Didn’t Anybody Check on Palin?

UPDATE (by DavidThi): According to TPM

Todd Palin, husband of Sarah, was a member of the secessionist Alaska Independence Party from 1995 through 2002. That’s the information we just got from the Alaska Division of elections.

UPDATE: According to The Associated Press:

Asked about whether Palin’s background was thoroughly checked out before he selected her, McCain told reporters in Philadelphia: “The vetting process was completely thorough and I’m grateful for the results.”

This was really the only thing McCain could say, because it’s better to try to appear like you were okay with her faults than to look incompetent.

————————-

John McCain’s campaign is taking a lot of hits over a flurry of disclosures about VP pick Sarah Palin. And not because of the disclosures themselves, but because of the growing idea – which is more harmful itself to McCain – that Palin wasn’t actually vetted before she was offered the VP slot. As The New York Times reports:

A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain’s choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket.

On Monday morning, Ms. Palin and her husband, Todd, issued a statement saying that their 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, was five months pregnant and that she intended to marry the father.

Among other less attention-grabbing news of the day: it was learned that Ms. Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power in dismissing the state’s public safety commissioner; that she was a member for two years in the 1990s of the Alaska Independence Party, which has at times sought a vote on whether the state should secede; and that Mr. Palin was arrested 22 years ago on a drunken-driving charge.

Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin’s background. A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice.

Although the McCain campaign said that Mr. McCain had known about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy before he asked her mother to join him on the ticket and that he did not consider it disqualifying, top aides were vague on Monday about how and when he had learned of the pregnancy, and from whom.[Pols emphasis]

While there was no sign that her formal nomination this week was in jeopardy, the questions swirling around Ms. Palin on the first day of the Republican National Convention, already disrupted by Hurricane Gustav, brought anxiety to Republicans who worried that Democrats would use the selection of Ms. Palin to question Mr. McCain’s judgment and his ability to make crucial decisions.

At the least, Republicans close to the campaign said it was increasingly apparent that Ms. Palin had been selected as Mr. McCain’s running mate with more haste than McCain advisers initially described.

Yikes. This is starting to really look bad for McCain, and it’s become obvious that nobody in the campaign was really prepared for the questions about Palin. Watch this interview with a McCain spokesman and you’ll see what we mean – the guy clearly has no answer for questions that you would have thought they should be well prepared to answer. These aren’t even all questions about Palin – they are basic messaging questions surrounding her selection that the campaign doesn’t seem to know how to deal with.

246 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. redstateblues says:

    not read history books? The Eagleton comparison just keeps getting more and more basis in fact.

    • Libertad says:

      They sure seem to have a lot in common in terms of background. Of course they differ greatly on policy direction.

      Obama, half Kenyan/half American.

      Palin, married a man with Native American roots.

      Obama, his mom was pregnant at 17.

      Palin, her daughter is pregnant at 17.

      Obama, 46

      Palin, 44

      Both (still) married to early lifetime sweethearts.

      Both newcomers to national political scene, after years toiling at the local and state level.

      • redstateblues says:

        No comment on unions? I’m amazed.

        • Libertad says:

          Palin, husband USW member.

          Obama, had to help USW members because the union didn’t care once they lost their jobs. $300million in forced dues to influence U.S. elections, but the union couldn’t find a million to support out of work members retraining.

      • Ralphie says:

        100 percent American.  Read the 14th Amendment.

        Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

        Why aren’t you out somewhere making Colorado safe for slavery?

        • Libertad says:

          When people are held captive and lack self-determination that is slavery.

          Kind of like…

          National Labor Relations Act, Section 7: RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES

             Sec. 7. В§ 157. Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a)(3) section 158(a)(3) of this title.

          Governor Ritter, Mayor Hickenlooper and Democrat leadership protected government workers by giving them the right to keep their job even if they choose to not join the union, not pay forced uniuon dues, and not pay forced agency fees.

          Shouldn’t all Coloradans have these rights?

          • DavidThi808 says:

            Granted, I’m breaking my rule of not responding to you – but answer this question for me.

            I’m the president of a company. Do you think I, as the owner of a company, have the right to require my employees to join a union?

            • bob ewegen says:

              to force your employees to join a union.  But you can in some businesses hire only union employees i.e., if you are a contractor and need bricklayers and go to the union hiring hall.  

            • Libertad says:

              Management could not mandate compulsory unionization as a condition of employment under Amendment 47.

              It’s individual worker choice; it’s simple and it’s fair.

              Digging deeper lets look at a situation: Lets take an Illinois based firm considering relocation to Colorado. The firm is highly specialized and management knows that they really, really, really need only union members and their shop stewards for labor; this is because of a critical nature of the highly technical work.

              Your question is what do they do after the Governor proclaims Amendment 47 law giving the same right to the rest of Colorado that he gave to state workers on 11/02/07?

              Well once they have decided to locate in the more business freindly state of Colorado, they call up Don Elliman and ask him to arrange a ground breaking and union contract signing.

              Don then calls up Mike Cerbo, the local union president, and the Governor to witness and participate in the million dollar facility construction project (including PLA) ground breaking and the union contract signing.

              Additionally and within the soon to be ratified union contract, management offers to collect and remit dues dues to the union.

              Further, they establish a joint union-company foundation to focus on areas of mutual concern like more union based education services, taxation of religious organizations, greater workers compensation options, higher business taxes, more regulation, greater mandates on hiring within religious organizations, successful Democrat candidate elections, greater abortion rights, and more new government programs.

              At the end of the day this firm is not allowed to make their workers join the union, but through alternate methods they will get most to move over to join. Alternate methods include the sanctioned deduction of dues and other fees from paychecks; the use of those monies to fund PACs and foundations; and the maintenance of non-members at lower seniority levels.

          • bob ewegen says:

            In the case of state employees, their rights are spelled out in the constitution, and civil service rules.  The fact is, you despise Ritter’s attempts to encourage state employees to join unions. So quit pretending he is a right to work man, which is isn’t.

            But then, you know the truth and prefer to lie about it.  

            • Libertad says:

              Why are government workers in Colorado allowed to keep their jobs if they choose not to join the union, choose not to pay agency dues, choose not to pay union dues?

              Because Govenor Bill Ritter firmed up those rights in his 11/02/07 order.

              Shouldn’t all Coloradans have the same right to choose union yes or union no … just like Colorado government workers?

              • bob ewegen says:

                They keep their jobs because of the civil service system in the constitution overrides Ritters orders.   And where do you get off advocating unionization of state workers?

                I don’t, it would be an unnecessary second bite of the apple, given the power of their civil service protection.

                Too dumb to read the constitution?

                I guess that might explain your consistent lies. But why expect us to give you credibility?

                • Libertad says:

                  Fact … the Union Security Clause was withheld. ColoradoWINS cannot collect dues or fees.

                  Right-to-Work, if its good enough for state workers isn’t Right-to-Work good enough for all Coloradans?

                  Shouldn’t all person’s be free to associate or not associate?

                  • bob ewegen says:

                    And be honest…okay, lie a little less than usual…Are you REALLY urging state employees to join unions?

                    • Libertad says:

                      And be honest…okay Bob, are you really wanting to see unions excluded from organizing.

                      ps I thought Libertad was Coors

                    • bob ewegen says:

                      for state employees, whose wages are set by a salary survey and whose job security, if you ever bothered to read the constitution, is guaranteed by Civil Service rules deeply embedded in the constitution, to use collective bargaining. Now, to repeat, do you REALLY support collective bargaining for state employees?  Think hard before you answer, Jonathan might not like it if you say “yes.”

