Just to keep things focused.
I find it interesting that whereas Obama picked a running mate who complemented the shortcomings in his slate–someone with a good deal of experience in foreign relations, for instance–McCain chose someone who will appeal to disenfranchised voting bases from both sides: to women who will see an opportunity to put a female a heartbeat from the presidency (and with a president of McCain’s years, that takes on a serious reality) after Hillary’s campaign ended in flames, and to the conservative base who will embrace a bottom half of the ticket who is apparently somewhere to the right of John Wayne.
The easy answer, of course, is that women won’t support her because she’s anti-abortion. Except there happen to be plenty of women who are likewise anti-abortion–yes, even Democrats–and therefore won’t find that a turnoff.
Frankly, I think Palin was a nervy choice that could reap serious benefits. And the timing of the announcement knocked all the post-convention attention away from Obama and onto McCain, which will now build as they roll into the GOP convention.
Personally, I find the notion of an anti-abortion, pro-drilling, pro-creationism, anti-animal protection vice president to be nothing short of terrifying. Then again, anyone that the extreme right embraces is by definition terrifying.
PAD
• 
The Dems should play it cool and let this stuff come out with minimal commentary.
Probably, but that would be the kind of political utopia that one can only dream of. 🙂
The more I think about it though, the more that this public vetting of Palin disturbs me. Not the vetting itself, but that apparently McCain didn’t do much of any vetting himself. I think this says a lot about McCain, and none of it is good.
McCain’s campaign was also complaining this morning about the “smear campaign” some of Obama’s supporters are now engaging in.
Yet, where was McCain’s denouncement of those who smeared Obama and his wife with religion (saying he’s secretly a Muslim), with patriotism (saying Michelle hates America), and yes, even with family (see above; after Obama’s kids were allowed to be interviewed)?
Unless I’ve missed something, McCain was nowhere to be found.
“Aren’t the odds of a teen giving birth to a down syndrome baby dwarfed by the odds of something like her spontaneously growing horns and carrying the right hand of doom?”
Actually, it’s the opposite. Virtually all Downs children are born to women under 35. The odds of a woman Palin’s age having a Downs Child are astronomically low. Only .01 percent of children with Downs Syndrome are born to mothers that age.
Now, that is mostly due to the sharp drop in overall pregnancies in women that age, but you brought up the odds, and that’s what they are.
storymark, I don’t know where you’re getting your numbers, but they’re way, way off. A woman who gives birth at Palin’s age has a 1 in 35 chance of having a baby with Down’s Syndrome.
http://www.aurorahealthcare.org/yourhealth/healthgate/getcontent.asp?URLhealthgate=%2211897.html%22
Luigi Novi: Opening up drilling, and believing that important issues should be discussed and voted upon, does not necessarily lead to the scenario that you prescribe…
Brian: It has been voted upon, and shot down. So the point of another vote is what?
Luigi Novi: I was not aware that it had been voted on. Is it not possible that Jerome didn’t either?
Luigi Novi: …nor does advocacy of drilling mean that the advocate wishes that scenario.
Brian: Then they wouldn’t be advocating drilling in a region that is sensitive to such matters.
Luigi Novi: Non sequitur. Just because someone advocates drilling in such an area does not mean that wish the scenario you describe. There are other possibilities, like that Jerome believes that drilling in ANWAR would not damage the environment in the manner you describe, or that he thought it should be democratic, and as aforementioned, he was unaware that it was already voted upon. Obviously, people who advocate drilling do not think that the scenario you describe would come to pass, or else, it is reasonable to presume, they wouldn’t advocate it. Expanding drilling will punch another hole, or a bigger hole, in the ozone layer? Drilling will cause must necessarily hurt wildlife? Why? And even if for the sake of argument this is true, how do you know that Jerome is not privy to the information on which you have reached this conclusion for yourself? Why not ask him about his position, to see what he based it on, and then counter with the information that informed yours?
Luigi Novi: From my reading of Jerome’s post, what I understood was that he was more critical of the issue not being held up for a democratic decision, rather than that we need more drilling, much less that he is necessarily as sanguine about environmental damage as you suggest.
