Sarah Palin has electrified the McCain campaign. Democrats don't attack her as a liability to McCain because she is a liablility. They attack her because she is an asset. She is such an asset that even the attacks upon her are backfiring on her attackers. Consider....
1. By charging Sarah Palin with being unqualified for the vice presidency, Barack Obama's minions only highlight the inexperience of their candidate. Amazingly, Obama compared his executive experience running his campaign to Palin's experience running a business, a town, a state, and Alaska's oil and gas commission. By Obama's standard, everyone who has ever run for president is qualified to be president by virtue of running a campaign. He is foolish to have taken the bait, particularly since the particulars are running for vice president and president. The comparison between unequals can't help but demote Obama and highlight his own inadequacies. John McCain chose Sarah Palin to serve as his running mate. Barack Obama chose Barack Obama to run for president after serving for just two years in the Senate.
2. The New York Times's trio of smarmy frontpage articles on Palin only serve to push women piqued by Obama's shoddy treatment of Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro further into the McCain camp. It's amazing that the same people who praised Joe Biden one week ago for joining the Senate instead of raising his motherless sons now damn Sarah Palin for running for vice president when she has a disabled child. Instead of the posterwoman for balancing family and career, Palin becomes in the jaundiced eyes of liberals an example of why women shouldn't get into politics. Feminists like working women, except when they work for the wrong side.
3. In hurling mud at Palin unglued Democrats and their courtesan press have dirtied themselves, not John McCain's runningmate. When it gets so petty as to tattle on her husband's DUI, tout conspiracy theories positing Palin as faking a birth, harp on her teenage daughter's pregnancy, point fingers at her soon-to-be son-in-law's self-identification as a "f---ing redneck," and gawk at the fact that she hunts, fishes, and snowmobiles, the Left intends to humilate, but suceeds in humanizing. Normal Americans don't have $300,000 jobs enforcing quotas or work as community organizers so the welfare kings and queens of Section 8 Kingdom can get more of our money. Normal people fish and hunt, and yes, encounter family issues like unintended pregnancies and legal issues like DUIs. Those issuing taunts against Palin advertise their indecency to the world.
Combatants fight dirty when the prospect of a clean fight appears to daunting. This is a Democratic year, but so was 2000 and 2004. Should Obama's henchmen continue to make Sarah Palin the issue they may just snatch defeat from the jaws of victory as they have done the previous two presidential elections. As Fred Thompson explained at the Republican National Convention last night, "The selection of Gov. Palin has the other side and their friends in the media in a state of panic." Sarah Palin is the best thing the McCain campaign has going for it now. What kind of political strategists highlight their opponents strength? The kind that lost the last two presidential races for the Democrats.
1) yes, Obama's campaign ALONE illustrates more executive experience than Palin's entire political career - which isn't saying much
2) so you're saying women are that stupid and shallow to support Palin because they couldn't have Hillary or Ferraro
3) and you're also saying the Palin family is "normal" ?
Cocain or Coors?
If Chelsea Clinton got knocked up when she was 17, does anyone really believe that the Right-wing would not have made a big deal about it? I'm sure they would have talked about it constantly and used it as example A of Clinton's value-free liberalism. In fact, Chelsea was teased by Rush Limbaugh just for being an ugly 12 year old.
No one really cares about "experience." People want someone who they can identify with, one of their own. I want someone with good ideas and integrity; I don't consider "experience," to be an issue.
"yes, Obama's campaign ALONE illustrates more executive experience than Palin's entire political career - which isn't saying much"
What the hell are you babbling about? Palin has more executive experience, alone, then McCain, Biden, and Obama combined.
Good arguments by our host, but it must be said that conservatives who support Palin are sacrificing some serious principle here, even though Palin is to the right of McCain. Palin is an affirmative-action pick, so people who oppose affirmative action have no business supporting Palin. (Of course, I would say that conservatives have no business supporting McCain anyway, but that's another issue.) If Palin were a man, she wouldn't be the running mate, because, yes, she doesn't have the experience to qualify for the job.
Suppose Palin were at the top of the ticket. Would she be qualified then? Please. She's not ready to be president. So how can anyone say she's qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? Is she qualified to be in that position because it's unlikely that McCain will die in office? By that logic, anyone would be qualified for the vice presidency.
