I agree that the Trooper investigation could hurt Palin a bit if she's convicted of anything. As it stands now, the brother-in-law is still employed and the person she fired (which she did have cause for, albeit questionable cause) is the one still involved.

As to the daughter issue, I can see this actually generating sympathy from the moderates she is courting (suburban moms). The daughter's getting married and will be 18 fairly soon. Plus, sometimes events that show politicians as actual normal people help endear them to non-partisans. From a Christian right standpoint, her positives (abortion, guns, ..) will still win out in their minds and she will still end up doing what she was brought on to do (motivate the base and court moderates).

At the end of the day, this election will still be decided upon whether a majority of voters in swing states feel comfortable with Obama as Commander in Chief. If they do, he wins. If they don't, there's an opening for McCain. Palin's just there to siphon off a few moderates while motivating the base to turnout and volunteer/donate (which many already have).

Well, it's not to the same extent, but I see this as similar to the finger-waving that's been directed, in the past, at the Bush girls and even Chelsea Clinton.

With the Bush girls in particular, I think there was some "like father, like daughters" stuff directed at Mr. Bush.

Bob Barr 43%
Cynthia McKinney 35%
John McCain 30%
Hillary Clinton 28%
Barack Obama 28%
Ralph Nader 25%
Brian Moore 23%
Chuck Baldwin 23%
Gloria La Riva 23%

Let's see here, five kids, a teenage mother to be under her roof, hobbies include hunting & fishing, former beauty pageant contestant, has a couch with a bear skin throw & a giant crab on the coffee table, husband has a blue collar (ostensibly) job & has been a beauty pageant judge.

Hmm ... if these folks had Southern accents, what would they be called?

Jon, I gotta tell ya, being up there, there were many many many people who more southern than southerners.

Residents of Wayne County?

I suspect, honestly, that they were doing that for the historical record. So when we look back that we could see how historically crazy this was to happen.

Yeah this whole situation, with McCain's pick and what you just described would be incredibly funny if not for the fact this person is running for VICE Presdient of this country.

For you, me and mainstream America that's right but for the religious right I'm not so sure.

The image of McCain making superficially appealing decisions with little attention to the consequences is beginning to firm up. Palin's primary qualification for VP running mate for him was surely her appeal to the right. This may well kick a bit of a hole in that.

Which of those things have anything to do with the qualifications for a VP?

I think JIMG made his point....

It's not so much her qualifications for VP but her qualifications for McCain's running mate. She's clearly supposed to shore up his appeal to the right and it's the right who will see this as a problem.

Yep, and without having to do much work at it either... actually kind of impressive.

I don't think that was the tone of Galaril's post, who was saying something more like "THIS is the VP candidate??" based on her Alaska lifestyle.

Conservatives seem to be thrilled with her, the daughter's getting married and she's keeping the baby, I don't think premarital sex is as big a deal as you think it is anymore, even with Republicans.

So now it appears that McCain has sent a team of lawyers to Alaska to vet Palin. Maybe that would have been a good idea before she was picked?

http://content.vetpalin.com/index.html

A significant proportion of the Republican support comes from the evangelical christian right and I doubt this goes down well with many of these.

From the moment McCain announced Palin as his running mate the Republican commentators have moved into "desperate" mode. They were, of course, first thrown by the decision. Then they found themselves on the other side of the inexperience debate arguing ludicrously that 18 months as Governor of Alaska and a few years as mayor of a village of 9000 folks was ideal preparation for VP and possible CinC of the largest super-power in the world. Now you're telling me that the religious right are not troubled by an unmarried, pregnant teenager?

It shouldn't matter - but it will.

Really? ask your preacher on Sunday if he'd agree with that. then when you get his answer (probably got the sex right based on odds), go check out the evangelical websites you can find and see what they think. Find me a quote, something that backs up Mr. Molson as not being astray from the Evangelical platform she espouses and has been chosen as candidate to embolden the base.

You wanna know what good could come out of what you said? If the evangelical camps come to her support and in turn have to start to see the light when it comes to sex education and their abstinence only platform which has statistically been proven not to work. So there could be some silver lining to this aside from her bringing a child into the world, which is usually always a blessing.

This is hilarious after watching a McCain talking head get skewered on CNN today spouting this same rhetoric which is a lie:


The takling head, BTW, continued this line of thinking tonight so it would seem they will continue, in Cheney like vigor, to repeat this lie until most of America believes it before he'll bury an apology somewhere in some paper.

