McCain's VP

[lindajdunn]

I see that they have officially announced that Bristol Palin is pregnant and that candidate families should be off-limits. Thus, I have decided that my earlier posting was ill-conceived (no pun intended) and I'm removing it.

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

1. The airlines she was flying DOES have a clause that allows them to forbid a passenger to fly who is leaking fluid. I note she did NOT say anything to the crew and this, imho, was discourteous at the very least. I suspect she just wanted to get home and while I can certainly understand that, I think it indicates bad judgement and risky behavior.

Come on...airlines have all sorts of policies, but does the average passenger know many of them, aside from the obvious and well-posted ones (no smoking in the bathroom, don't leave bags unattended, etc)?

As for the risky behavior, again....what risk is being discussed? She wasn't in labor or going to give birth immediately, the medical risk for flying while pregnant is very low/non-existent...what's the error in judgment?

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

2. My son was born 23.5 hours after my water "broke" and thus I am well aware that the risk of infection goes up considerably once this occurs. I can understand flying home to Alaska but I have some difficulty understanding why one would NOT go to the hospital 6 miles from the airport (where the doctor practiced) and go instead to a smaller hospital near home. Maybe she just wanted to be in familiar surroundings but I still think it shows poor judgment at a time when critical thinking skills were required. I hope that the reason for doing this was that the doctor was at the other hospital but there are so many stories out there that I'm withholding judgment until I see something official. I really, really, wish they'd vetting this candidate instead of just going with Rush Limburgh's choice.

You're withholding judgment, while lamenting the fact that she wasn't vetted, for an issue that may not be an issue at all? That's quite the logic train.

You're correct, the risk of infection goes up if a woman's water breaks and the child isn't born within a reasonable timeframe, which (I assume) is why labor was induced. The delay between water breaking (potentially) in Texas and birth later isn't long enough to increase the risk of infection.

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

Labor was induced? Okay. So once she's back, labor doesn't progress and you really do want the baby delivered before 24 hours pass so you induce labor. This makes sense and I don't play a doctor on television so I don't want to second guess it.

It's pretty standard procedure once a woman's water has broken....so normal procedure was followed. Where's the risky behavior again?

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

The candidate was not properly vetted. I repeat. The candidate was not properly vetted. If the candidate HAD been properly vetted, then there would have been ready press releases for this incident and Troopergate.

Ah yes...we armchair pundits are much better informed on how much vetting was done on this candidate than the actual campaign. This is McCain's first political goat-rope, so I'm sure he has no idea what he's doing So far, he's played every card this campaign season extremely well...his track record thus far demands we give him the benefit of the doubt. You know, I think I'd be inclined, as a political adviser, to let these various stories run for a bit. The extreme left has already looked like a bunch of fools with al of the talk about the legitimacy of the newest child, and this story just emphasizes her work ethic and care for family and community. Let it roll.

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

Disclaimer: I have been a registered Republican since I was old enough to vote and I fence WSV50 so it's been a long, long time I am now a member of Republicans for Obama. Selecting a woman for VP does not persuade me and esp. so when that woman is so far right that most of her policies are anti-woman. Palin is NOT Hillary and picking a woman who opposes everything Hillary represented is NOT going to win my vote.

Interesting...exactly what policies of the GOP's do you support and see Obama pushing for? Unless you're voting for Obama to show your dislike for McCain's occasional straying from conservative principals, there absolutely nothing Obama provides that's in synch with conservative ideals over the last (several) years. So, either you voted for Republicans in the past for the wrong reasons, or you've changed your personal beliefs.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

As for the risky behavior, again....what risk is being discussed? She wasn't in labor or going to give birth immediately, the medical risk for flying while pregnant is very low/non-existent...what's the error in judgment?

If you believe the press release from her own office, the labor started in Texas. Her office. Not what the left is constructing after the fact, what her office said at the time. Sure it could be wrong, but I think we get to believe that what her office says can be believed unless we get other evidence.

