Vice-President Picks

Remove all ads!

Ok, I've only read the last two pages, here, but I think you're all sounding like idiots at this point. I think the average IQ indicated by the posts above is at least 20 points lower than I normally expect. Do you all really think that the choices of Palin's soon-to-be son-in-law are an adequate judgement of how good of a VP she'll be? Ragusa, do you really think that someone buying her a wardrobe (at any place other than Target) is a legitimate campaign issue? And how many of you think a kid making what seems to be a bad decision (when you probably don't know all the facts, or even most of them) is justification for talking about him like you all have? Or the people around him? Ragusa, you've made some pretty irresponsable comments about the religious and made some bad assumptions about people's proper priorities and courses. What's worse, while I usually take issue with you and Chandos to some degree, everyone seems to have joined in here.

I'm seriously disappointed here.

 

It is an issue for the people who paid for it. Many Republican donors are not real happy about having their money spent in such an irresponsible manner. As far as "idiots" go, Palin doesn't even know the decription of the job she is running for - talk about an "idiot."

 

By itself? No. As merely one of a series of instances that demonstrate her poor judgement? Yes. As it reflects on her parenting skills when she's billing herself as the bullet-proof "hockey mom" who can juggle both the VP slot and a family with ease? Yes.

By itself, no. When you're running on a platform of ridding Washington of wasteful spending, yes. When you're billing yourself as the hero of "Joe SixPack" and "Real Americans," yes. When people from her own campaign were some of the very same people who gave John Edwards no end of sh*t for his $500 hair cut? Yes.

It doesn't, you're right. But again, it does reflect on Sarah Palin's parenting skills and the expectations she sets for her daughter. Levi wasn't exactly some one-night stand her daughter brought home, he was well liked and approved of by the Palins. That he's such a dip, and they approved of him, again, that says alot about them as parents.

Is it a campaign issue? Because the McCain campaign paraded the kids around as much as they have, yes.

 

Although I do not believe dropping out of high school is best for a young man, it is his choice. I must agree with NOG in being disappointed here. There appears to be an elistist attitude being cast against Levi by many members of the boards here.

How his commitment to take care of his child could be twisted into such a negative spin is beyond me. To suggest getting a job to support his family is irresponsible and provides proof of poor parental abilities of his parents totally insane (let alone the parental abilities of Palin). People need to remove their dem goggles and look at this reasonably.

DR, you should really listen to what your saying here (or read what you're writing...). Claiming Bristol's pregnancy and the decisions made by Levi are a negative reflection on Palins abilities is crazy. That's on the same level as those right wingers who attacked Cheney about his daughter.

 

T2,
Liz Cheney is a godless homosexual (after all she chose being lesbian), and by implication a liberal, which is probably why she got her job at the state department. Wouldn't it be for her policies, she would be proof for Pat Robertson's thesis that Foggy Bottom is best nuked. As things go, she's her daddy's pride.

 

You know, I'm really getting tired of these whiny accusations of "elitism" and "dem goggles" when an observation is made about the Palins that is unflattering to them. I am looking at this reasonably. I thinking dropping out of school is the dumbest thing he can do for himself, and this isn't the first instance of Levi exhibiting bonehead behavior. As it reflects on Sarah Palin, she has a documented history of poor judgment and lax values - from the Troopergate stuff, to her cronyism, to her many, many bald-faced lies, to her absurd rhetoric on the campaign trail, and now all this dysfunction in her family when she purports herself to be a champion of family values...guess what, forming an opinion about a family who've made their dysfunctional family planning extremely public does not make me an elitist. Sarah Palin didn't have to run for VP and put such a big damn spotlight on her family's problems when all these things are going on with her personally. And that some of the same bad judgment she has displayed politically appears to have trickled down into her family life, that's something worth noting.

Some wounds are self inflicted. Would any candidate be free of such attention in the same situation? No. So enough with the "elitist dem goggles" nonsense, please. I don't presume your judgments are run through any ideological filter, please do me the same courtesy.

 

Wait, wait. So part of her appeal is that she's a hockey mom, but we're not supposed to actually examine her hockey-mommageness?

Mind, there are many better reasons to think Palin = You must be joking, but it's perfectly fitting (and oh so deliciously ironic) to make unsubstantial attacks on a candidate whose primary asset is that she's, um, unsubstantial.

See, not only is she not so great a governor, she's also not so great a mom. And not so great an average person ($150k! On clothes! In two months!). So tell me again what her appeal is?