                    • Libertad says:

                      I believe bloggers here said he (Dean) totally freaked by calling Ritter a Hoffa Union thug in that above the fold editorial.

                      The facts are this. Governor Ritter labored up Colorado government and assured the workers the Right-to-Work. At the end of the day ColoradoWINS got to union-up the state. The SEIU caved and the AFL went nuts because of the Right-to-Work intention.

                      So shouldn’t all Coloradans enjoy real employee free choice as locked in by the constitution, the executive order and the intention to protect workers rights to choose?

                    • bob ewegen says:

                      I shouldn’t dignify a shill, but please stop lying about the fact that it is the colorado constitution which guarantees state workers they don’t have to join a union.  SEIU and AFL hardly went nuts — they were delerious with the chance Ritter gave them to organize/.  So, I gather you believe every Colorado worker should have the right to join a unionh, free of the intimidation tactics that goons like Wal-Mart, King and Ballou, and other anti-union employers unleash. Do you support Wal-Mart in defying federal law by firing workers who try to organize a union? Oh, of course you do.  That’s what good little shills do.

              • tallport says:

                Again, there is a major difference is most cases between the public and private sector because in the public sector employees do not normally bargain on wages, which is a key factor that you keep on ignoring. In the public sector, they do bargain on wages, so why should the contract apply to non-members?  It shouldn’t really, not in any case, but it often does.    

    • Ray Springfield says:

      This is a disaster for the McCain campaign.

    • Stringer says:

      History was on the march again the morning after Barack Obama became the first African-American to accept his party’s White House nomination. After the fireworks, the 80,000-strong crowd who had cheered Obama to the skies at the Mile High stadium in Denver woke up with a hangover.

      “We may be seeing the first woman president. As a Democrat, I am reeling,” said Camille Paglia, the cultural critic. “That was the best political speech I have ever seen delivered by an American woman politician. Palin is as tough as nails.”

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t

      • G Pulviczek says:

        …one of the worst wastes of ink and electrons in the modern age.  Well-known irrational Hillary-hater.  A DINO if there ever was one (although I bet the R’s don’t want her either).  Prime example of what Bob Somerby rails against over at the Daily Howler.

        • Aristotle says:

          She has another quote…

          “Good Lord, we had barely 12 hours of Democrat optimism,” said Paglia. “It was a stunningly timed piece of PR by the Republicans.”

          Real Democrats don’t say “Democrat” in place of “Democratic.”

          I noticed that Spinner forgot to include this quote:

          Karl Rove, Bush’s former aide, offered a guarded welcome to the “gun-packing, hockey-playing” governor, sayhing: “We’ll get a taste in the next five days of how well she does in the 62 days that follow.”

          Although this article is dated Sunday (which could mean it was published on Saturday, esp. since it’s an English paper) it reads like it was written (or the reporting was done) on Friday. And we’re getting that taste, aren’t we? Oh yes we are.

  2. rocco says:

    What does it say about palin? Did she think this wouldn’t surface? Truthfully, her daughter’s pregnancy is a non-story to me, and probably the vast majority of Democrats. It’s the predators on the right side that find this kind of thing “immoral”, as well as “their business”.

    Having said that, what does it say that palin would take the vp nomination knowing that by doing so, her daughter would be slaughtered? Are we talking judgement?

    Good for Obama for taking the high road. Think a republican would do that?        

  3. Laughing Boy says:

    Straight reporting.

    brought anxiety to Republicans who worried that Democrats would use the selection of Ms. Palin to question Mr. McCain’s judgment and his ability to make crucial decisions.

    Really?  This is analysis.  Par for the course.

    • redstateblues says:

      type of independent analysis in the National Review and the Washington Times.

      • Laughing Boy says:

        Washington times is closer to the middle than the NYT.

        This (actually 3 stories) was front page news above the fold on a paper that wouldn’t investigate the Edwards affair, and also moved to a later page the fact that the Iraqis took control over Anbar province this weekend.

        Surely there are bigger and better things to talk about.

        • RedGreen says:

          than the erratic, reckless judgment of the man who is about to be nominated for president? There’s a reason this topic has dominated the news for three days — the McCain campaign made the Palin selection hoping her personality, personal history, and novelty would attract attention. They were right.

        • BlueCat says:

          Edwards stuff was unconfirmed, without solid evidence for quite some time. Legitimate news orgs shied away for that reason and not  because they give Dems a break. This is something that is clearly out there in the open.  

          Also, once  hard evidence became available, Edwards was slaughtered just the same as any rightie would be.  The media certainly never gave Clinton any free ride back during the Lewinsky scandal.

          Agree that Palin’s little girl being a pregnant teen is not something for which anyone should be attacked per se but am appalled by the announcement that the 17 year old child is planning to marry the father, most likely one more very bad decision that will negatively impact  her life.  If her mom thinks that’s a good idea that says something to me about her mom’s judgement  even though I respect the personal decision to have the baby.

          The whole slow trickle of one story after another tells me that McCain made another sudden reckless decision and that there was not, in fact, any thorough vetting of this choice. This further convinces me that McCain is not so much a maverick as an overgrown adolescent who makes reckless, unwise decisions, often just for the sake of creating controversy for its own sake and so he can say “Look at me. I’m bold.”  

          The thought of someone this cocky and impulsive with this low a level of good judgement becoming our President, Commander in Chief and leader of the free world ought to scare anyone with a lick of sense.  Especially considering the mess  tough talking, clueless GW is leaving behind. These are uncommonly perilous times and solid judgement is much more important than time  spent in government or having been a POW long ago.

          One also can’t help but wonder how this many things going on in Pain’s life at once,being investigated, having a new Down’s syndrome baby, a pregnant teen about to get married, as well as several potential problems breaking every day, will affect  her ability to  focus on  all she needs to master to be ready for this job, considering her apparent extreme lack of knowledge about the larger world.

          • "The Blonde" says:

            is to kill the baby.  This would be a much better outcome for all.  

            After all Obama said he would not want his daughters punished with a baby.

            At least Palin’s daughter will get her just punishment by having a baby.  She will pay her debt to society with the horrible life sentence of raising a child.

            • Danny the Red (hair) says:

              His point was about BIRTH CONTROL and sex ed.  Obama wants his daughters to be abstinent, but would rather have them have access to birth control and the knowledge of how to use it than to level them in ignorance to face their sexuality with out preperation or options.

              Myself I am the product of a teenage mom (its one of the reasons I feel such a kinship with Obama).  Being a teenage mom for my mom meant no college after working so hard to get a scholarship.  It meant welfare after my father left. It meant shame.  It meant poverty.  It meant travail.

              Now all problems can be overcome, but being a teen mom is definitely a punishment for bad choices.

            • BlueCat says:

              Obama’s judgement would be that whether to have the baby, keep it, put it up for adoption or  have an abortion would be the individuals decision. Obama would also like to see all young people educated as to all of their birth control and STD prevention options so that, whether they have sex or not ( and just as many who have had nothing bit abstinence only education as those who have real knowledge DO have sex before marriage.  Fewer of them use protection), they can have  the best chance of avoiding disease and unwanted pregnancy.  

              Certainly few would be for aborting a baby this far along for anything other than an extremely compelling health reason.  

              I question the wisdom of a 17 year old MARRYING because of a pregnancy.  I fully respect her decision to have the baby as would almost all pro-choicers.  That’s why we are pro-CHOICE.