The medical risk for flying while pregnant is low, sure. But the medical risk of having a preemie DS baby --- remember, there's a fifty fifty chance the baby will have some sort of heart problem JUST with the DS, and probably a bump in that chance giving birth prematurely ---- the medical risk of having that baby somewhere without a NICU is unfortunate in areas where it has to happen, and DUMB if she drives past a great hospital, and 40 miles later picks a much smaller hospital without the bells and whistles.

That's the error in judgement.


I don't think that all of the facts line up to look good for her. So either it looks not that great for her, or there's something we don't know somewhere that explains some of it. Covering up for her daughter's pregnancy is pretty out there, but it is one explanation that takes some of the weirder decisions and gives a reason.

[Jengar]

I love reading posts like those on this thread from people who talk like they know everything. So I'll add my take (as if I know everything too). I suspect that Palin was picked by McCain because:

1. 80 percent (at least) of the people who are going to vote in this election have already decided who they are going to vote for and they decided BEFORE Palin was picked as McCain's VP. This pick is all about the other 20 percent

2. Picking a woman as VP makes it more likely than not that those disaffected Hillary supporters who would never vote for Obama will vote for McCain/Palin. Maybe 1 in 5 but those add up.

3. Palin shores up the evangelical conservative base of the GOP for McCain. There was so much talk of McCain picking someone like Lieberman, Ridge, Hutchison, etc. who are "pro-choice" that Palin came as a huge relief and will likely result in that base coming out to vote for McCain/Palin rather than simply "maybe" coming out to vote against Obama.

4. Palin's age is comparable to Obama's so that is a "wash" with voters. Biden is closer in age to McCain than Obama so that is a "wash" as well.

5. If the Democrats attack Palin's lack of experience to serve as VP, it only underscores Obama's lack of experience to serve as President. Actually, Palin should win on a comparison of experience between her and Obama (just my opinion). Grimaldi's post listing her State responsibilities underscores the difference between being a Governor and being an absentee freshman Senator.

6. The October VP debate will be very important to Palin. That will be one of the very few opportunities she will have to show her grasp of the issues and her ability to think on her feet. If she falters, that will hurt McCain - a lot. On the other hand, if she can make Biden look like an old Senator who has run for President at least twice and had to finally settle for the second spot to a freshman Senator . . . (oh wait, that's true) . . . never mind.

7. It boils down to who can get the 10 to 20 percent of the voters who haven't made up their mind yet who to vote for for President. Biden is old news. Palin is new. Biden is male and Palin is female (and yes, she is attractive to boot). Who is more likely to create a new enthusiasm for their ticket? A man who barely got 2000 votes in the Iowa caucuses running for President and has been rejected by the voters already (Biden) or someone who beat an incumbent Republican Governor on issues of governmental reform, cutting taxes, ethics, etc? Or does Biden's numerous terms in the Senate effectively counter the new blood from Alaska?

8. Palin is from the middle class. Her husband is even a union member.

Is it a gamble? Sure. But it has the potential to pay off in a major way. Plus, if McCain gets elected and lives for 4 years (which nobody thinks is going to happen) and Palin gains experience in Washington (which is good and bad) then the GOP may just have the first woman nominee from a major party for President in 4 years. In fact, it may be Sarah vs. Hillary. Now that would be interesting forum fodder, would it not?

[bob46]

obama all the way...

wow, this conversation stayed on topic for 5 pages! amazing and possibly unprecedented...

[lindajdunn]

I note that things just took an interesting turn with the announcement that Bristol, the VP candidate's daughter, is pregnant and so far along that she could NOT be the mother of Trig.

More, they announced that they knew this when they selected her as VP.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/...ter/index.html

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

So Bristol's pregnancy puts to rest the rumors that Trig is Bristol's baby.

End of case and now we can resume the argument about whether or not the VP executed good judgment in flying back from Texas and driving 45 minutes to her rural hospital when there was a perfectly good hospital (WHERE HER DOCTOR PRACTICED) just 6 miles away.