There's nothing left.

 

Lies necessitate intent; when you believe you speak the truth you do not lie. That's why Alberto doesn't recall.

 

We're talking about two kids here. Two kids. The elitism I'm referring to is the obvious bias some members on the boards have for a kid who would drop out of high school (to provide for his family no less). Such condemnation is pure elitism. There are many great vocations Levi (or any other HS dropout) could go into that will pay more than many jobs requiring a college education.

I disagree that if a teenage child get pregnant it is due to the parents' poor judgement. I have known many women who had children as teens (including both of my sisters) -- I would not blame any of their parents. Out of about fifteen or so I've known about half got married, many are still married. Perhaps this is more personal for me, but some of the statements have gotten a little carried away.

Had Sarah Palin abandoned Bristol, I would agree with you. But she didn't. She stood by her daughter. I find that commendable and such commitment is the real definition of family values. I'm really not sure what definition you are using.

I also find it patently offensive that a man can run for president with minor children and nobody makes claims he's a bad father but when a woman runs as VP she is obviously neglecting her children. Wake up, there are many families in America where the woman is the bread winner and the man takes care of the kids.

 

Ah, hah! T2 and I agree! Your point is well-taken. Let's go one step further: Do we really need compulsory education? Is it necessary for every student to be forced against his/her will to sit through classes that will never be of any value to them in the workplace? Students who have no desire to learn make it far more difficult in the classroom environment for both the teacher and the students, who are actually interested in learning. Learning is a privilege and should be treated as such. I wonder just how compulsory education is handled in the German educational system? Perhaps Ragusa would share. But I think that what you suggest, T2, about vocational training and the practical aspects of education and supprting oneself and family, is an excellent point.

 

Chandos and others talking about the wardrobe:
Of all the questionable things to spend money on, and all the amounts of money to spend, $150K on fancy clothes for the campaign trail for her entire family, for the entire campaign, is cheap and well spent. The thing I find ironic is how so much of the media was attacking her on her lack of refinement and then attack her for appearing refined.

DR:
As far as her parenting reflects on her character in general, that's ok, but you all have gone much farther than that. You have been petty and cruel, and it seems to have been done for little other reason than to enjoy it.

As to everyone attacking Levi, he made a bad choice to have sex before marriage, and then took responsability for his mistake. As for dropping out of HS, I can think of vastly stupider mistakes that much more 'respectable' young people have made, most of them in college. Education and intelect are commonly advertised today as the pinnacle of achievement. That is pure foolishness. They're good things, yes, and should be aimed for my those that can achieve them, but they are far from the objective of this life. If this guy recognizes that he isn't that smart and that he needs money to raise a child and that he can make a decent living (if not great) without his HS degree, then that's not a foolish decision. If anything, it is a wise and mature one.

Ragusa:

I'm not sure what the purpose of this was. If you were trying to make fun of the extreme right, you kind of shot yourself in the foot here, as the whole point was that you are behaving the same way.

DR:

I'm not complaining about a legitimate discussion of it, though I would be quick to point out that I think Rev. Wright's relation with Obama is more of an issue than Palin's with her daughter, if only because it's gone on longer, is more radical, and the influence isn't evidence of the character of the candidate, but rather a direct influence on it. Anyway, the real point is that I take issue with the insults that have been thrown around. It's immature at best.

Chandos:

That's funny, what I heard was a more accurate description of the job of the vice president than Biden, who should know. She described the VP as the President of the Senate, which is what the Constitution says it is, that the VP presides over the Senate, which is what the Constitution says, and that the VP can have more influence in the Senate than recent VPs have, which it can and many VPs in the past have. I have heard a lot of people on the left claiming that she doesn't know the job description, that she got it wrong, and worse, but she got it spot on. If anything, you'd accuse her of giving a textbook definition (or constitutional as the case may be).

 

No, sorry, that's NOT what she said, and you know it. She said that the VP was "in charge" of the Senate. Do you know who was the first Vice President of the United States? It was John Adams. Yes, THE John Adams, FOUNDING Father, in case that gets lost in the translation of how the Founders intended our nation to be run according to the Constitution, which THEY crafted. Here's what John had to say in a letter to his wife, Abigail:

In "charge" of the Senate? Well, not so much....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27310526/

 

@ T2,

I hear what you're saying. I don't think Liz Cheney vs. Bristol Palin is a fair comparison (she was an adult and a lesbian long before Cheney became a VP nominee), but your point is noted. How I believe the situation with Levi and Bristol reflects poorly on Sarah Palin is for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is the fact that you and I even know their names says that Palin put being a VP over the emotional wellbeing of either of these "two kids." She's young (in political terms). Could she not have been someone's VP nominee in 2012, or top of the ticket herself, when the urgency of her mothering were less necessary? Bristol could be a happily married mom and Trig could be a thriving toddler by this time 4 years from now. Running now put these "two kids" under far more pressure than any kids would normally have had to endure.