Brian: That’s your reading. I read a person who is attempting to overturn what has already been decided once. Democracy has spoken but not to his liking and now he is trying to overturn that democracy.
Luigi Novi: And again, in what way have you eliminated other possibilities that explain his statement, that are not so sinister? Do such possibilities not exist?
Jason B, I agree with you partly, but Down’s can and does occur in teen pregnancies.
I Defer to the 2006 Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy: Overall incidence: 1/800
Women over 40 : 1/40 (ouch)
Women under 20: 1/2000
80% of Down’s Babies are born to mothers under the age of 35 (because there are fewer mothers over 40 overall).
Down’s Syndrome males are sterile.
It’s possible that while Sarah Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy (as well as her views in general) will not detract and even increase the admiration for her from the republican base, it could also push away some of the more liberal and centrist voters who might have considered voting for McCain when he was seen as a moderate Republican.
“I don’t think they lack any knowledge of the basic mechanics of sex, based on the pørņ I’ve confiscated (and boy do those cameramen have no sense of composition.)”
Although pørņ no doubt offers a wealth of useful information to its viewers, I’m not sure it includes how to avoid pregnancy and STDs. Maybe pørņ should come with a warning label like cigarettes.
“Condom demonstrations on bananas are good for a laugh but unlikely to come as any major revelation.”
Maybe pørņ workers should be enlisted to teach this stuff (fully dressed). The kids will pay more attention.
However, if the problem is not lack of knowledge of the possibility of pregnancy, then it is necessary to find out what psychological causes prevent teens from acting on that knowledge. Are they presured by the older men? Are they embarassed to obtain condoms until its too late? Not thinking ahead?
“i>At 17, she can’t legally sign for a cell phone – how can she legally be guardian of another child?
Not sure i understand your position here–should teen mothers NOT be allowed to keep their children?”
They shouldn’t be allowed to keep their cell phones.
Fortunately, I don’t have the wealth of experience that Bill does (teaching a different socioeconomic stratum of kids tends to do that), but I’d certainly say that “not thinking ahead” has got to be very high on the list. Impulse control is not very high on many teenagers’ lists of skills.
TWL
Like language represents reality and religion represents the harmony between reason and experience, pørņ is a medium that represents sexual gratification. All three provide the means to refer to their own deadness as representational mediums, cheesiness being the case in pørņ.
That could reasonably be inferred as a validation of pørņ as a career to minors.
To cut the urgency in a kid to have sex, I think it’s a wonder that we are so disconnected with ourselves that we don’t simply point out the similarity between sex and humor. The foundation of both are a build-up of tension, and a pay-off. You can always frame the urgency in a kid to have sex as a sign they have no sense of humor.
Then let me ask you this. You’re here posting to a discussion forum but are asking people “don’t engage.” So why are you even HERE? TWL
Hey Tim, I’m just agreeing with Bill, I can’t stay on the topic of conversation. If he doesn’t want to engage me then please don’t. Or did you fail to read his original post. For reading comprehension here it is again: Bill wrote: I can’t be bothered to engage you any further. As with Palin who willing put her and her family in the public sights he’s welcome to his choice.
And celebrity Fred Thompson ratcheted up the hyperbole last night:
“Democrats present a history-making nominee for president. History making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee ever to run for president,” Thompson said as delegates roared their agreement.
I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry over that statement. He also went with the typical route of attacking the media. Isn’t there anything in the right-wing playbook that hasn’t been worn out already?
Bush says he wasn’t at the convention due to Gustav – which is certainly an improvement over how he reacted to Katrina – but the McCain campaign says polls indicate Bush doesn’t need to be at the RNC. More like, they don’t want Bush there because then the “McSame” label is more easily applied after Bush spits out the same talking points everybody else, including McCain, will be using.
However, if the problem is not lack of knowledge of the possibility of pregnancy, then it is necessary to find out what psychological causes prevent teens from acting on that knowledge. Are they presured by the older men? Are they embarassed to obtain condoms until its too late? Not thinking ahead?
