Large Scale Central

Sarah Palin

General Discussion
#141

Yes but Steve, how will this play out with Moderate Repubs and those fence sitting Demo’s MickeyC is obviously courting? I mean I dont care, I’m not a Repub, but even I’m looking at it I can see this whole scenario is a potential disaster in the making. Sarah P is preaching to the congregation tonight, but what happens in two weeks in the heartland and in the cities, remains to be seen :wink: Its all that fancy lacework on the wedding Shotgun that makes it look so pretty…:lol:

(http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/shotgun.jpg)

Found the wedding cake topper

#142

Mike quote:“You know perfectly well what I was trying to argue–lots of democract disapprove of Kennedy’s actions at Chappaquidick, lots of Dems disapprove of Clinton.”

It may very well be true that many Liberals disapprove of Kennedy and B. Clinton but it’s also fairly obvious that a lot more do approve. It’s surely not Conservatives that voted for them or that keep the honorable Senator in office.

BTW FDR is one of my heroes. I think he was one of our greatest Presidents and the right man for the times. I also firmly believe that he wouldn’t be tolerated in today’s Democratic party any more than by Vogler.

#143
mike omalley said:
Having a pregnant 17 year old daughter certainly should not disqualify you from running for President if you want. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can run for president. And if your daughter is 17 and pregnant out of wedlock, you are certainly free to make a media spectacle of the fact for your own political gain.

But what kind of person does that make you?


I don’t know the answer to that question. Your comment implies that you do. How do you know?

mike omalley said:
You know perfectly well what I was trying to argue--lots of democract disapprove of Kennedy's actions at Chappaquidick, lots of Dems disapprove of Clinton. My point was that assuming all liberals condone bad behavior is imprecise and sloppy and simplistic. I'm one of those scary libruls limbaugh warns you about, and I think Clinton disgraced his office and should have resigned.
I loved the Kennedys as a young man; stood in line for hours for the privilege of walking past Bobby's casket. However, I was never happy about Chappaquiddick. The facts, as presented by Sen. Kennedy, didn't hang together.

A few years ago, when I was working in the US, Kay and I went there. I am a keen beach fisherman and have seen a lot of rough water, so the tidal surge at Chappaquiddick wasn’t an epiphany. A quick scan was enough to establish to this fisherman’s satisfaction that Sen. Kennedy lied about what happened that night.

I neither “condone” nor condemn Sen. Kennedy’s behaviour. I feel sorry for the man, even more so for Mary Jo Kopechne and her parents. However, I am not into kidding myself I’m in a position to judge him further than saying his account of what happened is not merely implausible, but absurd.

If your point that Clinton “disgraced his office and should have resigned” applies equally to Kennedy, we can agree that we have different takes on the matter. Hell will freeze over before lying becomes a disqualification for holding public office.

While there is a sustainable argument that those who aspire to leadership positions should be people of integrity, my experience is that the behaviour of the stone throwers is often at least as questionable as the behaviour of their targets. Some of the party-political, self-righteous quasi-religious triumphalism that characterised the attacks on both men concerned me more than their respective behaviours ever did.

mike omalley said:
Meanwhile, Palin's husband belonged to an organization devoted to taking Alaska out of the US. "If I'm elected, Alaska will finally be free of American tyranny!"

here, again, are some quotes from Vogler, who founded the Party to which her husband belonged and which she praises in her speech to their convention

“President Roosevelt had involved us in a war. He had to do something to make Americans mad. And I speak pretty frankly, I call him the dirty rotten son-of-a-bitch communist traitor, because he had involved us in that war that we had no business in.”

“The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government and I won’t be buried under their damned flag…and when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home to be buried in my country.”

“Is America destined for the trash bin? I think so, the trash bin of history.”

“I’m an Alaskan, not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions.”

Ok, so knowing this, would you pick Palin or somebody like, say Pawlenty?


I am sure my wife would have something to say if my political beliefs and inclinations were used to attack her integrity, even if our views were similar.

I am sure an indigenous person (Mr. Palin) can, with some justification, view the history of the United States vis a vis his people differently than I do.

I am sure my comment in a previous post about your objectivity in this matter was a mistake, and withdraw it.

#144

“I am sure an indigenous person (Mr. Palin) can, with some justification, view the history of the United States vis a vis his people differently than I do.”

What surprises me is that some people should be praising this guy to heaven given their past comments on the sorry history of the US that they always manage to dredge up in every discussion.

