McCain picks woman for VP slot

[Riverwind]

And if it turns out to be true?

I find that hard to believe because:

1) Palin would have known it would come out and it would have known that it would mean public humiliation and a destroyed candidacy. It is unlikely that someone who was dumb enough to believe otherwise would have made it as far as she has in politics.

2) During divorces unproven allegations of affairs show up all of the time. They don't always have merit and sometimes they are completely fabricated by one partner is seeking an advantage in court. IOW - allegations - especially those that appear in divorce trials - should be taken with a grain of salt.

Now if real evidence shows up then it would be a concern but not because of hypocracy - because it would demonstrate a rather appalling amount of arrogance/naivity on her part.

Edited September 5, 2008 by Riverwind

[Black Dog]

1) Palin would have known it would come out and it would have known that it would mean public humiliation and a destroyed candidacy. It is unlikely that someone who was dumb enough to believe otherwise would have made it as far as she has in politics.

Right: no politician would ever risk their career by engaging in naughty sex acts.

[Shady]

And if it turns out to be true?

So the discussion has moved on to hypotheticals now? Sounds good.

What if Barack Obama is really a secret member of Al Qaeda?

[Guest American Woman]

I find that hard to believe because:

1) Palin would have known it would come out and it would have known that it would mean public humiliation and a destroyed candidacy. It is unlikely that someone who was dumb enough to believe otherwise would have made it as far as she has in politics.

What Black Dog said, but I'll add my own because it deserves more than one. Of course no one thinks they will get caught or they think that they will be able to lie their way out of it if they are caught.

2) During divorces unproven allegations of affairs show up all of the time. They don't always have merit and sometimes they are completely fabricated by one partner is seeking an advantage in court. IOW - allegations - especially those that appear in divorce trials - should be taken with a grain of salt.

I disagree. If an affair can't be confirmed, it won't carry any weight in court. Any "completely fabricated" affair can be ripped to shreds by the other side.

Now if real evidence shows up then it would be a concern but not because of hypocracy - because it would demonstrate a rather appalling amount of arrogance/naivity on her part.

I'll agree with "arrogance," but I sincerely doubt there's anything "naive" about Palin.

[Black Dog]

So the discussion has moved on to hypotheticals now? Sounds good.

What if Barack Obama is really a secret member of Al Qaeda?

Funny thing about that one, despite being, in your words, a hypothetical, that idea was actually floated by the wingnutosphere and swallowed hook, line and sinker by True Believers everywhere.

So far, no one has spoken about the affair charge as anything but an unfounded allegation.

[Riverwind]

Right: no politician would ever risk their career by engaging in naughty sex acts.

There is a huge difference between an established politician screwing around and a politician hoping to jump from obscurity to the national stage. Knowledge of such a liability should make even the most arrogant person reconsider. Something does not compute about this particular allegation.

[Black Dog]

There is a huge difference between an established politician screwing around and a politician hoping to jump from obscurity to the national stage.

Um. It seems to me that someone like, say, a President would have a lot more to lose than some hack small-timer from North Bumfuck Alaska who, up until recently, figured the closest she'd come to the Vice Presidency would be getting shot in the face by Dick Cheney on a moose hunting expedition. SO yeah, in that sense, there's a huge difference.

Knowledge of such a liability should make even the most arrogant person reconsider.

Yet both established politicians and up and comers (pun intended) are caught with a wide stance with alarming regularity.Why, it's almost as if they think they won't get caught out or something, what with them being so clever and all.

Something does not compute about this particular allegation.

There's probably nothing to it, I agree, but it's not because someone like Palin is too smart to screw around. Smarter and more ambitious people than her have screwed themselves by screwing around before and will continue to.

Edited September 5, 2008 by Black Dog

[stevoh]

Personally, I hope these allegations against Palin are false.

She is such an ideal republican role model, she embodies so many of their beliefs, and is a great public speaker. If she is what she (and the republicans) claim her to be, she is probably the best public representation of republicanism I have seen in a while.

Of course, I want Obama to win this election (I am a liberal after all), but I want it to win it based on his merits vs McCains, not win it because some scandal brought down the other side.

Some would say a win is a win, but I would certainly rather it was based on political reasons, not scandal.

[Shady]

Funny thing about that one, despite being, in your words, a hypothetical, that idea was actually floated by the wingnutosphere and swallowed hook, line and sinker by True Believers everywhere.

No, the idea that Obama was a Muslim was floated, originally by the Clinton campaign. But, being a Muslim does not necessarily make one a member of Al Qaeda. I think you owe Muslims an apology.

[guyser]

There is a huge difference between an established politician screwing around and a politician hoping to jump from obscurity to the national stage. Knowledge of such a liability should make even the most arrogant person reconsider. Something does not compute about this particular allegation.

Allegations aside, consider the fact that most anyone who is screwing around has done so for much longer than the elite position held.

Clinton is a womanizer, was so long before he took office in the WH.

The Rep from out west , "Wide Stance" whatshisname didnt go bi after he took office.

Ted Kennedy drinking and driving didnt just start after he got his political jobs.

There are more.

[Black Dog]

No, the idea that Obama was a Muslim was floated, originally by the Clinton campaign.

