McCain's VP

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

You're forgetting that McCain held command rank in the Air Force.

He was Navy, actually...and given that HIS was the plane hit by the errant missile on the deck of the Forrestal....and then gets shot down and horrifically injured after flying off the Oriskany (which, ironically, ALSO has a bad in-board fire before Forrestal), it's a wonder he survived the war in the first place.

It was the extent of his injuries that kept him from a sea command.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

I honestly believe many Democrats attend church for the sole purpose of keeping enough cred to win over some of these middle voters, as a self-professed atheist would not do well in any but the most liberal districts.

Just for comparison, the opposite is true where I live. We have proportional parliamentarism, which gives more voice to minor viewpoints compared to the First-Past-The-Post system used in USA. Had we used the FPTP system, overtly christian politicians would have been wiped out. As it is now, they - as a party - barely clear the 4% hurdle, which gives them a few seats in parliament.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

I sit corrected.

[Neinteen]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I sit corrected.

WTF OWNT!

yeah.

[Inquartata]

As usual, no one over the age of 12 knows what the devil you're talking about...

[lindajdunn]

Because this posting was made when keyboard was in motion before putting brain into gear, I'm removing it.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

Hopefully, some national reporter will pick up where the local news have left off with insinuations and induendos and either confirm or refute the story.

Of course, IDEALLY, someone would realize that this has nothing to do with the election and everyone would drop it.

But with 24 hours of news to fill and an election to win, I don't see that happening.

[lindajdunn]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Of course, IDEALLY, someone would realize that this has nothing to do with the election and everyone would drop it.

But with 24 hours of news to fill and an election to win, I don't see that happening.

I didn't think John Edwards' sex life had anything to do with politics but it appears to have killed his political career.


I think it's a matter of characters and lying about family matters, lying about having an affair, etc. indicates that... well... one lies.

Given that all politicians lie, I'm uncertain why some lies bear more weight than others, but that's the way it works.

Bill Clinton didn't take much of a hit for Monica compared to the hit John Edwards is taking for his indiscretion. [Does anyone care if this is/is not his child?] And for some odd reason, Elizabeth Edward is being hammered for not calling a news conference once she learned of the affair.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Like most religions, Pentecostals have extreme and moderate factions...and the snake-biters are on the far extreme of the bunch. Unless you get some videos of her doing it, I don't it'll matter much. Not as much as seeing Obama listen to racially charged hate sermons for 20 years.

Have you actually listened to the full context of some of the sermons? I don't mean the sentence or two before and after the really horrible sounding quotes, I mean the whole damn sermons? I thought it was really dumb of Obama to associate with the guy after hearing just the immediate context myself. After listening to the entire sermon, I thought that it was pretty interesting stuff, and made some good points. I made my dad listen to it, and he went from "that guy's a whack job" to "that guy's pretty cool"......

Which is not to convince you that Obama's pastor was completely clean.... But it should be a good indicator that even if Palin's religious beliefs are tame compared to the people she worships with, it doesn't matter. All that matters is what there's proof of her pastor saying out of context a couple times to the nuttier members of the congregation.

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

Which is not to convince you that Obama's pastor was completely clean.... But it should be a good indicator that even if Palin's religious beliefs are tame compared to the people she worships with, it doesn't matter. All that matters is what there's proof of her pastor saying out of context a couple times to the nuttier members of the congregation.

You're drawing the wrong conclusion here. Obama was part of a specific congregation that, correctly or incorrectly, many people believe is rather extreme...not in terms of specific religious beliefs, but rather professed political ideology.

Palin, on the other hand, attended a non-denominational Christian Church in Alaska. Even if her personal beliefs are of the extreme, snake-biter variety (which there is no evidence, not even an out of context quote, to support), we'll never know, because she'd never tell and her Church wasn't that extreme (and no one bothered to video tape it). Besides, your accusing her of being extremist not because of a specific congregation, but an entire branch of Christianity. Yes, some Pentecostals have snake biters and faith healings, but many others are fairly tame/regular services.

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

I think it's a matter of characters and lying about family matters, lying about having an affair, etc. indicates that... well... one lies.

Given that all politicians lie, I'm uncertain why some lies bear more weight than others, but that's the way it works.

I actually don't mind journalists investigating Palin's past to look into this story...what IS a problem is airing it now when there's absolutely nothing to support it. I mean, I'm glad it's happening, as it will only disgust people with the media and help Palin in the end, but it's bad business. Politicians don't get to have very private lives, because how they chose to handle situations is their trade, and finding out how they handle personal situations is more revealing than anything public.

