SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sarah Palin For President 2012 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: RMF who wrote (181)9/9/2008 3:16:42 AM
From: goldworldnet  Respond to of 1832
 
In Hiding For Two Weeks?!
06 Sep 2008 05:02 pm

andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com

This is incredible, totally incredible. A vice presidential candidate isn't going to be available to the press for two weeks? Two weeks? In September. We have this total unknown who could be president of the United States next January. And she's in hiding for two weeks. Chris Matthews on this clip says that this is fine. Has he lost his mind? She needs to be in front of the press now. The United States and the world cannot have this total unknown foisted on the presidency without any serious vetting and without any press interaction. This is absolutely third world. Since when is the governor of a state given two weeks in hiding?

The sexism that implies that someone cannot stand up to reporters because she is a woman is appalling. This entire pick, of course, is incredibly sexist, and the handling of her in the last week the most sexist double standard I have ever seen in American politics. Can you imagine Hillary Clinton saying she wasn't going to answer questions for two weeks? Or Margaret Thatcher? Or Kay Bailey Hutchison? Or Elizabeth Dole? And none of these women were ever as close to global power as Sarah Palin now is. This is getting to Manchurian Candidate levels of creepiness. It's deeply sinister and slightly terrifying.

* * *



To: RMF who wrote (181)9/9/2008 3:17:06 AM
From: goldworldnet  Respond to of 1832
 
CBS: Palin Daughter Pregnancy Has ‘Stolen John McCain’s Limelight’
By Kyle Drennen (Bio | Archive)
September 2, 2008 - 13:40 ET

newsbusters.org

Tuesday’s CBS Early Show devoted four separate segments to news that the teenage daughter of McCain running mate Sarah Palin is pregnant, with co-host Maggie Rodriguez declaring: "Private lives, pregnancy, and politics. A stunning start to the Republican convention, as delegates grapple with Sarah Palin's family life. I'm Maggie Rodriguez in St. Paul. The bombshell pregnancy announcement that's stolen John McCain's limelight and why some insiders say it may help him." Later, Rodriguez explained: "We've got a couple of storms brewing here in St. Paul, as well. The headline in the local paper calls day one of the Republican National Convention 'A Day of Distractions' for the GOP. The focus not on John McCain, but on Hurricane Gustav and on the political storm involving the presumptive vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, and the revelation that her teen daughter is pregnant."

In the first segment on the issue, in the 7am half hour, correspondent Jeff Glor announced: "Four days ago, hardly anybody knew anything about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Now they know a lot, including that news that her teenage daughter is indeed pregnant." Glor concluded his report by seeming to suggest that a planned address by Palin to the Republican convention was cancelled in the wake of the controversy: "Interesting to note that on the original schedule, Sarah Palin was scheduled to speak tonight. That will not happen." However, Glor never explained that while Palin was originally scheduled to give a prime time speech on Tuesday night of the convention, that speech was scheduled before she was named the vice presidential nominee, who traditionally accepts the party nomination on Wednesday, with McCain accepting the presidential nomination on Thursday.

Story Continues Below Ad ?

In the 7:30am half hour, Rodriguez talked to Karen Rhoades, a personal friend of Sarah Palin, about Palin’s daughter and the vetting process. Rodriguez teased that segment this way: "Ahead this morning, we'll talk to an old friend of the Palins about the rumors, about the pregnancy, and about the woman who's still such a mystery to so many people." Most of the segment allowed Rhoades to give personal insight into Palin, but at one point Rodriguez asked: "There are questions this morning about how thoroughly she was vetted, how much they looked into her background. We haven't found anyone in Alaska who says that they were talked to about her background. Since the announcement has come that she's the nominee, have you heard of anyone there who was asked about Sarah Palin's background?" Considering the announcement was only made Friday, perhaps Rodriguez should give it a bit more time.

In the 8am half hour, Rodriguez talked to Democratic strategist Joe Trippi about the Palin vetting process: "Let's talk about the vetting process, because I know that you've been involved in the past in the running mate selection process when Walter Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro. Do you get the sense that John McCain didn't know everything about her? Everything they were getting?" Trippi replied: "Yeah, absolutely. And I know what it's like when you're on the staff and you have that feeling that, 'boy, we didn't vet this person as much as we should have,' which is clearly the case with Governor Palin, and that's -- that's just a horrible feeling, because you never know what you don't know. You never know if another shoe's going to drop tomorrow, and you just want to stop the bleeding and get on to what you want to fight about, which is to lay down the differences between McCain and Obama. And this -- between the hurricane and Governor Palin, the McCain campaign hasn't been able to do that yet."