Only the dimmer kids really don’t know about the whole sex/babies link. Most of the kids that I know who have gotten pregnant accidentally have been more of the “I never thought it would happen to me” variety. Which hardly makes them unique. Is there anyone who doesn’t know that a seatbelt can save your life? Yet kids go right on driving like crazy people.
Not that it’s limited to kids–I guess every dope who takes crack or heroin must figure they will be different from every other crackhead or dope addict.
“I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry over that statement. He also went with the typical route of attacking the media. Isn’t there anything in the right-wing playbook that hasn’t been worn out already?”
On the other hand, the left continues to degenerate to new levels of scum-sucking, immoral attacks on Palin and her family. And in this case, the media is a willing partner. So, Thompson is 1000% correct.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if Obama or Biden were subject to this level of personal smears by, say, the New York Times or the Washinton Post?
This is a complete disgrace. If there is justice, the backlash will be something terrible to behold. I just saw breaking on one of the news channels that some media outlets are attacking Palin for the types of outdoor activities her family enjoys.
There’s got to be a lot of fear behind all this craziness.
I find it amusing that some people are still trying to say that Palin’s youngest child is really her grandchild.
Yeah. Her 17 year old daughter, who is 5 months pregnant, gave birth to a baby with Down’s Syndrome 4 and a half months ago. It’s a miracle!
Brian,
For reading comprehension here it is again
In other words, you have no answer to my overall question, but are a twit who likes to poke anthills. Fine; done with you.
(There are plenty of times that I’ve disagreed with Bill, in some cases very strenuously — but I’ve never made the mistake of thinking he’s as stupid as you seem to think.)
Timothy:
On the other hand, the left continues to degenerate to new levels of scum-sucking, immoral attacks on Palin and her family. And in this case, the media is a willing partner.
Can you give an example of such a scum-sucking, immoral attack? And one that’s being made in a mainstream way and not just an extreme partisan? I mean, there are plenty of conspiracy theories on all sides, some of them pretty nasty.
Come on, just one. Who’s making it, and which media are “being a willing partner”?
TWL
Oh, and courtesy of Fred Thompson:
And my friends we need a President who doesn’t think that the protection of the unborn or a newly born baby is above his pay grade.
[Emphasis mine]
Accusing the other side of supporting infanticide is not an immoral attack, but is “100% correct”?
Huh?
“Come on, just one. Who’s making it, and which media are ‘being a willing partner’?”
The New York Times just had to retract a fabricated story about Palin being a member of a radical separatist organization called AIP.
Virtually every media outlet is making an issue of Palin’s pregnant daughter. What that has to do with her candidacy is beyond me. Perhaps we should start looking at Obama’s children a little more closely. How are they doing in school? What do their friends think of them?
Multiple threads at DailyKos are pushing the total lie that Palin’s youngest child is not her’s but her daughter’s. Not exactly an obscure liberal web site.
Talking heads on “Good Morning America” and CNN have used Trig as an issue to attack his mother, saying that she can’t possibly campaign and care for her special needs baby at the same time. (No one thinks to ask Obama if he can be a father and president. So much for liberals being pro-woman.)
Today, Barney Frank stated that Palin’s family is far game for political attacks.
To me, these are all scum-sucking, immoral attacks that are being instigated by liberals and being generally supported by the media. None of them have anything to do with Palin’s record as governor or her ability to lead. (With good reason, since she, in my opinion, is much better qualified than Barack Obama in those areas.)
It’s very frustrating and maddening to see this happen to such an outstanding governor and woman. But I think she can handle it. And on the other hand, it’s extremely gratifying to see one’s political opponents become so unhinged and unnerved that hysteria becomes a lifestyle choice.
On the other hand, the left continues to degenerate to new levels of scum-sucking, immoral attacks on Palin and her family.
Ahh, another of the screaming from the rooftops “How dare you!” crowd.
As I stated in my previous post, there has been plenty of the same on Obama *including on Obama’s family* for anybody on the right to claim innocence. Yet you do so anyways.
It’s these kinds of comments that irk me the most, because they’re said with such righteous indignation, while professing to be completely ignorant or innocent of the garbage coming from their own side.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if Obama or Biden were subject to this level of personal smears by, say, the New York Times or the Washinton Post?
See: Reverend Wright.
There’s got to be a lot of fear behind all this craziness.
Fear would be trying to claim Obama is a Muslim, and thus he cannot be trusted to lead this country because, as a Muslim, he could be a terrorist. THAT is the kind of fear that some on the right have thrown out there in the last year.
How “immoral” and “scum-sucking” do you think such comments are that, like McCain, you prefer to ignore them as if they’ve never been uttered rather than face them head on and denounce them?
I find it amusing that some people are still trying to say that Palin’s youngest child is really her grandchild.
Some people will cling to anything, unfortunately. Although, FWIW, I have yet to read this particular rumor on any major news site I read (and that would include the likes of MSNBC.com). This one, like the worst of the attacks on Obama, come from the internet itself, not the media. Yet that doesn’t stop the right from proclaiming that the left is oh so much worse in their attacks.
Timothy Butler: “Wouldn’t it be interesting if Obama or Biden were subject to this level of personal smears by, say, the New York Times or the Washinton Post?”
Obama has been subject to smears by Fox News and the Washington Times. Does that count?
For example, Fox Anchor E.D. Hill wondered on camera whether the Obama “fist bump” was a “terrorist fist jab.” The network also referred to Michelle Obama as “Obama’s Baby Mama” in a caption on-screen.
Moreover, Insight Magazine, which is owned by the Washington Times, published a report that falsely stated Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a “madrassa.” The report was cited on Fox News, the New York Post, and The Glenn Beck program on CNN Headline News.
I agree that smears are deplorable, regardless of who is doing the smearing. I believe that attacks on Palin’s family are disgusting, appalling, and inexcusable. But selective outrage rings hollow. The smear campaign against Palin is no worse than the one being waged against Obama.
“Accusing the other side of supporting infanticide is not an immoral attack, but is “100% correct”?”
You apparently aren’t following me or Thompson very well. I was addressing his statements about the media and its role in the Palin attacks. In that, he was 1000% correct. I didn’t validate the whole speech, even the tangent that you steered the conversation onto.
But let’s look at that a bit. At Saddle Back the question was, “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?” Not an UNBORN baby. A baby. Obama’s response is that was, “Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.”
Plainly reading the response without being a mind reader would indicate that Obama has no idea at what age a baby, outside the womb or inside, is worthly of legal and Constitutional protection. Further, he admits that is not in his perview to make that determination.
I would give Obama the benefit of the doubt and say that he meant to limit his comments to babies in the womb. (Doesn’t make much difference to me.) That being the case, Thompson went too far in saying “newly born babies.” But it is what Obama said and it doesn’t compare with the fictional attacks being launched at Palin.
All this leaves aside the issue of how you made the leap to infanticide from Thompson’s words.
Timothy Butler: “And on the other hand, it’s extremely gratifying to see one’s political opponents become so unhinged and unnerved that hysteria becomes a lifestyle choice.”
Before you worry about the speck in your brother’s eye, I’d attend to the log in your own were I you.
“The smear campaign against Palin is no worse than the one being waged against Obama.”
Yes it is. It using her children against her, including her special needs newborn. Absolutely appalling and disgusting. I hope there is a high price to pay.
Nothing like that has been done to anyone else in this campaign.
Timothy Butler: “All this leaves aside the issue of how you made the leap to infanticide from Thompson’s words.”
Uh, no. No it doesnt. By accusing Obama of believing that a “newly born baby” isn’t worthy of protection, he was being pretty clear. See, killing a newly born baby is the definition of “infanticide.”
Timothy, I’m sorry, but… you’re the object of your own ridicule. You mock the extremists on the left as “unhinged,” “unnerved,” and “hysterical” yet you exhibit those same traits.
“Before you worry about the speck in your brother’s eye, I’d attend to the log in your own were I you.”
Thanks for the advice.
The New York Times just had to retract a fabricated story about Palin being a member of a radical separatist organization called AIP.
And new stories are coming out showing that her husband, Todd Palin, was a registered member of the same group.
Perhaps we should start looking at Obama’s children a little more closely.