In any event, I think that the Palin pick damages one of McCain's strengths: the experience argument. Before McCain chose his running mate, the Republican ticket was certain to have the issue of experience as a very big plus in its favor, because of the lopsided contrast between McCain's qualifications and Obama's. McCain has spent his entire campaign saying that he's been "ready from day one" and that he needs no on-the-job training. (An utter lie, of course--he knows nothing, for example, about the economy. Remember how stupid McCain sounded when he tried to answer Ron Paul's question about fiscal policy?) Maybe Obama was foolish to come right out and say that Palin isn't qualified... but now that McCain has picked Palin as his running mate, he has to stop pressing the experience argument, because he can't make it with a straight face anymore.
"Suppose Palin were at the top of the ticket. Would she be qualified then? Please. She's not ready to be president."
Replace Palin with Obama and she with he and you essentially have the same argument that many of us have been saying about Obama. But the problem is that we are not camparing apples to apples. Maybe Apples(Palin) to nuts(Obama).
The amazing thing about Sarah Palin is that she is incredibly stupid. She thinks the world was created by God 6000 years ago. Forget modern science. Forget astronomy. Forget biology. Forget geology. Go back to what people knew 2000 years ago, and that's Palin. She is an idiot, and idiots will vote for her.
"Forget modern science. Forget astronomy. Forget biology. Forget geology."
Do a little more research, and you'll find that none of these mentioned areas of study have proven evolution or an old age of the universe. If anything, they have proven the complexity of life and the scientifically impossible odds behind the dogmatic concept of evolution. Most people look at the universe with a very linear understanding of physics, which is quite flawed in nature. As soon as you have concluded your research on the effects of gravity on time in the vastness of space and have defined the nature of the unseen dimensions that scientists are now hypothesizing, I might consider you mildly intelligent enough to speak of the origins of the world we live in. Let me know when you publish your book.
Hey Kevin,
Not only does the bottom half of the Republican ticket have more experience than the top half of the Democrat's but also, as she proved this weekend--class and brains as well--but without the communist mentors--Frank Marshall Davis--and terrorist ties--Ayers, Dohrn--that Barack can boast of not to mention, savvy real estate advice--Tony Rezko--and spiritual guidance--Jeremiah Wright. Come to think of it, she has more than a work history too.
You bigshots are missing the whole point,Sarah is hot. I mean she is Penthouse material.
Kevin Cassidy – wtf? I second Ben, what the heck are you talking about?
Eric – why would the infamous Right Wing care if Chelsea got knocked up? We did, however, care when our Commander in Chief was getting serviced in the White House on the People’s dime and then lied under oath and suborned testimony. What tickles me about this is that we were told by the Left that Clinton’s peccadillos were not big a deal. Yet, our VP candidate’s daughter has a teenage moment which they will handle and now it’s an issue to the same Left.
And I think qualifications including running an important state and being a staunch Christian trump being a community organizer and a subscriber to Black Liberation Theology and that experience and background are pretty important when being selected to higher office.
Alan – affirmative action pick? That sounds funny coming from a supporter of the party that invented identity politics. Hillary Clinton? If it weren’t for her spending eight years squelching Bill’s bimbo eruptions, who the heck would have ever heard of her? She has no merit on her own. Just being a famous scorned liberal chick. Barack Obama? Again, if he were Billy O’Bannon, caucasian Irish guy from Chicago, we wouldn’t be writing about him.
Kim – why does the concept of Creationism bother you people so much? Get a life and let people believe what they want to believe. And I thought liberal was based on liberty. Silly huh? I bet Palin wouldn’t beat you over the head with her beliefs the way you might her. Bottom line is that Sarah Palin walks the walk.
Liberal media bias? You bet.
Just saw two ‘US’ mag covers, one highlighting the Messiah and the other highlighting Palin.
Obama: picture of Michelle and Barack hugging with the tag line – “Why Barack Loves Her”.
Palin: picture of the beautiful Sarah holding her new son with the tag line – “Babies, Lies and Scandal”.
The Left has no soul.
What do you mean they have no soul, they have a soul brother as their candidate!
http://www.killerclips.com/clip.php?id=82&qid=823
On Creationism, I agree that it's funny they can't just let people believe what they what they want. Though it seems that when it comes to a man believing himself to be a woman (despite ALL evidence to the contrary), we're all supposed to take that seriously.
asdf:
"Alan – affirmative action pick? That sounds funny coming from a supporter of the party that invented identity politics."
Excuse me? I'm not a supporter of either party. Go be stupid somewhere else.
Oh. Ok Alan. So, who are your going to vote for?
A mother of five should be at home policing the kids, not running for VP. Especially when one of the children is retarded and another has been knocked up by an imbecile.
I couldn't agree more with the democratic position that a woman's place is in the home.
