# Impact of Bristol Palin's pregnancy on McCain's campaign



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Thoughts?


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

No more relevant than the sexual orientation of Dick Cheney's daughter.

Buzz


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*wish it was hot as the Jamie Lynn Spears story*

I really don't see it affecting the campaign much at all. Total wash. Pro-lifers can spin it their way, opponents another way.

It gives her an excuse to play the victim card of 'keep my family out of this' but then she can't hype her pro-life cred with her Downs Syndrome child without looking inconsistent.

As Alan Keyes pointed out in 2000, McCain doesn't get the pro-life cause. The ticket really needs to pander to that single-issue contingent.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> No more relevant than the sexual orientation of Dick Cheney's daughter.
> 
> Buzz


I agree that it is not relevant, however, the media is still going to cover the story just like they did with Spears. My question is, will this affect McCain? I have to wonder if he even knew about this. I can't imagine he would want this type of publicity.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I really find it difficult to believe that Palin would hide this fact from McCain, or that those vetting her would not discover it.

Should be irrelevant. Of course, there will be certain elements that will try (unsuccessfully) to make an issue of it.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

McCain did know about it. I don't see how someone is playing the victim card by asking that their minor daughter be kept out of political discussions. The Daily Kos posted a completely baseless story about how Palin's recently born son was actually her daughter's child and that Palin covered it up by faking a pregnancy. As proof they posted pictures of the daughter and analyzed her stomach fat in order to show she was pregnant. it turns out the picture they posted was over two years old before either Palin or her daughter were pregnant. So basically, they said a 16 year old girl who wasn't pregnant looked fat enough to be pregnant. All of this after 4 days. Again, I don't see how asking that minor children not be dragged into campaigns is "playing the victim".


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> It gives her an excuse to play the victim card of 'keep my family out of this' but then she can't hype her pro-life cred with her Downs Syndrome child without looking inconsistent.


I honestly thought this thread would have to go further before the really nonsensical comments came out! How does this no allow her to "hype" her pro-life credentials?


----------



## meister (Oct 29, 2005)

Relayer said:


> I really find it difficult to believe that Palin would hide this fact from McCain, or that those vetting her would not discover it.
> 
> Should be irrelevant. Of course, there will be certain elements that will try (unsuccessfully) to make an issue of it.


McCain said he knew about it before when deciding who to pick and she had already told him.



chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> I
> It gives her an excuse to play the victim card of 'keep my family out of this' but then she can't hype her pro-life cred with her Downs Syndrome child without looking inconsistent.


Did you really feel that comment is edifying...what are you really trying to say?


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*I like consistency.*

Her raising of a Downs Syndrome child is walking the walk in the pro-life world. It's a great story, and it will be mentioned. The child will be displayed. The less politically advantageous pregnant daughter story will be hushed, and anyone mentioning it will be treated like they're entering taboo territory.

Nobody sees a double standard with this?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Her raising of a Downs Syndrome child is walking the walk in the pro-life world. It's a great story, and it will be mentioned. The child will be displayed. The less politically advantageous pregnant daughter story will be hushed, and anyone mentioning it will be treated like they're entering taboo territory.
> 
> Nobody sees a double standard with this?


That is without a doubt one of the most absurd statements I have heard on this board. But I suppose it makes perfectly good sense to you.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Chats,

I see that they are two completely different issues.

The mother decided to have her baby, regardless of its Downs issue. A choice that she made that many believe displays her fine character.

The daughter foolishly got herself pregnant. This was not a choice her mother made (though I guess the left will try to make it seem like the mother is a failure because of it). 

Why should the daughter's pregnancy be any issue? Can you not see the difference?

On the other hand, Barack has displayed his children, why would you take issue with Sarah displaying hers, if she wished to?


----------



## TheWardrobeGirl (Mar 24, 2008)

I have been a huge fan of Palin's since the announcement of her being the VP pick was made...I have been reading everything I can get my hands on about her...to be honest - this "revelation" is a bit disappointing to me...while I am not sure what affect it will have on the campaign in general, I am disgusted with this recent "trend" of teenagers getting pregnant...I blame Hollywood for making it look "cool" and every time I hear another story, I cringe...personally, I think it is a reflection of poor parenting in many instances (that is my personal opinion and I am sorry if I offended anyone)


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

pt4u67 said:


> That is without a doubt one of the most absurd statements I have heard on this board. But I suppose it makes perfectly good sense to you.


As it does to me too. It seems you is easily mortified.​


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Isn't this only an issue with Republicans because they don't want to teach sex education or give contraceptives to teenagers. LOL @ their beliefs. Guess the bible didn't work out this time. So sad. Still if Dems want to show themselves to be the better party they should take the high ground and leave this alone.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

From what I understand, McCain knew about it before he announced Palin as his running mate. As others have noted, this is a non-issue and I would be shocked if the Obama campaign uses this against her...if only for the fact this type of thing happens to families from all walks of life, and all political stripes, every day accross the U.S.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

SkySov said:


> Isn't this only an issue with Republicans because they don't want to teach sex education or give contraceptives to teenagers. LOL @ their beliefs. Guess the bible didn't work out this time. So sad. Still if Dems want to show themselves to be the better party they should take the high ground and leave this alone.


I'm sure they'll take the "high" ground. Much like you have


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

TMMKC said:


> From what I understand, McCain knew about it before he announced Palin as his running mate. As others have noted, this is a non-issue and I would be shocked if the Obama campaign uses this against her...if only for the fact this type of thing happens to families from all walks of life, and all political stripes, every day accross the U.S.


