McCain chooses Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska

AAAhmed46 · Post by **AAAhmed46** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:01 am

What do two conservative pundits say about Palin when they don't think they're on the air?

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg

Transcript:
Spoiler:

Chuck Todd: Mike Murphy, lots of free advice, we'll see if Steve Schmidt and the boys were watching. We'll find out on your blackberry. Tonight voters will get their chance to hear from Sarah Palin and she will get the chance to show voters she's the right woman for the job Up next, one man who's already convinced and he'll us why Gov. Jon Huntsman. (cut away)
Peggy Noonan: Yeah.
Mike Murphy: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state governor world: Engler, Whitman, Tommy Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. I mean, these guys -- this is how you win a Texas race, just run it up. And it's not gonna work. And --
PN: It's over.
MM: Still McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.
CT: I also think the Palin pick is insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too.
PN: Saw Kay this morning.
CT: Yeah, she's never looked comfortable about this --
MM: They're all bummed out.
CT: Yeah, I mean is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?
PN: The most qualified? No! I think they went for this -- excuse me-- political bullshit about narratives --
CT: Yeah they went to a narrative.
MM: I totally agree.
PN: Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at, they blow it.
MM: You know what' sreally the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical.
CT: This is cynical, and as you called it, gimmicky.
MM: Yeah.

Style points: Publish an Op-Ed earlier that day that says the exact opposite of what you just got busted on. Justify this new contrary opinion by saying you "hadn't thought of it yet" when the op-ed was published.

Whoops, forgot link to op-ed

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

AAAhmed46 · Post by **AAAhmed46** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:04 am

see, that's the kind of thing people should be saying, OPENLY. but they can't because no side is willing, and thus not able, to do.

Open and honest dialogue in the media? Forget about it.

No, it's not about a right or left wing bias, just a strange atmosphere we got in the media during elections...any elections.

Atleast Ron Paul called out Obama, Obama doesn't want change. The only thing he has to offer is the fact he's a black dude for president, thats it. Thats all. really, he has nothing...his foreign policy really is only SLIGHTLY different from McCain.

IJ · Post by IJ » Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:27 am

I saw this right after watching the Daily Show (lowbrow, yes, but tonight had some great clips of politicians reversing themselves when the moment suited, plus, I was honored that Stewart read this forum and stole all my comments about reproductive freedoms and the Palins) and it was like watching "To Catch a Predator": funny-sad entertainment

Thanks Ahmed.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:26 am

Seth Rosenblatt wrote:
Bill Glasheen wrote:
You may find it interesting to know that the Great Society programs of the LBJ administration have been partially credited for the breakup of the black family as we know it.
by whom? and what's your point? are you actually trying to argue that blacks were better off in 1960 than in 2008?

In the fifties, although blacks were still struggling for equal oppertunities and were on the low end of the economic ladder, the black family was for the most part strong and stable. Two parent families were the rule, not the exception. They attended church together, had strong moral values, and did not comprise a majority of the prison population. Compare that to the present state of the black community after 40 years of Liberal Socialism.

***

The following statistics are provided by Star Parker's Coalition of Urban Renewal, (CURE).

*60 percent of black children grow up in fatherless homes.

*800,000 black men are in jail or prison.

*70 percent of black babies are born to unwed mothers.

*Over 300,000 black babies are aborted annually.

*50 percent of new AIDS cases are in the black community.

*Almost half of young black men in America's cities are neither working nor in school.

- LBJ's Great Society: 40 Years Later

Just the facts, Seth.

Why are you even trying to argue with me on this? Bill Clinton wouldn't have been taking credit for "reforming" welfare if LBJ's programs weren't so obviously devastating to the most vulnerable social classes.

This was a classic case of the law of unintended consequences.

Seth Rosenblatt wrote:
that's right, bill, you SHOULD always consider the source. if you actually spent any time looking at multiple news sources per day, as i do, you'd realize that the washinton post and new york times are far more center than left - especially when it comes to their editorial pages.

fox news gets so much factually wrong that it's hard to think of a media outlet that rivals them on the left.

Well that was worth a good laugh.

No leftists news sources. Just the right wing Fox News.

Perhaps before posting your opinion, you should have checked the peer-reviewed literature first.

Enjoy!

Measuring Explicit Political Positions of Media

Bill reads one news source per day.

Got it.

- Bill

Glenn · Post by **Glenn** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:06 pm

IJ wrote: the Daily Show (lowbrow, yes, but tonight had some great clips of politicians reversing themselves when the moment suited, plus, I was honored that Stewart read this forum and stole all my comments about reproductive freedoms and the Palins)

I like satire so I enjoy both Stewart and Colbert. Stewart's show last night was particularly good for the reversal clips, but I was impressed with the way he handled Gingrich on the issue of reproductive freedom. He showed a flash of being a serious debater there.