If I sound critical of high-school dropouts it's because the vast majority of high-school dropouts end up without much of a future. I certainly wish the best for Levi and Bristol but still think it was a dumb thing to do. He's only a year away from graduating. They have a support system to rely on and he's a senior. He could have graduated, even a few months or a year late or in an off-campus program, and still been a father. I also factor the fact that he was reportedly a very poor student anyway into my disappointment in his dropping out. And yes, I feel this reflects very poorly on the Palins for not counseling him otherwise. One bad future-altering decision does not beget another, and they are people who show regular disdain for academics - which also leads me to believe their influence had something to do with it. Like you, I've come to this conclusion due to my own experiences. "Dem goggles" are not a factor here.

You're right - it is commendable that Sarah Palin is sticking by her daughter. But I would agree with you more if Sarah Palin hadn't put this entire situation into focus by running for VP. I thought John Edwards displayed similar selfishness when he continued his campaign despite his wife's cancer (and that looks like an especially astute call on my part given his infidelity). It's also why I find your arguments that "a woman can be the breadwinner, too" lacking. I don't care that she's a woman, I care that her candidacy will negatively effect her children's lives where it would far less so if they didn't have such obstacles to deal with. Chelsea Clinton had no such difficulties and it's a miracle she turned out as well as she did (in fact, I'm sure she's in some serious therapy). I'd be Sarah Palin's biggest parenting fan if she'd said "thanks, but no thanks" to inviting such disruption to her children's already disrupted lives.

And if I get pissy when people throw the term "elitist" around too much, it's because people throw the term around too much.

@ NOG,

I agree with you that Wright is fair game to be concerned about. I found his remarks very troubling as well. Where I have a problem with the Wright stuff is when his language is taken out of context and its meaning exaggerated (specifically the "God damn America" stuff...has no one heard of a literary device?). There is no evidence Obama was present during any of the bombastic sermons in question, and Obama's claims that he was not aware of Wright's few over-the-top tirades have proven credible. He did the right thing in severing that association. It's clear to anyone willing to give Obama a fair shake that he obviously doesn't share such radical race-based leanings. He would really have zero appeal otherwise, especially with me.

I also think it's silly to harp on Wright when John McCain sought the endorsement of a nutball mega-preacher who blamed 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina on Americans, and Sarah Palin is on video chanting with a witch doctor trying to rid her of snake spirits. Apparently religious kooks aren't in short supply these days.

As for enjoying being "petty and cruel" toward the Palin kids, you're really barking up the wrong tree leveling that at me. My criticisms have been exclusively aimed at Bristol's mother. I'd have preferred it if the Palins had kept their kids out of this campaign entirely instead of trotting them out as campaign props, especially Trig. Trotting out a handicapped baby to score cheap political points is disgusting to me.

 

Yes, just what is meant by an "elitist" anyway? The term is usually connected more with Republicanism, than with Democratic rule - or "mob rule" as I've heard it described by conservatives on many occassions....

 

I was being very sarcastic. The only thing I care about with Liz is that her policies are as right wing as her father's. When attacking her, you're attacking him, too. So, as far as policies are concerned, she is fair game. That point of course doesn't come up with Levi and Bristol. They cannot be compared with Liz. In that sense I see T2's comment limping.

It probably wouldn't work like that in Germany, more below.

Not my point, unless it refers to intentionally not educating your children about sex.

It isn't about Palin being bad mother or her abandoning Bristol (where did you take that from). Palin certainly does love her kids. Not the point. It's that she stalwartly sticks with 'abstinence only', even when confronted with evidence that suggests reconsideration. Now that is a policy matter, and an indicator of Sarah Palin's ability to change course when realities collide with deeply held views.

To me it suggests that her religious views trump reason, even as far as her own family is concerned. It also shows that for Palin there is knowledge not worth knowing, worse, that there is knowledge that is dangerous because it promotes vice That is the sole point behind the opposition to sex education on the Christian Right.