Obama was criticized for allowing his children to be interviewed in the first place, at which point he said he shouldn’t have done it and wouldn’t allow it in the future.
And now, after attacking the left for going after Palin’s children, you’re saying maybe it would be best for the right to attack Obama’s children. Yep, you’re really showing your side to be better than the other.
Not exactly an obscure liberal web site.
What’s your point? That because it’s liberal that automatically gives it credibility? That would certainly be a change of pace.
saying that she can’t possibly campaign and care for her special needs baby at the same time.
I wouldn’t say she can’t, but I think it’s a legitimate concern. And my concern isn’t even the fact that the baby is special needs, but simply that he’s only 4 months old.
None of them have anything to do with Palin’s record as governor or her ability to lead.
And there are plenty of stories that ARE about Palin’s record or her ability to lead.
Such as (and I’m paraphrasing here) going to her church and saying that God approves of the war in Iraq, or that her pastor had said that you will go to Hëll if you don’t vote for Bush.
Or her trying to get some $27 million in federal earmarks for her hometown of 6,700.
And on the other hand, it’s extremely gratifying to see one’s political opponents become so unhinged and unnerved that hysteria becomes a lifestyle choice.
At least we don’t have to resort to making hysterical claims about the other candidate’s religion or patriotism in order to win an election. It’s extremely sad that the right continues to use these tactics, and that it indeed is a ‘lifestyle choice’ for them.
Please let us know if you actually intend to address the points we’ve brought up about attacks on Obama by the right, and whether you will denounce these attacks. Otherwise, you’re coming across as just another right-wing mouthpiece.
“Uh, no. No it doesnt. By accusing Obama of believing that a “newly born baby” isn’t worthy of protection, he was being pretty clear. See, killing a newly born baby is the definition of “infanticide.”
I think that you’re getting lost in your definition of “protection.” Surely, it includes “infanticide” but is not limited to that. Babies need other kinds of protection, too. So, making the leap from Thompson’s words to saying that he was accusing Obama of supporting infanticide is an unwarranted one.
“Timothy, I’m sorry, but… you’re the object of your own ridicule. You mock the extremists on the left as “unhinged,” “unnerved,” and “hysterical” yet you exhibit those same traits.”
Wow. Clearly, you are a person of amazing abilities if you are able to determine my emotional health and frame of mind from the words I have typed here. Unless you wish to explain how anything I’ve said here could qualify any any of those things. (Hint: Don’t bother because I am not feeling “unhinged,” “unnerved,” or “hysterical,” I assure you. However, if I said that someone here is not worthy to post in this forum because their 17 year old kid with Down Syndrome is pregnant with Sarah Palin’s love child, I think you could make your case.)
Timothy, you’re not offended by a national and widely viewed news outlet referring to Barack Obama’s wife as his “Baby Mama?”
Wow. Just… wow.
Well, yes. He CAN read.
Craig,
I was asked to come up with an example of one such attack against Palin. I did, obviously. That’s all I was trying to do. OK? I’m not going to argue about the validity of those attacks because they are, frankly, beneath contempt.
I will address this point,however:
“And now, after attacking the left for going after Palin’s children, you’re saying maybe it would be best for the right to attack Obama’s children. Yep, you’re really showing your side to be better than the other.”
My comments were sarcastic. Sorry you didn’t see that. I think it would be monstrous to go after Obama’s children as the media has used Palin’s family against her.
The New York Times just had to retract a fabricated story about Palin being a member of a radical separatist organization called AIP.
It wasn’t fabricated. The chair of the AIP said she was a member, then retracted after checking the records. (She spoke to them and her husband was a long-standing member.) That’s a far, far cry from saying the NYT fabricated anything.
Virtually every media outlet is making an issue of Palin’s pregnant daughter.
“An issue” in what sense? A news story, sure — salaciousness sells, and unfortunately this qualifies. But is it being billed by “every media outlet” as a criticism of Palin or her candidacy?
What that has to do with her candidacy is beyond me. Perhaps we should start looking at Obama’s children a little more closely. How are they doing in school? What do their friends think of them?
If his 11-year-old daughter were pregnant, I’d want to know.