#145
Ralph Berg said:
Ken Brunt said:
Mike, if you're happy with your choices, then I'm certainly happy with mine............;)
I'm glad you're happy Ken. I'm not real pleased with any of the choices. Ralph
Well, the way I look at it Ralph, is if the MSM hate'em, that guarantees I'll find somthin to like about'em............;)
#146
Ralph Berg said:
Ken Brunt said:
If her biggest sin is this "troopergate" thing, I can live with that. After all, she was his boss and the buck stops at her desk.
So possible abuse of authority and failing to be truthful about it is OK with you? You prove my point that morality only applies to the "other" party. If this "troopergate" was about Joe Biden.........many of you would be calling for his head. Her firing of Monegan may have been legal, but was it ethical or moral? Her attempts to get the former brother-in-law fired ? Legal? Ethical? Moral? Being less than truthful about the whole mess? Oh, I forgot. It was a press conference. She was not under oath. I guess that makes it OK? Ralph
Just a further update:

"Palin’s political enemies have a stink bomb set to go off late in October, just before the election. That’s when voters will see fruits of a legislative investigation into the charge that the governor fired Alaska’s Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan because he wouldn’t get rid of Mike Wooten, a state trooper and Palin’s ex-brother-in-law.

We can see where this is headed. Palin will be found to have done nothing illegal in firing Monegan, since public safety commissioners serve at the governor’s pleasure. But the media will frame this case in vague but sinister terms: Think “abuse of power.” It will also bury the back story that explains why Palin was so concerned.

So here are some key facts to keep on file (for a full report on Wooten, see adn.com/front/story/476430.html). You may not be seeing much of them from here on:

• Mike Wooten, 35, has been a trooper since 2001. He has been married and divorced four times. One of his marriages was to Palin’s sister, Molly McCann, with whom he had two children. That marriage ended in 2006. His behavior leading up to the divorce led Palin’s and McCann’s father, Chuck Heath, to file a formal complaint about him to the state police.

• Heath and Sarah Palin, who was not yet governor, said that Wooten had threatened to kill Heath — telling McCann that Heath “would eat a f***ing lead bullet” if he hired a lawyer for her. They also charged that he had used a Taser on his own 11-year-old stepson, had drunk beer in his patrol car and had shot a cow moose without a license (the latter a crime in Alaska, where such licenses are not easy to come by).

• The state police investigated these charges and substantiated all of them. Col. Julia Grimes, then head of the Alaska State Troopers, suspended Wooten for 10 days and wrote, “The record clearly indicates a serious and concentrated pattern of unacceptable and at times, illegal activity occurring over a lengthy period, which establishes a course of conduct totally at odds with the ethics of our profession.” She warned him he would be fired if he didn’t shape up. The troopers’ union got the suspension cut to five days.

Now ask yourself this: If you were Sarah Palin and had such a revealing look at Mike Wooten, would you have wanted him on the force? Palin was acting as any concerned citizen should after a close encounter with an unfit cop. If there’s abuse of power in this story, it lies on the side of bureaucrats and unions protecting officers whose behavior makes them a danger to the public."

#147

Post deleted

#148

Tac,

You are a “cynical ol’ furruner” and I thank you for that.

:wink:

#149
Quote:
mike omalley wrote: 
Having a pregnant 17 year old daughter certainly should not disqualify you from running for President if you want. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can run for president. And if your daughter is 17 and pregnant out of wedlock, you are certainly free to make a media spectacle of the fact for your own political gain.

But what kind of person does that make you?</blockquote>

Just the fact that her daughter went to her parents and trusted them enough with the news in the first place tells me a lot about her parents. Unlike the liberal, Planned Parenthood method of sneaking off without her parents knowledge and getting an abortion.

#150

I didn’t see her speech–an attack of Kidney stones had me in the emergency room the Tuesday night, and on painkillers most of yesterday (might explain some posts!), and I fell asleep early last night.

Regarding the secession thing–I’m just trying to reconcile the sometimes belligerent proAmerican attitude from people here with a guy who wants to seceed from the the US. Ric has a huge flag on his posts, Ken has accused me of being anti-american for posting negative things from the US past, so has Richard and Steve. But here’s a guy, Palin’s husband, who wants Alaska to leave the US. Can you guys explain why that’s ok? I actually want to know, it’s a sincere question.

I argued before that liberals/progressves tend to believe that things are getting better, that the present is mostly an improvement on the past, while for conservatives, it seems to me, the past was always better, and the present is a decline. I think that’s why when I say things critical of the past, it means I’m anti american, while when you say things critical of the present, you’re patriotic. So Palin’s husband can join what look to be a vehemently anti-American party and it’s ok, because that party is criticizing the US in the present. Is that it? His hostility to the US in the present mirrors your own?

I also didn’t quite understand–and I mean this in an objective way–why the Republican convention was applauding the 17 year old and her “fiance.” As I said before, this stuff happens all the time. We have a cousin who got pregnant at 18; she married the father, they seem happy, they have two nice kids. Good for them. But at the same time, I would not want getting pregnant at 17 while unmarried applauded on the national stage. I mean, I think most of us would agree it’s something to be avoided, we would not want it for our children. I have a 3 year old daughter, part of me would want to greet that guy with a shotgun (and yes, I do own a shotgun!). But there he is on stage, according to the pictures in my morning paper. I’m trying to figure what traditional conservatives, likes, say, William F. Buckley, would have to say about this? It’s a good thing that they are getting married, I suppose, it’s a good thing that she chose to have the baby, but what does it say to have this celebrated?