Nope.

But, being a Muslim does not necessarily make one a member of Al Qaeda. I think you owe Muslims an apology.

1) I doubt much of the Republican base cares to make that distinction.

2) Kiss my ass.

...

Personally, I hope these allegations against Palin are false.

I hope they're true if only so that it gives new meaning to the new G.O.P. slogan: "Drill, baby, drill."

[Shady]

I hope they're true if only so that it gives new meaning to the new G.O.P. slogan: "Drill, baby, drill."

Yeah, that's why you want it to be true. Of course.

Just like all those concerned about whether or not her children will get the proper care and attention.

Edited September 5, 2008 by Shady

[Liam]

So the discussion has moved on to hypotheticals now? Sounds good.

What if Barack Obama is really a secret member of Al Qaeda?

My rejoinder of "and if it turns out to be true?" was not a justification for posing a hypothetical -- which it wasn't -- rather it was questioning the other poster if it still qualified as character assassination if it was true.

It is rather curious, though, that Todd Palin's business partner should *suddenly* have his attorney race to court to have his divorce decree sealed. Now, I'm not saying he and Sarah Palin had an affair, but obviously there's something in there he doesn't want made known and whatever it is only became a major issue after she became the VP nominee. Unrelated events? Maybe. But I'd rather find out what than accept the "nothing to see here, folks" cone of silence the campaign has put around Palin.

[M.Dancer]

What if it was Todd Palin THAT HAD THE AFFAIR WITH HIS business partner!!!

Would that be a vote getter?

Edited September 5, 2008 by M.Dancer

[Riverwind]

It is rather curious, though, that Todd Palin's business partner should *suddenly* have his attorney race to court to have his divorce decree sealed.

Obviously there is something that could be at least spun by Palin opponents, however, that could be anything from documented evidence of an affair to unproven allegations made by his ex-wife. Or it could be something else entirely. A person spooked by the recent attacks on Palin could reasonablly seek to seal records that could be misrepresented even if those records don't really contain anything of consequence. If the affair is a fact then the evidence will surface no matter what happens to the court records. Edited September 5, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

What if it was Todd Palin THAT HAD THE AFFAIR WITH HIS business partner!!!

Would that bed a vite getter?

I think there was a Boston Legal episode with that plot line...

[Liam]

Obviously there is something that could be at least spun by Palin opponents, however, that could be anything from documented evidence of an affair to unproven allegations made by his ex-wife. Or it could be something else entirely. A person spooked by the recent attacks on Palin could reasonablly seek to seal records that could be misrepresented even if those records don't really contain anything of consequence. If the affair is a fact then the evidence will surface no matter what happens to the court records.

That's an entirely valid point, I won't argue that at all. But we still need to know (not about this poor guy, but about her and/or Todd.

[Guest American Woman]

Who'd want their divorce settlement scrutinized? There's personal information in there; financial, if nothing else. I don't think it's something that should even be "public." I can understand why the guy would want to have them sealed. I'm guessing his ex-wife would feel the same way.

That being said, I think there's something to the National Enquirer story. I would have never said that before the Edward's affair, but they sure got that one right. Surprised me that they did.

[Riverwind]

That being said, I think there's something to the National Enquirer story. I would have never said that before the Edward's affair, but they sure got that one right. Surprised me that they did.

You got to be kidding. The majority of stories they publish are fiction and/or unsupported hearsay and the editors know it. They got the Edwards one right but that does not mean the other stories have any more credibility.

[peter_puck]

That's silliness, of course. In Canada, it's been Liberal governments which racked up the debt

I think that is inaccurate, at least in the federal scene. (though Mulroney and Chretian lived in different economic time)

Granted, the currente occupant of the White House doesn't seem to care about such things, but he's not really much of a conservative.

It amazes me that this socialist fool can sit there, say things like "We should teach intelligent design in schools" and do things such as start moronic wars and the brain dead social cons can cheer him like the messiah as he loads oodles of debt onto their children.

[CANADIEN]

WARNING WARNING WARNING!!!! THIS IS A JOKE, NOT A POLITICAL OPINION, A JOKE

Heard today...

Jesus was a "community organizer" and Pontius Pilate was a Governor

Edited September 6, 2008 by CANADIEN

[jdobbin]

Jesus was a "community organizer" and Pontius Pilate was a Governor

Jesus didn't run anything. I don't think he knew a thing about national security and I'm pretty sure he was wishes he didn't tell his people to surrender their arms at the end.

[CANADIEN]

Jesus didn't run anything. I don't think he knew a thing about national security and I'm pretty sure he was wishes he didn't tell his people to surrender their arms at the end.

He rules the world, didn't care about security when he was down here, and instructed his followers to turn the other cheek.

But that's besides the point. As bad as it was, did I need to write "WARNING: this is a joke"?

[jdobbin]

He rules the world, didn't care about security when he was down here, and instructed his followers to turn the other cheek.

But that's besides the point. As bad as it was, did I need to write "WARNING: this is a joke"?

I was making a teasing comment. I just don't the icon thing that much.

Edited September 6, 2008 by jdobbin

[CANADIEN]

I was making a teasing comment. I just do the icon thing that much.

Time for me to wake up :lol: