McCain's VP

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by fencerchica

Do you argue that the modest expansion of Covenant House funding is keeping up with changing rates of demand (I fear demand for this as for all social services may go up as the economy goes down); satisfying current demand; in keeping with Palin's political positions on abortion and contraceptives?

First, I'd argue that a 226% increase in spending isn't "modest". Second, I'd argue I have no idea whether or not it's meeting demand or not, and neither do you, but it's about as rapid an increase as anyone who enjoys government programs could want.

Originally Posted by fencerchica

As for Palin not slashing anything from anybody: From one perspective this could be true for Covenant House (god what a creepy name) but she slashed the budget for special needs kids by 62%. I don't have any knowledge of how this relates to demand in Alaska for special-needs services but it would appear to be forming a pattern. What I am curious about now is where the savings went to. I believe she was dealing with some budget shortfalls; I wonder if that was where it went to, or if other programs expanded.

So, the previous example you brought up doesn't meet the storyline you want to push, so instead of giving her credit for doing something you would support, you cast it aside and accuse her of some other misdeed that fits your hoped for outcome. Notice once again, of course, that you even admit you have no idea why she slashed the budget (and, judging from the accuracy of your earlier post, I'm already inclined to doubt your second accusation is anymore accurate).

Originally Posted by fencerchica

Obama and Biden have both been outspoken from the beginning that family should be off limits (generous from them considering how much flak Michelle Obama has been receiving, and how much Hillary and Chelsea received during Bill Clinton's campaigns).

Hillary has always received a great deal of personal attacks, but she was always billed as a part of the administration....a 2-for-1 deal...so she's always been fair game. I don't recall any major attacks against Chelsea, and certainly not approaching the furor over Palin's child and daughter.

As for Obama saying the attacks are off limits...who knows? I mean, it's the right thing to say, but I'm cynical enough to wonder if he did it out of decency or political gain. I'd be more inclined to believe it was for the right reasons if the attacks had dropped off, but as they haven't, and the media is quite willing to push whatever storyline Obama wants, I have my doubts.

Michelle Obama is an interesting issue, too. Most of the attacks against her have been for things she has said at rallies, which I would associate with actively participating in the campaign, which would make her a target for responses. As would the research into her position (and raises) at a hospital that Obama got millions of dollars in earmarks for.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

I don't recall any major attacks against Chelsea, and certainly not approaching the furor over Palin's child and daughter.

You don't have a very good memory, Chelsea was hardly 'off limits' for the commentators currently wailing about the attention Palin's family is getting.

But on topic;

Given that the Palin family biography is part of the reason that she has such popularity with the republican base runs the risk of putting it into play. If they are going to keep running the 'walk the talk' line aren't they pushing the issue constantly back into the spot light. Sauce for the goose and all that...

[Epee_Pox]

I've spoken with a fair number of people lately about the surprisingly energetic attacks on Palin by the democrats and left-leaning folks. Most of the people I spoke with got the impression that the intensity of the attacks means the democrats feel truly threatened by her.

On reflection, I have to agree with that. It has been observed that, in the few days since she was announced, the number of attacks, ads and articles with negative spin has outstripped anything in recent memory. This negative reaction is nothing short of amazing. And it cannot be because she's not taken seriously, but rather because she's being taken very seriously indeed. She needs to be stopped, because she is a real threat.

How amazing is this, that the vice-presidential nominee is such a huge threat? Historically, VP picks have almost no discernable effect at the polls, except for very minor bumps in their home states. But choosing Palin has electrified the right, caused the left to act like they're panicking, and appears to be starting to attract some who otherwise might have been expected to vote with the democrats.

I continue to watch it all with extreme interest. Can't predict what the outcome will be, but the race is certainly getting my attention now.

[fencerchica]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

First, I'd argue that a 226% increase in spending isn't "modest". Second, I'd argue I have no idea whether or not it's meeting demand or not, and neither do you, but it's about as rapid an increase as anyone who enjoys government programs could want.

FYI, I was positing sincere questions and being upfront about the things I don't know.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

So, the previous example you brought up doesn't meet the storyline you want to push

Excuse me?? Which post of mine are you referring to here??

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

(and, judging from the accuracy of your earlier post, I'm already inclined to doubt your second accusation is anymore accurate).