Despite Jeff Glor reporting earlier that the McCain campaign new about Palin’s daughter being pregnant, Rodriguez went on to ask Trippi: "How could they not know? How could they not thoroughly do their homework? How does that happen?" Trippi explained: "Well, what happens sometimes is the candidate and the campaign are going down one path...and you immediately move to another choice. And that choice -- and this happened in '84 with Geraldine Ferraro -- that choice turns out to be somebody that you just didn't have enough information on, and so you get in this predicament like has happened with Governor Palin." Rodriguez briefly mentioned at the very end of the segment: "And we should add that the McCain campaign insists that she was thoroughly vetted and there have been no surprises to them." Apparently that insistence was not enough for Rodriguez.

Finally, in the 8:30am half hour, Rodriguez talked to teen mother, Kaleigh Larrick, about the issue: "Kaleigh, here in Minnesota, here at the Republican National Convention, there's a lot of support for Sarah Palin, but other people are criticizing her. So, let me ask you, do you think that your parents should be held accountable for your actions?" Larrick replied: "No, because -- I think it was something I did, but I don't regret it."

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.

* * *



To: RMF who wrote (181)9/9/2008 3:17:22 AM
From: goldworldnet1 Recommendation  Respond to of 1832
 
MSNBC Attempting to Make Palin McCain's Rev. Wright?
By Ken Shepherd (Bio | Archive)
September 2, 2008 - 20:14 ET

newsbusters.org

Conservative blogs led the way in raising questions about Barack Obama's home church, but for months on end the MSM ignored the story until incendiary video of Rev. Jeremiah Wright made the rounds earlier this year and the story was too juicy to ignore.

Not so when it comes to Sarah Palin and her former church, the Wasilla Assemblies of God, as media outlets try to find juicy "controversial" video to prove Palin was poorly vetted.

MSNBC's First Read blog picked up on a Huffington Post item in a September 2 post.:

As questions have been raised over how thoroughly Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign vetted Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for the V.P. slot, it seems the McCain campaign was unaware of a video -- available online -- in which Palin talks about God's role in U.S. military action overseas, according to a political operative familiar with the situation.

The video, first reported by the liberal blog HuffingtonPost.com, is from a June Palin speech to the graduating class of commission students at Palin's former church in Wasilla, Alaska. While describing her family, Palin told students about her oldest son, 19-year-old Track, who is set to be deployed to Iraq this month with the U.S. Army. She urged students to pray "that our leaders -- that our national leaders -- are sending [soldiers] out on a task that is from God."

Sounds like the media, or at least left-wing blogs, may be attempting to make Sarah Palin into John McCain's Jeremiah Wright.

I think they're grasping at straws. What say you? Drop a line in the comments field.

—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters

* * *



To: RMF who wrote (181)9/9/2008 3:17:39 AM
From: goldworldnet1 Recommendation  Respond to of 1832
 
ABC: Palin Pregnancy a 'Damaging Revelation'
By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive)
September 1, 2008 - 17:28 ET

newsbusters.org

Bristol Palin's pregnancy is a "damaging revelation " that has caused Sarah Palin's image to "suffer." Says who? Says ABC News, in an article by Rick Klein and Jennifer Parker.

In Palin Pregnancy Rocks Political World, Klein and Parker report reaction from a variety of Republican and traditional-values sources. Every one, from Dr. James Dobson to Grover Norquist to Chuck Donovan of the Family Research Council to a pro-life delegate to the GOP convention who said "the fact that her daughter's keeping it and marrying the father is wonderful," had a positive reaction.

But what do they know? Declare Klein and Parker [emphasis added]:

Palin's image may suffer further if more damaging revelations come out in the coming days and weeks.

Just what is "damaging" about the revelation? ABC doesn't really say, other than to assert that "the pregnancy raises complicated questions for conservative voters regarding issues of teenage sexual activity. And -- perhaps more troubling for the McCain-Palin ticket -- the revelation comes during a critical period where voters are just beginning period where voters are just beginning to learn about Palin and her family."

What's so "complicated"? Yes, teenagers have sex, including children of the prominent and pro-life. Does ABC mean to imply that Sarah Palin is poor mother? Bristol Palin [seen at far left in photo, holding brother Trig] is keeping the baby and marrying the father. Shouldn't we be celebrating those choices and the mother who instilled the values they reflect?