Of course, it's possible that her doctor might have directed her to do this because she was already at the other hospital, couldn't leave it for whatever reason, etc.

I note that labor had to be induced once she arrived.

All I can say is that *I* --and probably many other women out there -- are a little envious of anyone that can have an easy pregnancy like that. I don't envy the results, but this sounds almost like a Heinlein birth. While I concede she is athletic, I still envy those who go through such an apparently easy birthing process.

[Heinlein was a SF author. There's one book where the character lays down her hand while they are playing bridge, has the baby, and resumes playing.]

[CadetVet]

I'm thinking that they can not use the VP residence... instead, they can just pull the double-wide up on the Observatory lawn.

I'm loving the family values here - no global warming, there are plenty of polar bears for us to shoot, and oh, it wasn't a cover up that my daughter had my kid - cause she couldn't - as she's still pregnant with someone else's.

And she'll marry the guy at a "AK-47" wedding... it would have been shotgun, but now the CIA will kill the guy if he doesn't.

[Grimaldi]

This latest news is really interesting. For some reason, I feel shocked and slightly betrayed somehow...but I can't for the life of me come up with a logical reason why. Well, the shock/surprise makes sense, obviously, but the feeling of betrayal has absolutely no basis...very strange. I have to think a lot of other people may feel this way, too, which isn't good (as far as a Republican would be concerned).

This, then, explains the reason that the McCain camp didn't come out swinging against these allegations from the start...let the lefties start the rumor mill, let it grow until the mainstream media starts hinting at it, and then break the news that it's completely impossible. Takes some of the heat off the announcement by disproving the vicious, distasteful rumors.

I think I would have preferred if it had been announced from the start, but on the other hand, it a matter of their family, so there's no requirement to do so, I guess.

[Shi no Tenshi]

Although, one thing this recent annoucement makes me wonder: If they are trying to get the Evangelical vote with this pick, how can they have somebody doing exactly what the evangelicals stand against? Daughter who is a teenage pregnancy out of wedlock? A mother who is head of household? Those are things that Evangelicals are against. How does this help with that vote?

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by CadetVet

I'm thinking that they can not use the VP residence... instead, they can just pull the double-wide up on the Observatory lawn.

And she'll marry the guy at a "AK-47" wedding... it would have been shotgun, but now the CIA will kill the guy if he doesn't.

Way to keep it classy. Keep on promoting that image of liberals as a bunch of arrogant, out of touch jerks that look down on regular americans.

Originally Posted by CadetVet

I'm loving the family values here - no global warming, there are plenty of polar bears for us to shoot, and oh, it wasn't a cover up that my daughter had my kid - cause she couldn't - as she's still pregnant with someone else's.

I must be missing something, because I fail to see how any of the above issues involve family values? Not only that, the issues you've identified aren't a problem in the first place: Global warming, and what/how much to do about it (if anything), has plenty of supporters on all sides; Hunting polar bears...well, I'm not an expert on the subject, but like all other game I'd have to assume numbers of licenses are monitored closely to prevent major impacts on the population, and I know I've read that polar bear numbers have been increasing recently, hence the discussion about removing some of the legal protections on them; how is it her fault slime merchants tossed around completely false accusations regarding the birth of her child without a SHRED of evidence, as shown by the fact that it was COMPLETELY impossible? Unless you're trying to say that teen pregnancy out of wedlock is the failure, which, I'll grant, is not the ideal choice for most families, but it's pretty well accepted these days, and the family's decision to support the daughter in her decision instead of, say, kicking her to the curb or pressuring her to abort/adopt out against her will isn't going to hurt Palin.

[the ancient one]

Palin should talk to Scooter Libby.

A leak can be a serious thing.

[CadetVet]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Way to keep it classy. Keep on promoting that image of liberals as a bunch of arrogant, out of touch jerks that look down on regular americans.