True True. McCain wanted to use the jail bait as attack ad bait. Get the Dems to go out of bounds and bash em back on it. Good strategy. But why does it happen every day across the US? Can't blame parenting. It's nature to want to "get it on." I don't know at what age people forget what it's like to be a horny teenager because if you really do remember then you would understand abstinance doesn't work. And you don't give a damn what your parents say no matter how many times they beat you with a bible. Realistic, progressive, policies will prevent teenage pregnancies. Or tell them to do it in the butt like Larry Craig.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*At least Bristol won't be falling down drunk like Jenna Bush*

Let's face it, the right had a good snicker at Al Gore's kid and his DUI/possession scandal. The left deserves to snicker here.

Obama has nothing to gain and lots to lose by focusing on it. His supporters and objective journalists do not. It is relevant, as the GOP (cynically IMHO) touts itself as the family values party.


----------



## TheWardrobeGirl (Mar 24, 2008)

SkySov said:


> True True. McCain wanted to use the jail bait as attack ad bait. Get the Dems to go out of bounds and bash em back on it. Good strategy. But why does it happen every day across the US? Can't blame parenting. It's nature to want to "get it on." I don't know at what age people forget what it's like to be a horny teenager because if you really do remember then you would understand abstinance doesn't work. And you don't give a damn what your parents say no matter how many times they beat you with a bible. Realistic, progressive, policies will prevent teenage pregnancies. Or tell them to do it in the butt like Larry Craig.


There are options besides abstinence - I wasn't a teenager THAT long ago but when I was, it was shameful to get pregnant...people took extra measures to make sure it didn't happen...("doing it in the butt" wasn't popular yet  )...I remember watching disgusting videos of STDs - that alone was enough to scare us into either keeping our pants on or making sure we were "protected" ...now, I suspect those videos aren't shown anymore because someone thought they were "inappropriate or offensive"...


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

One of the things to keep in mind here is that Palin's daughter is a minor- 17 years old. I think when children are over 18 and actively involved in the election process it's a bit more fair game. But as a rule the trend toward attacking children and spouses of candidates is distasteful.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Isn't this only an issue with Republicans because they don't want to teach sex education or give contraceptives to teenagers. LOL @ their beliefs.


You are garbage. Human-shaped sewage.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

My high school didn't show any STD videos or teach anything about sex. And there was a separate building down the street where all the pregnant girls went. I don't think it was shameful or popular a few years ago. You got pregnant you went out of sight. I'm not sure if Hollywood is glamorizing it. It may be a seller of a movie plot because of all the occurrences. Art imitating life argument. Blah. 

I don't care how old relatives are. They didn't get to decide to be in the spot light and shouldn't be relevant. It's unfortunate one side focuses too much on values and not issues or this wouldn't be a problem. I don't defend those ***** bloggers of either side, but I also see how Republicans bring it on themselves sometimes.

It may affect independent voters, but liberals don't give a crap if Al Gore's son is a pot head. We wouldn't even care if Al Gore was a stoner as long as he would do a good job.

I have CNN on now and Anderson Cooper just talked about Bristol and ended with "should this even be a story at all." What a freakin joke. I hate when the press does that. Like when they talk about Britney Spears or that pornstar that OD awhile ago. They always end the story laughing at it and saying how stupid a story is. But then they report on it hour after hour. Jackass.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Phinn said:


> You are garbage. Human-shaped sewage.


LOL @ You.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

TheWardrobeGirl said:


> to be honest - this "revelation" is a bit disappointing to me...while I am not sure what affect it will have on the campaign in general, I am disgusted with this recent "trend" of teenagers getting pregnant...I blame Hollywood for making it look "cool" and every time I hear another story, I cringe...personally, I think it is a reflection of poor parenting in many instances (that is my personal opinion and I am sorry if I offended anyone)


Well, I don't know anything about what happened, so who can say whether her getting pregnant resulted from poor parenting or not.

But what you can say is that her decision not to kill the child for convenience (and it would be VERY convenient to murder it and cover it up, for mother and daughter) clearly DOES speak to good parenting.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Keep living in leave it to beaver land. I glad your family life, Turkey, is so cheerful and pristine. But in the real world the decision to keep the baby may have included the risk of the father selling his story to the Washington Post for some 'get me the hell out of Alaska money.' $$$. Politicians aren't stupid even if their bumper sticker slogans suggest so.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

The point isn't what Bristol Palin does, the issue is McCain's judgment. I seriously doubt that McCain knew about this, and I think it's terribly naive to believe their claims that they knew. We also know that McCain's people are up in Alaska right now, doing the background checks on Palin that they should have done before they picked her. 

Picking a vice president is an important decision, but it isn't the most important question a president has to deal with. Maybe their strategy is that people aren't very deep thinkers, and if they put out the message "feisty, independent, conservative woman" that will be good enough. Still, if this is the best he can do for making a decision before he's even president, it doesn't bode well for his ability to handle the really important decisions.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

^ Sorry Jack, I think we are on the same side of the political map, but I can't go along with you on that one. I find it very convenient that McCain has been having problems with Pro-Lifers and then coincidentally picks a running mate with such great talking points for the Pro-Life cause. He knew. That judgment nonsense just sounds like spin: "How can we make McCain look bad for picking Palin." There are much more intriguing story lines with this issue than that.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

But Palin gives him the anti-choice cred even without the pregnant 17-year-old (by the way, is it true that the father is, like, 25 or 26?).

