McCain picks woman for VP slot

[Stephen Best]

No...it's her child, but apparently that is enough to deny her the office of VP. We will pass a new amendment....no Presidents or Vice Presidents with disabilities in the family out to 3rd cousins and pets, because they need undevoted care by the designated FEMALE parental unit.

Why would you pass such a law?

[bush_cheney2004]

Why would you pass such a law?

Yea, pretty stupid idea, right?

[Stephen Best]

Logical fallacy-argumentum ad populum

It seems you don't fully understand informal logic or fallacies. I did not argue that my assertions are correct because others share them. I said merely that others share my views. We may all be wrong. Won't be the first time the majority has been wrong. For example, Bush won the last US federal election.

[Stephen Best]

Right. A man is better than a woman...

Depends on the man and woman, wouldn't you think? And, why do you insist on making such illogical extrapolations?

[M.Dancer]

Depends on the man and woman, wouldn't you think? And, why do you insist on making such illogical extrapolations?

Because you keep providing the straight lines with a side of freudian humour. You could have said that Obama is the better person, but as this thread has amply shown you have a fair degree of residual sexism to deal with at your next men's sensitivity seminar.

It's clear. Obama's a better man than me.

Yes, Obama is a better man than you i'm sure...

[bush_cheney2004]

It seems you don't fully understand informal logic or fallacies. I did not argue that my assertions are correct because others share them. I said merely that others share my views. We may all be wrong. Won't be the first time the majority has been wrong. For example, Bush won the last US federal election.

Non-starter...by definition, the majority can't be wrong in such an election.

Edited September 3, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Black Dog]

It seems you don't fully understand informal logic or fallacies. I did not argue that my assertions are correct because others share them. I said merely that others share my views. We may all be wrong.

So why even mention it? Frankly, I don't care how many others share your farcical viewpoint. The issue is with the substance of your opinion of Plain's personal; choices, specifically with your claim that, by accepting teh VP nomination she has ""abandoned a special needs baby and pregnant teenage daughter."

[bush_cheney2004]

Peggy Noonan spells things out nicely in the NYT.....

...More immediately and seriously on Palin:

Because she jumbles up so many cultural categories, because she is a feminist not in the Yale Gender Studies sense but the How Do I Reload This Thang way, because she is a woman who in style, history, moxie and femininity is exactly like a normal American feminist and not an Abstract Theory feminist; because she wears makeup and heels and eats mooseburgers and is Alaska Tough, as Time magazine put it; because she is conservative, and pro-2nd Amendment and pro-life; and because conservatives can smell this sort of thing -- who is really one of them and who is not -- and will fight to the death for one of their beleaguered own; because of all of this she is a real and present danger to the American left, and to the Obama candidacy.

She could become a transformative political presence.

So they are going to have to kill her, and kill her quick.

And it's going to be brutal. It's already getting there.

Like I said, White has played a Queen's Gambit opening...what will Black do?

Edited September 3, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Stephen Best]

There's that glass ceiling. She is ok to be governor, but not VP.

I was going to ask you if you need a shovel, but you are working your way into excavator territory here.

Sarah Palin can be whatever she wants to be. Voters can decide if what she does or does not do in pursuit of her ambitions warrant their vote. By choosing to run in a Presidential election after just giving birth to child with Down's Syndrome and teenage daughter newly pregnant says much about Palin's priorities. Some, indeed many, question those priorities. It's not about glass ceilings, it's about a candidate's priorities. Hillary Clinton demonstrated that, in the Democratic Party at least, there is no glass ceiling.

In my view, framing all questions about Palin's values as sexist is merely a rhetorical defense. It's being used here and in Republican talking points because the issues are legitimate and in the absence of an adequate, convincing response questioning the character of the questioners is all that's left.

[White Doors]

It's pretty simple really, you either believe in equal opportunity or you don't.

[White Doors]

Hillary Clinton demonstrated that, in the Democratic Party at least, there is no glass ceiling.

really? Who got the Democratic Presidential bid nod again?

[Stephen Best]

really? Who got the Democratic Presidential bid nod again?

The better candidate who ran the better campaign. Are you suggesting that Hillary Clinton should have been given the nomination because she is a woman?

[M.Dancer]

By choosing to run in a Presidential election after just giving birth to child with Down's Syndrome and teenage daughter newly pregnant says much about Palin's priorities.

Sure does. It says she doesn't believe in infanticide.

[Stephen Best]

It's pretty simple really, you either believe in equal opportunity or you don't.

Believing in equal opportunity is not related to meeting one's obligations. One would think that if you give birth to a baby with Down's Syndrome obligations to that child are entailed.

[Stephen Best]

Sure does. It says she doesn't believe in infanticide.

But perhaps she does believe in child neglect.

[M.Dancer]

The better candidate who ran the better campaign.

John Edwards had nothing, nothing to do with Clinton not gettting enough delegates......

[M.Dancer]

But perhaps she does believe in child neglect.

Perhaps? I would say raising children is a lot less neglectful than leaving them in the bio hazard dumpster.

[Stephen Best]

Non-starter...by definition, the majority can't be wrong in such an election.

The majority don't think they were right now, do they?

[Stephen Best]

Perhaps? I would say raising children is a lot less neglectful than leaving them in the bio hazard dumpster.

Another extrapolation?

[bush_cheney2004]

The majority don't think they were right now, do they?

Yes...and they get to do it again in a few weeks.

[Black Dog]

In my view, framing all questions about Palin's values as sexist is merely a rhetorical defense. It's being used here and in Republican talking points because the issues are legitimate and in the absence of an adequate, convincing response questioning the character of the questioners is all that's left.