The vet Palin site above is pretty funny, plus it sites it's sources:

I don't think the daughter's pregnancy is going to be too big of a deal. It is kind of eye-opening because the message of abstinence is a pretty big talking point from the far right, but at the end of the day it doesn't really reflect on McCain and it isn't going to sway any of the people that consider teaching abstinence a key issue to switch over to Obama (although I think a small number may choose to sit the election out).

That said, even the folks that were most excited about Palin's announcement have to be wondering, "what's next?" The trooper stuff, the overall bizareness of the pregnancy stuff (the ridiculous speculation about her own son shortly followed by the announcement about her daughter), her prior involvement in an organization that wants Alaska to hold a vote on seceding from the United States, and the overall feeling that McCain picked her "sight unseen" (based on the fact that a team of republican lawyers are in currently in Alaska and now seem to be vetting her) is a lot to consume in one weekend news cycle.

I think the thing to watch will be how long the cronyism stuff and the Alaska Independence Party (who the hell even knew that this group existed?) stuff occupy news coverage, as those issues could throw the McCain campaign's message off for several days if/while they have to answer questions about them. Two of the issues that McCain has (and his surrogates have) been effectively hammering Obama on are experience and patriotism, and it looks like Palin may be pretty vulnerable in those two areas.

I love how all the left-leaning folks are concerned on how the religious right will feel. As far as I can see, most have come out support of Palin because she convinced her daughter to keep the baby, get married and is setting up a solid support structure for her.

Plus, all it takes to get the Christian right back and motivated to support the McCain-Palin ticket is to bring back out this March 29 quote from Obama:

Settle down.

Ask Obama's preacher - I bet he's against pre-marital sex. Same with Clinton's, and pretty much anyone who has ever went to church. It doesn't mean any of them think that that particular "sin" is worse than any other, (sins that we all commit, as far as I understand Christianity), and its certainly not a sin that disqualifies one from employment.

I'm not a practicing Christian, but this particular talking point is a little odd from liberals. Yes, some Conservatives preach values. That doesn't mean that they claim to be perfect themselves, far from it. Sin and redemption and salvation are actually pretty big themes with the whole church thing.

And as Arles said, why are you trying to make a point about how conservatives feel? You're criticizing the VP pick because the Republican base won't like her? What a weird criticism from a liberal, especially since it seems as though (most) conservatives are just fine with this pick.

My "preacher" is also my father, and I've never, ever, heard him state any opinion on pre-marital sex either at home or in a sermon. Of course, I'm sure he's voting for Obama anyway. That's right, some Christians have actually infected your party. Be afraid!

Hey Republicans, any of that money you are asking people to donate to hurricane relief go to places outside of areas effected by Gustav? Say, places effected by Dolly, which was the same strength? We still have problems, we still have people without homes, we still have areas still flooded, we still have businesses suffering a crap load. I guess we are not a hot button political topic though, so no big deal......... ;)

Um, he's pro-choice...that's not a hypocritical statement but I see youre point, the right, religious right, will agree with you...perhaps. However, the rumblings have begun, even on the floor of the RNC convention to the point that it would seem McCain is doing a reveting (sp?)....not good to have the pres. candidate need to have the handlers revet someone after his decision although he did say he likes to make impulsive decisions and deal with the consequences later.

In fairness to our portside posters, that would seem like the point most open for reasonable discussion, since that's where the most obvious impact would be likely be found.

Hell, I'm somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan & if this doesn't hurt her credibility with the religious right wing of the party then I'll be stunned. (and I'll also find myself further out of synch with them than I've ever been)

edit to add: The other thing that doesn't seem to be considered much here at this point is how this plays at the street level instead of the talking head "leadership". It's not going to sit well at all with the converted ex-Dems in the deep South, I'd bet my bottom dollar on that.

I asked how they felt when she was originally picked and it was legitimate...now it's not because some of the luster's off the rose? Ive been analyzing this race from all aspects since many many pages ago and will continue...this is just the newest chapter. Most conservatives may still be but supporters but rumblings have begun today and McCain's camp is now reveting her...I'd say thats a pretty big rumble. PLUS, some in this very thread have gotten a little bit less vocal in their support over her so it is not unfair to speculate that we're simply a sample of a bigger examination.

...AND LOOK, if Jon and I agree than I know IM RIGHT :)

Your missing the point and repeating the error being made by Republican commentators.