TSDguy · Post by **TSDguy** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:16 pm

Stewart and Colbert are both quite saavy in a debate. They use humor, but like Al Franken, God of Political Commentating, they clearly know their stuff (and in full circle, that's why they're funny.)

cxt · Post by **cxt** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:37 pm

IJ

As always good points.

1-I was speaking of those people that are attacking Palin on the basis HER kid....your correct in that "anecdotal" evidence isn't really good evidence at all.......which makes the attacks on Palin by using such equally invalid...as I belive I said such arguments need work.

2-If you have not heard people using Palins daughter siutuation as ahm....... "reasoning" for her abilty to do the job then you have not been watching what I have been....I have heard it and read it...repeatedly.

3-Its not a "charge"......its an observation. In the context of "Hollyweird"

Palins kids pregancy is yawningly a non-issue--so watching Lefties now make judgements on it would seem seriously inconsistant...IMO behavior for which tolerence is demanded by those on the Left and esp in Hollywood and attacked when its a figure that is on the Right seems IMO to be seriously inconsistant.

If you ideals demand lifestyle tolerence and you only extend that tolerence to members of "your" group and attack people doing the same things that are NOT of "your" group----then your not being consistant with your ideals.....a problem BTW that pretty much each Party shares.

Put it this way--I was watching a guy this morning that claimed

A-his was the party that declares attacks on Families are wrong and they should not be done

B-AND AT THE SAME TIME that any attacks "his" people are making are essentially payback for the attacks on Obama and Bill/Hillary Clinton.

Thus what he is REALLY saying is essentially "we don't thnk its right to attack familes--UNLESS were doing a little payback."

So effectively the value of payback becomes MORE valuable than the "other" value he espouses.
He of course would argue differently.

IMO logically inconsistant---or at the very least vastly more complex than he was willing to explain.

I'd fully agree with you BTW that the "din of nonsense" is pretty much SOP for politics...mores the pity.

Seth Rosenblatt · Post by **Seth Rosenblatt** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:39 pm

Bill Glasheen wrote: No leftists news sources. Just the right wing Fox News.

bill, why don't you quote what i said in full? what i said was, "fox news gets so much factually wrong that it's hard to think of a media outlet that rivals them on the left. certainly none in terms of size and audience." if you think CNN is the opposite of Fox, you really just haven't done your research. size and audience matter greatly, when you consider that 20 million people watch fox news and 60 million voted for king george.

the other difference with Fox versus CNN is that the owners and managers of Fox regularly meet with Republican officials to discuss what to cover. you don't see anybody in the "liberal" media meeting with the DNC.

they shouldn't, either. the problem isn't that the DNC doesn't have a mouthpiece with an audience of 20 million, the problem is that the RNC does.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/2 ... ng-points/

In the fifties, although blacks were still struggling for equal oppertunities and were on the low end of the economic ladder, the black family was for the most part strong and stable. Two parent families were the rule, not the exception. They attended church together, had strong moral values, and did not comprise a majority of the prison population. Compare that to the present state of the black community after 40 years of Liberal Socialism.

"strong moral values"? you've got a statistic on that?

two parent families were the rule, not the exception, for EVERYBODY back then not just blacks. here's a good essay (with charts!) on how blacks have greatly improved their status since the 1970s. there's definitely room for improvement, and there are causes for concern, especially when it comes to abortion rates, but there have also been major improvements made.
http://www.black-collegian.com/issues/3 ... 30th.shtml

it's arguable that if this country wasn't so hung up on sex ed, and instead made education and birth-control options a priority, that there wouldn't be such a high rate of abortion in minority populations.

LBJ's Great Society: 40 Years Later

the free republic is a notorious libertarian/nationalistic rag. while it's nice to see some citations in the article, it's too bad that there's no context. what was the rest of society doing? oh yeah, the exact same thing.

Just the facts, Seth.

ah yes, facts. here are some facts:

• The Great Compression, 1929-1947: The birth of middle-class America. The real wages of production workers ... rose 67 percent, while the real income of the richest 1 percent of Americans actually fell 17 percent.

• The Postwar Boom, 1947-1973: An era of widely shared growth. Real wages rose 81 percent, and the income of the richest 1 percent rose 38 percent.

• Stagflation, 1973-1980: Everyone lost ground. Real wages fell 3 percent, and the income of the richest 1 percent fell 4 percent.

• The New Gilded Age, 1980-?: ...Between 1980 and 2004, real wages in manufacturing fell 1 percent, while the real income of the richest 1 percent ... rose 135 percent.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... an_wa.html

the problem we're facing is nothing less than the obliteration of the middle class, and the republicans clearly have no interest in doing anything about it.