(Photo: John Gress /Reuters)

* * *



To: RMF who wrote (181)9/9/2008 3:17:56 AM
From: goldworldnet1 Recommendation  Respond to of 1832
 
NBC's Andrea Mitchell: Only Hillary's Uneducated Voters will Vote For Sarah Palin
By Warner Todd Huston (Bio | Archive)
August 31, 2008 - 23:19 ET

newsbusters.org

**Video Below the Fold**

Tom Brokaw's Meet the Press this week was as prosaic as ever, but for one little line uttered by the increasingly partisan Andrea Mitchell. In a discussion about the McCain VP pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, guest Doris Kerns Goodwin, plagiarist/historian, said that the choice of Palin is a "very strange choice," showing how little she bothered to even think about the facts. But the most outrageous analysis came from Mitchell who said that only uneducated, female voters will be drawn to Sarah Palin, not those smart, college educated ones.

At about 5:57 into this clip Andrea Mitchell was brought onto Meet the Press with Goodwin, David Gregory and host Tom Brokaw to tell us all that Sarah Palin will only appeal to uneducated women, not educated ones.

Story Continues Below Ad ?

After Brokaw asked Mitchell what this Palin pick means for Hillary voters, we find that Mitchell took the occasion to attack instead of answer the question with serious analysis.

Transcript:(My emphasis)

Brokaw: ...There are other Republicans who are saying, listen we'll be able to pull those Hillary Clinton voters who are not happy the way Obama treated her across the line. What are the chances of that Andrea?

Mitchel: Well, they think now that they have a story. They have a story of a working mom, she is a colorful character, an Annie Oakley... you know, Annie get your gun. They love her story, but when she tried to talk about Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, in western Pennsylvania, yesterday at a rally with conservative Republican voters, Hillary Clinton was booed. So, she can use the Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro analogy if she wants to in interviews, she cannot use that at Republican rallies.

She is not appealing to the same women who were really voting or supporting Hillary Clinton on ideological issues but they think that they can peel off some of these working class women, not college educated, who, the blue collar women who were voting for Hillary Clinton and may be more conservative on social causes.

So, only the stupid, uneducated, working class ninnies will be somehow fooled into voting for the McCain/Palin ticket, Andrea? Them thar smart, educated, upper class women are too smart for that? Is that what we are saying here, Andrea?

But, notice how Mitchell didn't just answer Brokaw's question but did her best to gig at the GOP for their "booing" of Hillary Clinton? Brokaw asked about Clinton voters crossing the aisle to vote McCain because of his VP pick, he did NOT ask anything about how traditional conservative voters react to mention of Hillary Clinton's name at rallies. Further, no one should expect conservatives to have any different reaction to Clinton now that she is a loser than they've ever had. So, Mitchell's attempt to make Republicans look mean because they booed Clinton's name was gratuitous needling on her part. Of course conservatives are going to boo Hillary, but, Andrea, THAT wasn't the subject under discussion!

So, on top of calling any women who might vote for McCain because of the addition of Sarah Palin to the ticket uneducated, Mitchell needlessly strayed off topic to search for some way to make Republicans look mean.

Yep, that's the partisan hack Mitchell we have become so used to!

* * *



To: RMF who wrote (181)9/9/2008 3:18:11 AM
From: goldworldnet1 Recommendation  Respond to of 1832
 
Classless Alan Colmes: OMG, the Palins Eloped!
By Tom Blumer (Bio | Archive)
August 31, 2008 - 11:50 ET

newsbusters.org

Alan Colmes has been on a downward spiral for the ages since John McCain introduced Sarah Palin as his presumptive Vice-Presidential nominee.

Fellow NewsBuster Warner Todd Huston caught Colmes scraping bottom at his Liberaland web site last night, as the lefty talker and Sean Hannity piñata asked "Did Palin Take Proper Pre-Natal Care?" in connection with Palin's pregnancy and childbirth earlier this year. Trig Palin was born with Down's Syndrome on April 18.

A whiff of sanity appears to have prevailed, as the entry is now empty. Also not present: an apology. (Update, 3:30 p.m. -- Here's Colmes's "apology." You can decide whether it's adequate or simply blame-shifting.)

But apparently Colmes has no problem with this entry he put up on Friday afternoon about the circumstances surrounding Todd and Sarah Palin's wedding (full entry follows; links were in original):

Story Continues Below Ad ?

Conservative Family Values

In her speech in Dayton today, Gov. Sarah Palin announced that she and her husband are celebrating their 20th wedding anniversary, which means they were married on August 29, 1988.

On April 20, 1989 – less than eight months after they eloped – their first son, Track, was born.

I think I can guess the real reason why they eloped, and it wasn’t to save money on an expensive wedding.

Colmes's snide reference is to this NationalJournal.com Almanac entry, which reads:

After returning home, Palin eloped with her high school boyfriend in 1988 to save money on an expensive wedding.

Alan, do you know who pays for traditional weddings?