I must be missing something, because I fail to see how any of the above issues involve family values? Not only that, the issues you've identified aren't a problem in the first place: Global warming, and what/how much to do about it (if anything), has plenty of supporters on all sides; Hunting polar bears...well, I'm not an expert on the subject, but like all other game I'd have to assume numbers of licenses are monitored closely to prevent major impacts on the population, and I know I've read that polar bear numbers have been increasing recently, hence the discussion about removing some of the legal protections on them; how is it her fault slime merchants tossed around completely false accusations regarding the birth of her child without a SHRED of evidence, as shown by the fact that it was COMPLETELY impossible? Unless you're trying to say that teen pregnancy out of wedlock is the failure, which, I'll grant, is not the ideal choice for most families, but it's pretty well accepted these days, and the family's decision to support the daughter in her decision instead of, say, kicking her to the curb or pressuring her to abort/adopt out against her will isn't going to hurt Palin.

At some point, the lack of vetting has to become clear. Yes, I'm being a little dismissive, but I'm sick of Obama being criticized because he's popular - "he can't be president, too many people like him."

More to the point, a party that has talked long and hard about abstinence, about "family values" and about how teens shouldn't have sex before wedlock picked someone where instilling such values really worked well. And the way it came out - "it couldn't be my daughter's kid because she's 5 months pregnant" - was straight out of a Jeff Foxworthy routine.

At some point, our leaders should be people that our kids aspire to emulate. Is Sarah Palin worth emulation? (I'd argue that McCain isn't either - I keep watching the original Manchurian Candidate). The right, in fact, has made a lot of hay on the indiscretions of certain Democrats. And let's not forget "Family Values" folks criticism of the movie Juno (about a pregnant teen who keeps the kid and marries the father). Well, there you go, instead of Juno, it's Juneau.

There's nothing wrong with pushing back on this - reap what you sow and all.

The underlying question that I have with regard to the marriage is whether the kids would have been married absent her being named as the Veep candidate. That's 50-50 at best. As you point out, out, teen pregnancy isn't unusual - and children out of wedlock aren't unusual. But if the father said "no way," what would have happened? I stand by my statement that this is a shotgun wedding.

[Shi no Tenshi]

The other thing that bothers me is that she has basically, at this point, hung her child out to deflect criticism, and then tries to pass it off as the Democrats fault. It will work with some people, but it is still a disgusting thing to do. Obviously she isn't concerned about protecting her family, but of course, that's everybody else's fault.

[lindajdunn]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Interesting...exactly what policies of the GOP's do you support and see Obama pushing for? Unless you're voting for Obama to show your dislike for McCain's occasional straying from conservative principals, there absolutely nothing Obama provides that's in synch with conservative ideals over the last (several) years. So, either you voted for Republicans in the past for the wrong reasons, or you've changed your personal beliefs.

I find it difficult to leave the GOP and esp. so in a county where the Democrats do not field candidates for office. If I want any input into who represents me, then I need to remain a Republican so I can vote in the primaries.

The GOP abandoned me when they let the fundamentalists take over the party.

I am ashamed of my earlier posting. I questioned something that I'd read online without pausing to think and what I'd repeated should have been left where it was while professionals investigated.

Truths usually have a way of coming out in the end. Unfortunately, sometimes not before a great deal of damage is done.

[CadetVet]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Way to keep it classy. Keep on promoting that image of liberals as a bunch of arrogant, out of touch jerks that look down on regular americans.

And, by the way, the disparaging remarks about Obama being "elitist," the coded references to his ethnicity that flood Fox TV, and, yes, even CNN, the persistent "Obama is a muslim" rumor (not that I care - Muslims are, in the overwhelming majority, fine people), and the fear-mongering of the right on all of these issues give me the absolute right to assert that Sarah Palin is pretty low-class (ok, I'll be blunt, trailer trash).

Kinda like the homecoming queen at my southern high school who, by age 40 or so, had about 8 kids and lived in a double-wide in Alabama and had "redneck twins" - which are child and grandchild born in the same calendar year.

I grew up with folks like this - that's what scares the bejeezus out of me.