First, I again have no idea which post of mine you are referring to here. My prior posts were regarding her association with the AIP, which not a matter of dispute.

Second, as to your doubting my "accuracy," did you bother to check the link before flinging accusations? (Note however that there's been a correction posted there.)

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

and the media is quite willing to push whatever storyline Obama wants

You have got to be kidding me. (just today's most recent example)

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

I've spoken with a fair number of people lately about the surprisingly energetic attacks on Palin by the democrats and left-leaning folks. Most of the people I spoke with got the impression that the intensity of the attacks means the democrats feel truly threatened by her.

On reflection, I have to agree with that. It has been observed that, in the few days since she was announced, the number of attacks, ads and articles with negative spin has outstripped anything in recent memory. This negative reaction is nothing short of amazing. And it cannot be because she's not taken seriously, but rather because she's being taken very seriously indeed. She needs to be stopped, because she is a real threat.

I don't know. I don't think the attacks on Quayle--which were likewise intense, and to a large extent, unfair, were because he was being taken seriously.

I think part of the issue with the perceived unfairness of attacks on Palin is lumping together under "the media" and "democrats" all the crazy folks out there on the internet. There was something similar (though not as big of an extent) against Kerry in 2004. The internet really allows widespread dissemination of every little accusation, real, imagined and crazy. It makes it difficult for a candidate to respond to some of the goofier ones, which may still be damaging--though there is a pushback to dismiss all attacks as crackpot, because some are.

I still think it's an interesting pick, and I have no idea how it'll eventually turn out, but I share the belief that VP picks don't really make much of a difference. It seems to me that this one was made to attempt to do so--and it'll be interesting to see whethe it works, backfires, or doesn't much change anything.

--Philistine

[Epee_Pox]

I just read a report that significant numbers of Hillary Clinton supporters are displeased by the negative commentary against Palin. Polls are indicating that there is again some movement by these same people away from Obama. I don't know if there is cause and effect here, but there at least appears to be a correlation.

I sense some tension among feminists. On the one hand, Palin is by no means the kind of person feminists (at least dorm room feminists, anyway) hold up as the model. Her domestic life is hardly what feminism identifies with. She hasn't fought to move up in the world in the face of oppression. She has never been the angry victim, and hasn't adopted the victimology demanded by feminism. She doesn't pass the abortion litmus test.

On the other hand, she is the strong woman of character, succeeding on her own terms, that feminism at its heart is all about. The fact that she happens to be female has not been the reason for her successes or failures. She entered politics, not because it was the career she'd been planning since college, but because she wanted to help her local community. She took on the oppressors and corruption in her own state, when the men out there were certainly not about to do so, and she beat them. She has succeeded because of who she is, not because of what she is.

So she is living the goals of feminism, without obeying the rules imposed by the feminist movement. That is clearly driving some people nuts. But it is also driving, I think, a lot of the support coming from Hillary backers. I'd be surprised if it didn't drive more support from active, achieving women over the coming weeks, as more about her is learned.

[Welted 24/7]

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/ca..._v_reality.php

From hero to zero in under 24 hours. That's pretty impressive.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by Welted 24/7

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/ca..._v_reality.php

From hero to zero in under 24 hours. That's pretty impressive.

A fine example supporting my earlier point.

[lindajdunn]

I sometimes wonder if some of the loudest complaints are coming from the Republicans, disguised as Democrats, simply because the backlash is drawing people to Palin who would normally be repelled by what she represents.

I consider her very dangerous.

She is a woman whose policies would harm women.

[Welted 24/7]

Your earlier point being that Democrats feel threatened? How does this support that? The fact of the matter is that almost everything she said is factually wrong. Did you actually read the link? There's enough solid evidence on the table of what's wrong with her as a proposed leader that you don't NEED to make things up.

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by fencerchica

FYI, I was positing sincere questions and being upfront about the things I don't know.

I was merely pointing out that you're making assumptions about Palin when you clearly admit you don't have all the facts. And once the facts come out and show that you're assumptions were wrong (cutting funding for the teen pregnancy center), you just move along to the next negative factoid on Palin that you don't have all the facts on (which, as you mentioned, is already amended as people start actually researching the situation instead of just publishing what they want to see).