No liberal thinks this is a problem for them. They won't use it in any way and let the Republicans do whatever damage is done themselves. Because McCain already appeals to many Republicans and Palin is brought in to spread that appeal out to the right . Which is precisely the group that does think this a problem.

This undermines her appeal to the very group she's intended to pull in! That's why it's important.

McCain simply doesn't seem to have thought this thing through which is a criticism of him generally. His decision making seems to be reckless and ill-thought out and this is beginning to look like a good example.

As a a left-leaning folk, I could care less how the religious right feels about anything. But I completely expected them to come out stronger for Palin because as much as the Right loves to say the left is a bunch of elitist hypocrites, the Religious Right wrote the book on that. It's do as I say, not as I do. If Chelsea Clinton were knocked up at 17, you think the Religious Right would have embraced that?

That vetting site is very informative.

McCain also needs to win a majority of independents/moderates or hope that his GOTV campaign is far superior to Obama's -- and right now Obama has a tremendous advantage is field offices in swing states.

Regardless of the baby stuff and how it plays, is it (along with the trooper stuff, the inexperience, and the other assorted items that have appeared) really what you want McCain to be talking about this week, as he tries to use the convention to reach out beyond the GOP (who are all voting for him already)?

That's no sure thing if he keeps shooting himself in the foot like this. Another week or so like the past few days & I'm going to end up back in the position I was in when it was looking like McCain vs Hillary ... not giving a damn which one won.

I think this is a hugely understated part of this whole Palin-choice to-date, and perhaps one of the most worrisome aspects of it.

What if god-forbid McCain pulled out a win and got elected. Would he start bombing foreign countries left and right based on his "maverick" decisions and then deal with the consequences when he was shown to be wrong later?

:lol: (I lol'd)

SI

Good point -- I was more referring to the decideds/diehards that will vote for him regardless of circumstances. I've never gotten the feeling that you were an enthusiastic McCain voter, but rather holding your nose and leaning towards him.

Can we call today "Get -it-all-out Monday"? Now David Brody of CBN is reporting that the Palin camp told him her husband once had a DUI. Not that big of an issue, but that means the pregnancy, the lawyers and the DUI all got released today.

Was anything happening today that might have blunted the impact of these stories?

I think there was a storm somewhere or something...not quite sure though

eh, DUI shme-ooo-eye....from what I heard it was a long time ago and sometimes people make mistakes....I mean Alberto Gonzalez pulled a Richard Armitage and Im not sure that that was a huge deal. I mean he didnt take the paper's home and burn them, I'd think.

Yes, this is the way it will impact on McCain the most - it will bring into question his judgment and confirm for some that there's a dangerous aspect to it.

I've found that the more you think about Palin and this choice the more unappealing it becomes. I began by thinking it a brilliant choice. It took the media away from the last day of the Democrats convention and Palin's "glass ceiling" speech indicated they were after the disaffected Clinton women voters. She expanded McCain's appeal to the right. She brought youth to the platform.

But it all quickly began to unravel. Immediately the video of Palin with an automatic rifle didn't strike me as appealing to those women who voted for Clinton and learning of her pro-life, anti-gun control, climate change scepticism, support for drilling in ANWR etc positions then I thought any woman that could vote for both Clinton and Plain needs to be put into care for her own good.

No way was she going to get a significant number of Clinton voters.

Then I learned of her "experience". There goes the strongest card McCain has over Obama - his inexperience.

All that's left is her appeal to the right of the party that has a problem with McCain moderation. And now that comes into question because that is precisely the group that will have a problem with her daughter's condition whether we think it's a problem or not.

Now, presumably, McCain knew all this or is he really having to vet her now? What does either situation say about his preparation and judgment?

Yeah, I think this is the "clear the air" day for Palin. Outside of the trooper story, I don't see any lasting past this week. We'll have to see how this all plays out but the only people that seem "upset" or worried are people who either didn't support Palin or had luke-warm support to begin with (because they wanted someone else). And, let's be honest, those people weren't going to be impacted by her inclusion anyway.

Another thing to remember is that the religious right hates to see the left-leaning democrats proven right, so they will probably be even more supportive of Palin - if only to keep the other side from being right (a little sad, but true).

In the end, I think this election is becoming very fascinating. You have the high of Palin being named for the right, the "data dump" over this weekend on her dirt, the hurricane completely upstaging the republican convention (as it should) - and no one still knows what the impact of all this will be.