          • One Queer Dude says:

               It’s a shotgun wedding, and given her fetish for firearms and her lifetime NRA membership, I think we all know who’ll be pointing the gun at the hapless Levi.

    • RedGreen says:

      No it isn’t, the reporter talked with “Republicans who worried that Democrats would use the selection of Ms. Palin to question Mr. McCain’s judgment,” etc. It’s straight reporting about what those involved are talking about and, in this case, worrying about.

      • Laughing Boy says:

        Who are the sources?

        Mmm hmmm…

        It’s typical NYT bias bullshit.  Good thing that paper won’t exist in five years. It’s become a disgrace.

        • BlueCat says:

          I have been giving you way too much credit

        • Aristotle says:

          Who are the SOURCES?

          Since when do papers name sources?

          LB, I’m starting to think that you’re slipping into lala land with the wingnuts. You keep introducing the most specious points imaginable to support your arguments.

          I get that you’re a McCain supporter and want to get behind your man, but these contortions of yours are something to behold.

        • parsingreality says:

          ….for shooting the messenger.  Everything in that story seems well substantiated.  So why the problem?  Oh, it’s not good for McCain…

          Personally, I couldn’t care less about the drunk driving issue.  Hell, some of us elected a president twice who tried to hide that fact for his own follies.  

          The issue of the preggers daughter is not about a gotcha of her pregnancy, it is an obvious failure of the much touted Family Values.

          I also don’t care about her joining the secession movement…..other than it showing a preference to not be part of the USA…which she would be the VP of.  Sort of like Michelle Obama’s “Never been proud” moment.

    • colorado76 says:

      when it came to the political risks to senator Obama last week.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08

      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08

      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08

  4. rocco says:

    Sorry. “Slaughtered” is absolutely not the right word. The word is “vilified”                  

  5. Nicky60293 says:

    This should be a topic of an election. It should be about the issues and not the personal life of a candidate and if anyone has a problem they should deal with me.

    • Precinct854 says:

      I make mistakes all the time.  I don’t read something closely enough and get the wrong idea.  Or misspell something.

      But this is just silly.  First of all you reversed the meaning of your first sentence by leaving out a “not”.  

      Secondly you are wrong.  This speaks to Palin’s (and other conservatives’) wrong headed ideas about abstinence only education working.  Study after study has show that it does not reduce teen pregnancy.  This is yet another example of it, proof that even conservative standard bearers cannot keep their children from getting pregnant through abstinence only education.  And it does legitimately raise the question of how closely the McCain campaign vetted Gov. Palin and their ability to deal with negative news.

      Then you conclude with a threat that would not be out of place on a third grade playground.  How do you think anyone will take you seriously when you are making statements like we should deal with you?  Well I have got a problem with this and with you.  What are you going to do?  Threaten me with your internet lawyer next?  Maybe threaten to go away and never come back?

      If you’re one of the many people sent out by the McCain campaign to put out a conservative line in blogs you sure aren’t earning your keep.  You cannot even keep up the fiction you posted earlier about being a ‘loyal democrat’.  

      • Nicky60293 says:

        I am a Democrat and I’m not a conservitive and this is a perfect exanple of getting a wrong idea of someone. You don’t know me and what I satand for and your doiong the same thing with Gov. Palin too. Besides I did this on my own buddy. Also this is the first time I’m going Republican too. So before you make a silly assumption try to know the person first!  

  6. Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

    All issues with candidates are fair.  if this was Obama’s child, can you imagine the press – “Black girl pregnant – another Black child born out of wedlock, where is Obama’s family values!”

    Palin’s daughter is not the issue, however, combined with other personal issues, yes, it becomes a much larger issue of the “rules of living” of the religious right and McCain’s pandering to them.

    Palin admits to having used pot (not that I am complaining -you all know where I stand on that).

    Her husband has a DUI.  Does it matter to you if your family was killed or injured by a 22 year old that was drunk or a 50 year old that was drunk?

    Her 17 year old daughter is pregnant and going to marry the father – how many young marriages work?  Not many, is this good parenting to mix one bad decision with another?

    She wants to teach abstinence only in school – how’s that working for your family?

    She wants to teach creationism in school – what?  Based on what proof – oh yeah, the bible.

    There is also some concern about her abuse of power – if she abused her limited power in Alaska politics, what happens on a world stage?

    And Lastly, I am hearing that the boyfriend in his 20s, if that is the case; do we have an issue with statutory rape and why does a conservative family with values allow their daughter to date a 23 year old?  My single parent Dad did not allow it – and he was liberal!

    At this point I would have to ask the VP nominee, how her core beliefs are working for her?

    Is she saying to the American people, “Let’s take away anyone’s choice to raise their family and have core belief that work for them and let’s push our standards on America, even though they do not work in my family?”

    Here is the issue, the Republicans can not have it both ways – you are either for conservative values and you will be judged by those values if you are pushing them down our throat – if you fail at those values you will be held accountable and have to explain them.  

  7. Western Way says:

    Left-wing ‘haters’ are going to do something terrible to the Obama campaign… Turn Sarah and her daughter Bristol into objects of sympathy for women, the more you attack about pregnancy and having children, the more vehemntly women will rally to them.  Keep it comin, Pols, Kos, etc.  The more you do it the better it is.

    • redstateblues says:

      Palin anymore. We’re attacking McCain, whose judgment when it came to his VP pick shows he is not ready to lead this country.

      • Libertad says:

        She even said so.

        Time for you to surf back to DailyKos for new talking points.

        • Danny the Red (hair) says:

          If the knock against Obama is “what does change mean”, the question about McCain is “where does he want to lead us and how did he decide that was the place to go” (bonus points if he can answer the question without mentioning he was a POW).

          For 26 years of leadership he hasn’t accomplished much.

          In terms of getting things done, what’s John McCain ever accomplished? Beyond a minor, years-old procedural reform to the campaign finance system – nothing. And he’s had much more time in Washington in which to get something done. But in McCain’s past 25 years in congress he’s managed to author not a single piece of legislation that’s been signed into law that helps any real people with any real problems. He’s spent a lot of time posturing on the Sunday shows, and affiliated himself with a few pieces of modestly progressive legislation that didn’t get passed, and then disavowed all those bills.

          http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/doing_stuff.php

          Personally I think McCain got interested in ethics and campaign finance reform after getting slapped around for influence peddling in the Keating five scandal and joined with Feingold in 1994 to rehabilitate his image.

          What does McCain say his legislative accomplishments are?

          I took a look at the “About” page on McCain’s website, looking for accomplishments. It touts his “record of leadership,” but doesn’t include a single reference to an accomplishment from McCain’s quarter-century as a member of Congress.

          Well, “About” pages tend to be kind of vague, so perhaps I was looking in the wrong place. There’s also a timeline of the important milestones in McCain’s life on his website. (It skips over some of the personal details, such as his adultery and divorce.) It’s a lengthy review of McCain’s awards and key moments, but it lists just one piece of legislation: “May 20, 2002 – Final passage of John McCain’s trademark McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation, which reformed the influence of money in political campaigns.”

          This, in and of itself, is kind of interesting. After more than 25 years in Washington, McCain mentions just one landmark bill – which he now no longer wants to talk about, because the Republican base hates the legislation. Indeed, it’s also worth considering the fact that McCain no longer stands by his only landmark legislation, and has flip-flopped on some of the provisions of his own bill.

          http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14582.html

          So in 26 years McCain has led America….nowhere.

    • RedGreen says:

      No one is attacking Palin’s daughter or her decisions. This is all about McCain’s reckless decision-making. Your pre-emptive whining doesn’t change that a whit.

    • Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

      The American people are salivating over this story and it is only going to get bigger.

      • redstateblues says:

        to them, the media ARE the liberals.

        • Western Way says:

          so “we” are “them,” good job at creating an “other”

          • BlueCat says:

            The GOP has been using fear of other ever since civil rights.  That’s how they became the party of the south and has been the centerpice of all their attacks on Dem opponents ever since.  Bush senior used it. GW against McCain in the 2000 primaries and against “French’ Kerry in 2004. The right has been trying like hell to use it against Obama.  Then there’s the whole Latte drinking “other” spin, never mind the real power and wealth elite are almost all GOP.  

            Dems couldn’t BEGIN to compete with the GOP in that arena. GOP paints Dems as other in many ways, the nastiest being attacking our patriotism on a regular basis. Up is not down,WW.

  8. Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

    I was a part of the flight team that hunted subs.  We all had call signs.  Whiskey, my drink of choice, many years ago and my initials, – Wanda Lee James.

  9. Republican 36 says:

    Several of governor palin’s positions have been exposed since last Thursday and each one deserves the attention of the press and every voter in the United States.

    First, during her run for governor two years ago, she advocated the teaching of creationism in Alaska’s public schools.  Does she support creationaism over science.  If so, she doesn’t have any business a “heartbeat away.”

    She was not against the “Bridge to nowhere.”  She canceled the state’s support only after that bridge became unpoplular and a national symbol for silly pork barrel spending. At the time, her statements indicate that she praised the congressional delegation from Alaska for obtaining funds for the bridge but she was sorry to say it wasn’t enough so the project was canceled but she specifically said the project was one that should be built.  That is a far cry from how she is characterizing the project since last thursday.

    Third, she was a member of the Alaska Independence Party and via video addressed the Party’s convention this year saying she supports the Party’s beliefs about following the U.S. Constitution as it was written and telling the delegates “to keep up their good work.”  This is troubling because that Party advocates the secession of Alaska from the United States, claims the 1958 vote by Alaskans to become a state violated internaitonal law because it required a vote of the United Nations and at various times has advocated joining an independent province of Canada (if one is ever formed) to establish an independnet Republic.

    All of this should lead voters to question Gov. Palin’s qualifications to be Vice President and the press should ask her specific questions about her beliefs and those of the Alaskan Independence Party. We have the right to know if she supports the break-up of the United States. Does she believe states have the right to secede?

    Senator McCain’s choice more and more looks like an attempt to satisfy the religious right-wing of the Republican Party. I can understand his need to do that but by picking Gov. Palin his judgment is now an issue too.

  10. twas brillig says:

    your VP candidate is supposed to be leading w/ the chin in taking on the other side, this can’t be a good read for Republicans who want a strong ticket:

    So far, Palin has not conducted a formal news conference or taken questions from reporters, and no such sessions were scheduled Tuesday. Her only statement Monday disclosed that her daughter Bristol was pregnant and that she would marry the baby’s father.

    That news was followed by the announcement that a private lawyer had been hired to represent Palin in a state investigation into her firing of the state’s public safety commissioner.

    • redstateblues says:

      they’re going to have a press conference during the RNC, but your point is valid. Is she ever going to speak to the press?

      Look for her speech this week to begin the process of turning all of this around on the media. Do you guys think the ratings for her speech will top McCain’s? Will the RNC come close to the DNC’s incredible ratings?

  11. nonlawyerlobbyist says:

    It seems like Sen. McCain has put himself in a horrible position with his horrible VP pick.  If the media drumbeat continues and crescendos, he may be tempted to ask her to step aside.  His judgement will be extremely questioned.  If she stays on the ticket, she will be a continued distraction and be cited as a big contributor to his inevitable defeat in November.

    • ModerateGal says:

      Although that would defy the campaign’s “Country First” tagline, doing this would make the “family first” people happy and ensure that she could remain a darling of the GOP, which means she could presumably be brought to the forefront at a later time. Then, the GOP could slam the liberal media for treating Palin and her family so horribly thereby sidestepping the reality that McCain failed in making an important executive decision and that his campaign did a lousy job of vetting his VP pick.

      • Ralphie says:

        McCain doesn’t want a floor fight over VP.

        After the convention, she bails and the wrinkly old dude gets Joementum.

        • twas brillig says:

          If she’s the official nominee, how do they get her off the ballot?  

          • One Queer Dude says:

               Isn’t the deadline in Colorado around the middle of Sept?  

              Assuming the deadline hasn’t passed, she withdraws and the Repub National Committee meets to confirm McBush’s new choice.

              I’m not sure they’ll go for Lieberman.  Probably T-Paw or Mittens.

              But the risk is if McBush asks Palin to withdraw, the wing nuts will go bat shit on him.  It’ll be really ugly.

              If the deadline for her to get her name off the ballot passes, she can still withdraw but people will have to vote for McCain/Palin knowing that they’ll get McCain/whoever.

              That’s how it worked when Tom Delay and Mark Foley withdrew.

      • Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

        No one would believe it.  Everyone would know it was because McCain made a horrible choice.  In a time when America can not afford quick irresponsible choices, is this the man that is fit to lead?

  12. divad says:

    …about her and the quality of a political science minor from the University of Idaho…

    “In 2006, the Eagle Forum Alaska sent a questionnaire to all the state’s gubernatorial candidates, including Sarah Palin (R). From Palin’s response about the Pledge of Allegiance:

    11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

    SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance. [Emphasis added]

    However, as Hunter points out, the words “Under God” didn’t appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954; the founding fathers had nothing to do with them. The Pledge itself, in fact, wasn’t even written until 1892.”

    –Think Progress

  13. dwyer says:

    She is simply abandoning the state after setting changes in place…What will be the consequence, of  budge cuts? of taking on entrenched interests? What about all the Republicans who sided with her against the old guard? What happens to them??

  14. Disinterested17 says:

    I never expected the Palin pick to suck so much air out of the Obama coronation last week.  All I heard any person talk about politically over the long weekend was Palin.  The Ds are so contorted over it it’s changed the race already.

    And now her daughter is pregnant!!!  Holy shit, bring out the long knives!!!  

    That shrill response is going to backfire with indys like me, I’m can see it a mile away.  My poor little Dem mother who is 75 is so sympathetic to Palin it would disgust me if it wasn’t so funny.

    Enjoying the theater . . .

    • redstateblues says:

      He got to present his case to 40 million people, and then the media didn’t even spin it! People came away from his speech with only his words to guide their choice. On the other hand, they see McCain’s first presidential decision being questioned for 5 straight days.

      • Disinterested17 says:

        Obama gives what was billed to be the greatest, most historic speech in a generation, and no one even talks about it 24 hours later?  That’s a flop in my book, it should have been playing on the airwaves at least through the weekend.

        I know I’m not part of the talking point, liberal group think on this site, I’m just saying what lots of us non-R non-D are thinking.  McCain stole the shit out of Obama’s thunder and has dynamically changed the race much to the D chagrin.  Is she a horrible pick, maybe.  Is she a good pick, maybe.  Time will tell.

        But you should go for it Redstatesblues, and tear the woman down for having a pregnant daughter, for being a couple years younger than Obama, for having served a couple years less than him, I don’t give a shit.  I’d recommend you stay away from the deploying son and downs child, but other than that let ‘er rip.

        I’m just saying it’ll likely only help her, and hurt Obama.  Carry on dog.

        • redstateblues says:

          I never said any of that, you did. All I was saying was that his pick is being questioned.