I don't have a problem fighting fire with fire on this score. I'm as scared of the country being run by pentacostal trailer trash as they are of having the black guy run it.

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by Shi no Tenshi

The other thing that bothers me is that she has basically, at this point, hung her child out to deflect criticism, and then tries to pass it off as the Democrats fault. It will work with some people, but it is still a disgusting thing to do. Obviously she isn't concerned about protecting her family, but of course, that's everybody else's fault.

How, exactly, did she "hang her child out" on this? Did she somehow provoke unhinged liberals to start generating conspiracy theories about the birth of her child? You're darn right it's somebody else's fault! And how do you know the daughter is upset? I mean, sure, she's probably not happy about all the attention on her, but I bet she also didn't want her personal actions to negatively impact her mom. I'd be stoked if my Mom got selected to run for vice president, and would feel it was very unfair for people to somehow view poor decisions in my past as a reflection on my Mom.

Originally Posted by CadetVet

At some point, the lack of vetting has to become clear. Yes, I'm being a little dismissive, but I'm sick of Obama being criticized because he's popular - "he can't be president, too many people like him."

I don't think that's quite the crux behind the dismissal of Obama as a serious presidential candidate...it's that there is very little history.substance behind him. Most presidential candidates have a track record of some kind....a politica history you can check to see where they actually governed, decisions they made and the effects those decisions actually had on their constituents. In Obama's case, we have nothing...just a charismatic, intelligent person who certainly says the right things, but has no proven record of actually accomplishing ANYTHING. No wonder the Hillary fans are so upset...like her or not, at least she can go back an show specific examples of her actions.

As for the lack of vetting...none of these things revealed about Palin were a surprise to the McCain campaign...that's why the news was released today. Palin got a chance to introduce herself, democrats look slimy digging up all these unsubstantiated rumors, and the news of the pregnancy is released on labor day when a hurricane is dominating the news, early enough in the campaign season to (hopefully) be overlooked as the issue dies down and the debate focuses (hopefully again!) on policy and issues, not the family's personal affairs.

Originally Posted by CadetVet

More to the point, a party that has talked long and hard about abstinence, about "family values" and about how teens shouldn't have sex before wedlock picked someone where instilling such values really worked well. And the way it came out - "it couldn't be my daughter's kid because she's 5 months pregnant" - was straight out of a Jeff Foxworthy routine.

I think this has become a common enough occurance in America that it's not going to be that big a deal. If the family had pressured her into aborting the baby or something, sure...her cred with Christians would be in the tank. Teens, both sex-ed educated and not, do stupid stuff and get pregnant sometimes. How the family reacts after that is the bigger question.

Originally Posted by CadetVet

At some point, our leaders should be people that our kids aspire to emulate. Is Sarah Palin worth emulation? (I'd argue that McCain isn't either - I keep watching the original Manchurian Candidate). The right, in fact, has made a lot of hay on the indiscretions of certain Democrats.

Hmmm...a woman who has successfully juggled a large family and political career, starting out in talk radio, successfully governing the largest State in the union and being selected for the vice presidential nomination. She's lived the life she's wanted successfully...sounds like a pretty successful run to me. Feminists will be split on this issue...they'll be upset at the talk that she shouldn't have entered the race because of the child, as they've been pushing for years to dispel the image that women should stay at home and have babies/end their careers for children, and yet many are pro-choice, and might view this as a prudent situation for that.

Originally Posted by CadetVet

And let's not forget "Family Values" folks criticism of the movie Juno (about a pregnant teen who keeps the kid and marries the father). Well, there you go, instead of Juno, it's Juneau.

Never seen it, don't know what to say. Sorry.

Originally Posted by CadetVet

The underlying question that I have with regard to the marriage is whether the kids would have been married absent her being named as the Veep candidate. That's 50-50 at best. As you point out, out, teen pregnancy isn't unusual - and children out of wedlock aren't unusual. But if the father said "no way," what would have happened? I stand by my statement that this is a shotgun wedding.