"dangerous aspect to it" is certainly right. I might argue that that is even understating it a bit, but that's just me.

finally something we can agree on...that and the troopergate having legs.

Im seeing some other stuff that, in the right campaign ad, could be impactful (ie. the picture of the town hall being equal to executive" experience [I love Obama's statement that he has 2500 employees now vs. her 50 and triple the budget...in a month) but we'll see. I hope we dont see as much personal mudslinging this year from 527's but Im a dreamer. I hate 527's...they can lie and get away with it.

Obama largely shut down the Dems 527s which was either noble or stupid depending on whether he wins.

well that's a good thing in my view....I hope the Rove group(s) are gone too.

Not so much.

Ouch, Alan Colmes (of Hannity and Colmes fame) posted a blog on Saturday entitled "Did Palin Take Proper Pre-Natal Care?" where he basically accused Palin of being responsible for the baby's down syndrome by traveling. Not only was this idea completed debunked by the science of downs syndrome (this isn't some "cause" that pops up in the 7th month), but it caused a bit of a firestorm among the right-leaning blogs. It got so bad that Colmes has now pulled the column from his site (you get an error when referencing its link).

IMO, acts like these completely undo any damage this story may have done in regards to Palin and the social right wing. It's like the old family adage where you can criticize your brother but if someone else does it you rush to their defense. I think the right wing will be in complete "Palin defense" mode for the next 2 weeks and the more stories like these (or anything on the trooper or daughter) will continue to rally the base better than any speech McCain or Palin can give.

I think youre biased.

That blog by Colmes is just as stupid as the one that the baby was actually Bristol's in the first place but this one youre going to hang your hat on as having some sort of merit to justify Palin's defense from it's ridiculous attack? C'mon Arles. It's stupid, but will it be the blow to heat up the fire, doubt it and Ive been right so far.

BTW, this quote of Palin's is interesting to me:


um, no...youre against the right to choose.

This post kind of illustrates the point I have been trying to get at. Are you really hoping and/or banking on McCain's campaign making gains because people will feel sorry for Palin for how the media is treating her? Because she is such a newcomer on the national scene, people are interested in her and want to learn about her biographical information, but the stuff that has come out in the first 72 hours of her nomination has been more tabloidish in nature.

Hoping for someone like Alan Colmes (who most non-Fox watchers know very little about) to make this a Democrat vs Republican story and add an evil Democratic bully into the equation rather recognizing that this weekend was all about Gov. Palin, is a pretty pathetic election strategy (whether it works or not).

Everyone in this thread is biased. If they weren't interested in seeing one side win (or lose), they wouldn't be reading.

You're missing the point. Politics is now more about which side "wins" than the actual results in the White House. IMO, nothing will change on Iraq, health care, education, social security or energy policy in the first 4 years of McCain vs Obama. The only real differences will be some minor tax bill changes, a ton of rhetoric and maybe a supreme court nominee.

It was one of the reasons I was fairly ambivalent towards this race until the Palin nomination. I've followed her for a while and like having a smart, competant, young person moved to the top in politics. It's the same reason I was interested in Obama when he first came up and it's why I like Jindal for the future as well. So, my interest here is seeing her get a fair shake - but I won't be heartbroken if McCain-Palin loses.

Still, for most, politics now is more about their side winning than actual policies being enacted once the presidency begins. So, when "red meat" like the Daily Koz blog or Colmes' story pop up over the weekend, it becomes motivating material for fund-raising and increasing volunteers for the right. It's the "Karl Rove" model of whipping the base into a frenzy based on fringe reports and increasing the GOP turnout. The left is doing the same thing with groups like Moveon.org and Howard Dean is trying to match Rove with the same model.

Again, I'm not saying it's fair or right or even something to be proud of. But this presidential race is more about "my guy winning" than understanding what your guy will do (or is able to do) should he win.

All these Palin stories will do is motivate the left to do a "see I told you so" and the right to defend their guys. The only things that will impact people who can actually be swayed won't happen until October when those people start actually paying attention to politics (ie, the debates). And, at that point, the likability/trust/confidence for the candidates will be the main factor in whether they get those votes. Unless something truly crazy comes out (ie, the father of Palin's child is her preacher - you heard it here first!) - all the banter between now and the debates does is rile up those who have already made up their minds. Those who haven't don't care much about this stuff until they actually have to make a decision (something in Oct-Nov in many cases).