What they fail to get is that nobody would have argued that Sarah Palin shouldn't have the right to choose to bear her fetus to term, even knowing that the child would be born with Downs Syndrome. What she did was what all pro-choice advocates say families should be able to do: obtain the facts, sit down with her husband and her doctor, and make a decision that they concluded was the right decision for their family. I wouldn't take that choice away from her, but she would take that choice away from millions of American women.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

It seems to me to call into question something that might have an impact on McCain's campaign. As recently as Wednesday, McCain definitely wanted his old friend Senator Lieberman at his side, not Palin, whom he just met. But the decision was made for him and he was told "no" to Joe. So what does this say about McCain's real importance to his own campaign if he isn't allowed the final say in calling this most public and potentially important decision? Is he being handled and overruled so much that he's not really in charge? Is his own clear judgement of who he wanted for a running mate seen as that unimportant or so easy to override? It all doesn't make McCain seem like the guy who is in charge and makes me wonder about the competency of his staff who obviously missed a few things in the vetting process.

Despite his years, far from this all making McCain seem an independent maverick it makes him seem more like a maverick in the sense of being a yearling.

But it all may be forgotten soon with Gustav ashore, Hanna aimed at Charleston, South Carolina, and Ike heading across the Atlantic for states yet unknown. 

--A.Q.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

McCain met Palin over six months ago. At that point he had a secret group within his campaign begin vetting her. She was as completely vetted as anyone else in consideration. He kept the whole thing quiet, only about 5 people in his campaign knew she was in consideration. He knew about her daughter's pregnancy. He chose her because she took on her own party, and McCain likes that. Believe whatever you want but this wasn't a last minute pick and she wasn't a second choice. She has been in consideration for months.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> The point isn't what Bristol Palin does, the issue is McCain's judgment. I seriously doubt that McCain knew about this, and I think it's terribly naive to believe their claims that they knew. We also know that McCain's people are up in Alaska right now, doing the background checks on Palin that they should have done before they picked her.
> 
> Picking a vice president is an important decision, but it isn't the most important question a president has to deal with. Maybe their strategy is that people aren't very deep thinkers, and if they put out the message "feisty, independent, conservative woman" that will be good enough. Still, if this is the best he can do for making a decision before he's even president, it doesn't bode well for his ability to handle the really important decisions.


All 9000 people in Palin's hometown knew. A Time reporter said that he only had to ask like 3 people in the town about and they all said it was an "open secret". It wouldn't have taken much for McCain's people to figure it out.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Terpoxon said:


> McCain met Palin over six months ago. At that point he had a secret group within his campaign begin vetting her. She was as completely vetted as anyone else in consideration. He kept the whole thing quiet, only about 5 people in his campaign knew she was in consideration. He knew about her daughter's pregnancy. He chose her because she took on her own party, and McCain likes that. Believe whatever you want but this wasn't a last minute pick and she wasn't a second choice. She has been in consideration for months.


And you know all this to be true because...? Fill us in. Spill your source(s). Oh wait, it was _Fox News_ wasn't it?​


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> And you know all this to be true because...? Fill us in. Spill your source(s). Oh wait, it was _Fox News_ wasn't it?​


+1

Could be McCain trying to look in control. I don't know and won't pretend to know. I like to think of possible scenarios. I wouldn't be surprised if he had Palin tagged and it was a secret. But the way Terp put it out there sounds too...ummm... script like? Do you really believe such a decision could be kept up until the day McCain was ready to announce? Comon man... believe in the possibility sure, but why speak of it with such fervor like it's fact?


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Why must every argument degenerate into ad hominem attacks? Your weak jab about Fox News suggests that I am close minded. I am not voting for either candidate. I will never vote for either major party again unless one of them changes massively and embraces fiscal responsibility and limited government. I read a wide variety of news sources, probably more than you do. Also, I might ask, what are your speculations based on? Anything at all? 



This is the time article.

The article on McCain meeting Palin months ago at the National Governors' conference appeared in the Washington Post, but I guess you consider that a conservative source as well.



Please, stop making everything a personal attack and learn to discuss things like a gentleman.

I am sure many people will just reject this information because they don't want to believe it. I find it really sad that people are attacking this woman's family as a means of getting to her. It is sad that so many people take part in a pointless and damaging form of politics that really doesn't do our elections or our country any good.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

SkySov said:


> +1
> 
> Could be McCain trying to look in control. I don't know and won't pretend to know. I like to think of possible scenarios. I wouldn't be surprised if he had Palin tagged and it was a secret. But the way Terp put it out there sounds too...ummm... script like? Do you really believe such a decision could be kept up until the day McCain was ready to announce? Comon man... believe in the possibility sure, but why speak of it with such fervor like it's fact?


He made an unlikely decision. Everyone else was looking at things in an obvious way. He made a decision which nobody anticipated. He told almost no one on his staff about. The media and the talking heads kept going over the obvious ones and she never came up, so McCain's people never had to cover it up. Lieberman told McCain month's ago that Lieberman would never be accepted. McCain probably made this pick with the assumption that Hillary would be the Dem nominee, which when he met Palin looked like the most likely scenario.