Nice M. Very classy. But, we would expect no less from the left. Just angry, soul less, vitriolic people.
Funny how nobody questions the woman who is third in line to the presidency about her competence and ability to serve with regard to her family responsibilities. Pelosi has five children but nobody seems to think that's an issue for her. Guess she belongs to the correct party, eh?
And Joe Biden pained (for about 30 seconds) about taking his oath for Senate when he lost his wife and had two kids at home to take care of. That was a real concern for the left too.
You folks are so out of touch, so dishonest, so hypocritical and so obtuse. So obtuse in fact that you don’t even recognize it.
asdf: You jackass. I think it is pretty clear that I am NOT on the left. When the hell would a leftist ever say what I did?!
Are you the kind of boorish imbecile that assumes that if anybody criticises your idols, they must automatically be on the side of your enemies, even if they have not said a word of praise for Barack/Biden?
Should I assume that you are all in favour of feminism, identity politics, teenage pregnancy, etc?
Imbecile (twice)? Jackass? Retarded? Is that how lefties make their points these days? Your attempt at shock value is wasted on me.
I give you two counter examples of Democrats who are guilty of what you accuse Palin of and what do I get? A rant started with "You Jackass".
Time to grow up M.
As Colonel Jessup says: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
You are a jackass. I'm a conservative, a lot more damn conservative than you are. Hence why I think parental duties are so important.
I used the word 'retarded' correctly. Sarah Palin has a child with Down's syndrome. Down's syndrome sufferers have impaired cognitive ability. Stop being so politically correct.
I don't like Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi. As far as I am aware though, the children they have are now all adults. And don't bring up Obama's kids. I don't like Obama either.
M is a Goob, and hommie j. fong, that is the quote of the year. a man beleiving him self a woman, dispite the facts,and libs. want us to beleive that? man thats gold!
What's it called when a society allots votes to higher IQ and higher educated people? People with an IQ under 90 should not be allowed to vote. That would do away with 70% of the Democrats. People with IQ's above 130 and people with advanced degrees should get to cast more votes.
I love it when people resort to name calling when they get mad. I really like the "My genitals are bigger than yours" contest too. Reminds of... Oh that's right high school or any argument with a liberal.
ASDF, A teenage moment? Is that the Neocon terminology for illegitimacy? It's amazing; the right-wing has spent the last twenty years decrying the social and cultural effects of out of wedlock births to teenagers, and now it's just a teenage moment?
I don't blame Sarah Palin for this, although I can imagine it's more than a full time job to raise a large family and be governor of Alaska. But there's still much about her we don't know, and I can't say that her personal life is reflective of conservative values i.e. a working mother who neglects her children and raises a daughter who thinks it's acceptable to have a child out of wedlock.
That said, she has said good things about Ron Paul, and is affiliated with the AIP. However, she did accept to be on a ticket with John McCain and that makes me question her integrity and judgment more than anything.
It’s interesting to me to see how the left and the media are so verklempt and animated about the pregnant seventeen year old daughter of the Republican candidate for the Vice Presidency yet don’t seem to mind or notice that their Democratic choice for the Presidency is a product himself of a teen pregnancy and a Saul Alinsky acolyte, and as a child and young man was mentored by a hard core communist pedophile, and was a confidant and associate of known terrorist bombers, and was associated and was a beneficiary of a convicted felon, and attended and contributed large sums of money to a racist, anti-semetic, anti-Amercian church. Haven’t heard much about that from the left or the media. Have we.
But a pregnant seventeen year old? That's really important news and grounds for unending discussion. Methinks, you people have your priorities a wee bit out of whack.
ASDF,
Changing the subject is a sure sign you've lost the argument.
Eric,
Anybody can have a child who's looser with their morals than they are. My parents didn't smoke pot, I did. I always felt that they would have killed me if they found out about it--but as it turned out they just dealt with the fact that they had a rebellious son. They were staunch conservative Catholics.
The issue is whether there is anything "hypocritical" about having a daughter who did not stay chaste. There's no connection. Suggesting that Palin is a hypocrite--as some want to do--because of that is a non-starter. It's really not the same thing with the Clintons, because we would already question the father's influence on his daughter.
People interpret things through their own filter. I see that the point of a lot of this is that abstinence was ever unrealistic and Palin created the problem by giving her daughter the unreasonable explanation that she could abstain.
But my parents expected me not to take drugs, and I did. Is that unreasonable? Again, it's a non-sequitur and they're trying to make it do more than it does. In any case, it wouldn't simply be a pregnant daughter.