Stipulate for the moment that Colmes might be correct, and that Palin was pregnant at the time the couple married. Is it really inconceivable to Colmes that Todd and Sarah, who had known each other for many years, might have decided to spare their parents, none of whom as far as I can tell were wealthy, an extravagant expense?

One commenter at Colmes's post made this telling point:

If it’s true then what matters is that Palin has demonstrated her pro-life bona fides not once but at least twice in her life. Once at marriage, the second time after finding out the baby she was carrying would have Down (sic) Syndrome.

The story of the Palins, and Colmes's reaction, also brings to mind a fairly well-known Republican whose wife was three months pregnant when they married. He was also ridiculed as "somehow" being a values hypocrite by Colmes's philosophical predecessors.

It turns out this Republican and his wife had a decades-long romance for the ages. The publication of a treasure trove of letters this Republican wrote to his wife over many decades caused even hardened liberals to tear up as they were read. Normally curmudgeonly Mike Wallace was moved to say:

I had no idea. I knew that they adored each other: she him and he her. But the stuff that you read here is -- it's extraordinary.

..... Listen, I used to look at them when they were in public situations like this. And come on -- I mean, the adoring look and all of that, and the way that he looked at her. I used to say, come on, it couldn't be that. Turns out it was, and the letters make it so apparent.

If you can get through the September 9, 2000 CNN interview about this man's letters to his wife Nancy without choking up, you may need to check your pulse.

This Republican also served as governor of a Western state. He also was a pretty effective politician.

That Republican was Ronald Reagan.

Be careful what you wish for, Alan.

* * *



To: RMF who wrote (181)9/9/2008 3:18:31 AM
From: goldworldnet2 Recommendations  Respond to of 1832
 
Vile and Viler: Colmes and Sullivan
Earlier today, we took a look at Alan Colmes’ comments about Sarah Palin’s most recent pregnancy. Colmes wrote:

weeklystandard.com

Rogers Cadenhead gives the timeline associated with the birth of her newest child. She had a speech in Dallas and, even after the water broke, continued with her activities, and then boarded a plane for home. She did consult by phone with her doctor. Still, a Sacramento, Calif., obstetrician who is active in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said when a pregnant woman's water breaks, she should go right to the hospital because of the risk of infection. That's true even if the amniotic fluid simply leaks out, said Dr. Laurie Gregg.

While Colmes’s sudden concern for fetuses so long as they reside inside the body of conservative politicians is touching, some people inferred from this idiotic post that Colmes was suggesting that Palin’s putative poor judgment caused her baby to be born with Down syndrome. After sending the initial post down the memory hole, Colmes addressed this concern:

“I in no way mean to suggest that her child’s Down Syndrome was in any way related to decisions she made. In fact I never mentioned Down Syndrome in the post. However, I apologize that my post was not more clear on that point. That is my fault, and I’ll take responsibility for not being more clear on that point. “

Why anyone would infer bad faith when someone is belittling a politician’s handling of her own pregnancy is beyond me. Nevertheless, good of Alan to sort of man up.

At the other end of the crackpot conspiracy theory spectrum, we have Andrew Sullivan who seemingly blogs for the sole purpose of posing the existential question, “How many times can one man kill his own reputation?” Sullivan promulgates a theory that categorically rejects the notion that Palin irresponsibly handled her pregnancy. Why? Because Palin was never pregnant in the first place! Instead, she pretended to be pregnant and give birth (while a sitting governor!) in order to cover for her daughter who was in fact having the baby out of wedlock.

In his original post on the matter, Andrew stated that the rumor is “buzzing across the Internets” before calling them “unfounded and unseemly.” A full 41 minutes later, however, he characteristically disagreed with himself, inveighing, “This baby was a centerpiece of the public case for Palin made by the Republicans. They made it an issue - and therefore it is legitimate to ask questions about it.”

Speaking of the unseemly, contra Andrew, the story has not been buzzing across the Internets. Prior to Andrew propagating the rumors, they remained confined to the fever swamps where even on the Huffington Post the commentary was generally of the “Good god this is stupid” variety. At the Daily Kos, many of the commenters to the rumor-mongering diary lamented its idiocy and ugliness.

Since I know you’re dying to know the kind of persuasive logic that the Kos diarist displayed that piqued Andrew Sullivan’s interest, I offer the following excerpt:

“The final point of interest is that Trig Palin has been diagnosed with Down's (sic) syndrome (aka trisomy 21). This is an interesting point, as chances of having offspring with Down's (sic) Syndrome (sic) increases (sic) from under 1% to 3% after a mother reaches the age of 40. However, 80% of the cases of Down's (sic) Syndrome (sic) are in mother's (sic) under the age of 35 , through sheer quantities of births in this age group.”