        • Disinterested17 says:

          It’s the liberal political elite who hated Obama’s speech, not me:

          David Broder

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/

          Charles Krauthammer

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/

          • Danny the Red (hair) says:

            what alternative reality do you live in. Just because he’s pro choice doesn’t make him a liberal.  His foriegn policy is to the right of cheney

            Broder?

            In a 2003 column, he wrote “I like Karl Rove. In the days when he was operating from Austin, we had many long and rewarding conversations. I have eaten quail at his table and admired the splendid Hill Country landscape from the porch of the historic cabin Karl and his wife Darby found miles away and had carted to its present site on their land.” Later, in 2006, he declared that several “publications owe Karl Rove an apology” over their reporting on Karl Rove’s alleged role in the leaking of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame. He has also been a vocal critic of Congressional hearings concerning the firing of eight US Attorneys in 2007, hearings which focused on Rove. Broder’s comments about Rove have led some observers to question his impartiality with regard to the George W. Bush administration and Rove in particular.

            Liberal my ass–unless the word means something different than the common usage.

            • Disinterested17 says:

              the speech was a flop due to the overhype and Palin pick stealing Obama’s thunder?  

              I assume so, since your attacking the messengers (all those Washington Post neocons, right?) and not their message?

              • Danny the Red (hair) says:

                Did McCain step on Obama’s news cycle?  Sure.

                The same way he would have stepped on the news cyle if McCain had been busted in a Minneapolis men’s room with a wide stance.

                I’m not attacking the messenger–I was pointing out that you were factually wrong when you said that liberals hated the speech.

                If you hadn’t presented such a ridiculous supposition I might have discussed the tactics around the campaigns media strategy, but when you start with a falsehood you can never get to the merits.

                Personally, I am from the “when your opponent is self destructing, stay out of the way” camp.

                The only way McCain was going to win this was by raising undecideds discomfort with Obama at the same time he mobilized the base.  Palin solves the base problem, but hurts on the other front.  McCain’s judgment as demonstrated by the skeletal vetting, will lose him the center and even some suburban (socially liberal) republicans.

                • ThillyWabbit says:

                  And as someone here noted (I think it was David), the cable news channels would have spent Friday picking it apart and looking for every bit of DNC controversy they could report on as they recapped it over and over.

                  Instead, McCain changed the subject, and not apparently in a good way for him.

                • spaceman65 says:

                  Napolean said, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”  Seems the right way to play this kerfuffle.

              • BlueCat says:

                The supremely silly Palin pick has been followed by a nice rise in Obama’s numbers.  No matter how much you want to use “Dems in a panic over Palin pick” as a talking point, fact is every day in every way we like it better and better.  

                Two or three negative Palin explosions a day, coupled with so many Alaskans expressing astonishment at her selection has just been LOTS of fun for us.  The Obama campaign hasn’t said a single thing that can be interpreted as an attack because they don’t have to and are smart enough to know it. Fun watching you guys spin so furiously, too!

                • Libertad says:

                  John Hickenlooper was saying just this weekend that Barack Obama is 2-3 pts down nationally.

                  Masking…its a hidden fact in polling.

                  And/or the Mayor was sucking off business to draft him for a 2009 primary on Ritter.

        • DavidThi808 says:

          Yes, if nothing else had been going on, then Obama’s speech would have been the major topic of discussion. But half that discussion would have been the bloviators on the right tearing it up with every lame excuse in the book.

          The choice was not glowing articles vs no articles – the choice was talking heads tear it appart vs no discussion.

          I think Obama is better off with the speech being left alone as the speech itself was fantastic. My daughters watched it on YouTube – and they have zero interest in politics.

    • nonlawyerlobbyist says:

      But as people begin to weigh what really matters — her experience, gravitas and ability compared to Biden’s — I think Palin is going to be a real drag on the McCain candidacy.  Think about the VP debate.  Biden will be able to say he personally knows all of the foregin leaders.  Palin reportedly has only been out of the country once in her lifetime — to visit troops in Kuwait.

  15. Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

    So many people saw Obama’s speech and saw the Clintons do their thing.

    Once all the dust settles, people will make their decisions.

    A competent team of Obama / Biden, with new ideas and new energy.

    Or McCain / Palin a flawed team, quickly put together without any vetting and only because she was a woman.  It also brings the flawed views of the religious right’s views into question.

    That is discussion I look forward to and Palin will be held as the poster child of all that is wrong with the Religious Right and their view of America.

  16. Jeff King says:

    To my knowledge, Bristol Palin, is not running for any political office and certainly does not deserve to be the target of such vicious attacks. A unmarried, pregnant teenage girl — and there are many in this country — needs compassion, not vilification.

    Such actions by politically-motivated,  unrepentant hate mongers brings to mind attorney Joe Welch’s comments to Republican Senator Joseph  McCarthy in the defining moment of the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954, paraphrased below:

    “Until this moment….I think I never gauged your cruelty or recklessness. Let us not assassinate this (girl) further…..You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency… at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

    Jeff King

  17. Haners says:

    Is how it has brought out the worst in Liberals.

    This discussion is a complete joke.

    • Western Way says:

      They are acting like the attack dogs.

    • Arvadonian says:

      nothing more, nothing less.

      Palin should have known this, and if she didn’t, McCain should have prepped her.  It was played against him in 2000 by the conservatives running Bush’s campaign (Karl Rove) when they lied about the parentage of his adopted child.

      The difference is, the stuff that has been said about Palin, so far as I can tell, is true.  She does advocate for abstinance only sex education.  It apparently failed in her own family.  The Alaskan Independence Party does claim that she was a member as late as the mid 1990’s, and she denies it.  She has recorded a welcome message to them for their 2007 annual convention (which is viewable for anyone with an internet connection on YouTube).

      No one has called her daughter “a dog”, ala Rush Limbaugh in referencing Chelsea Clinton.  Further, can you imagine the field day your side would have had had Chelsea Clinton become preganant at 17?  Hell, if she became preganant now–as an unmarried adult, your side would be going nuts over it.

      • Libertad says:

        To your last scenario, I believe Jews, Christians and Muslem’s would view a unique human life (an abortable fetus to some) inside Chelsea’s body to be a sacred gift from God.

        • Arvadonian says:

          many Jews, Christians and Muslims would view such as situation as a sacred gift from God…I think that most Conservative “Christian” Republicans would view it as a gift from God to be used for political advantage.  

          Statements such as, “They can’t run their own family, how can they be expected to run the country?”, would be spewing forth from Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly etc.

          I remember the glee flowing from the republican side when JFK, Jr. failed his bar exam three times and his father hadn’t been President for years!

          Your side’s hypocricy never ceases to amaze me.

          • Libertad says:

            At least JFK passed the NY bar – toughest one in the country from what I hear.

            p.s. I don’t have a political side i.e. Rush, but I do enjoy listening to him as much as that lady on AM760. The problem is they get to a point they become annoying and I choose to change the channel.

    • Aristotle says:

      Examples?

      If you mean the couple of loons who put the pregnancy out in the blogosphere, let me repeat that it’s a) not representative of all liberals; b) most liberals are condemning the politicization of Palin’s impending grandmotherhood; and c) you can’t with a straight face say that the conservatives would be even 1/5 as gracious and classy in these respects if this were about Obama’s daughter instead. It would be all over the right wing talk shows as a big slur on Obama.

      Your side is just as morally bankrupt when it comes to campaigning. Don’t pretend it isn’t.