I really don't care what anyone believes. As I said in the previous post, I know some people will reject all of this because they don't want to believe it. I can't help that, I can only try to provide the information.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> Why must every argument degenerate into ad hominem attacks? Your weak jab about Fox News suggests that I am close minded. I am not voting for either candidate. I will never vote for either major party again unless one of them changes massively and embraces fiscal responsibility and limited government. I read a wide variety of news sources, probably more than you do. Also, I might ask, what are your speculations based on? Anything at all?
> 
> This is the time article.
> 
> ...


Good sources. Thank you. Sort of what I thought. McCain knew about the pregnancy issues. Alright, since you are so open minded now... McCain could have been vetting her for months, but does that make her any more or less of a gimmick pick as opposed to a serious heart beat away from being President pick?


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

SkySov said:


> Good sources. Thank you. Sort of what I thought. McCain knew about the pregnancy issues. Alright, since you are so open minded now... McCain could have been vetting her for months, but does that make her any more or less of a gimmick pick as opposed to a serious heart beat away from being President pick?


Why is that her 20 months as a governor is so outclassed by Obama's 24 months in the Senate before he went on the campaign trail (which is basically a full time job)? I don't think its a gimmick so much as an almost perfect complement to what McCain needs. He needed to sure up his base, she is pro-life, pro-gun, anti-pork, and a fiscal conservative as well as a states rights conservative. Palin also has a experience dealing with oil companies in Alaska, and as much as the left is trying to paint her as "in bed with big oil" she has also supported a windfall profits tax (a bad idea in my opinion). Energy, along with the economy, will be a major issue in the election and McCain picked a governor of a major energy producing state. She also is an outdoorswoman and pro-Conservation. Anytime a Republican can get +5% of the female vote they win elections, she helps with that. Why was Obama not a gimmick candidate in the primaries? Is being a woman automatically a gimmick? But being black isn't? Isn't that a little condescending?

Realistically speaking, on paper Obama is one of the least qualified people ever to be nominated by a major party. He hasn't even finished a term as a Senator. Most Senators reach that point after a long career elsewhere, he has about 8 years in a state legislator. Hardly a stellar career. I honestly can't think of anyone with less experience in recent politics, and he is at the top of the ticket. Carter at least had 4 years as Governor. So I don't really see why Palin is a gimmick. VP choices are political, they are meant to get votes. She does that, I don't see the problem.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> What she did was what all pro-choice advocates say families should be able to do: obtain the facts, sit down with her husband and her doctor *(or leave her husband out of the decision completely)*, and make a decision that they concluded was the right decision for their family. I wouldn't take that choice away from her, but she would take that choice away from millions of American women.


Fixed.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> Why is that her 20 months as a governor is so outclassed by Obama's 24 months in the Senate before he went on the campaign trail (which is basically a full time job)? I don't think its a gimmick so much as an almost perfect complement to what McCain needs. He needed to sure up his base, she is pro-life, pro-gun, anti-pork, and a fiscal conservative as well as a states rights conservative. Palin also has a experience dealing with oil companies in Alaska, and as much as the left is trying to paint her as "in bed with big oil" she has also supported a windfall profits tax (a bad idea in my opinion). Energy, along with the economy, will be a major issue in the election and McCain picked a governor of a major energy producing state. She also is an outdoorswoman and pro-Conservation. Anytime a Republican can get +5% of the female vote they win elections, she helps with that. Why was Obama not a gimmick candidate in the primaries? Is being a woman automatically a gimmick? But being black isn't? Isn't that a little condescending?
> 
> Realistically speaking, on paper Obama is one of the least qualified people ever to be nominated by a major party. He hasn't even finished a term as a Senator. Most Senators reach that point after a long career elsewhere, he has about 8 years in a state legislator. Hardly a stellar career. I honestly can't think of anyone with less experience in recent politics, and he is at the top of the ticket. Carter at least had 4 years as Governor. So I don't really see why Palin is a gimmick. VP choices are political, they are meant to get votes. She does that, I don't see the problem.


If it's not abortion it's experience. Boring. Can't compare someone who won a primary and someone who was picked. If the DLC picked Obama to run for President than you can say he was a gimmick, but he was elected to run for President. Nice try though.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

SkySov said:


> If it's not abortion it's experience. Boring. Can't compare someone who won a primary and someone who was picked. If the DLC picked Obama to run for President than you can say he was a gimmick, but he was elected to run for President. Nice try though.


In the nicest possible way, what you have said makes no sense. So, someone is automatically qualified if they are chosen in a primary? We are talking about someone being qualified for a job. Characterizing Palin as a "gimmick" suggests that she was only chosen because she is a woman and is somehow not qualified. So again I'll ask why is Obama's 24 months of experience better than her 20 months? Also, if you think that Obama's race had nothing to do with his nomination, then to quote Michael Corleone, "Who's being naive now Kay?"


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> So again I'll ask why is Obama's 24 months of experience better than her 20 months?


Because he was elected. It's a simple concept you just don't want to grasp. The majority of people who voted for him decided to give him a pass on that issue as there were plenty of candidates with "experience." The "experience" issue is getting tiresome. Is Palin the only pro-life, pro-gun, fiscal conservative in the GOP? If so, I apologize for suggesting she _MAY BE_ a gimmick.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

As far as sources go, the Washington _Post_ has a very long history to lookup. It is interesting that their post-pick piece so neatly repeats so much of the official Republican version as to how it all happened. If observing politics has taught me anything is that when the official script is later paraphrased as news then something is amiss. Well, not exactly amiss, but a sign that the public relations people and the marketing people have done their job and set the news to their satisfaction. Their product has been placed according to design.