Compulsory education in Germany is, depending on in which state you live, nine to ten years, or till the pupil is 18 years old. After that they can decide whether they want to continue education or want to drop out. Dropping out is generally considered a suicidal choice unless you have a guarantee that you will receive vocational training. As things are, you need a completed education. Excluding luck, to get vocational training you need a diploma from a vocational school or a high school. Of course there are chances for you to get vocational training anyway when you start working and prove to your vocational trainer that you are reliable and capable. But that is the hardest way.

In Levi I see a guy forfeiting chances and making his life harder than necessary. That is not elitist. I don't question his motives, providing for the family is a noble motive, no doubt. I seriously challenge the wisdom of his decision and those who let him make it. As I said, I see Levi more as a conformist type. It is on this assumption that my scepticism towards Palin's influence, considering her religious rigidity, on the decision rests.

 

A few points of clarification:

I specifically mentioned the right wing attacks on Cheney's daughter -- implying her sexual preference. Ragusa, that would clearly exclude your attacks on her political beliefs.

I used the term 'elistist' in its purest form -- a biased opinion of a person's worth based on social standing, in this case education. Many of the posts here were making Levi out to be a second rate person because he chose to drop out of school. Painting Levi as being inferior is elitism -- sorry guys, just calling a spade a spade here. While I do not agree with his decision (especially since the two families could easily help out until he graduates), I cannot condemn him for quitting school to support his family. As far as graduating -- there is a thing called the GED.

Ragusa, the trades are really hurting here. With the extensive push by school boards to only promote college prepatory programs, the programs promoting the trades have been sorely neglected. As Chandos mentioned we are preparing kids for college who have no desire for education beyond high school. We have removed shop classes (auto repair, wood working, metal working) from many of our schools. There were great vocational programs just twenty years ago in high schools -- very few exist now. As a result, most trade school here pay students to go. Pipe fitters school starts at $13.50 per hour and the student will be making $41.00 per hour when they finish -- the school is part time and they work in the trade part time (student get paid for both). Auto manufacturers are paying for kids to go through the auto repair schools.

I have never thought Sarah Palin was the best choice for VP (Elizabeth Dole would have been my choice). But I like her, she would bring a far different point of view to the White House than has been seen by anyone since Truman.

 

She is a political opportunist, T2. She does not really have a point of view that is consistent, much like Mac has been during this campaign. Now, she supports a Constitutional Amendment that would ban gay marriage. She moves further to the right as her popularity with the hardcore base within the Republican Party embraces her. In fact, she's probably more popular than Mac is within the party, atm. It's little wonder that Mac is losing, given that he has been all over the board on a number of issues, and his own party is not really that excited about him. plus, independents are not coming over to Mac.

Palin has fired-up the base of the party at the expense of Mac being able to reach out to the moderate independents who would have elected him prez. Instead, they are moving to Obama, because Palin scares the hell out of them. People who know her in Alaska claim that she has changed, and shifted to the right since she's been on the national ticket. But Palin wants to be the leader of the Republican Party, and she figures that if she panders hard enough to the hardcore, her chance will come. After Bush and Mac, who's left?

 

Perhaps, but I think that here base is to small to grant her a majority in a national election.

Which is a good thing. I doubt America can afford the luxury to appoint another blind, ideologically rigid ignoramus with a sense of mission as president. The price tag, as ought to have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, is just too high.

 

These guys are still living in the 2000-2004 elections, when the extreme negatives and slanders of Rovian politics were sticking. The country has moved on since then, and the more negative and slandeness these fools become, the more Obama goes up in the polls. That's why the Dems should just let the Republican operatives from the RNC talk away, uniterrupted. They are only digging themselves deeper into the hole.

Did you know that if Obama is elected that it will be the "end of life as we know it?"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27369927/

 

Palin: Anti abortion bombs not terrorism

It appears that Palin's radicalism is catching up with her.

She never tires of accusing Obama to 'pal around with terrorists', namely Ayers. The subject of anti-abortion violence came up in an interview that she and John McCain gave Brian Williams, and she was asked whether an abortion clinic bomber is a terrorist. Hear her reply:

​

Indeed. Bombing abortion clinics, or shooting (at) abortion doctors, is not politically or religiously motivated violence. These are godly deeds in which the will (and wrath) of God manifests itself, and thus they cannot constitute acts of terrorism. You betcha.