Sorry Eric, but you leftists are just blockheads.
If anybody is not staying on point, it would be you, your party and your media. You folks have no substance and can’t successfully argue the real issues so you make one up and hammer it home to obfuscate things that really should be considered when assessing the character of someone who hopes to lead this country. This will backfire on you because most thinking people will figure it out.
As I said, your priorities with regards to talking points and what’s really important are grossly skewed.
However, I would answer for myself and most Conservatives who I know and associate with that although we believe in certain standards and work to and would love to see those standards followed, oft times they are not (pssst - that’s called real life). So, the answer is that we could give a fat rat’s a$$ if Chelsea Clinton, Jenna Bush, Bristol Palin or anybody else near and dear to a public official gets pregnant. Outside of the salacious tabloid tingle that it may provide for some, it really doesn’t matter, does it?
For a party and an allegedly socially aware group such as the Democrats and liberals to act as though sex with all of its repercussions is not a big deal when it suits you (i.e. Clinton, Edwards), you guys sure seem to have a problem with it when it does.
To put an exclamation point on it, if you have children or if you intend to have children, try foisting your values and standards on them. When you are 100% successful stamping out a child that you’ve molded into the perfect model you expect, come back the let me know how you did that.
ASDF,
You are changing the subject and you're not talking to me but your own Leftist strawmen. I don't have a "party," or a "media."
But now you want to claim that the Right, or really just the Bush Cult, no longer cares about illegitimacy. Remember this quote:
"Illegitimacy is the single most important social problem of our time -- more important than crime, drugs, poverty, illiteracy, welfare, or homelessness because it drives everything else."
This was Charles Murray back in 1993 and even President Clinton said he agreed with the gist of the argument. Of course the Bush Cult will overlook the number one social problem of our time if it means electing someone with an R next to her name.
When Jamie Lynn Spears announced she was pregnant her mom's book on parenting was canceled. It seems the icons of pop culture have better standards than the pompous Bush Cult.
Yeah, Eric. Because they had already seen what became of Brittany Spears. There's a difference about somebody who should give be paid for mothering advice, directly, and someone who should have a job where motherhood is a value--but sometimes you just have kids who go astray.
Your kids can go astray--but there is no reason that anybody has to listen to you about how to raise your kids. However, I assume that she can still hold opinions about mothering.
That you can't see the difference, is beyond me. I don't know but it isn't exactly good proof that you are the most patient or least jaundiced thinker. The case with Spears is that she is being paid for what one would hope is not an agreement with other sources--but if I pay for the price of the book--a unique account of the principles of motherhood. The other one is an agreement on a standard.
Britney Spears has been a known commodity for a decade. Lynn Spears' book on parenting and mothering was only canceled after the pregnancy of Jamie Lynn Spears was publicized. Why can't so-called "conservatives" dump Sarah Palin for the same reason? Because she has an R next to her name. Don't try to pretend it's anymore complicated than that.
I still haven't made up my mind about her, but I don't think John McCain would chose a candidate who strongly -- or even mildly -- disagrees with him on foreign policy and open borders (amnesty), so there's not much to be excited about.
Are these the family values we keep hearing from the Right? Sarah Palin "had" to get married, did not adequately manage her own reproductive system by allowing herself to become pregnant in her 40s -- and, as a result had a down-syndrome baby, and did her daughter no favors and is obviously not close enough to her daughter to know that her daughter was sexually active. This "lady's" family is in a state of crisis -- she should be home taking care of her new-born, down-syndrome baby. And as far as some manly-men finding her "hot" -- are you kidding me? The content of what she says coupled with the bullying attitude are just too much to take -- and make her a very ugly person.
Diane,
I'd be confident from your first statement to say that you are on the left. I'll go further to say that being on the left; you are a hard core pro-choicer.
So, how is it that people who believe with all of their souls that the 'choice' of abortion at any time any place (oft times including partial birth and full birth abortion) doesn't apply to the ultimate 'choice' of a woman's reproductive decisions to have a family and deal with that family at all reproductive costs?
Sarah Plain has and continues to make many ‘adult’ decisions in her life. She has decided to have children and deal with the ‘adult’ consequences that children bring and she walks the pro-life walk. Not as a political punch line but for who she is. If this bothers you, I think you should get rid of the cats and get a life.
Unlike your weak candidate, she doesn’t believe that having a baby is punishment or that a live birth baby is such an onerous thing that it should be allowed to expire unattended on a table in some hospital.
Do you people ever really think about what you say?