Whatever all really occurred, the entire story will not be publically known for years until such time a disgruntled "insider" decides to write his or her memoirs. Until that time I'll just keep myself well-situated and quietly sip my evening drink and listening to those around me talk. The internet is fast but liquor is still quicker. 

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> So, someone is automatically qualified if they are chosen in a primary?


According to the system. You may or may not think anyone is qualified. That's your personal opinion. I am not qualified to explain the matter in a way you will understand.

Please review my post history. I never once brought up race until now. In fact, please review everyone's post history. Right leaning posters bring up race suspiciously more often for some reason. Did it have something to do with Obama winning the election? I don't know. How would it? Maybe because it represents change. Or the same reason corporations diversify maybe? To get different perspectives? It may be an issue you have to deal with yourself.

On the subject, I had this weird thought, I don't know how to word it, but it goes something like: I think there may be some people, who are truely not racist, but are angered by the notion that not liking Obama's politics may flag them as racist, so they irrationally take it out on Obama and his supporters. Does that make sense? Of course you'll say no why did I even just type that. Or this for that matter?


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Saying that someone is qualified based on election is just a circular argument. Can someone fly a plane because a bunch of people vote for them? Perhaps you define things this way, but when I talk about qualifications, I am talking about whether or not someone is capable of handling the position for which they are being considered. By your definition every President ever elected has done a good job because they were elected. It just doesn't make sense.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> Saying that someone is qualified based on election is just a circular argument. Can someone fly a plane because a bunch of people vote for them? Perhaps you define things this way, but when I talk about qualifications, I am talking about whether or not someone is capable of handling the position for which they are being considered. By your definition every President ever elected has done a good job because they were elected. It just doesn't make sense.


Good lord. I said whether or not you think someone is qualified is an opinion. Whether or not a President does a good job is an opinion. You wanted to know the difference between Obama and Palin. It's Obama was elected. It's non partisan. Both sides have similar systems. If that can't be agreed on there is no hope for us.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> But Palin gives him the anti-choice cred even without the pregnant 17-year-old (by the way, is it true that the father is, like, 25 or 26?).
> 
> .


Jack, the father of Bristol's baby is in high school.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

*Palin's as qualified as anyone*


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

JRR said:


> Jack, the father of Bristol's baby is in high school.


Thanks.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

This is pretty amusing. One of the acts of radical change this guy lists is Palin's firing of the public safety commissioner. As you know, this is part of why she's under investigation for using her political office to punish her former brother-in-law. If I supported her I don't think I'd be broadcasting it as one of her qualifications.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> This is pretty amusing. One of the acts of radical change this guy lists is Palin's firing of the public safety commissioner. As you know, this is part of why she's under investigation for using her political office to punish her former brother-in-law. If I supported her I don't think I'd be broadcasting it as one of her qualifications.


No worse than Obama's "qualifications":


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Thoughts?


Unless John McCain is the father, it really shouldn't be an issue!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> Unless John McCain is the father, it really shouldn't be an issue!


Even more than that, I don't think anyone should even be discussing this in public. I suspect anyone with a teenager in the family, especially a teen daughter, is constantly aware that this could easily happen in their family. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a dream world. It's a private matter to be dealt with within the families of the young people involved.

Cruiser


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Eagle and Cruiser, while I agree with you, this will not stay a private matter.

Even if the campaigns "officially" stay away from it, either side would encourage blogs and websites to do everything they can to spread the smear. The Republicans happen to be on the wrong end of this one.

All they can do is try to spin it into as positive thing as they can.

I'm a bit more curious about the firing of her brother-in-law anyway, although McCain himself would have to irrefutably do something pretty awful (not 30 years ago either) to lose my vote.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Cruiser said:


> Even more than that, I don't think anyone should even be discussing this in public. I suspect anyone with a teenager in the family, especially a teen daughter, is constantly aware that this could easily happen in their family. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a dream world. It's a private matter to be dealt with within the families of the young people involved.
> 
> Cruiser


+1. The revelation about her daughter doesn't bother me much. Not that it's an excuse, but this type of thing happens all the time with young people...even to the best families (remember Jenna Bush and her drinking, and Al Gore's son and his marijuana possession charge?)

I suppose having strong family values can help prevent things like this from happening in the first place...but it's a more accurate test of values in how the family handles it. It's an even bigger test of values for our society in how well we handle it by keeping it a private matter, and insisting it be off limits to the media and Obama's campaign.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

TMMKC said:


> It's an even bigger test of values for our society in how well we handle it by keeping it a private matter, and insisting it be off limits to the media and Obama's campaign.


"Off limits . . . _to_ the Obama campaign"?

Obama to Media, Politicos on Palin Pregnancy Story: 'Back Off!'
September 01, 2008 2:28 PM

At a brief press availability in Monroe, Mich., ABC News asked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., if he had any response to Gov. Sarah Palin's statement that her unmarried 17-year-old daughter Bristol is pregnant.

"Let me be a clear as possible: I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people's families are off limits," Obama said, "and people's children are especially off limits.

"This shouldn't be part of our politics," he continued, "It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor, or her potential performance as a vice president.
https://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-to-media.html

I don't think we agree on most things politically, but you seem like a decent guy. I hope you're not implying that the Obama campaign is doing anything to make this a political issue.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Why should Obama make it part of the campaign? He has MSNBC for that.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Why should Obama make it part of the campaign? He has MSNBC for that.