Originally Posted by fencerchica

First, I again have no idea which post of mine you are referring to here. My prior posts were regarding her association with the AIP, which not a matter of dispute

Well, it depends on what her "association" is stated to be. Did she speak at a convention? Was she a member?

Originally Posted by fencerchica

You have got to be kidding me. (just today's most recent example)

[/quote]
Say what you will, the polls show the majority (or at least a significant plurality) believe the media is definitely pro-Obama and pro-Democrat. Considering most research shows 80%-ish of media personnel are Democratic supporters, it's not surprising...your view of "unbiased" and "fair" are going to naturally being colored by your personal beliefs...but it's pretty obvious to everyone but true liberal believers. Obviously, with the public divided roughly into thirds (Demo, Repub, Inde), when such a large group sees the media as liberally biased, you know a lot of independents see it that way, and their judgment isn't as tainted by the spectrum of personal beliefs as the partisans.

Originally Posted by Welted 24/7

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/ca..._v_reality.php

From hero to zero in under 24 hours. That's pretty impressive.

Actually, most of that looks pretty good to me. It's one-sided crap from a biased source, so I take most of it with a grain of salt. I do love how, as usual, there's no real consistency to the charges. "She spends way too much money, leaving her town in debt", "she cuts social programs, hurting people", "she raises taxes", "her town voted to fund a sports arena, and she dared comply!". Apparently she taxes people too much, but cuts funding to everything....I guess she just burns the money in a big pit to contribute to global warming.

And who cares if she has lobbyists on her staff/cabinet/whatever? Lobbyists are advocates for agencies/programs, and as such, most are experts in their field. I don't belittle Obama for associating with environmentalists and pro-choice advocates (well, I do from a policy perspective, but if he supports the policies, obviously he should interact with the people advocating for it).

[Welted 24/7]

Actually, most of that looks pretty good to me. It's one-sided crap from a biased source, so I take most of it with a grain of salt. I do love how, as usual, there's no real consistency to the charges. "She spends way too much money, leaving her town in debt", "she cuts social programs, hurting people", "she raises taxes", "her town voted to fund a sports arena, and she dared comply!". Apparently she taxes people too much, but cuts funding to everything....I guess she just burns the money in a big pit to contribute to global warming.

And who cares if she has lobbyists on her staff/cabinet/whatever? Lobbyists are advocates for agencies/programs, and as such, most are experts in their field. I don't belittle Obama for associating with environmentalists and pro-choice advocates (well, I do from a policy perspective, but if he supports the policies, obviously he should interact with the people advocating for it).

It's not what she does or doesn't do that the problem is in the article there, it's that she got up on stage and lied through her teeth about what she does and doesn't do as a leader while slamming Obama for doing that.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

I don't recall any major attacks against Chelsea, and certainly not approaching the furor over Palin's child and daughter.

At this point, I'm assuming that you've put me on ignore, because I posted evidence to the contrary before you posted this, but sure. I'll give you another one.

Columnist Molly Ivins reported (Arizona Republic 10/17/93) this incident from Limbaugh's TV show--"Here is a Limbaugh joke: Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?" And he puts up a picture of Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Clinton is 13 years old.

Y'know why the furor was less? Because she was boring. There weren't press conferences about her, and to this day, she does not talk to the media. She's gone way out of her way to make herself a non-issue.

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

I sense some tension among feminists. On the one hand, Palin is by no means the kind of person feminists (at least dorm room feminists, anyway) hold up as the model. Her domestic life is hardly what feminism identifies with. She hasn't fought to move up in the world in the face of oppression. She has never been the angry victim, and hasn't adopted the victimology demanded by feminism.

Hi. I went to Smith College, hotbed of Abso****inglutely crazy feminists, and some normal people. My first year roommate wouldn't allow me to have guys in the room--- even if they were standing there to grab something from my room and then leave--- without telling her first. .. She was the only crazy man-hater I knew at Smith, but if anyone would know the nuts, you'd think I would.

I don't know what on earth you mean by "dorm room feminists". I'm not sure I've met one. Her domestic life is that she's managed to have kids AND have a pretty high profile career. I thought that was the point. She was able to have the job she wanted, and have the family life she wanted. Or, by your definition, are feminists not supposed to want to have kids? Or husbands? I'm really confused.