        • ClubTwitty says:

          since a few lefty bloggers published unfounded claims that Trig was not really Sarah’s son? (And that proves Dems who want a different kind of politics are hypocrites…)

            • ClubTwitty says:

              the Democratic Party does not control the NY Times (remember Judy Miller) and CNN.

              So, again, your ‘point’ is groundless and simply wrong.  (That Democrats are slandering Bristol while espousing a different kind of politics).  I know, I know.  Reason, logic, sound argument.  Nothing you can understand I’m sure.

          • ColoCitizen says:

            the difference, like WW said, is that this is not reported on AND SHOULDN’T BE!!!!  The video is lies, everyone admits that, but does that give the MSM the ability to broadcast sexism?

            • ClubTwitty says:

              that all Dems (or all posting here) are hypocrites because they preach they want a different politics and someone (who might be a Democrat) repeated the falsehood that the Palin baby was really the daughter’s, which was reported by some in the media.  (Even though everyone here is saying it’s not about Bristol its about McCain’s reckless and unvetted pick for #2).  

              Thus, WW/CC conflate what some bloggers wrote–and was picked up by media–with what all Democrats think/do, by filling in with their imagination the large gap between.  

              That’s sloppy reasoning.

              My point is that all Republicans are not racist trash, although some are.  Both sides have their fringe, but its piss-poor logic to conflate the fringe with the whole.  

              Some Dems were spreading smears, but that is not sufficient to paint everyone who supports Obama with as spreading those smears, unless you fail to understand the basics of reasoning and argumentation.  

              Its the same fallacy: to claim all Repubs are racist because some are is the same as saying all Dems are hypocrites because some are.  Again, I post this in the slim hope that perhaps you might understand the error of your fallacy, holding out little hope that you will based on your ‘reasoning’ here.

  18. Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

    Haners, the family values of the Religious Right is on trial.  Palin is the sacrificial lamb.

    Sorry the family is going to be vivified.  Sarah should have thought this through. McCain should have thought this through.

    Black churches were vilified – Wright is not running for office. No one objected to that.

    If you bring a value to the stage on which you are running, you will be judged on that value.

    Sarah brought her family in this.  My guess, no one knew this girl was pregnant. I am concerned about what else we do not know. Or better yet, what McCain and his team does not know.

    The press is having a feeding frenzy.  They are armed with checks for paying off people for information and the time to do it.

    • Haners says:

      Sorry the family is going to be vivified.  Sarah should have thought this through. McCain should have thought this through.

      Sarah brought her family in this.  My guess, no one knew this girl was pregnant. I am concerned about what else we do not know. Or better yet, what McCain and his team does not know.

      Thanks-that proves my point.  I bet you said that when Obama’s wife was getting attacked.  “It’s Obama’s fault, he brought his wife into this.”  Or “It’s Obama’s fault, he brought Rev. Wright into this.”  Here we are talking about a candidate’s daughter, and all the sudden, your views have changed.  On one hand, it’s not a reflection on Obama’s judgment to go to a racist church, but it’s a reflection on Palin that her daughter made a choice that resulted in a pregancy.  Oh, the double standard.

      Read the reports buddy.  McCain and his vetters knew about the pregency.  So this B.S. line from you and others that this is some sort of surprise is a desperate grasp at straws.

      Again, the thing I love about the Palin selection is that it’s bringing out the worst in liberals.

      • Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

        I am amazed that you can not say how bad this is.  A woman one step away from the POTUS who was not vetted – makes you go HMMMMM.

        Religious Right is on trail.  And I am sick of their views being shoved on me. Palin is an example of their screwed up positions.

        • Haners says:

          Now convince your liberal double speaking friends of the same thing.  My response was partially to you, partially to them.  As I said in the discussion about Schaffer’s son-parents can’t control the choices their children make.  Regardless of how much parents try to teach their children, children make their own choices.  As Obama has said, leave Palins family alone.

          As I said on the other thread-unless I am missing something, show me the link where McCain has said “we haven’t vetted Palin-at all”.  Otherwise, please drop this politically motivated B.S. line about “no one” vetting Palin.  It’s simply not true.

          I think you’ve hit on the crux of the issue for liberals.  You’re sick of the Republican party, and Palin’s pick is game changing.  Obama is looking less and less like a sure thing in November, and that’s pissing libs off.

          • GeoGreg says:

            If Sarah Palin weren’t an advocate for abstinence-only sex-ed, I wouldn’t be too interested in her daughter’s pregnancy.  Perhaps it would be considered a “human interest” story.  But, since she HAS advocated abstinence-only, and since she presumably has taught it to her children, I think the question of “Is abstinence-only the best way to teach sex education?” is brought to the forefront.

            I do NOT believe that the family members themselves should be harrassed or otherwise brought into the campaign.

            In the same fashion, I think the fact that Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter was a valid point of discussion given the role of gay marriage and other gay issues in recent campaigns.

          • Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

            Today, you have lost focus.  I am not at all concerned about this McCain pick.  As a matter of fact I am thrilled with it.

            Obama is not touching Palin. As a matter of fact they are ignoring her which is what the campaign should do. She is of no consequence to the team of Obama / Biden.

            The press is tearing the roof off of this silly choice.  McCain did not vet her – his own staff is now saying they are not sure about the details.

            Do you believe after all that has come out, McCain would have put her on the ticket?  There is no way a campaign would have made this choice in a close historic election. Kay Bailey Hutchinson would have been a game changer. Sarah Palin is just a bad bad choice.

            Yea, she is game changing – a huge mistake for the Repubs and the Religious Right.  Look what we are talking about – there is NO good spin from this.

            And yes, I am thrilled that the views of the Religious Right are on trail – and by the looks of it those views failed in the Palin family.

          • Aristotle says:

            if you have to hear McCain or his campaign aides admit that they didn’t vet Palin in order to believe it, you’re more credulous than I imagined. Is this how they taught you to evaluate evidence in polysci class?

    • One Queer Dude says:

         It read as though the McBush campaign may have been leaking that much of the story to get the public ready for something more.

      • Danny the Red (hair) says:

        I looked for the story and found this funny bit of synchonicity

        Ms. Palin married her husband, Todd, on Aug. 29, 1988. Their oldest son, Track, was reportedly born on April 20, 1989, meaning that mommy and daddy may not have said their “I dos” when he was conceived.

        And BTW I don’t have any problem with her decision and I am grateful that, unlike many shotgun weddings, hers was successful.

        Because my parents were seperated when I was 2, I never put my birthday together with their anniversary until much later.

        http://www.theglobeandmail.com

      • ThillyWabbit says:

        Only you’re supposed to leak the stories before the pick to see if any of them have legs.

  19. Western Way says:

    If you all didn’t care and weren’t worried, you wouldn’t post.

    • Schadenfreude.

      It’s too easy to pick apart Palin’s record, and she was quite obviously never fully vetted for the job or we wouldn’t be getting all these stories.

      For example, today’s follow-on to the revelation that she was buddy-buddy with Ted Stevens and his 527: she LOVES the Congressional earmarks, going so far as to send a 70-page memo to Stevens on just what he could stuff in the Federal Budget for Alaska.

      Reform ticket, my ***.

    • Noelle Green says:

      This woman could become our president.She cites her time on the PTO as political experience. She has a mediocre degree.

      Politics aside, the GOP needs to get rid her now. The whole world is watching our elections and laughing. The Republicans are acting like this election is not a serious matter.