As for Edwards, it's a big deal with many voters for the same reason any infidelity is...it shows dishonesty. It wouldn't be a big deal if he were in an open relationship (although announcing that would be pretty big news...). That, and the possibility that he was using campaign funds to house his baby-mama, or have a political donor do it for him...does that place him in a compromising position for blackmailing? Lots of Secondary effects possible with the Edwards case. Cheating on a dying spouse? Shows his "compassion" more than his speeches.

If the Palin thing turns out to be true, it will hurt her/McCain in the polls, but not as much. I still can't believe it, as some photos of her during the time are already floating around (fat suit?), but the deception in this case would not be viewed nearly as negatively as the Edwards case, because the motivation and purpose behind it is completely different.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


I do not know what to do of this pregnancy issue, but it appear to me that that there are two possibilities that are much more likely than the others:

1. Sarah Palin is indeed the mother of that infant. In that case, she boarded a plane while in at least pre-labor. Even if that was OK with the airline (in which case the airline should tighten up its regulations) she still put her kid at a risk. She might have expected that the plane would do an emergency rerouting so that she could deliver at a hospital, but that - even if it is perfectly medically safe - would delay the paid-for trip for a planeload of other people, who had other plans.

And what for? It is not so that major cities in Texas lack maternity wards. Nobody that I have read has claimed that there were pressing matters of state that necessitated her presence in Alaska immediately. If there would have been such matters, then A) the Lieutenant Governor should step in for the time being, B)in the incapacity of the L.Gov. she should not have left Alaska in the first place. One thing that I wonder about: When did she leave Alaska for Texas? Unless it was a surprisingly long trip, it would have been during her 3rd trimester also. Two ill-advised (one presumes) flights, not just one.

2. Sarah Palin is the maternal grandmother of the child, but has claimed it as her own. This would be, one presumes, to spare her daughter from the shame of an unwed teen motherhood. In so doing, she lied to her fellow alaskans about her own nonexistent pregnancy, lied to school about her daughters (who is at an age where schooling is mandatory) reason for being away from school, and hoped that everyone would fall for it.

I do personally not like to be taken for a doddering fool that is so gullible.

I do know which one of the scenarios which is believe more in. The Down´s syndrome reports suggests #1, while the lack of pictures of Sarah Palin showing her to unequivocally pregnant during the last month suggests #2. I find all that other scenarios that I have read on the web completely fanciful.

Either way, the conclusions are not appealing. Either she does not give one whit about the other people in the plane, or she thinks that she can get away with lying. I am perfectly aware that lying is endemic among politicians, but that should not stop us voters from censuring those who get caught. Most of them do it better than she did, if scenario #2 is correct.

Furthermore, there would have been better to handle the situation, nonwithstanding which scenario is correct. If she was pregnant, she should have told the organizers of the Texas event: "I am about 8 months pregnant, and I should not be flying right now. I would be very happy to visit your event next year." More complex issues could be handled by conference calls. If it was the daughter that was pregnant, then she could have arranged for home-schooling her daughter (don´t tell me that a governor can not pull some strings to get the homeschooling application fixed pronto) and then dealt with the situation in the way that parents of pregnant teenage girls usually do. No need for any deception.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Nolano]

Picking Sarah Palin as VP seems kinda sexist to me.

I honestly think that there's no way she would have been picked if she weren't a woman.

[CadetVet]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

You're drawing the wrong conclusion here. Obama was part of a specific congregation that, correctly or incorrectly, many people believe is rather extreme...not in terms of specific religious beliefs, but rather professed political ideology.

Palin, on the other hand, attended a non-denominational Christian Church in Alaska. Even if her personal beliefs are of the extreme, snake-biter variety (which there is no evidence, not even an out of context quote, to support), we'll never know, because she'd never tell and her Church wasn't that extreme (and no one bothered to video tape it). Besides, your accusing her of being extremist not because of a specific congregation, but an entire branch of Christianity. Yes, some Pentecostals have snake biters and faith healings, but many others are fairly tame/regular services.

Funny, in a country where nearly every Muslim is greeted with suspicion, it is somehow wrong to question the judgment of someone who belongs to nearly the most fundamentalist wing of Christianity. At the end of the day, a moderate Pentacostal is pretty extreme - and a snake-biter is a lot more extreme. These denominations exist to serve specific interests and points of view, and the Pentacostal one certainly isn't in the middle (at least from my perspective).

Certainly, if we wanted to be a little more nuanced about it, we could probably draw distinctions that may (or may not) make Ms. Palin more palatable. I just ask that if we're going to actually seek to employ a "reason filter" in analyzing extreme Christianity, we should do the same with Islam and Judiasm, etc., and recognize that there is no such thing as "all Muslims," all Jews," or "all Christians" - but a variety of points of view in each from the dangerously radical to the reasonably normal.

