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.