Sarah Palin: Reality Check

Common mistake in the media (6.00 / 2)

2005 was not Palin's penultimate year as mayor.  She was elected to a three-year term in 1996, and re-elected in 1999.  She was mayor from 1996 to 2002.

Also, according to the NY Times, Topsfield town meeting does more than the Mayor of Wasilla.

As mayor, she oversaw the Police Department, which has 25 officers, and the city's public works projects. Garbage collection is done by private companies, and a borough government oversees firefighting and public schools.

 Only the cod is sacred.

---

by: pablo @ Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 23:22:52 PM CDT

Good catch (0.00 / 0)

I revised the post to note the correct end date to her tenure as Mayor, and her job as Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

Could it be that other than this brief experience in the private sector:

Palin briefly worked in broadcasting as a sports reporter for local Anchorage television stations and with her husband in commercial fishing.

She has worked for the government her entire life?  

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 23:36:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What does Keith Olbernann and Sarah Palin have in common? (6.00 / 1)

Palin (née Heath) at 24:

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 15:32:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wasilla-Topsfield comparison (0.00 / 0)

Topsfield has a bigger, better annual celebration, the Topsfield Fair. But fewer sled dogs.

---

by: Publius @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:07:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

As mayor: Fired librarian and police chief (0.00 / 0)

It turns out that the chief librarian and police chief of her town had supported her opponent and so she had them fired.

Can you spell "cronyism"?. Palin would fit very well with the Bush Justice Department, apparently.

---

by: KBusch @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 15:47:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As to the "Student's for McCain pens, (6.00 / 1)

I bet they only corrected the picture on the Website. If the pens are still available, you're probably going to have to wait for delivery, until they can fix the actual product. I notice that the "Larger view" of the pen on the Website is disabled. Too much trouble to Photoshop two images, I guess.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:19:18 AM CDT

It's settled (4.00 / 6)

Small towns suck, and the politicians there.

Americus, Georgia?  Drive down the "main street".  I have.  Jimmy Carter's house is right on that street. I'm not sure it's called Main Street; there's really only one state road through the town that I could see. In 1984 when I was there, it had one hotel and no traffic lights.  Maybe that's why he sucked as a President.  Small town.  Bunch of rubes.

Grandview, Missouri?  Even now it only has 24 thousand people.  Harry Truman. What a laugh as a president.

Don't get started on Hope, Arkansas.  

Compare anyone of those lame little towns to any town in Massachusetts, and we're obviously better than them.  

---

by: gary @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:03:41 AM CDT

No one has said a small town is bad. (6.00 / 2)

And you know that.

No one has even suggested that coming from a small town is bad.  And you know that, too.

---

by: lightiris @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:13:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Completely disingenuous. (6.00 / 3)

Carter wasn't the mayor of Americus three years before becoming President.  Truman wasn't the mayor of Grandview three years before becoming President.

Even if they were, no one in their right mind would think that that experience counted towards them being ready to assume the job on day one (or day two in this case).

.08 Acres
.0000016% of Massachusetts Political Commentary

---

by: sco @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:18:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What do you know (0.00 / 0)

Palin wasn't mayor for 3 years either!

---

by: JoeTS @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:22:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Huh (6.00 / 1)

For days now, gary, you've been telling everyone how everybody but you hates small towns.  Methinks thou doth protest too much.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:11:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where? (0.00 / 0)

Where, other than in this thread, have I said a word about small towns?

---

by: gary @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 14:36:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It wouldn't matter if she had done much else. (0.00 / 0)

Heck, America loves a log-cabin story.

Even her screw-up as mayor wouldn't matter if there a preponderance of more-recent and relevant other stuff to judge her on.

---

by: Trickle up @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:22:57 AM CDT

Bridge to Nowhere (0.00 / 0)

You guys might have already dealt with this, but I found a source, via Dan Kennedy, that disputes the claim that Palin was a strong opponent of the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere". I have not done a lot of independent research on it, but there it is, anyway.

---

by: Farnkoff @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:30:10 AM CDT

McCain says Palin is a "soul mate" (6.00 / 3)

Oh boy, does this thing have the feel of a teenage crush or what?

From Politico

John McCain, in his first television interview since his shocking vice-presidential pick, said that he saw in Sarah Palin "a partner and a soul mate."

Soul mate?!!  Did he look into her eyes and see her soul during their one encounter?    

This gets better and better.  

---

by: lightiris @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:47:48 AM CDT

Creepiness (0.00 / 0)

The "soulmate" comment is creepy. One is hard pressed, for example, to imagine George Bush claiming that General Petraeus, Alberto Gonzales, or Donald Rumsfeld was a "soulmate". It seems like a term reserved for romantic liaisons not running mates.