      • Fidel's dirt nap says:

        in a few short weeks we went from lapel pins to Alaskan secession, Jeremiah Wright to creationism in schools, and terrorist fist bumps to teenage pregnancy and “Wootengate”

        Palin is a game changer, but not in the way the Republicans want. The entire focus of the campaign has changed, the focus is on McCain’s decisionmaking and Palin’s background, and it’s not good.

        McCain didn’t do his homework, plain and simple, and that looks VERY VERY BAD given our current commander-in-chief’s penchant for the same management style.

    • Libertad says:

      Someone call DailyKos for the right TPs.

      Dem sockpuppets have established a circular firing squad, not ready to lead.

      • BlueCat says:

        But you don’t have a clue. This is NOT a bad thing for Dems, for Obama or for anyone but McSame, not because Dems are attacking Palin’s daughter but because in the few days since the pick was announced, not one day has gone by without a new negative story on the pick and every day more media people  including a growing number of conservatives (Krauthammer is extremely conservative, by the way) express dismay at the obvious lack of vetting.  The story seems to be “What the hell was he thinking?”, not an attack on the Palin family misfortunes.  

        Meantime, Obama has gained in both Gallop and Rasmussen. We aren’t screaming, running scared or shooting each other.  We LOVE McSame’s pick and are enjoying the spectacle of our very own righties trying to spin this as a McSame triumph.

        I’m picturing you, Haners and LB as little hamsters running as fast as you can on your little wheels getting nowhere. Stopped even bothering to read AS.

    • DavidThi808 says:

      This is like when Bob Schaffer talked up the Marianas Islands – part of what kept us going on and on was just the amazement at such an incredibly dumb political move.

      And with Sarah Palin it’s a new item every day. Just when you think it’s so bad it can’t get worse, a new item leaks out that is even worse. It’s like watching a demolition derby where more and more cars keep showing up for bigger and more spectacular crashes.

      BTW – all those times we’ve focused on Bob Schaffer’s disasters of the week – how have those worked out for Bob?

    • BlueCat says:

      to spin this as a great choice. It IS fun watching the contortions.

      • ClubTwitty says:

        Palin canceling all her scheduled appearances, afraid to face the media.  That’s a great sign of her strength, eh Haners, WW, CC, etc.?

      • Western Way says:

        When the media circus ends and we get back to issues, the American people are going to learn what a reformer she is.  That is what people want right now, someone who can not only “talk the talk,” but “walk the walk.”  People from all walks of life are fed up with the government not working for them (that is what the outrage in this country is about, from the anti-bush sentiments to the minutemen on the border–it is a cross-spectrum phenomenon) and when her true record is revealed (cleaning up the Oil and Gas Industry in Alaska, saying “NO!” to the funds for the “Bridge to Nowhere,” etc.) the American people will make there decisions on the issues and I am confident they will make the right choice.

        • I always needed an Internet psychologist to help with my lack of self-understanding.  I’m so glad you know me better than I know myself.

          Most of “us Progressives” have already noted here: we’re not worried about Palin being a strong nominee, we’re still jaw-droppingly astounded that McCain would pick her with only one day of vetting – and apparently not good vetting at that.

          And you can repeat the lies about the Bridge to Nowhere all you want, but she’s been directly quoted as supporting the bridge project, and when it was dropped, she was happy to keep the $250m earmark for other pet projects.

          We are men of action.  Lies do not become us.

        • Fidel's dirt nap says:

          and nothing more than a gimmicky pick. But that’s not me talking, that’s Peggy Noonan.

          The shit hits the fan, redux. Check out gouko’s link on the hump day thread.

          I almost feel sorry for you guys.  Almost.

  20. Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

    This is nothing but fun! And I am loving bringing the agenda forward.

  21. Canines says:

    New revelations about the Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin – including her membership of a party that wants Alaskans to vote on becoming a separate country – are raising questions about how thoroughly John McCain’s campaign vetted her background before adding her to the ticket.

    Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence party (AIP) before becoming an elected Republican official, and recorded a video message for the AIP convention this year. The party’s chief goal is securing Alaska a vote on seceding from the US, a goal that AIP leaders believe the state was denied before it became part of the US almost 50 years ago.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl

    From libertarian Lew Rockwell:

    There is something about Sarah I really like, especially that she seems to have had some sympathy for an Alaskan secession movement, which, contrary to media hysteria, is a perfectly reasonable and liberal position to take.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/roc

  22. rocco says:

    “What the heck, I’ll throw my kid under the bus, she won’t care! This is an opportunity I can’t refuse”

    Highly unlikely “country” has anything to do it.

  23. Dabee47 says:

    that the only stories in this election has been Palin and Gustav.  How do you think that plays among undecided voters who are thinking about McCain v. Obama, not Sarah Palin?

    Some of you are questioning McCain’s judgment, thankfully.  But most of this flack is about the pregnancy and whether or not Palin was vetted.

    Ask yourself, who are undecideds more likely to believe:  the campaign who says they knew about all this or a bunch of bloggers and some pundits who say she wasn’t?  Id didn’t ask who should they believe, who do they believe.

    And before someone tries to quote the article above about vetting Palin and its unnamed Republican, the guy that actually conducted the interviews and questionnaire, Arthur Culvahouse, says she was vetted.

    Unnamed Repub v. Named Repub…ha, tough call.

    • BlueCat says:

      completely incompetent, par for the course for the McCain train wreck campaign. The dismay on all but the far right is clear. And in the mainstream media the flack is almost ALL about judgement, NOT about attacking the Palin family because of their daughter’s situation.  

      The Obama campaign has stayed far away from any attack which shows they know that when you’re opponent is digging a hole you don’t need to pile on and look mean.  Another example of the cool headed, sure handed Obama campaign contrasting with the loopy, reactive incompetent McSame campaign. And the polls are now moving again in Obama’s direction so maybe the public isn’t so gullible after all.

    • DavidThi808 says:

      the fundamental question of most of the discussion occuring in the country is – “is Sarah Palin qualified to be vice president?” And if the answer is no (it is), the follow on question is “what kind of judgement did McCain show?”

      This isn’t about Sarah Palin, it’s about McCain’s judgement. But the first question must be – is she qualified. Because only with the answer to that question can you measure McCain’s judgement.

      Yes this is very bad for McCain.

      ps – Sarah Palin’s family should be left out of this, people are imperfect and you cannot hold one person responsibile for the imperfect lives her family members have lived.

      • ColoCitizen says:

        about keeping children out of the firing line.  This is twice that the Left has attacked children of candidates, in a couple of months.  “Politics of the same” should be your slogan.

        • ajb says:

          Look, when somebody says THEY espouse family values, that implies that I do not. So, when THEIR children go off and pull some stunt that flies in the face of the values they claim to profess, people take notice.  That’s true whether it’s you self-righteous Aunt Mary-Ed or  the newly-minted Republican VP nominee. Only in the latter case, it makes headlines.

          But, that said, where is the attack on Bristol Palin? I haven’t heard anybody call her names, have you? (If yes, please forward the source). I have heard peolple attack McCain’s judgment for picking her, and I have heard people attack Sarah Palin for her positions on various issues, but I haven’t heard anybody attack Bristol.

          Regarding the other child, I assume that you’re referring to the racist rants of Bob Schafer’s son. Are you going to defend that?  

  24. Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

    My Independent friends are laughing at the McCain choice.

    The news at noon came out with, “Palin’s 17 year old daughter is pregnant and she has hired a private attorney to defend her in Alaska.”

    Ahh, that is not good spin for Independents. You are not even in national office and you are being investigated.

    If McCain did vet her thoroughly and still made this decision, I am fearful for the decisions he would make as POTUS.