Someone better tell Alan Colmes – the Kos Kid has him dead to rights.

Both Andrew Sullivan and Alan Colmes did the exact same thing – they disseminated attacks so vile and idiotic they would never dare put their own names behind them. They used their platforms, platforms that lunatics who come up with such crackpottery typically lack, to get the attacks much more attention than they originally would have received.

Colmes and Sullivan did the exact same thing in another regard. Both men, in eagerly publicizing crackpot theories, showed the boundless desperation and ugliness that Sarah Palin will face. If ever there were examples of “kitchen sink” political tactics, the blogging efforts today of Sullivan and Colmes provide them.

And both men have provided early returns on our question, “How low will the left go?”

* * *



To: RMF who wrote (181)9/9/2008 3:18:51 AM
From: goldworldnet1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1832
 
CNN’s Soledad O’Brien Denies Her Network Has Anti-Palin Bias
By Matthew Balan (Bio | Archive)
September 3, 2008 - 22:28 ET

newsbusters.org

CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien disavowed any knowledge of a bias on her network against Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, particularly concerning the issue of her five children, during a segment on Wednesday’s Newsroom program. She moderated a segment with two bloggers, a conservative and a liberal, both of them mothers. When the conservative, Rachel Campos-Duffy of "The Real World: San Francisco" fame, stated how "journalists even on this network say things like, you know, can she really -- is she up to be vice president because she has five kids," O’Brien replied, "I have not heard one journalist who works for CNN, if that's what you're talking about, say that at all. We've interviewed people who said that and ask some similar questions about, isn't that sexist? So I'm not sure exactly who you're referring to."

Well, let’s refresh Ms. O’Brien’s memory. As John McCain was getting to announce his choice of Sarah Palin on Friday, her colleague John Roberts asked correspondent Dana Bash about Palin’s youngest son and how he might be neglected if the governor became vice president: "There's also this issue that on April 18th, she gave birth to a baby with Down's Syndrome.... Children with Down's syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of Vice President, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?"

Campos-Duffy and her counterpart, liberal blogger Erin Kotecki Vest, debated the issue of how sexism has crept into the discussion and news coverage surrounding Palin. As the two disagreed on the extent of sexism, O’Brien asked Campos-Duffy about Palin’s experience: "...[D]iscussing someone's fitness for office -- we're going to have to assume for either vice presidential pick that they potentially could wake up one morning and guess what, you're now the president, because something terrible happened to the guy who was president -- is discussing someone's experience. Why is that considered sexist and off-bounds?"

When Campos-Duffy insisted that Palin did have experience, O’Brien countered, "With all due respect, Rachel, everyone says, you know, she's got experience on a lot of issues, you know, governmental executive, and then it kind of stops. I mean, Alaska has 670,000 people and a $6 billion budget, which is small. You know, Governor Bush, which he was governor before he became president, that was 24 million people, right? I mean, in all fairness." Campos-Duffy countered by bringing up Obama’s short list of experience, but O’Brien brushed that argument aside: "Yeah, but that's another argument. I'm talking about your candidate. Let's talk about your candidate, the V.P."

After the conservative mother and blogger explained Palin’s experience, Vest chimed in and brought up her concerns about the Alaska governor’s knowledge of foreign affairs. Campos-Duffy replied to this by stating how she thought there was a double standard with Palin: "I think that the sexism comes because she's not being held -- she's being held to a higher standard because she's a mom than I think she would be otherwise." O’Brien asked her what she meant by that, and when Campos-Duffy brought up "journalists even on this network," O’Brien issued her denial.

The transcript of the relevant portion of the segment, which began 9 minutes into the 10 am Eastern hour of Wednesday’s Newsroom program:

RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY: ...I think that the sexism comes because she's not being held -- she's being held to a higher standard because she's a mom than I think she would be otherwise.

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: So, okay. Let me get you to clarify. Why is that a higher standard? I mean, how is that a higher standard?

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Well, I've heard -- well, I’ve heard journalists say, well, how can she -- I've heard journalists even on this network say things like, you know, can she really -- is she up to be vice president because she has five kids? You know, Senator Rick Santorum has six kids. I've never heard anybody ever say that --

O'BRIEN: I have not heard one -- I have not heard one journalist who works for CNN, if that's what you're talking about, say that at all. We've interviewed people who said that and ask some similar questions about, isn't that sexist? So I'm not sure exactly who you're referring to.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Well, they're asking the question -- they’re asking the question. Again, I've never heard senators or congressmen with lots of kids being asked that sort of question. I think it's something that's reserved for mothers.

* * *