It’s an interesting moment. We have a mixed race product of a broken family (Obama) running against a guy who divorced his first wife with a running mate who has an unwed pregnant daughter. There was a time–in my memory, and I’m not 50 yet–when any of those things would have disqualified you from office instantly

#151

Mike, they were not applauding and celebrating a 17 year old pregnant girl who is out of wedlock. They were applauding a child and a future son-in-law as part of the family of the candidate. They were applauding a family that did the right thing and came together when one of them had a personal problem. That she happened to get herself pregnant at an inoppurtune time is not the fault of the family. I’ve had 17 yo’s to deal with and it wasn’t fun. 17 yo’s have a mind of there own, I certainly did at that age. Sometimes, even with the best of intentions, “S**T happens”.

What would you like them to do? Hide it in a closet? Sweep it under a rug? Do what John Edwards would do and “Deny, Deny, Deny”? The MSM is what’s making it an issue.

You should be happy Mike, America is getting more 'liberal" and “better” all the time.

#152

I have a 17 year old son, he’s both great and a total nucklehead that I worry about constantly. I would not want them to hide it or sweep it under a rug, but I wouldn’t want it held up for the praise of the nation either. I mean, surely there’s some middle ground between “deny it” and make public spectacle of it?

It might be great as a political strategy–it’s just kind of startling to me, and it seems to mark a pretty significant change in American political culture.

#153
mike omalley said:
I didn't see her speech--an attack of Kidney stones had me in the emergency room the Tuesday night, and on painkillers most of yesterday (might explain some posts!), and I fell asleep early last night.
Hey! Get well, mate. My wife reckons that's the worst pain she ever experienced, worse than childbirth.
mike omalley said:
Regarding the secession thing--I'm just trying to reconcile the sometimes belligerent proAmerican attitude from people here with a guy who wants to seceed from the the US. Ric has a huge flag on his posts, Ken has accused me of being anti-american for posting negative things from the US past, so has Richard and Steve. But here's a guy, Palin's husband, who wants Alaska to leave the US. Can you guys explain why that's ok? I actually want to know, it's a sincere question.
Why might any native American want to secede from the US? I'm not saying that's "OK" - I'm saying there are reasons why a native American might feel that way.
mike omalley said:
I argued before that liberals/progressves tend to believe that things are getting better, that the present is mostly an improvement on the past, while for conservatives, it seems to me, the past was always better, and the present is a decline. I think that's why when I say things critical of the past, it means I'm anti american, while when you say things critical of the present, you're patriotic. So Palin's husband can join what look to be a vehemently anti-American party and it's ok, because that party is criticizing the US in the present. Is that it? His hostility to the US in the present mirrors your own?
Your hypothesis is perfectly rational. Too rational.
mike omalley said:
I also didn't quite understand--and I mean this in an objective way--why the Republican convention was applauding the 17 year old and her "fiance." As I said before, this stuff happens all the time. We have a cousin who got pregnant at 18; she married the father, they seem happy, they have two nice kids. Good for them. But at the same time, I would not want getting pregnant at 17 while unmarried applauded on the national stage. I mean, I think most of us would agree it's something to be avoided, we would not want it for our children. I have a 3 year old daughter, part of me would want to greet that guy with a shotgun (and yes, I do own a shotgun!). But there he is on stage, according to the pictures in my morning paper. I'm trying to figure what traditional conservatives, likes, say, William F. Buckley, would have to say about this? It's a good thing that they are getting married, I suppose, it's a good thing that she chose to have the baby, but what does it say to have this celebrated?
Agreed - about as tasteful as a comedian at a wake.
mike omalley said:
It's an interesting moment. We have a mixed race product of a broken family (Obama) running against a guy who divorced his first wife with a running mate who has an unwed pregnant daughter. There was a time--in my memory, and I'm not 50 yet--when any of those things would have disqualified you from office instantly
All four Presidential and VP candidates bring positives to the table. Since those four are now pretty much it, look for the positives and make a decision on strengths rather than weaknesses.
#154
Ken Brunt said:
"I am sure an indigenous person (Mr. Palin) can, with some justification, view the history of the United States vis a vis his people differently than I do."

What surprises me is that some people should be praising this guy to heaven given their past comments on the sorry history of the US that they always manage to dredge up in every discussion.


That quote is mine. I’m dumfounded anyone could construe it as “praising this guy to heaven.”

I understand that indigenous folks see things differently because I’ve collided head-on with those differences here in Australia. Just because I didn’t take a backward step when the circumstances warranted it doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate why the indigenous people I had to deal with didn’t see matters my way.

The Alaskan secessionists are Americans. The way to deal with their issues is to listen to their grievances, argue a different viewpoint and, if it comes to that, be prepared to put up with a fair bit of personal abuse in order to do a deal that, if it doesn’t satisfy everyone, at least recognises what is true in the other side’s argument.

To engage in that process takes patience, sincerity and not a little bit of intestinal fortitude. A deal can’t always be done, and there’s always going to be dissatisfaction. That’s the way the cookie crumbles. The worst thing is not to have a go.

I’m unsure which of my past comments about “the sorry history of the US” I “always manage to dredge up in every discussion.” What’s that about?

#155

Well, Dave sorry for the confusion. It wasn’t directed at you.

And I do agree with your above statement.

#156

It was directed at me.

I’m not sure why it matters that he is part indigenous. Yes, indigenous people have been treated shabbily by the US, and have every reason to be angry, but if you’re making a political decision you have to examine the political solution. The point is, his party advocated that Alaska should secede. If Obama chose as a running mate a part Oglalla who though S, Dakota should become an independent nation, would you think that was a good thing? Anyone can establish a justification for any position, and I’m sure Vogler, the head of the AIP, believed he was justified in hating the united states.

The same argument could be used to justify Reverend Wright–“I can understand why a black American would be angry at the US.” Ken, are you OK with Rev. Wright if you’re ok with Palin’s husband?

Of course, reverend wright never belonged to a party that advocated secession.

#157
mike omalley said:
I argued before that liberals/progressives tend to believe that things are getting better, that the present is mostly an improvement on the past, while for conservatives, it seems to me, the past was always better, and the present is a decline. I think that's why when I say things critical of the past, it means I'm anti-American, while when you say things critical of the present, you're patriotic.
First of all, Mike, sorry to hear about the stone. Those are painful. Ouch!

From where I sit, it seems to me that it is conservatives who are optimistic and liberals/progressives/socialists who are pessimistic, because they have to be to get anyone to listen to them. Mike, you may personally be optimistic, and I really suspect that you are, but if you really listen to the politicos on the left, you will find that they are terribly pessimistic.

From Dingy Harry, Senate Majority Leader, “The war is lost.”

From Obama, “Only 18 percent of Americans believe the nation is on the right track.”

Generally, as the liberals/progressives/socialists see it, America in 2008 is primarily uninsured people working hard to pay the health-care bills of their sick kids, people whose homes have been stolen from them by evil hard-hearted bankers, a massive army of the unemployed, women discriminated against in the workplace, greedy rich people unwilling to pay their fair share of taxes, returning veterans denied benefits by none other than war hero John McCain, and unionized teachers, who say they are eager to do their best for our kids, but remain adamantly opposed to allowing parents to pick the schools that are best for their children and continue to oppose merit-based pay to reward excellent teaching.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are much more optimistic.

From McCain, “America’s best days are ahead of us.”

Almost any conservative politician, “We are winning the war in Iraq. We have just turned Anbar Province over to the Iraqis to manage.”

Mike, if you are as optimistic as you say, and I have no reason to doubt that you are, are you sure that you are not a Conservative? Perhaps you should take a look at that.

Welcome home.

edited to correct stupid finger misteaks

#158
Terry A de C Foley said:
Richard Smith said:
Mike quote:[i]"You know perfectly well what I was trying to argue--lots of democract disapprove of Kennedy's actions at Chappaquidick, lots of Dems disapprove of Clinton."[/i]

It may very well be true that many Liberals disapprove of Kennedy and B. Clinton but it’s also fairly obvious that a lot more do approve. It’s surely not Conservatives that voted for them or that keep the honorable Senator in office.

BTW FDR is one of my heroes. I think he was one of our greatest Presidents and the right man for the times. I also firmly believe that he wouldn’t be tolerated in today’s Democratic party any more than by Vogler.


I have tried and tried but really cannot see Mr Obama leading the charge up San Juan hill.

Maybe a charge for a double-double latte with candy sprinkles as Starbucks opens…

Call me a cynical ol’ furriner if you will.

tac


Heehee! Tac,

For that you will be rewarded with a double candy sprinkle. Your choice of color! :wink: :smiley:

#159

Mike,
What Sarah Palin’s husband thinks or what party he belonged to is not the issue. He is not running for office.
My wife has a mind of her own…I’m sure his wife does too.
Ralph

#160

Mike,

My sympathies for your stones. Hope you’re better soon.

As to Palin I don’t think that support for her means tacit acceptance of her husband’s past affiliations. At least they’re not hidden and we can judge for ourselves. Remember that Obama didn’t cut ties with Wright until forced to do so for political expediency. It was not an episode from his past that he had already left behind. A decided difference certainly as well as being his affiliation and not simply his spouse’s.