McCain picks woman for VP slot

[Stephen Best]

I was overwhelmed by the return of the green screen!

Not only that the McCain campaign screwed up one of the pictures. What they thought was a picture of the Walter Reed Medical Center was in fact a picture of Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, California.

Really, how dumb can a campaign be? Clearly, if McCain lacks the executive expertise to run a Presidential campaign and hire competent people, what makes him think he can run a country?

[WIP]

I trully love it when people judge other peoples parenting abilities. Because everyone is a hypocrite when it comes to parenting because Aint nobody perfect at it. If they want to label her as the worst parent of the year maybe that writer needs to get dropped off in Down town Detroit in the hood and see what REAL bad parenting is. Those kids will be given the very best opportunities if she becomes VP. Terrible parents my rear end. Get off your fucking soap box.

Then I expect you to go on Oreilly's and Limbaugh's forums to voice your discontent over their treatment of Jamie Spears and her parents for this crap:

OREILLY

“On the pinhead front, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant. The sister of Britney says she is shocked. I bet.

“Now most teens are pinheads in some ways. But here the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her or even over Britney Spears. Look at the way she behaves,” O’Reilly declared.

LIMBAUGH

When a caller to Rush Limbaugh’s radio show asked about Spears’ parents, Limbaugh also rushed to blame them.

Caller: Would you tend to think that a family in this position, though, wouldn’t you think that there would be a more watchful eye as a parent to be watching over these kids so this doesn’t happen to them?

Limbaugh: I would certainly hope so, but it’s long past time for this to happen. The parents here are the culprits!

http://www.ajc.com/printedition/content/pr.../03/tucked.html

Most leftwingers are social libertarians, so you have no credibility accusing liberals and libertarians of being judgmental! The reason everyone outside of the religious right rubberroom is flagging this story is because of the shear HYPOCRISY of voices on the right who selectively offer absolution on sins, depending on the person's religious and political beliefs! Expect more of the same in the future until religiously-motivated busybodies start learning to mind their own business and shut up about the morals of others!

[HisSelf]

A hockey mom is more fierce than a pit bull. So, those of you who pay attention to hockey parent violence...

Has she assaulted a parent from the other team? A referee? A coach? Has she (Madam the mayor) ever driven her kids to a hockey game?

How many games has she really been there for? Come on now...

A hockey mom. And a mayor.

Yeah right. So, Sarah, what exactly does off-side mean?

LOL. Another Yankee poser.

Edited September 5, 2008 by HisSelf

[Guest American Woman]

Talk about your double standards. This clip from the Daily Show presents it so no one can refute the hypocrisy. It's right there, staring you in the face, starting with Karl Rove. Unbelievable, really. I would hope some of these clips really get put out there. O'Reilly's the "the blame falls on the parents" when teens (ie" "pinheads") get pregnant clip that WIP quoted from about Jamie Spears and her parents-- side by side with a clip of him saying "life happens" when talking about Bristol Palin.

I wonder if they've seen the show and cringe at how ubelievably stupid they look. It's totally hilarious and totally sad at the same time.

Karl Rove's double standard/hypocrisy boggles the mind. Not to be missed.

Edited September 5, 2008 by American Woman

[WIP]

Who are the self described "feminists? And what "character assasination atempts" are you referring to?

But yeah, Palin's support here does seem to be "partisanship all the way;" you got that right.

There is a time-honoured political strategy used by every political candidate and party that has a scandal they want to bury or ignore: attack the critic.

According to Whitedoors, you have ovaries, therefore you are a traitor to womankind for criticizing Sarah Palin. I really don't think it's any more complicated or nuanced than that.

[White Doors]

There is a time-honoured political strategy used by every political candidate and party that has a scandal they want to bury or ignore: attack the critic.

According to Whitedoors, you have ovaries, therefore you are a traitor to womankind for criticizing Sarah Palin. I really don't think it's any more complicated or nuanced than that.

Nah, it's just simpler than that. Why not criticize her for her beliefs and actions, not her family.

Seems simple enough to me, but I guess it is a stretch for you guys.

[WIP]

Not only that the McCain campaign screwed up one of the pictures. What they thought was a picture of the Walter Reed Medical Center was in fact a picture of Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, California.

When McCain looked up at the screen, I thought he was trying to recall 'which one of my mansions is this!'

[Liam]

Wow, the Character assasination attempts go on and on...

And if it turns out to be true?

[White Doors]

When McCain looked up at the screen, I thought he was trying to recall 'which one of my mansions is this!'

The very picture of desperation.

This is all you guys got?

pathetic, yet enjoyable! carry on!

[bush_cheney2004]

... If your still confused, I won't be surprised-- but you can't accuse me of not trying to dumb it down for you.

Yes, I am dumber for having read that. Plenty of women before Palin, and currently, even those running for president/vice president, have taken a similar stance with respect to what you call "women's rights". I will check the US Constitution for the right to an abortion.....men might fancy such a "right" too. The USSC can giveth, and the USSC can taketh away....unlike "real" enumerated rights.

Go Sarah!

[White Doors]

And if it turns out to be true?

The affair you mean?

[WIP]

Nah, it's just simpler than that. Why not criticize her for her beliefs and actions, not her family.

Seems simple enough to me, but I guess it is a stretch for you guys.

Because, as has been demonstrated a number of times, family troubles are only off limits if it is the families of Republican politicians or fundamentalist church leaders.

[White Doors]

Because, as has been demonstrated a number of times, family troubles are only off limits if it is the families of Republican politicians or fundamentalist church leaders.

Who are you talking about?

I am not the borg

[bush_cheney2004]

Karl Rove's double standard/hypocrisy boggles the mind. Not to be missed.

Karl Rove has the "right" to at least as much hypocrisy as his critics. Rock on Karl.

[bush_cheney2004]

The affair you mean?

Even better...are only male candidates allowed to have affairs? It would seem so.

[Argus]

If it turns out that Plain was schtupping her husband's business partner, that will be an issue. Do you think it shouldn't be?

I'm also not sure what's weird about feminists who might want to point out the irony of a "family values" candidate with an unwed teen mom daughter and a possible history as a philanderer.

Normally, no. The only interest I have in it would be a demonstration of hypocrisy. People so vociferous about their belief in Christian values - to the point they want to legislate those values for others - are, I believe, or should be, held to the standards they talk about. It doesn't bother me if someone like Clinton has an affair - him or her - but those family values religious types - yeah, thats wildly hypocritical.

[Guest American Woman]

I have a hard time believing that something of that importance was written that close to the RNC. I still say it is SOP, and I have no qualms with it.

One source, and admittedly they are LW....Huffington...

But mainly, this was just a speech. Written by others, that she practiced, practiced and practiced.

This is from Time in partnership with CNN:

Scully started working on the vice-presidential speech a week ago, before he or anyone else knew who the nominee would be, and it's not hard to pick out the parts that would have been the same regardless of who delivered it.

Parts were written before the candidate was even chosen and represents the party, not the candidate. As stated, that part would have been the same speech regardless of the candidate; Palin had no input, much less "final say" in the matter.

Once Palin was chosen, Scully tailored the speech to the Alaska governor, highlighting her biography and using her PTA background and local political experience (contrasted so memorably with Obama's work as a community organizer) to bolster his two themes.

So that was Scully's work too.

This is interesting:

Where much media attention in the wake of her surprise naming has focused on Palin's views on cultural issues like abortion, the speech carefully steered away from ideological touchstones.

So the speech wasn't so much about Palin's ideological touchstones, which one would think it would since it's 'all about her,' as it was about toning down her ideologies; or "steering away" from them.

Doesn't sound like 'she' was being presented; sounds a lot more like the GOP platform was being presented.

[WIP]

Who are you talking about?

I am not the borg

You are aware of who the subject of this thread is, aren't you?

[Argus]

Even better...are only male candidates allowed to have affairs? It would seem so.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are allowed. John Kerry is allowed. Biden is allowed.

But for those oh-so-holy crusaders backed by the Christian Right, the holy roller squad, no, it's not allowed.

Edited September 5, 2008 by Argus

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, I am dumber for having read that. Plenty of women before Palin, and currently, even those running for president/vice president, have taken a similar stance with respect to what you call "women's rights". I will check the US Constitution for the right to an abortion.....men might fancy such a "right" too. The USSC can giveth, and the USSC can taketh away....unlike "real" enumerated rights.

Go Sarah!

And how many of those women have become VP? You most definitely are even dumber than you were before reading my post. At least you're smart enough to recognize that, so there may be hope for you yet.

Edited September 5, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Normally, no. The only interest I have in it would be a demonstration of hypocrisy. People so vociferous about their belief in Christian values - to the point they want to legislate those values for others - are, I believe, or should be, held to the standards they talk about. It doesn't bother me if someone like Clinton has an affair - him or her - but those family values religious types - yeah, thats wildly hypocritical.

Oh sure...John Edwards or Bill Clinton never once invoked their religious fiber and moral outrage on a campaign trail. Never even said "God"...nope..not once!

...except when begging for forgiveness...Praise Jesus!

Edited September 5, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[WIP]

Normally, no. The only interest I have in it would be a demonstration of hypocrisy. People so vociferous about their belief in Christian values - to the point they want to legislate those values for others - are, I believe, or should be, held to the standards they talk about. It doesn't bother me if someone like Clinton has an affair - him or her - but those family values religious types - yeah, thats wildly hypocritical.

Clinton was never accepted as being a Christian, although he did try a few times. I can recall a number of photo-ops of Bill and Hill, walking out of church with daughter Chelsea, holding hands, and Bill even was observant enough to have a bible tucked under one arm....but holding it just right, so that everyone watching could see "Holy Bible" on the cover.

Now that was hypocrisy, because no one believed this was the real Bill Clinton, and I think Clinton's womanizing and sex scandals would have gone better if he was a little more honest, and not intent on putting on a show for the cameras all the time........but after 8 years of Bush scandals and incompetence that are taking down the U.S. economy (and us too), I kind of feel a little nostalgic for the good old days when a president's problems were his personal character and not his capability of running the world's superpower!

But, that strategy of attacking the critics worked well enough to prevent being removed from office. How many times was the "human skull" James Carville on CNN with "Ken Starr is out of control," "Ken Starr is out of control?"

Attacking the critics works if the general public is satisfied with the way things are, but to make it work this time, McCain and the Republicans have to actually be able to fool the public into believing that they are "mavericks" who are going to change the system. From what I watched of the Republican Convention, I would have thought that the Democrats were the party that has controlled Washington for the last 8 years! I can't see them pulling this rabbit out of the hat.

[Liam]

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id...4511&page=1

[Black Dog]

White Doors:

Nah, it's just simpler than that. Why not criticize her for her beliefs and actions, not her family.

Seems simple enough to me, but I guess it is a stretch for you guys.

Well, when her actions contradict her beliefs (by, say, her having an affair) that's an issue. Like Argus said:

People so vociferous about their belief in Christian values - to the point they want to legislate those values for others - are, I believe, or should be, held to the standards they talk about. It doesn't bother me if someone like Clinton has an affair - him or her - but those family values religious types - yeah, thats wildly hypocritical.

[Shady]

If it turns out that Plain was schtupping her husband's business partner, that will be an issue. Do you think it shouldn't be?

Of course it would be an issue. It was also be an issue if Barack Obama was involved in an affair with Scarlett Johansson.