[CadetVet]

Folks...

I keep hoping that I wake up and find out that Sarah Palin was really Michael Palin in drag. If that were the case, I'd actually applaud the judgment of McCain - what this country needs is someone smart enough to recognize that "No One Expects the Spanish Inquisition."

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

I do know which one of the scenarios which is believe more in. The Down´s syndrome reports suggests #1,

Are you implying her son got Down's Syndrome from flying? That's not really how it works....

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

while the lack of pictures of Sarah Palin showing her to unequivocally pregnant during the last month suggests #2.

"Unequivocal"? There are pictures of her wearing clothing where she looks pregnant, but if that's not unequivocal enough for you, I doubt we'll find any nude versions.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

I find all that other scenarios that I have read on the web completely fanciful.

Lol. Really, is the "incestuous relationship" theory that much more outlandish (or less supported by evidence) than the other allegation?

While admittedly no expert, a quick scan of medical sites makes it appear that flying later in pregnancy isn't really dangerous, just makes it possible to give birth on the plane, which is obviously something everyone wants to avoid. At the time of Palin's flight, she wasn't in labor, but was concerned about water-breaking or some other type of fluid leak (depends on what account you read). Not really a huge deal...she had a special needs/concerns pregnancy and wanted to get the advice of her long term physician. I don't see the big deal.

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by CadetVet

At the end of the day, a moderate Pentacostal is pretty extreme - and a snake-biter is a lot more extreme. These denominations exist to serve specific interests and points of view, and the Pentacostal one certainly isn't in the middle (at least from my perspective).

Interestingly enough, my wife was Pentecostal when I married her, and I went to church with her a few times to see what they did (and score points with the parents). Sure, as opposed to my Catholic upbringing, they were a little different (had a band (drum, guitar, bass), more "preaching" instead of a sermon), but nothing crazy. Again, the fact that she went to a non-denominational Christian church moderates the fact even more.

Originally Posted by CadetVet

I just ask that if we're going to actually seek to employ a "reason filter" in analyzing extreme Christianity, we should do the same with Islam and Judiasm, etc., and recognize that there is no such thing as "all Muslims," all Jews," or "all Christians"

How's the saying go? "The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step"? The only person perpetuating stereotypes based on religion here is you. I'll denounce stereotyping of others when I see it, so let's not use other people's bigotry as an excuse for our own conduct.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Are you implying her son got Down's Syndrome from flying? That's not really how it works....

No, I was referring to the fact the incidence of Down´s Syndrome increases with maternal age, which would suggest - but not prove - the 44-year old Sarah rather than her teen aged daughter.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

"Unequivocal"? There are pictures of her wearing clothing where she looks pregnant, but if that's not unequivocal enough for you, I doubt we'll find any nude versions.

I have so far seen (there are quite possibly pictures that I so far have not seen) pictures of her which look like could-be-preg/could-be-fat version. In none of them, she looks like any late 3rd trimester woman that I have seen IRL. My wife was much bigger than that when she was early 3rd trimester! Not saying that the pictures prove that Sarah was not pregnant, just that they don´t look like anything close to proof to me. Anyway, if Sarah Palin was pregnant and wants to put the whole discussion to rest -while making her detractors look like fools - she simply has to come forward with her medical records. Medical records have been asked for of previous VP candidates (Cheney, IIRC) so it would not be special treatment.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Really, is the "incestuous relationship" theory that much more outlandish (or less supported by evidence) than the other allegation?

I consider all allegations/scenarios/explanations other than those two I outlined in my previous post completely outlandish. YMMV.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

While admittedly no expert, a quick scan of medical sites makes it appear that flying later in pregnancy isn't really dangerous, just makes it possible to give birth on the plane, which is obviously something everyone wants to avoid. At the time of Palin's flight, she wasn't in labor, but was concerned about water-breaking or some other type of fluid leak (depends on what account you read). Not really a huge deal...she had a special needs/concerns pregnancy and wanted to get the advice of her long term physician. I don't see the big deal.

Not a OB/GYN here either. That said:
1. Another site claimed that she had reported that the water had already broken when she boarded the plane.
2. The plane ride was scheduled for 8 hours.
3. Time from water-breaking to partus varies, but according to literature in the field it generally goes faster with the number of previous childbirths.
4. There are trained OB/GYN doctors in Texas too.
5. What is the problem with having a baby in Texas?