He doesn't have anyone for that. He's made it as clear as he possibly could that it would be entirely improper to make it a campaign issue.

You don't have to like his positions, but this suggestion is beneath you.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Obama doesn't have to encourage his supporters to resort to these ugly tactics. There's probably nothing he could do to stop them.

He knows this, of course. So when he tells them to back off, knowing that they won't, what is he really trying to accomplish?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The Republicans would be just as cynical if they had the "juicy" issue. 

No one who is a saint gets anywhere near the positions Obama and McCain have achieved.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> I don't think we agree on most things politically, but you seem like a decent guy. I hope you're not implying that the Obama campaign is doing anything to make this a political issue.


I wasn't aware of Obama's comments, so that's a relief to know. Politics being what it is, be it on the left or on the right, you never know what a campaign manager (or an overly zealous campaign worker) might do to try and score an advantage. The media, on the other hand....

Thank you, Jack. If we were to meet face-to-face, you might find that we agree on more than you think. I'm just your everyday former Republican turned Independent who's had it with both parties. I am part of a dying breed...a Moderate.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Obama doesn't have to encourage his supporters to resort to these ugly tactics. There's probably nothing he could do to stop them.
> 
> He knows this, of course. So when he tells them to back off, knowing that they won't, what is he really trying to accomplish?


This has been standard operating procedure for Republic candidates at least since Nixon smeared Helen Gahagan Douglas. It reached its pinacle of ugliness with Lee Atwater who from his deathbed sought forgiveness for his dirtry campaign tactics. The Bush family seems to have copied the Atwater playbook, but neither George Bush has sufficient self-awareness to be ashamed of how they have conducted their campaigns.

Buzz


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

All you have to do is read left wing blogs to know that Republicans do not have a monopoly on unfair politics and cynical posturing. Both sides of have a lot to be ashamed of in regard to this issue.

However, "the end" appears to "justify the means" to so many people on both sides (especially out on the extremes of the right and left) that none of the fighters realizes that we have lost something far more important than "winning" a political point and an election.

Because of the "scorched earth tactics" that both sides do, we very probably won't be able to unite if we really need to do so to defeat an enemy or solve a major problem. 

What the right did with Swiftboating was nasty. (I disliked the Bushes and never voted for either of them to win elections. Jack, you may not believe this, but I have voted for a lot more Democrats to win the presidency than Republicans.)

The Clintons and the left have things to be ashamed of, too.


----------



## Victor123 (Jun 18, 2008)

I find it funny that more time is spent talking about peoples personal lives rather than what they actually stand for politically.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I'm straining my mind to think of anything comparable to this--abusing a candidate's minor children, and I can't think of one. The "swiftboating" of Kerry doesn't compare one little bit.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I'm straining my mind to think of anything comparable to this--abusing a candidate's minor children, and I can't think of one. The "swiftboating" of Kerry doesn't compare one little bit.


Quite true. It was utterly cruel, selfish and thoughtless for Sarah Palin to drag her daughter before the American public for dissection and examination. Sarah Palin knows exactly what the political system is like and she certainly knew the scrutiny that would be focused on her poor daughter; to believe otherwise is to assume that Palin is so naive as to be thoroughly unqualified for national office. If Palin could not anticipate the abuse that would be heaped on her daughter, how can we expect her to have the foresight and cunning to deal with Ahmadinejad? Yet, Sarah Palin, knowing full well what would happen to her daughter, went ahead and accepted nomination for a national political ticket. I think it is shameful, what Sarah Palin has done to her daughter and it is disingenuous at least to try and lay the blame before anyone other than the poor child's mother.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yes, well, you're not exactly known for thinking, are you?


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> Quite true. It was utterly cruel, selfish and thoughtless for Sarah Palin to drag her daughter before the American public for dissection and examination. Sarah Palin knows exactly what the political system is like and she certainly knew the scrutiny that would be focused on her poor daughter; to believe otherwise is to assume that Palin is so naive as to be thoroughly unqualified for national office. If Palin could not anticipate the abuse that would be heaped on her daughter, how can we expect her to have the foresight and cunning to deal with Ahmadinejad? Yet, Sarah Palin, knowing full well what would happen to her daughter, went ahead and accepted nomination for a national political ticket. I think it is shameful, what Sarah Palin has done to her daughter and it is disingenuous at least to try and lay the blame before anyone other than the poor child's mother.
> 
> Buzz


Buzz, do you also think that rape victims who wear short skirts "have it coming"? Just curious.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> Buzz, do you also think that rape victims who wear short skirts "have it coming"? Just curious.


No I do not, do you? Your strange attempt at misdirection is totally baffling but it is what I would expect from you.

Sarah Palin must be wise enough to have anticipated the attention and abuse that would be heaped upon her daughter, yet she went ahead and accepted McCan's offer. To believe otherwise is to acknowledge that Palin is so naive as to be unqualified for any public office. Sarah Palin's daughter's being dragged through the dirt is totally Sarah Palin's own responsibility and she should be ashamed to have done that to her daughter.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yes, well, you're not exactly known for thinking, are you?


Oh, my dear, dear Turkey, you are so smart and sharp witted, I can't stand it! Tears come to my eyes just thinking about the wonderfulness...the utter wonderfulness of YOU! To read one of your pithy and pointed messages is just to die...I mean it, TO DIE!