So, all these daily tracking polls and punditry feed the political junkies, but what will really count is how people view Palin and McCain when they make their speeches in the convention and handle the debates (same for Obama-Biden). That's when real changes in voting will happen and that small "middle" will finally jump on one ship for November.

the part where many people dont care usually is true unless we touch on one of those easy headline type things that make it easy for the average joe to grab a tiny bit of info and suppose the rest, so a headline about a out of wedlock underage pregnancy for the religious right portion of the ticket is going totrun some people one way or the other. I'd bet the evangelical base are scratching their heads right now BUT they may be figuring out a strategic way to turn this....the churches are more strategic these days than ever.

Not since it came out that the kid is going to have the child and marry the father. The evangelicals LOVE this sort of end result coming from a teen pregnancy.

You are a bit of a prophet here. There's already a few blogs on the right spinning this as "well, atleast Palin didn't have her daughter get an abortion and she is getting married soon". Then, the blogs (Michelle Malkin for one) go on to reference how Obama stated the above quote back in March and would have just had her daughter abort the baby. While extremely unfair, IMO, it seems to be working with the Christian right (some preachers have also come out in support of Palin).

As I said above, both sides are too vested in their guys at this point. Short of an Edwards-type bombshell, the religious right has hitched it's train on McCain-Palin for better or worse until the election.

IF they, the McCain supporters start comparing Obama's quote to this situation in the Palin family then doesnt that make it all fair game? I hope they dont but Malkin (who is nutso) and the other right wingers and left who are so reckless in their statements bring all of this to the front pages I think it will do more harm than good for Palin's possible grab for the middle voter.

Except they keep saying 'choice' when theyre against the 'choice' to begin with....maybe im missing something.

I presume it's a rhetorical choice - but yeah it is a pretty douchey choice of words

This is a great great point, JP. I heard talk radio hosts that I like and listen to regularly calling Jamie Lynn a slut and her mom all kinds of unpleasant things. Granted, a lot of that was in light of the train wreck that Britney turned into, but still.

You are absolutely right that it'll be difficult (they'll do it, but still) for them to spin this as "kids will be kids" after excoriating the Spears situation.

that's funny.

well condoms suck, y'know.

Actually, this is one of the things I (sometimes) respect about many of our posters here - the ability to see things (not usually agree with but at least see) from the other side.

I am pretty far to the conservative side in most issues, to the point that it sometimes boggles my mind that larry or ISiddiqui or Flasch or whomever can have certain opinions about things. But, even in political threads like this one, there are several examples of posters "reaching across the aisle" to chatise excesses by some of the more extreme (read: trolling) comments, on both sides of the issue.

Just sayin.

Ahh dammit, stop sayin shit I agree with, larry! Yer makin me doubt my party affiliation!

That's funny, isn't Biden Catholic?

not all catholics are against birth control you know...

Fixed for my situation.

McCain 48%, Obama 23%.

See, its hard for me to communicate this here, but I consider myself a lapsed GOP'er - I consider the Economist the closest thing I have to a political (or any other) bible, and its pretty hard to classify that as a liberal in anything other than the "classical sense".

I'm very, strongly socially liberal, but that's almost certainly an age thing - I'm fairly convinced that on issues like gay marriage, we have an age gap - young conservatives would probably poll better on this to 50-60 year+ blue-collar Democrats. Bluntly, that means as the old die, their prejudices will die with them - I'm fairly convinced that the war is over, but the battles will play out over the next 20-25 years. The trendline only points one way. 'I do react strongly to what I perceive as racism - whether its from the idiots that make up the Congressional Black Caucus, but I have a very strong reaction to old Dixiecrat types who seem to be yearning for the Confederacy, which is why I dislike the likes of SFL Cat.

The popular axiom amongst people my age seems to be fiscally conservative, socially liberal - I think I fall into that, but I'm genuinely fiscally conservative (I want to partially privatize social Security, and I'd like to cut the marginal tax rate) - but its hard to justify supporting the GOP on that, when they spend like sailors but refuse to pay for it (I'd venture most Americans, at heart support public spending - even hard core GOP types) when they take stances on social issues that appeal to Evangelical wing but drive some of us (and again, I have no doubt the evangelical are a more substantial block) nuts - this isn't the party of the individual anymore. Its views on things like creationism in schools or opposing the science of global warming (I was a big Bjorn Lomborg fan back in the day, but one of the advantages of being logic-based is that you accept when you're proven wrong) just suggest burying one's neck in the sand - a party that has decided to make itself into a Southern party instead of a national one.