---

by: KBusch @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 14:42:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Soul Mate? (5.00 / 1)

I'm a guy. The last time I described a woman, other than my wife, as a soul mate, my wife nearly flipped. To some women, the term soul mate means life partner or someone you feel a deep bond with. At the time I used the phrase, I had no idea it meant so much. What does John McCain think it means. What does he want us to think it means?

SM

Smart Mass - The "M" is silent.

---

by: Smart Mass @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 15:48:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This kind of humor could clinch it (0.00 / 0)

The reason Gore didn't win by enough in 2000, or Kerry fell short in 04, is that they were, primarily, figures of ridicule in the press and commentariat. Lower-info swing voters act on that kind of grade-school, tribal message -- candidate X is a loser who has cooties -- more than anything else, I think.

GOP hoist on its own petard.  

---

by: Cannoneo @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 13:24:42 PM CDT

Beyond a Petulant Child's Trick? America Can't Afford Four More Years of This! (0.00 / 0)

Eight-Years of Bush-Cheney.  Now the GOP follows with the petulant child?

The Republicans must be trying to out do themselves?

McCain's pick of Palin, I don't think I'm going to comment.  It would be too easy!

 

---

by: peabody @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 13:39:12 PM CDT

From Jay Leno (0.00 / 0)

Here's my response to the call to add jokes in the comments:

"This is everything we know about Sarah Palin - her name is Sarah Palin!"

Seriously, it's interesting to see differences in local governments.  Here in MA, a town of 9000 souls wouldn't be allowed to have a mayor.  That office is reserved for cities who have been granted that kind of charter, for which I believe the threshhold is 12,000.

---

by: Christopher @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 14:29:27 PM CDT

Palin teaches her son the sanctity of life (6.00 / 2)

---

by: Cannoneo @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 17:53:22 PM CDT

Jeez-is that Bambi's dad? (0.00 / 0)

The kid sure doesn't look that into it.

---

by: Farnkoff @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 18:39:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

actually it's her daughter Piper (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Cannoneo @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 20:50:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You a vegetarian? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: gary @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 19:04:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No- good point. (0.00 / 0)

Although I had heard that people hunt for fun these days, as kind of a macho thrill-seeking thing, or a bullshit way of pretending to be part of another era or something. I didn't realize that Palin was a sustenance hunter.

---

by: Farnkoff @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 19:33:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Me neither (0.00 / 0)

Maybe she's one of those people who cling to guns and religion. Maybe hunting for sustenance, maybe for sport.

So, it's ok to kill a cow for a hamburg, but not an elk for a hamburg?  Ya know, I'd love to know the difference.  

---

by: gary @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 21:12:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sounds like you know it wasn't for sport, then? (0.00 / 0)

Anyway, since they throw away ground beef at the supermarket every day, why go to all the trouble of pretending to engage in meaningful combat with an unarmed and unsuspecting animal when hungry for animal flesh? But again, it is a fair point- there is hypocrisy in pretty much any "animal-humane" opinion affected by meat eaters.  

---

by: Farnkoff @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 21:21:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No one but you is suggesting (0.00 / 0)

there's an ethical difference between killing a cow or an elk for sustenance.

The governor of Alaska needn't kill for sustenance.  There's even a grocery store in that Hamlet known as Wasilla, which has a population, depending on the year, similar to Monson.  

Some of us are a little appalled that she would expose a small child to such unnecessary cruelty for sport.  Maybe she's the type that would also shoot the family dog in front of her small children, too, when the need arises.  After all, it is a cruel world out there.  Kids should be exposed to gore and carnage at the earliest possible age because truth knows no age limits?

---

by: lightiris @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 21:22:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kill or be killed, right? (6.00 / 1)

The sooner they learn that, the sooner they'll start voting Republican.

---

by: Farnkoff @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 21:26:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Cruelty for sport? (6.00 / 1)

The right shot with a high powered rifle, and the animal's dead within seconds.  Better that an elk should die for food and sport as opposed to say a chicken, goose or cow or calf?

Chickens.  Trapped in a house with 5 to 10 per square yard.  Gathered by a machine that takes them by the legs 5 and 10 at a time, flings them into a automatic guilotine, chops off the head and the remaining part--the part you enjoy--flops around for a few minutes before being scooped up and boiled of its feathers.

Cows, veal.  Shotgun blast to the side of the head.  It drops to the knees before its throat is cut, jerked up by its back feet and drained.  Takes about 10 minutes.

Goose?  Can't say I've had any experience. but it's surely less cruel than the beef or chicken houses.

---

by: gary @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 21:34:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But but but.... (0.00 / 0)

she needs to feed her FAMily.....

---

by: lightiris @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 19:16:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ok, so you're a vegetarian? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: gary @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 19:20:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, I'm not (4.50 / 6)

but I also don't bring my 11-year-old son to the slaughterhouse to see his hamburger gurgle through its last breath.  

---

by: lightiris @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 19:44:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Got it (0.00 / 0)

Political correctness and all that prevents you from presenting that which is the truth from her.  Carry on.  

---

by: gary @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 21:09:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Some things are age appropriate (6.00 / 2)

and some are not.

Maybe you'd shoot an animal in the head and/or guts in front of a small child so she can learn some "truth," but most people wouldn't.  Their inner compass tells them it's cruel and unnecessary.  Yours must be oriented differently.  Carry on, indeed.

---

by: lightiris @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 21:14:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So what's the age? (0.00 / 0)

What age do you explain to a kid that animals die to put food on your table, so that they can decide whether or not to eat it?

That's your call as a parent, I'd guess.

---

by: gary @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 21:23:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, indeed it is a parental call. (0.00 / 0)

And reasonable people can disagree on when that should occur based on the needs and maturity of their children.

---

by: lightiris @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 21:29:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I assume then (0.00 / 0)

I assume then, that if the school decided to show graphic pictures of "where your food comes from" you as a parent would object, if your child was not of the age where you thought it was inappropriate.

And you'd be right to do so.

And the school would be wrong to subvert your wishes.

---

by: gary @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 21:40:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In general, (0.00 / 0)

if I thought something shown in class was inappropriate, I would speak up.  I' m not shy.

As a middle school teacher, I once had a parent object to a film I was showing in class.  The student was provided an alternative lesson.  No big deal.  Happens every day in one school or another.  

---

by: lightiris @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 21:54:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not sure about that (0.00 / 0)

Wouldn't that reasoning also allow parents to "exempt" their children from watching a movie about the Holocaust or Hiroshima, on account of it containing graphic images, even though these events are crucial facts of history and could not possibly be ignored by any high school curriculum? Could parents sue their children's school for using a textbook that contains photographs of dead people, arguing that it is not "age-appropriate"? Personally I'd advocate a mandatory trip to the slaughterhouse for all middle-schoolers, although the actual "appropriate age" would end up being sort of arbitrarily defined by the state. Kids should learn where their food comes from as part of their general education.

---

by: Farnkoff @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 22:03:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Example: (6.00 / 1)

Parents may request a student not view a film,  but the student is still responsible for whatever information is contained in that film that is intrinsic to acquiring the state mandated curriculum.  This is somewhat common, especially when there is a permission slip involved.  

Parents cannot veto a textbook, however.  They may challenge it and request it be removed or replaced for all students.  A school district is under no obligation to provide substitute textbooks, but ancillary lesson materials that are used to compliment or extend the curriculum standard are more of a grey area.  

If parents were, for example, Holocaust deniers, and demanded that their child not be in the classroom while the Holocaust is being taught, they can do that.  Some other lesson would have to be developed, but the child, however, would not receive credit, i.e., passing grades, for the units of study.

---

by: lightiris @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 22:18:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Strange- but thank you for the information. (0.00 / 0)

What would happen if parents were "Arabic numerals- deniers", I wonder? Could their kid still end up with a high school diploma? (I'm being facetious) It's awful nice that, in American culture, kids can get all their information about war from "Lord of the Rings" and video games, never having to see or hear (let alone feel) what war is actually like, despite the fact that our country is currently fighting a war. There seems to be a serious problem here-  and I'm not sure I've even articulated the problem in a clear way- but this type of "media-enabled emotional disconnect" does not have an easy solution.

---

by: Farnkoff @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 22:41:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fortunately there was no gurgling (5.50 / 2)

I was in high school when my father took me to the town "locker plant" to witness the slaughter of a cow.  She looked peaceful, apparently chewing her cud.  I was oddly touched by the apparent tenderness of the man who stroked her forehead with one hand before drawing the airgun to her head with the other.  There was a loud pop, and then she was on the floor.  All within the course of the next minute or two she was suspended from the ceiling, swung around to the adjacent room, exsanguinated, and skinned.  The swiftness of the transformation from doe-eyed creature to meat left me reeling, but I saw no overt suffering -- nothing for an omnivore like myself to condemn.

My mother was a Nebraska farm girl who no doubt grew accustomed to the slaughter at a much younger age.  Also, she engaged in the peculiar 4H ritual that I witnessed some of my classmates continuing:  the exhibition of a a show animal, much combed and fussed over for the parade, the ribbons, and the auction.  After the sale the animals would be loaded on a truck to go to slaughter, and many of the children would cry.  Then they would pocket the money from the sale and buy another animal, and the cycle would begin again.

Which is more moral:  to buy meat wrapped in plastic, as I do, or to take responsibility for the welfare and/or the death of the animals you consume?

Should those of us who never "meet our meat" judge other parents who introduce their offspring to the reality of the hunt or the slaughter?      

---

by: StephGM @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 21:20:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Glad you found (0.00 / 0)

your "locker plant" experience meaningful.  I suspect such a lesson is a fine one for anyone of sufficient maturity.  No doubt we would disagree on when that is, however.  

---

by: lightiris @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 21:28:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ratings abuse from strat0477 (0.00 / 0)

There is nothing meriting deletion about this comment. If you disagree a 3 or 4 should suffice -- or better yet a rebuttal.

---

by: KBusch @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 22:18:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed- in general, rating without commenting is kind of sketchy (0.00 / 0)

but that's just my opinion.

---

by: Farnkoff @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 22:45:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sometimes (0.00 / 0)

...someone else has said it better than I might, so they get a rating without a comment. Usually when I'm in agreement, otherwise it's a comment.
Oh, and I eat meat. When I was a small boy I loved to fish. Now I find it's too dirty, with blood and guts all over the boat...

---

by: lodger @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 04:47:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hee. I think just the opposite. (0.00 / 0)

If I disagree with a comment on substance I won't rate, though I might comment.  I (almost?) never both downrate and comment in response to the same post.

Most of my negative ratings are in response to blatant fact distorting [or inventing], or general ugliness.

I like that raters at BMG have their own standards, though I do thing there is a bit too much convo about the rating itself, to which I'm now contributing.  Ugh.

---

by: stomv @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 09:12:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

it's a hobby of his... n/t (0.00 / 0)

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 22:47:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hand out 5's and 6's equally (0.00 / 0)

Just because you're not on the receiving end of them all the time doesn't constitute "ratings abuse"

However, I probably should have commented.

---

by: strat0477 @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 00:13:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

rules of the road (6.00 / 1)

A zero is for a comment that is personally offensive, etc. You have the tendency to give comments zeroes for disagreeing for them. That is patent ratings abuse, as others have noted. It is not because "I'm on the other end," it's because you don't get how to rate on BlueMassGroup. A suggestion: take the advice others have given you, because they've been around long enough to actually know the rules re: rating posts.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 00:26:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Point taken (5.50 / 2)

and apologies are noted below.

Do you feel better now?

---

by: strat0477 @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 00:30:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Honestly, (6.00 / 1)

I was just trying to help. My feelings were never that hurt. Zeroes just have consequences because, if enough of them are given, that post really will go away. That's why they should be used with the most extraordinary caution - and for good reason. I've honestly passed on giving zeroes when they really were warranted, simply because I didn't think the post should go away - or any of the posts that were in response (because they go the way of the Dodo, too).

Plus, it's always good to point out a ratings abuse, because a lot of people just assume that a post that they really detest should be given a zero. It's not exactly the most intuitive system ever, though I'm not sure that such a system exists.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:06:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think they go away anymore though. (0.00 / 0)

Try it.  One person respond to this post, and everybody zero it.  See what happens.

---

by: stomv @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 09:14:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

they do (0.00 / 0)

I could point to recent threads that have gone bye-bye, but I can't link to them =p

Suffice it to say, it takes more than one zero and no high marks for them to go away. But, still, it's better to be careful and gaurd against ratings abuses - because if most new members just dropped them without knowing any better, a few posts would be gone before it could be corrected.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 13:29:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good aim... (6.00 / 2)

I'd rather have a VP shooting reindeer in the face instead of shooting Harry Whittington. I wonder if the reindeer had to apologize later for getting in the way of Palin's buttlets?  

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 20:47:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Whole new meaning to (0.00 / 0)

"Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer"

---

by: Farnkoff @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 20:59:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Geez, it's a bit like (0.00 / 0)

pulling over to the side of the road after you run over an animal so you can give your little one an up-close-and-personal view of the carnage.  

Freakin' bizarre.  

---

by: lightiris @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 21:03:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's a good "nugget" (0.00 / 3)

Allegedly, her youngest - you know, the one with down sydrome that the media's going gaga over as a testament to her anti-choice bonafides - isn't her's. It's her grandchild, the child of her 16 year old daughter. I almost feel a little dirty spreading the gossip, but we can't let Republican 'family values' hypocrisy slide.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 20:05:03 PM CDT

How is this different from... (6.00 / 3)

..."Obama is a secret Muslim who won't say the pledge and was sworn in on the Koran"?

I'm not saying it should be discounted if true, but the "evidence" is a little tenuous right now. Although, there is a side of me that would love to see a joint appearence on Maurry where Palin and John Edwards have DNA tests to see if the controversial babies in their lives were indeed parented by the people claimed to be their parents.  

Let me get this straight: Democrats protest war, Republicans protest health care?

---

by: tblade @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 20:26:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

it's different (6.00 / 1)

because there's plenty of evidence that just doesn't add up. For starters, even with invitro, the chances of a 43 year old woman getting pregnant is about 1-2% (according to my mother, who's a nurse in the fertility field). Then, the chances of the pregnancy being successful is somewhere between 45-55%.

I'm not saying this is what actually happened. "Allegedly" was the first word I used to describe this story. But the facts just don't add up - and it warrants further research. What women goes into labor, delivers a 30 minute speech, then takes a flight from Texas to Alaska - with an hour-long stop over in Seattle - then skips the better Anchorage hospitals to go to some small, backwater clinic another 45 minutes away - leaking fluid and all?

Not. Adding. Up.

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 20:39:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If true, then it would of course (6.00 / 2)

be the element of deceitfulness in the whole affair that would reflect poorly on Palin- "family values fraud" is indeed fair game, although personal and potentially painful for the daughter.

---

by: Farnkoff @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 20:45:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

which is one reason why (6.00 / 1)

I haven't once mentioned the daughter's name - which I don't think should be widely done.

In any event, she's the daughter of a Governor in this country. Her mother decided to put her into that situation by becoming governor - and then, allegedly, by covering the pregnancy up. Dealing with an embarrassing story is far better, for example, than refusing to allow a woman who was raped to get an abortion - which is exactly what Sarah Palin's administration would push for, through supreme court choices, should they win this election.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 20:57:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OMG! Conspiracy theories abound! (6.00 / 1)

Quit trying to get the rumors in on the sly. This whole, "ya know, you didn't hear this from me...but..." crap helps her a whole lot more than it hurts her.

---

by: strat0477 @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 00:17:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You *should* feel dirty. (5.50 / 4)

Please, Ryan, as long as these remain rumors and unverified, can we please keep them off of BMG?  Surely we need not be so desperate?  

Why would you choose to use a seventeen year old to underscore a point about "Republican family values"?  

---

by: StephGM @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 20:38:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not (0.00 / 0)

I'm using a 44 year old.

And these are more than rumors - the evidence, while circumstantial, is actually pretty damn strong.

Republicans wouldn't think a second about using something like this. See the Swiftboaters and "Al Gore invented the internet" stories. See the tens of millions they spent going after Bill Clinton. Why would you not even want to investigate something like this? Because we're better than them? We're not the one winning the elections, thank you very much. If there's Republican hypocrisy, we need to get it out there. People deserve to know the truth when politicians lie.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 20:44:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I've been reading around on this, too, (6.00 / 1)

and don't believe for a nanosecond she birthed that child.  

I do believe, however, that enough money in the right places or a public demand for disclosure will bring the house of cards down.  She's managed to piss some people off up there; someone will talk.

---

by: lightiris @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 21:06:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sad, really sad (6.00 / 1)

Just a little research on all of this supposed evidence would show you that the picture everybody is claiming shows that her daughter was pregnant was taken in 2006.

And even a little more research would show pics of Palin where she looks pregnant.

Seriously, spreading this crap makes us look like weak assholes.

---

by: strat0477 @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 00:47:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

They want to believe (0.00 / 0)

The reconstituted traveling  pantsuits.  In tinfoil

---

by: gary @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:45:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Strat (0.00 / 0)

This isn't a zero comment. I'm bringing some pretty strong evidence to the fold, exposing Republican hypocrisy. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean my post warrants a zero. If you think there's room for improvement, feel free to explain why.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 22:45:54 PM CDT

Sorry (0.00 / 0)

it didn't warrant the goose egg. I apologize.

However, I would like to note that practically 100% of the time, the women I know in their 40's who wanted to have a child have been able to. Granted, I'm sure that there are several who were not able to conceive and who chose not to share those intimate details with me.

But jeez man...dont you think they would have dug stuff up on this by now?

---

by: strat0477 @ Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 00:24:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]