Lol....you amuse me with all of your talk about irrational beliefs and such, and then you whip out completely random stats (50-50 at best) and stand by that statement based on absolutely nothing. Now THERE'S some reasoning and critical thinking skills put to work. Putting your faith in something you have absolutely no proof exists other than your personal conviction...I guess you're religious after all!

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

The GOP abandoned me when they let the fundamentalists take over the party.

I would have agreed with you if Huckabee won. The fact that he did so well was a bit disturbing to me, too. Thankfully, while the Christian right is a major factor in the Republican party (stronger than I'd like), the fact that Huckabee lost fairly quickly is still a good indicator that the majority of the party is still based on economic, foreign policy and constitutional issues and not social ones.

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

I am ashamed of my earlier posting. I questioned something that I'd read online without pausing to think and what I'd repeated should have been left where it was while professionals investigated.

Not a big deal. That's the dangerous power of the internet...if you read something, you're naturally programmed to believe it. Heck, even if you try to research something that sounds outlandish, you'll often end up going to other websites with biased/skewed/speculative info that's presented as fact.

[latenight]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

I agree with you to a point...about 2/3 of voters are stable (and arguably rational) as they vote fairy consistently for a certain core set of beliefs, represented by their political party. The last 1/3, the independents in the middle, are oddballs because they seem to vote less on specific policies and more on who they happen to like on an almost personal level.

.

2/3rds? Really? I think you are being generous...and I would argue the vast majority is far from rational.

[erooMynohtnA]

Those God damn liberals! Next thing we know women will be voting! What then? Automatons washing dishes and doing the wash? Tarnation.

Keep it in this century, or at least quit projecting individual opinions over large groups, please.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

How, exactly, did she "hang her child out" on this? Did she somehow provoke unhinged liberals to start generating conspiracy theories about the birth of her child?

As soon as she was announced VP this became news that would break (with associated nut job conspiracy theories) the McCain campaign just put political expediency first. Which is what they would have done with any bit of colour in the VPs life.

Political expediency made it impossible to announce immediately before, or during her introduction as VP and political tactics meant delaying the news until they had the 'right' story in media.

Was this how they had planned to break it, probably not, but given what would have been expected it is a pretty normal process. So yes, if any one is to blame it is the candidates.

[CadetVet]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Lol....you amuse me with all of your talk about irrational beliefs and such, and then you whip out completely random stats (50-50 at best) and stand by that statement based on absolutely nothing. Now THERE'S some reasoning and critical thinking skills put to work. Putting your faith in something you have absolutely no proof exists other than your personal conviction...I guess you're religious after all!

argue with the numbers - but we all know that teen pregnancies generally complete out of wedlock across the entire socioeconomic spectrum. The reasons are varied, no doubt. As for religious, you are incorrect. I am proudly not religious.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

that the majority of the party is still based on economic, foreign policy and constitutional issues and not social ones.

Herein lies the Republican's biggest problem. They have proven during eight years that they've been horrendous on economic policy (the mortgage crisis, the deficit that is beyond belief), foreign policy (oops, we invaded the wrong country - it was really Iran that had the weapons of mass destruction) and constitutional policy (gitmo, the patriot act, etc.).

Ultimately, I think that Palin is either (a) being groomed for a future on the national stage, or (b) a bone thrown to the evangelical right, or both. I think that they figured out that McCain has a snowballs chance of seriously being elected - primarily because of the mortgage crisis and its effect on traditionally core republican exurban communities - combined with the democrat's and other's distaste for the Iraq war. Oh, $4/gallon gas doesn't help either - particularly when our energy policy is coming from someone with "experience" in the energy industry.

Separately, it was truly amazing to me how quickly the rumors started about postponing the republican convention because of the hurricane (conveniently so that Dick/Bush wouldn't have to speak). And now that Gustav was far less harmful then thought - we could have Dick/Bush on stage... but I bet not. (And, yes, I know hurricanes - I grew up in Miami and was there for Andrew).