Grimaldi - if it were your wife who wanted to board a plane after the water had broke, would you not try to stop it? Would you not question her judgment?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Anyway, if Sarah Palin was pregnant and wants to put the whole discussion to rest -while making her detractors look like fools - she simply has to come forward with her medical records. Medical records have been asked for of previous VP candidates (Cheney, IIRC) so it would not be special treatment.

Do you honestly believe this would make a difference? The true conspiracy believers will just say the records are falsified, and demand an independant DNA test. If provided, the lab was pressured by its owners that have ties to the Republican party...it never ends. Why? Because someone threw out an unsubstantiated accusation? I'm announcing now that I believe Obama's kids aren't actually his. I'm placing the burden of proof on Obama to provide all the evidence to disprove my accusation....disprove to the point that I am satisfied, and the bar to that goal will keep rising with every piece of evidence provided. Treating these accusations seriously is a losing proposition, so the best course of action is to ignore it until it hits a mainstream media source. Once that happens, blast the source for reporting unsubstantiated rumors.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

I consider all allegations/scenarios/explanations other than those two I outlined in my previous post completely outlandish. YMMV.

I was only asking why you find the rumors of the hidden pregnancy any more believable than the rumors that it was hidden due to an incestuous relationship with the father? Just as much evidence....heck, even more, because Down's Syndrome is more common in incestuous relationships!

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Not a OB/GYN here either. That said:
1. Another site claimed that she had reported that the water had already broken when she boarded the plane.

Yes, some sites say broken water, others say some other fluid. Why make assessments based off of pure speculation?

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

3. Time from water-breaking to partus varies, but according to literature in the field it generally goes faster with the number of previous childbirths.

And, more importantly, labor time is usually shorter in subsequent births, but similar. If all of her previous labors took a long time (and assuming she hadn't started contractions when she boarded the plane), why would she be concerned? She'd given birth 4 times before, knew what to expect...there was no need for an emergency rush to a local hospital, but she knew the birth was probably coming up and wanted to get home (probably to the doctor that delivered her other children).

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

4. There are trained OB/GYN doctors in Texas too.

As above...if she wasn't concerned about the baby coming immediately, but in the next day or so, why would she rush to a local doctor? She'd been through it before, knew what to expect...knew to get home soon, but that she wasn't in an emergency situation.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

5. What is the problem with having a baby in Texas?

Nothing, except all of her friends, family and the doctor she was comfortable with were in Alaska, and there was no pressing reason to forgo these things.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Grimaldi - if it were your wife who wanted to board a plane after the water had broke, would you not try to stop it? Would you not question her judgment?

Lol...my wife is a birth expert/nut, so I'm a bad person to use as an example. It's absolutely her choice, and I do what I can to support that decision. First child born in hospital. She didn't like that, so the second child was born at home (just her and I). For my sake, while in Germany, we had a German midwife for the homebirth, although she arrived after the baby was born at home. Latest child born at home, also with midwife, but she again arrived a few minutes after the birth (by design, if I recall correctly). Baby was born in an inflatable tub we rented (can't believe there's an industry for that....they reuse them!?!?). So, I've been so thoroughly traumatized/terrified by the natural, unassisted act of birth that the idea of flying while not even in labor raises zero concern for me.

My wife, by the way, loved it, and that's why she's done it that way. Don't know if she preferred the water birth to the regular birth, but she seemed to think both went fine.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

There are risks attached to things. If you give birth at home after an OB/GYN has done tests and doesn't think it's a risky birth, and you live in an area where hospitals and medical professionals are 2-3 minutes away, and you have a strong preference for home birth, then that's great, and a perfectly reasonable choice.

On the other hand, she says she knew this baby had Down's and chose to have it anyway. That's her choice. But if I knew I was going to give birth to a Down's baby, and I knew I was giving birth prematurely, I would choose to give birth in the best possible hospital. Why? In addition to all the non-life threatening things that Down's babies are at greater risk for (being born with cataracts), or the really rare things they're at greater risk for (being born without an anus), about HALF of Down's babies have heart defects, and many of these need surgery right after birth. Others just need medication or monitoring.

I don't know what her exact state was in Texas, other than the fact that the press release her office put out said she was in labor in Texas. But let's assume wires got crossed, and what was reported at the time isn't actually true. Let's assume, however, that based on her repeated contact with her doctor and what she eventually said, that at some point on the flight it occurred to her that she might give birth soon.

From the airport to the leading area hospital, where her doctor was affiliated AND had a good NICU, is a 6 mile drive.

From the airport to the hospital she gave birth in, without an NICU, is a 45 mile drive.


I would kind of almost prefer the baby was her daughter's, as that would be a much better decision than the trip back home, even if we ignore a number of things that her office released....