Buzz


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> Quite true. It was utterly cruel, selfish and thoughtless for Sarah Palin to drag her daughter before the American public for dissection and examination. Sarah Palin knows exactly what the political system is like and she certainly knew the scrutiny that would be focused on her poor daughter; to believe otherwise is to assume that Palin is so naive as to be thoroughly unqualified for national office. If Palin could not anticipate the abuse that would be heaped on her daughter, how can we expect her to have the foresight and cunning to deal with Ahmadinejad? Yet, Sarah Palin, knowing full well what would happen to her daughter, went ahead and accepted nomination for a national political ticket. I think it is shameful, what Sarah Palin has done to her daughter and it is disingenuous at least to try and lay the blame before anyone other than the poor child's mother.
> 
> Buzz


You can't really believe this crap you posted. Nobody really could. (Ok, maybe Keith Olbermann).

Isn't this just more of what you think passes for "clever" repartee?


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

So, she should have expected the press and the loony left blogsphere to attack a minor child on a completely private matter? I think that says more about your conception of politics than about Palin being irresponsible. Children have been traditionally left alone, they are civilians, they are not public figures. These attacks on her daughter are the worst sort of politics. Gore's son's DUI was reported but left alone. The mainstream media claimed that they ignored Edward's affair was because he was not running for president (even though the affair was going on when he was running). Even the Bush twins indiscretions were hardly reported compared to this. The New York Times ran a front page story on it. Again, Palin's daughter is a minor. The pregnancy is not a matter of policy. To blame Palin for it is ludicrous. To say that she is unfit for office based on her acceptance is even more absurd.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Relayer said:


> You can't really believe this crap you posted. Nobody really could. (Ok, maybe Keith Olbermann).
> 
> Isn't this just more of what you think passes for "clever" repartee?


Well, yes, I am more clever than you are and I write a great deal better, but, no, this is a good deal more than clever repartee. I really believe that Palin...the parent...is responsible for what is being done to her minor daughter. Obviously, you believe that parental responsibility is crap and I do not.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> So, she should have expected the press and the loony left blogsphere to attack a minor child on a completely private matter?


Yes, indeed.



Terpoxon said:


> I think that says more about your conception of politics than about Palin being irresponsible.


You are even more naive than Palin.



Terpoxon said:


> Children have been traditionally left alone, they are civilians, they are not public figures. These attacks on her daughter are the worst sort of politics.


Oh, please, minor children have been subject to attack at least since Ruth Cleveland and Alice Roosevelt.



Terpoxon said:


> The pregnancy is not a matter of policy. To blame Palin for it is ludicrous. To say that she is unfit for office based on her acceptance is even more absurd.


I am not blaming Sarah Palin for her daughter's pregnancy. However, I am blaming Sarah Palin for exposng her daughter to public examination and discussion. Once again, I submit for your consideration, Sarah Palin should have known exactly what would happen when she entered the race.

Buzz


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Well, Buzz, I didn't vote in 1900, but for the last 50 years or so, children have been left alone, at least by civilized people. I find your vision of politics to be warped and twisted and as appealing to the worst instincts of people. I am sure you love this sort of thing. You seem like that sort of person. I have no further need to deal with you. You and others like you succeeded in making a 17 year old girl's life a little more awkward and now see fit to blame her mother for daring to accept a position on a presidential ticket. I am sure you are proud of that. Enjoy it.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> Well, Buzz, I didn't vote in 1900, but for the last 50 years or so, children have been left alone, at least by civilized people. I find your vision of politics to be warped and twisted and as appealing to the worst instincts of people. I am sure you love this sort of thing. You seem like that sort of person. I have no further need to deal with you. You and others like you succeeded in making a 17 year old girl's life a little more awkward and now see fit to blame her mother for daring to accept a position on a presidential ticket. I am sure you are proud of that. Enjoy it.


Excuse me? Show me one instance where I have discussed Bristol Palin's condition or else kindly apologize.

From the outset of this thread I have stated that Bristol's condition is irrelevant to national politics. Your attempt to make it appear that I have shared in this sorry spectacle is totally reprehensible.

It is Bristol Palin's mother who has made her life awkward, I did not. I think what has happened to that poor young woman is disgusting.

Buzz


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Terpoxon said:


> Well, Buzz, I didn't vote in 1900, but for the last 50 years or so, children have been left alone, at least by civilized people.


Yes, except when George W. Bush's minions launched that whispering attack against John McCain for his allegedly out-of-wedlock African-American child who, oops, just turned out to be his adopted daughter from Ethiopia. Civilized people, indeed.

Buzz


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

I think that unless the children are in politics themselves, they are off limits and it's rude, and a little creepy, to discuss them.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

M6Classic said:


> Well, yes, I am more clever than you are and I write a great deal better, but, no, this is a good deal more than clever repartee. I really believe that Palin...the parent...is responsible for what is being done to her minor daughter. Obviously, you believe that parental responsibility is crap and I do not.
> 
> Buzz


You writing skills are certainly remarkable. I remember well this gem where you were also attempting to flaunt your superiority (as you are obviously inclined to do):

*********
M6Classic 
Senior Member

Join Date: February 15th, 2008
Location: Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

For sooth, it would be difficult for some of our friends veering right to demonstrate that they have read any of the cannon of the Western Civilization that they so desperately want to save with their concealed pistols.

Buzz

**********

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=84739&highlight=cannon&page=2

"For sooth", "cannon"?