I kind of feel like I ought to be offended by your "victimology" comment. I have been an "angry victim", I guess, by some definitions, since I was angry that I was the victim of a violent crime... But that was the action of one unhinged individual, and not of Men Everywhere. I was also pretty angry when someone broke the window of my car one night and stole things. I'm not exactly sure what that has to do with feminism or the feminist movement, since I'm not entirely sure that they knew I was female when they broke the window.

Y'know, I was pretty sure I was a feminist. What with the thinking that people should be able to choose what kind of jobs and what kind of families they wanted to have, and that it should have anything to do with the body parts they were born with.....

It's great that our country is comfortable with voting for women. But when I looked at Hillary Clinton, and when I look at Sarah Palin, I'm not looking for boobs and a vagina, I'm looking at experience and political belief. See, that's part of feminism---- that women aren't given any more or less chance than men, that they're given and equal chance.

BTW, I'm not angry about this. Bemused. Confused. But certainly not a victim.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Say what you will, the polls show the majority (or at least a significant plurality) believe the media is definitely pro-Obama and pro-Democrat. Considering most research shows 80%-ish of media personnel are Democratic supporters, it's not surprising...your view of "unbiased" and "fair" are going to naturally being colored by your personal beliefs...but it's pretty obvious to everyone but true liberal believers. Obviously, with the public divided roughly into thirds (Demo, Repub, Inde), when such a large group sees the media as liberally biased, you know a lot of independents see it that way, and their judgment isn't as tainted by the spectrum of personal beliefs as the partisans.

Now, Franken is, himself, pretty biased. But I was sitting in a bookstore the other day, waiting for someone else to find something, and in a law bookstore, there aren't that many books you can open up and read a chunk of other than Lying Liars(etc).

I read the bit about the "liberal media bias"---- Now, again, I was sitting there skimming, so maybe someone else can confirm or deny this, but is seems as if he had found a non-partisan group that had looked at major media stories about the Gore-Bush campaign, and found that the media reported on more negative stories about Gore, and more positive stories about Bush----- and you'd expect that it would have gone the other way if there were a significant liberal media bias. Because while Gore was certainly boring back then, he wasn't an evil guy.

There may even be a liberal bias in the media today. I don't think it's as big as people believe, if it does exist.

And "lots of people think it's true" doesn't count as real evidence. Lots of people used to think the world is flat, and in fact, some still do.

[fencerchica]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

I was merely pointing out that you're making assumptions about Palin when you clearly admit you don't have all the facts.

Difference between me and a right-winger is that I admit when I don't have all the facts.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

And once the facts come out and show that you're assumptions were wrong (cutting funding for the teen pregnancy center)

You seem to have me confused with some of the other posters on this thread. As I mentioned earlier, my prior posts were re: the AIP.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

you just move along to the next negative factoid on Palin that you don't have all the facts on (which, as you mentioned, is already amended as people start actually researching the situation instead of just publishing what they want to see).

As others on this thread have demonstrated, there is hardly a dearth of negative factoids on Palin. You, on the other hand, have been conveniently ignoring the ones you can't refute, and concentrating on the ones which left-wingers have the honesty to admit were in error.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Well, it depends on what her "association" is stated to be. Did she speak at a convention? Was she a member?

Yes; and unknown. I guess you didn't actually read the post you're replying to.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Say what you will, the polls show the majority (or at least a significant plurality) believe the media is definitely pro-Obama and pro-Democrat.

This is an old and inaccurate meme. Here's a random assortment of articles on the topic (I did a search through my email "sent" box for "liberal media" and just grabbed a few items):

Progressives: Stop Being Suckers
Journalists were ‘under enormous pressure from corporate executives’
"Questions on Patriotism! Is he exposed?"
Meet the Press: Pregnancy as Punishment

Edited to add: I agree with MP's point regarding your appeal to majority opinion. I'll also go one step further and say that I think this majority opinion is at least partially the result of a deliberate right-wing spin, a lie that's been repeated so often it's come to be accepted as fact.

[lindajdunn]

Originally Posted by Welted 24/7

It's not what she does or doesn't do that the problem is in the article there, it's that she got up on stage and lied through her teeth about what she does and doesn't do as a leader whil