  25. rocco says:

    Absolutely right. Edwards was unlike mccain, who deserted his bedridden wife for the buffalo chip queen.

  26. ClubTwitty says:

    From the NYT:

       

    “A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice. The campaign was still calling Republican operatives as late as Sunday night asking them to go to Alaska to deal with the unexpected candidacy of Ms. Palin. (…)

       In Alaska, several state leaders and local officials said they knew of no efforts by the McCain campaign to find out more information about Ms. Palin before the announcement of her selection, Although campaigns are typically discreet when they make inquiries into potential running mates, officials in Alaska said Monday they thought it was peculiar that no one in the state had the slightest hint that Ms. Palin might be under consideration.

       “They didn’t speak to anyone in the Legislature, they didn’t speak to anyone in the business community,” said Lyda Green, the State Senate president, who lives in Wasilla, where Ms. Palin served as mayor.

       Representative Gail Phillips, a Republican and former speaker of the State House, said the widespread surprise in Alaska when Ms. Palin was named to the ticket made her wonder how intensively the McCain campaign had vetted her.

       “I started calling around and asking, and I have not been able to find one person that was called,” Ms. Phillips said. “I called 30 to 40 people, political leaders, business leaders, community leaders. Not one of them had heard. Alaska is a very small community, we know people all over, but I haven’t found anybody who was asked anything.”

       The current mayor of Wasilla, Dianne M. Keller, said she had not heard of any efforts to look into Ms. Palin’s background. And Randy Ruedrich, the state Republican Party chairman, said he knew nothing of any vetting that had been conducted.

       State Senator Hollis French, a Democrat who is directing the ethics investigation, said that no one asked him about the allegations. “I heard not a word, not a single contact,” he said.”

  27. ColoCitizen says:

    The sexism of this post and the media abounds! Is his judgement any better taking two young children?

  28. waltzeswithdog says:

    http://www.tmz.com/2008/09/02/

    This was sent to me, but I have been unable to corroborate.  Anyone else able?  

    • Danny the Red (hair) says:

      The 2 teens have enough to worry about.

      I do have a new big problem with Palin: her daughter didn’t know Palin was the VP pick until after they had landed in Dayton.  Bristol had no chance to prepare for the media buzzsaw her mother had just shoved her into.  McCain probably forced her to keep a lid on it, but since McCain says he knew about the pregnancy that also demonstrates outright cruelty to both Bristol and Levi.

      • Western Way says:

        I was watching the Republican Convention and saw a woman wearing a T-Shirt (homemade) that said, “I am Sarah Palin.”  So please please please please, keep these attacks coming.   You will turn her into a sympathy figure especially when the headline reads “Palin Daughter Baby Daddy — “Don’t Want Kids”.  The more you attack her and her daughter for having kids, the more women will feel a connection to her because they have not been able to crack the glass ceiling because of missed time for pregnancy and taking care of children etc. keep it comin…

        • Aristotle says:

          A woman at the convention – why, that could be ANYONE. It’s not just the politically connected who go to those things, you know. What an impressive turn of logic. WW wins!

      • One Queer Dude says:

           That’s pretty crappy. I remember in ’92 hearing about how the Clintons sat Chelsea down way before Bill launched his campaign that year to prepare her for some of the stuff she was going to hear said about both of her parents.

          I guess that’s one of the differences between Democratic families and Republican families.

  29. One Queer Dude says:

       Apparently not, but McBush has a bunch on lawyers working on it now. Announce first and vett later is their approach.

      You gotta wonder what they’ll do if they find anything that presents a problem.  Would they really ask her to step aside, and then go to T-paw or Mittens, hat in hand, and ask if either guy is still interested?

  30. Republican 36 says:

    Senator McCain’s campaign issued a press release this afternoon stating that voter registration records show that Gov. Palin has been registered as a Republican since 1990 (they didn’t check before 1990).  I’ll take them at their word but that doesn’t end the questions Gov. Palin must answer.

    Her registration is meaningless.  There is no doubt she attended an Alaska Independence Party state convention in the mid-1990’s and she certainly addressed them this year via a video and praised them for their good work and told them to keep it up.  

    These facts raise questions about what she believes and supports.  Does she support the teaching of creationsism in the public schools (apparently she does)?  

    Does Gov. Palin believe Alaska or any other state has the right to secede from the United States as the Independence Party believes?

    Does Gov. Palin believe the vote by Alaska’s citizens in 1958 to join the United States was illegal and that a vote by the United Nations was required?

    Does Gov. Palin believe Alaska should secede and join an independent western Canadian province, if one is formed, to form a new independnet Republic?

    She has flirted with the fringe and seems to support at least one of these ideas.  We have the right to know before we vote.

     

  31. Laughing Boy says:

    “Over the past few days we’ve been hearing all this stuff about how Gov. Palin doesn’t have experience let me tell you something I can assure having been a governor myself for ten and a half years, she’s had more executive experience in 2 years than her counterpart Joe Biden has had in all the years that he’s been making speeches because she’s been making decisions he’s been making just simple speeches,” Huckabee told the crowd.

    In fact I don’t know if you realize this but Sarah Palin got more votes running for mayor in Wasilla Alaska than Joe Biden did in 2 quests for the presidency that oughta tell you something.”

    -Mike Huckabee

  32. Republican 36 says:

    See http://news.aol.com/political-

    This raises additional questions for Gov. Palin.  Does she believe the war in Iraq is God’s will?

    Does she believe the building of a gas pipeline across Alaska is God’s will?

    On both counts apparently the answer is yes.  This is really scary stuff.  When people bewlieve they know god’s will they think they can justify any behavior or policy.  Is this the kind of foreign policy expereince we want a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

    Gov. Palin needs to read Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address, especially the part where the greatest of our Presidents states that God’s plans are inscrutable.  

  33. Republican 36 says:

    The Alaskan Independence Party is affiliated with the Constitution Party.  The Constitution Party asserts in it’s party platform that the United States Consititution should be interpreted based on biblical principles.

    The question:  Does Gov. Palin believe the United States Constitution should be interpreted based on biblical principles?

    If she does we need to know this because it will affect her choice of judges for all federal courts if she became President and certainly impact her view of her responsibilities as President.

    By the way, if she believes this, which bibilical principles will she apply . . . Catholic, Baptist, fundamentalist etc.  We have the right to know before we vote.

  34. Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

    Revealed: Palin the censor (+)

    by: Aristotle

    I can’t take that – if that is true, the McCain / Palin ticket has to lose.  It goes to the core of who we are as a people if we actually elected someone who would destroy and censor books and believes in creationism.

    There is nothing more terrifying to me.

    DESTROYING BOOKS!!!  REALLY, THIS IS OK WITH ALL OF YOU?!!!

  35. DavidThi808 says:

    It’s been 4 hours an no new disaster from Sarah Palin.

    Oh wait, we now have Sarah Palin a no-show at antiabortion event.

    Today, Palin’s scheduled appearance in St. Paul, Minn., as guest of honor at an afternoon gathering by the Republican National Coalition for Life was canceled. And that didn’t sit well with a leading social conservative.

    They’re hiding her from the friendliest audience she has on the entire planet. How bad are things when 2 days after being selected you are being hidden from everyone?

  36. Nicky60293 says:

    This is a false comment made by the press and they later on admitted their mistake that she is and has always been a Republican. So this false and that is a fact.

  37. redstateblues says:

    that horrible Joe Biden VP rollout. What a disaster for Obama, huh?

    Oh wait.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.