Of the top of my head, I'd venture that the GOP has more seats in the House from the South than it does in the rest of the country combined (the Senate is a different story), but I may be off on that.

Dola,
I remember an article a while back arguing the GOP had become the "populist" party - I think we had a debate about that. Populism has its virtues, but as a governing philosophy, its an awfully dangerous one (which is why some of Obama talk on the "rich" is more than a little scary, and which I'm thrilled John Edwards will never be seen on the political scene again).

You're not taking your analysis far enough, Arles.

What you have here is a "defence of our own" reaction. Here is easily the most right wing politician of the four, the one that appeals to the religious right more than any other candidate, and she's under attack. That it's because of some situation that is unappealing to them doesn't matter at this stage. They're going to defend their own from the rabble who they believe have no right to criticise her - as the song goes "He may be a fool, but he's our fool". Only they have the right to criticise her.

But, as you've also said, this thing doesn't have legs. 80% or more of the American people couldn't give a damn about her daughter and the Obama camp won't touch it. It'll be gone as an issue for them within a week.

But as the attacks go so will the "defence of our own" mentality. By the time of the election the only people who will believe that this has any bearing on her suitability are those who are currently defending her. And it will be a negative influence because "family values", morality whatever you want to call it, is very important to these people and this offends it. It is then when its negative aspect really kicks in.

Her appeal has been diminished by this in the eyes of those she is intended to please.


It's not about switching sides. They are still capable of staying away from the election booth and that is the way in which her diminished appeal will affect the vote.

At this moment in time they will defend her publicly but condemn her privately but that will change when the attacks cease.

Eh. It'll make them feel better about the situation and ignore the blantant hypocrisy in how they'll judge her. I don't think any "love" this situation at all, but we'll happy that this is the "best" outcome.

I am in the camp with everyone who says this actually helps her with the RR. Not that it is somehow good it happened, but that they will rally around one of their own win attacked and make them even stronger in her defense.

Possibily. But I think you underestimate how much motivation having her on the ticket will move some of the RR. They were very ho-hum in their support for McCain, but now they have one of their own who is on the ticket. I think this still ends up being a win in that camp as more voters who might have stayed home will come and vote for this ticket. Will it be enough to overcome those independents who will be turned off by her extreme views?

The Alaska Independence Party membership has the potential to be a bigger story than anything else. She belonged to a party who's founder said,

"
If the AIP stuff can crack through all the other stories it could really sink McCain IMO.

The only thing that upsets me with Arles's arguments, is the fact he isn't coding BBPF while he is making them.

Everyone please stop responding to Arles's posts so he will grow bored and start coding on his game.

That would be the best thing that democrats and republicans could do together.

Maybe that's why she left the party?

But why did she join the party? Their position hasn't evolved. They've always been aiming for secession. I'm genuinely curious to hear her answer on this.

Just like Obama left Jeremiah Wright's church. If were not going to hold her accountable for the organization she was a member of before she walked away due to a disagreement in philosophy than Obama gets the same pass for leaving the church under a disagreement of philosophy. Just being fair, Arles....I hope you want to be fair and not just spin.

I can actually see her joining the party if they are campaigning for an end to the corruption by the Republican machine. If you see the Party that you like inundated with uber-corrupt people throughout, I can see looking for alternatives that promise otherwise.

It is kind of why, say, the military in Pakistan has such power. People generally like democracy there, but HATE the corruption inherant in both major political parties. The military always says they are taking over due to corruption and the people always welcome it at the time.

The sad thing is what's getting the most play is the daughter and not the corruption investigation or the political party membership.

The latter is particularly interesting since their slogan is "America First".

That might make sense if the timeline were different. She was a member of the AIP from some point in the nineties until she ran for mayor when she switched to the Republican party.

Heh, the AIP motto is "Alaska First, Alaska Always".

Sarah Palin: Putting America First Since 1996

How does that contradict what I said? Do you know how long Stevens and Murkowski were in power?