I suppose one could take this view if one were willing to completely ignore the context of a conservative movement that has lambasted working mothers for abandoning their families to pursue their own selfish goals in a country where motherhood is often an actual barrier to employment. It's bad when conservatives suggest it of working single moms and it's downright ridiculous when deployed by "progressives" against a women of immense privilege who happens to be conservative.

Frankly, questioning whether Plain is abandoning her children to run for VP or whethe rshe would be capable of balancing the two is to ask the wrong question entirely. Her family situation is only relevant insofar as it is reflected in her policy choices. Like, say, if the mother of a teenage-mom-to-be at one time slashed funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers.

[M.Dancer]

Another extrapolation?

There is medication for ADD you know....

[WIP]

Of course she can!

It is unreal to see the twisting. For years and years the rightwing has espoused traditional family values.

The liberal family who needs two incomes is selfish for putting the children in daycare right? The liberal mother should quit being so selfish and stay home -- that liberal family should learn to live on one income right? After all, the rightwing has always said that moms need to be at home for their children.

But they don't even see the hypocracy!

They don't even see themselves doing it... so far up their asses their heads are.

Yep! Now we can expect Republican mouthpieces like Oreilly, Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, to start marching for women's rights, and stop haranguing pregnant teenage girls. Now, when the next Jamie Lynn Spears story comes along, they will be congratulating her for keeping the baby instead of condemning her for having sex and getting pregnant at 16.........yes............no...........maybe?

Edited September 3, 2008 by WIP

[White Doors]

By Andrea Tantaros

Republican Political Commentator

The moment the McCain camp confirmed it had chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as its choice for VP, conservatives, females and many mothers across the country rejoiced. She brought so many positives that I couldn’t help but wonder how long it would take the left to dig for the negatives.

Shortly after the announcement a friend asked me “when do you think the weird, rural farmer’s daughter rumors will start?

Apparently, not long after.

The Daily Kos (or as I like to call it, The Daily Gross) has stooped to a new low by repackaging a plot line from last season’s “Desperate Housewives” and publishing it as a disgusting hit piece alleging Palin’s special needs son is really her grandson. — And that she pretended to be with child to cover up her teen daughter’s underage pregnancy. Now, we’ve just learned Palin’s teen daughter Bristol is pregnant, debunking this awful rumor, yet still igniting the attacks of angry liberal bloggers.

This could only mean there must be something about Sarah Palin that is deeply threatening to the left, a constituency that has long believed they have cornered the working mother market. Five kids? She should be at home begging Democrats for a handout. A husband in a union? He should be on the picket lines.

Liberals like to pretend they are tolerant and accepting of those who are different but when it comes to anyone not ensconced in their progressive, elitist dogma they mock and attack their lifestyle to inspire hate. But because governor Palin is endearing, authentic–and with this latest revelation–easy to identify with, she invokes panic in the left. Why else would they assail a very popular, promising lady and her children?

The key question here is: what is the extreme left trying to prove? How does this make Sarah Palin unfit to serve? And how exactly will this story look bad to voters? A mother stands behind her child. I can think of worse stories than “Palins Come Together to Support Teen Daughter.” This is America. This is life. And this is private.

Ridiculing McCain’s VP pick for her commitment to family, poking fun at her hobbies and pushing smear about her kids will only bite back. Remember there’s a reason the naked protesters who ran up and down Eighth Avenue in New York City during the 2004 convention helped Republicans: they made liberals look cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

Perpetuating laughable legend and assailing the American family is akin to the in the buff boycotting. –It makes the lefties look desperate, unstable, paranoid and downright mean. And it will hurt the Democratic brand if it continues.

The back story here has nothing to do with Palin and her family but more to do with the extreme left. All Americans should take note: if liberals aren’t going to show Governor Palin or her family any respect, voters shouldn’t expect their policies to either.

from foxnews.

I think this is SO true as evidenced in this thread.

[Guest American Woman]

This is a really good op-ed about Palin. Some excerpts:

Astonishingly, some people are trying to claim that Sarah Palin's nomination is another breakthrough for women. In fact, it's an insult to women. It's a triumph of marketing, not governing. The message it sends is that after all these years of so-called equality, tokenism still trumps ability and experience. If Sarah's name had been Stan, she never would have got the nod.

I couldn't agree more.

The wretched irony is that Ms. Palin – not Mrs. Clinton, the first woman unarguably qualified to be president – could now be the first female to make it to the Oval Office. Given John McCain's age (he just turned 72), the odds aren't that long.

This is one reason why I dont' think she's going to pick up a lot of Hillary supporters. Women weren't backing Hillary just because she's a woman; they were backing her because they liked her politics and respected the fact that she earned her position as a candidate for POTUS. I doubt they'd be happy to see some undeserving newcomer make it there instead of her.

Why is John McCain so mesmerized by dishy younger babes? When he met Cindy (she was 24, he was 41), he fell in love at first sight. The same went for Sarah. He met her once, and now swears he's her soul mate.

"Soul mate?" Good grief. I didn't realize it was so personal on his part.

At the same time, I find it rather bizarre that someone who didn't have time to keep up on events regarding the Iraq war, wasn't interested in domestic affairs, and had no idea what the job of VP involved would be his "soul mate."

And this is the heart of the matter to me:

[McCain's] so reckless that he's willing to gamble his own country in order to gain electoral advantage.

What really brings this home is that McCain's brought the single-issue voters all on board. Curly, Larry, or Moe could have been McCain's VP pick, and as long as they were as "anti-choice" as Palin is, they'd have the total support of this same group of people. Unfortunately, it's not a small group. I can't imagine how anyone could vote with no regard to national security, domestic policies, or foreign affairs, but it's one issue only for these Christian Conservatives-- and that's exactly what McCain was banking on.

Edited September 3, 2008 by American Woman