Why are you even trying to argue with me on this? Bill Clinton wouldn't have been taking credit for "reforming" welfare if LBJ's programs weren't so obviously devastating to the most vulnerable social classes.

it's also arguable that clinton's reforms benefited people:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060911/truthdig

The best estimates from the Census Bureau and other data, however, indicate that at least a million welfare recipients have neither jobs nor benefits and have sunk deeper into poverty. For those who found jobs, a great many became mired in minimum-wage jobs -- sometimes more than one -- that barely cover the child-care and other costs they incurred by working outside the home.

those "reforms" won't start working until we get nationalized health care, where people are spending the vast majority of their paychecks on insurance that backs out of holding up their responsibility to pay for your treatment in the first place.

Measuring Explicit Political Positions of Media

that's an interesting study, although this is the money quote: "Clearly, much depends on one’s prior conception of where the political center lies, but our results at least inform the relative assessment."

the problem with that relative assessment? choose one moderate supreme court justice and you get a determination of 74 percent liberal media. choose another and you get 71 percent conservative media.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:19 pm

Seth

Perhaps you are confused.

I don't really care what your political views are. We are all entitled...

My response was to your first post (remember?) which was (perhaps sarcastically) illogical.

Seth Rosenblatt wrote:
apparently, palin was against teen mothers before she was for them:

"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live."

I told you that was silly - which it is.

I gave you a reason why a fiscal conservative would view "funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live" as something which could result in tragic consequences - hence it being a logical (tough love) action on her part. I used LBJ's Great Society programs and their consequences as a historical record upon which one could base this. I even gave credit to Bill Clinton for correcting some of the poor choices from the past, and - yes - we could pat Bill on the back for that. I did this to give your personal political views the benefit of the doubt, in spite of Mike reminding me that the Republican "Contract with America" also was a factor here.

Seth Rosenblatt wrote:
it's also arguable that clinton's reforms benefited people

Yes, Seth, yes! Clinton done good. We can pat him on the back. We can give him credit.

And in the same light... it's arguable that Palin's choice similarly benefited people. She's not "against" or "for" teen pregnancy. She's thinking WAY down the road to the consequences of those pregnancies - once the deeds have been done.

OK???

I also argued that sources are important - particularly the source you cited which criticized Palin. I labeled the Washington Post, New York Times, and LA times as basically being left of center. You argued that "the washinton post and new york times are far more center than left - especially when it comes to their editorial pages."

I showed you this very recent (July) peer-reviewed publication by a couple of Harvard guys.

Measuring Explicit Political Positions of Media

Did you take the time to read it?

I'll help you cut to the chase. Look at the picture on the top of page 16. Analyzing the editorial pages, all three of the publications I cited were left-leaning. The New York Times was to the left of all - including the position of every Supreme Court Justices' opinions superimposed in the plot.

So...

1) Sarah Palin isn't "against teen mothers." She's exercising her political judgment to do what she feels is best. That judgment is rationally based upon her political philosophy and her interpretation of the historical record.

2) Sources matter.

3) New York Times, LA Times, and the Washington Post are left of center (and in that physical order).

4) It is OK for you to have your own political views and to vote for whomever you wish. Knock yourself out!

- Bill

AAAhmed46 · Post by **AAAhmed46** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:51 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1lCMH8rlHE

HIde behind the apron strings....

Hypocrisy.

Occurs on both sides mind you....

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:33 pm

Actually that was a funny and very well done piece, Adam. Daily caught the spin doctors playing both sides of the argument. And in the end, he let Palin stand up for herself.

When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think 'Man, that doesn't do us any good!' I mean work harder... prove yourself to an even greater degree that you're capable... that you're gonna be the best candidate.

I agree with his sarcastic quip. "What does she know?"

Sarah Palin can fight her own battles. It is true that the wolves are after whatever they can get on her. C'est la guerre! But remember that she didn't get where she is now by "hiding behind the apron strings."

I saw her speech at the convention last night. Sarah Barracuda indeed! This is gonna be a fun fall!

- Bill

IJ · Post by IJ » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:37 pm

CXT, sounds like we agree on how the coverage should play out... I would make a minor point that people who permit all kinds of single motherhood can have a quibble with the right's response to single motherhood IF they're establishing that it's hypocritical (like O'Reilly's). To avoid hypocrisy themselves they have to be clear they don't have a problem with the single motherhood, but just with the right's (and here I would hope they would be specific, as was the point of my last post) tolerance of it when it's their candidate and not when it's someone on the other side.

They CANNOT support Murphy Brown then turn around and attack the Palin's just because someone had extramarital sex--committing this crime ought to get them a Daily Show montage, of course.