She was a member of the Alaskan Independent Party between ages 28 and 31. At age 32, she joined the republican party. She also never made any statements in support of that aspect of their platform. Given she didn't have support of the republican machine early on, I don't know that she had a choice (outside of running as an independent) to win. Combine that with the fact she did this in her late 20s, I'm not sure how much it sticks. Compared with what W, Biden and even Obama did in their late 20s, I'm not sure this is a major issue for most.

If Obama would have left his church at age 32, this wouldn't have been much of an issue. The fact that you compare affiliations by Palin at age 29 with Obama at age 47 shows a significant amount of "spin" on your side.

The bolded part makes no sense. I'm not sure you have the timeline right. She did in fact run for Governor as a Republican, and was endorsed by Ted Stevens. Her AIP membership was when she was on the Wasilla city council. She became a Republican in 1996 when she ran for Mayor, ran for Lt. Governor in 2002 as a Republican (losing in the primary), and then beating Murkowski in the 2006 Republican primary.

Well, because the AIP is about infiltrating mainstream parties, it does not strike me as inconsistent that she could be a member of both--even if the AIP membership is now under the radar. Isn't that the point of infiltrating, really?

And what is wrong with that? She wants Alaska to be independent. So what? She'll still have to take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution if she is elected and sworn in as Vice President. I lived for a year in Alaska. The fact that this group apparently wants to use legal means (and not armed rebellion) to achieve independence makes them pretty mainstream as far as Alaskafirsters go. She also wants abortion to be illegal. That violates the Constitution as it is currently understood. She wants to work within the system to change it to make it more to her liking. So does every President/Vice President.

On a related note, I agree with whomever said that she will help get voters to the polls. Dove hunting season started in North Carolina this weekend, and the big hunting/fishing guy in my office went with all his friends. And he said that all the talk was about McCain/Palin, and the universal sentiment was "I hope that they win and that he dies right after taking office."

Small sample size and all that. But if that was the talk in hunting groups across the country this weekend, then it is all good news for McCain.

Well... up until they win ;).

LOL

I was simply refuting the idea that she joined AIP because she couldn't win office within the GOP. She obviously could do that, and joined the GOP as soon as she was ready to move beyond the city council.

link - Philly Daily News.com


text highlighted by me

You gentleman may start flinging around the "R" word any time you're ready.

This is a bit of an off-topic diversion, but I realized today that when I mentally picture McCain, I am actually picturing Colonel Tigh from Battlestar Gallactica. You may now resume your bickering, already in progress.

I am speechless :banghead:

LOL at "And I expect him to keep his word."

dirty sinner having unprotected premarital sex

retarded.

Yeah, some Catholics think outside of the box that the church tells them too.

If this is true, I'd like to know what context this was in. Are any of the reputable media reporting this with some knowledge of it's history and rationale or is this more blogosphere stuff?

If it is true and it was for no good reason (or good enough reason) that's just creepy and won't help McCain/Palin one bit. It won't get me to change my vote the guy that likes when people say God Damn America, but it will make my wavering loyalty to McCain...um...waver more.

Agreed. That is ... just odd.

I don't get it.:confused:

You're not alone.

But in that case, you're at odds with the church, which is something you need to answer to eventually.

As a Roman Catholic, I agree the dogma of the Church. However, I disagree with some of the other issues. However, you have to admit that you are in error if that is the case, and could be sinning.

In regards to abortion, it is considered murder by the Church. The Church believes that birth begins at conception. So Biden is essentially for the murder of children in the eyes of the Church. Now, if Biden really wanted to embrace Church doctrine, but leave it up to people to choose, he could vote for abortion, but then work at anti-abortion facilities. Heck, I am a good example, I do not necessarily think that abortion should be illegal (I would prefer it to be, but it is not an overriding concern for me), but I will rail against the practice any chance I get.

That is the problem that Biden has. He is all for choice, but with no opposite side to balance him out. So Biden is essentially all for committing a cardinal sin. That is why the Church is speaking out. Especially because he is pointing out that he is an Irish Catholic, etc., etc.

Hopefully McCain doesn't drink as much as Tigh. And isn't a Cylon.

Actually, I'm starting to think McCain's advisors must be hardcore Galactica fans...





The reason for selecting Palin becomes obvious, now.

Yep. They're both religious nuts! ;)

You are so correct, its much better to vote for the person who likes when people are anti-gay, anti-catholic and think that God sent Hitler to kill Jewish people.

If you want to take things out of context it goes both ways !

The problem with the church though is what they believe today may not be what they believe tomorrow... The church changes to appease the people.