political/social groups she belongs/belonged to and the teachings of the AoG are quite clear in that respect aren't they , you should not play hide the sausage with the local hockey players outside of marriage.

---

Wow, I guess people might have exactly the same views as groups they are members of. I suppose that's a big revelation for tribesy, which is why he keeps bringing it up.

CR

Support from her home town (write your own caption);

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...valley-511.jpg