My views, not that they matter:

1) We should do everything we can as a free country to avoid unplanned pregnancy, single OR married. As well as "excess" pregnancy intended or otherwise (hello, parents of 10 kids).
2) Abortion is always "a" wrong; sometimes it is the lesser wrong, and I don't think government should tell women when that is and is not the case, but as a culture I think we should strongly encourage adoption and prevention.*
3) We should tell the truth to kids (w.r.t. sex ed, pregnancy, and STDs).
4) Age of consent laws should focus on age disparities more than magic thresholds and also on coercion, abuse, etc. For example, underage or not, I don't think anyone has suggested that Palin's daughter's fiance assaulted her. If he's over 18 (haven't heard) I think it's in everyone's interest he stay involved, get married if that's something they actually want and aren't doing as a political circus, support the kid, rather than get labeled a "sex offender" for life.

*If you're antiabortion and you don't want public support for adoption by all qualified parents (including, ahem, people of the "wrong" religion or sexual orientation) and aren't committed to the best pregnancy prevention, whatever the data suggests that is, you need a head CT or a psychiatrist.

AAAhmed46 · Post by **AAAhmed46** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:48 pm

Obama contridicts himself all the time. I don't get the guy, doesn't he have a stance on anything? Biden is just boring, and he'll re-inforce the big brother stance on guns. Biden is another old white democrat who dreams of the good old days.
Obama on the other hand, doesn't know what the hell he wants. Wow, big surprise. One minute he talks about pulling out, the other he wants to invade pakistani border(which probably isn't a bad idea actually, but i doubt he'll do it) so are you muscle man or are you a pansy obama?

McCain on the other hand wants to bomb Iran. If you guys think Iraq was bad, the Iranians, even secular iranian(especially secular iranians) are rabidly nationalistic. You can insult their religion or their politicians, but they are really...well ill repeat it, nationalistic as Texans. The secular anti-Amejenejad(i can atleast say his name if i can't spell it) middle class in Iran would quickly change their tune.

Palin probably should keep her mouth shut on foreign affairs, she probably knows less then me...wait, ive actually been outside canada many times. I can sum up her views on the middle east: Their the chosen people, so no matter what, we have to support them for the second coming!Bomb the camel jockeys!!, Thats what pastor dave told her at least.

More of the same im telling you.

There needs to be a real libertarian party.

I look down south, and i see all these libertarians having to adapt their positions for the republicans or democrats. I rarely ever talk to an american libertarian who really is satisfied with what their parties have to offer.

Seriously, what the hell.

The republicans and democrats need to split their parties up, one half of the republican party to appeal to libertarians.

And the other half to the evangelical "traditional'' family values vote.

The dems need to split their party to a centerist party thats fiscally liberal but socially conservative...

and another thats socially liberal but fiscally conservative.

Will never happen, but hey, it's good to dream.

Yes i know you have multiple parties, but really, their pretty meaningless. The only way these smaller political parties would have any leverage would be if the dems and republicans split apart.

Then maybe, more of the population would be represented.

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:03 pm

I saw her speech as well, along with 37 million others, according to the news. She did well. A bit catty at a point or two, and her teleprompter problem may explain the sightest of stumbles at Argentina. Well-delivered and well-recieved.

And today the press has been hounding Obama about HIS experience. Once the press starts chasing its tail, it's not long before everybody gets bit. LOL.

Ahmed, the Dems will never leave the social left. Not gonna happen. It brings in most of their money. But you confused me. What's centrist about being fiscally liberal and socially conservative? That just sounds confused.

Ian, what do you want to do about families with ten kids? Do you really think government should be involved with that? I think abortion should be allowed in the case of rape and incest, and obviously to save the life of the mother or prevent severe health problems (not 'psychological 'trauma'), but I'm appalled by Obama's position which allows him to vote against protecting infants who survive botched abortions. Adoption in this country needs a complete overhaul. And finally, Planned Parenthood needs to get out of the business of sex ed, and parents need to get back into the business end of it.

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:10 pm

AAAhmed46 wrote:
There needs to be a real libertarian party.

I look down south, and i see all these libertarians having to adapt their positions for the republicans or democrats. I rarely ever talk to an american libertarian who really is satisfied with what their parties have to offer.

Seriously, what the hell.

The problem, Aahmed, is that aside from the polarizing issues the Reps and Dems capatalize on, there isn't a whole lot of difference in goals left over. They're so far-reaching and all-encompassing, they pretty much ****** everyone else in.

All politics has to start local. Run as a libertarian in your neighborhood. If you get established, help someone else do the same. Get to the county level. Build up a good organization, and go for the state rep, then the state senate. Once you have those you can even go for a national seat, though without the national support, good luck. You'd be better off strengthening your organization in your own state, and networking with like-minded, successful folks in other states.

You say the libertarians and others have to keep modifying their platforms to model the dems and reps. That should tell you your problem right there. There just isn't enough support out there for true 'libertarian' ideals. The majority are too addicted to the pacifiers the government's stuck in their mouths.