Your writing "skills" unimpressive.

Your arrogance, however, is astonishing.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Relayer said:


> You writing skills are certainly remarkable. I remember well this gem where you were also attempting to flaunt your superiority (as you are obviously inclined to do):
> 
> *********
> M6Classic
> ...


That was good, wasn't it? My writing skills are actually astonishing. My arrogance, however, is transcendent!

Buzz


----------



## Francisco D'Anconia (Apr 18, 2007)

TheWardrobeGirl said:


> I have been a huge fan of Palin's since the announcement of her being the VP pick was made...I have been reading everything I can get my hands on about her...to be honest - this "revelation" is a bit disappointing to me...while I am not sure what affect it will have on the campaign in general, I am disgusted with this recent "trend" of teenagers getting pregnant...I blame Hollywood for making it look "cool" and every time I hear another story, I cringe...personally, I think it is a reflection of poor parenting in many instances (that is my personal opinion and I am sorry if I offended anyone)


^ -1. Teenage girls getting preganant has been going on since before Johnson was President, Andrew Johnson that is. Take a read of something like this....



M6Classic said:


> No more relevant than the sexual orientation of Dick Cheney's daughter.
> 
> Buzz





SkySov said:


> True True. McCain wanted to use the jail bait as attack ad bait. Get the Dems to go out of bounds and bash em back on it. Good strategy. But why does it happen every day across the US? Can't blame parenting. It's nature to want to "get it on." I don't know at what age people forget what it's like to be a horny teenager because if you really do remember then you would understand abstinance doesn't work. And you don't give a damn what your parents say no matter how many times they beat you with a bible. Realistic, progressive, policies will prevent teenage pregnancies. Or tell them to do it in the butt like Larry Craig.





eagle2250 said:


> Unless John McCain is the father, it really shouldn't be an issue!





Cruiser said:


> Even more than that, I don't think anyone should even be discussing this in public. I suspect anyone with a teenager in the family, especially a teen daughter, is constantly aware that this could easily happen in their family. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a dream world. It's a private matter to be dealt with within the families of the young people involved.
> 
> Cruiser





forsbergacct2000 said:


> Eagle and Cruiser, while I agree with you, this will not stay a private matter.
> 
> Even if the campaigns "officially" stay away from it, either side would encourage blogs and websites to do everything they can to spread the smear. The Republicans happen to be on the wrong end of this one.
> 
> ...





PedanticTurkey said:


> Obama doesn't have to encourage his supporters to resort to these ugly tactics. There's probably nothing he could do to stop them.
> 
> He knows this, of course. So when he tells them to back off, knowing that they won't, what is he really trying to accomplish?


Responding to you ladies and gentlemen, Bristol Palin's life and descendants should be off limits as irrelevant to to the partisan dialouge in this campaign. But it's a straight flush to the ace of spades that the "abstinence only policy" soon-to-be Grandma Sarah advocates is as bankrupt and Enron.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Didn't someone look it up and find that the daughter was given a "classical" "if you're going to do it, use protection" sex-ed in her high school?

Edit:


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Francisco D'Anconia said:


> But it's a straight flush to the ace of spades that the "abstinence only policy" soon-to-be Grandma Sarah advocates is as bankrupt and Enron.


+1. There are teenagers all chock full of hormones and having sex?!!! This whole debate reminds of the Claude Reins line from _Casablanca_: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

The Palins should be left alone to handle this in private. I am sure the good governor had "the talk" with Bristol at some point. The advice obviously didn't stick. It happens. If the Palins did suspect their daughter was having sex, buying young Levi a box of Trojans for Christmas might have been a good option.


----------



## Francisco D'Anconia (Apr 18, 2007)

TMMKC said:


> +1. There are teenagers all chock full of hormones and having sex?!!! This whole debate reminds of the Claude Reins line from _Casablanca_: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"


A true classic!! :aportnoy: :aportnoy: My favorite movie.



TMMKC said:


> +The Palins should be left alone to handle this in private. I am sure the good governor had "the talk" with Bristol at some point. The advice obviously didn't stick. It happens. If the Palins did suspect their daughter was having sex, buying young Levi a box of Trojans for Christmas might have been a good option.


+1 Ordinarily this should be left in private.

But Gov. Palin's public rhetoric on the topic of abstinience only "education" makes this a matter of public concern. And it suggests that either your certainty is misplaced sir, or that the veracity we claim to seek and admire in our public officials resides not in her.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Francisco D'Anconia said:


> But Gov. Palin's public rhetoric on the topic of abstinience only "education" makes this a matter of public concern. And it suggests that either your certainty is misplaced sir, or that the veracity we claim to seek and admire in our public officials resides not in her.


Good point. Teaching abstinience only might sound good on paper (to some), but as you alluded to earlier, it doesn't quite wash in the real world. It's needling little details like this that makes me very leery of the hard-core "family values" crowd. And no...I am not certain it should remain a private matter if she chooses to harp on it while on the campaign trail and foist her children in front of cameras to somehow prove her "Supermom-hood." But I pray that doesn't happen...if only for her childrens' sake.

I gave up seeking veracity in public officials a long time ago. I neither trust or admire most of them.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

TMMKC said:


> If we were to meet face-to-face, you might find that we agree on more than you think. I'm just your everyday former Republican turned Independent who's had it with both parties. I am part of a dying breed...a Moderate.


Maybe so. Even if we didn't agree, we'd get along.


----------