Seriously, Timothy (or is it Tim?). When the VP has a teenage daughter who gets pregnant, it’s newsworthy. As I have made clear several times here, I don’t think it should be used as a basis for attacks — but it’s going to get people talking, and to think otherwise is just foolish.
Here’s a question for you: Gov. Palin has three other children beyond her pregnant daughter and her infant. Have any of them been used as “attack” fodder? If not, why not?
Multiple threads at DailyKos are pushing the total lie that Palin’s youngest child is not her’s but her daughter’s. Not exactly an obscure liberal web site.
I don’t look at Kos very often, but my understanding is that it (a) tends towards more extreme statements (kinda like FreeRepublic.com) and (b) has a lot of material that’s user-submitted. I agree that it’s not obscure, but I also think that’s a far cry from something like the NY Times making the claim.
Talking heads on “Good Morning America” and CNN have used Trig as an issue to attack his mother, saying that she can’t possibly campaign and care for her special needs baby at the same time.
While that sounds extreme as phrased, I do think that’s a valid point to raise — not so much about her as about the vetting process. Given both this special-needs baby and Bristol Palin’s pregnancy, Gov. Palin has a lot of family matters that will at the least be a distraction. Either McCain didn’t know that before he made the offer (in which case the vetting process was heavily flawed), or he didn’t care, which has its own problems.
(No one thinks to ask Obama if he can be a father and president. So much for liberals being pro-woman.)
Are you a parent? I am. There’s a huge difference between an infant and a 9-year-old, even without adding in Down’s syndrome.
Today, Barney Frank stated that Palin’s family is far game for political attacks.
I agree with you — that’s horrible. I wouldn’t go so far as “scum-sucking,” but it’s certainly objectionable at a minimum.
There. Seems that not all liberals are the “scum-sucking” demons you’re generalizing them as. Care to do something other than parrot back talking points?
TWL
Craig J. Ries: “At least we don’t have to resort to making hysterical claims about the other candidate’s religion or patriotism in order to win an election.”
Craig, I may be a liberal but — our “side” has just as many blind spots, sports just as many kooks, and engages in just as many slimy attacks as the conservatives. Holding a certain political view doesn’t convey moral superiority.
“Timothy, you’re not offended by a national and widely viewed news outlet referring to Barack Obama’s wife as his ‘Baby Mama?'”
Wasn’t aware of it. Which media outlet said that? MSNBC? CNN? Those are the ones pushing the attacks on Palin.
Point me to the details of this attack and the media outlet that is pushing it.
You apparently aren’t following me or Thompson very well.
Wrong on both counts, Sparky.
“Are you a parent? I am. There’s a huge difference between an infant and a 9-year-old, even without adding in Down’s syndrome.”
Yes, I have six kids. One of them is special needs. I repeat – No one is questioning whether Obama can be a father and president at the same time.
“There. Seems that not all liberals are the “scum-sucking” demons you’re generalizing them as. Care to do something other than parrot back talking points?”
Don’t see much point in it. You asked for one. I gave you several. You dismissed them all. We won’t agree on this. Move on.
BTW – Where did I say that ALL liberals are “scum-sucking demons” or anything else? If I said that, I misspoke. Sorry.
Timothy Butler: “Wasn’t aware of it. Which media outlet said that? MSNBC? CNN? Those are the ones pushing the attacks on Palin.”
I already TOLD you, it was Fox. For someone accusing others of having a reading deficit, you’re showing poor comprehension.
As for the details, look it up on Google.
And with that, I have no further time for you.
>In other words, you have no answer to my overall question, but are a twit who likes to poke anthills.
I didn’t think you were that stupid, Tim, but I’m reframing my thoughts. If Bill wants to stomp up and down childishly proclaiming he won’t talk to me… why should I complain. He never addressed what I was saying but kept going off on Obama, who I never mentioned. Does that answer your question or do you want to just belch twit some more? I thought turning his words back around on him was fairly obvious in the first place.
>Fine; done with you.
Evidently not because you twittered:
>(There are plenty of times that I’ve disagreed with Bill, in some cases very strenuously — but I’ve never made the mistake of thinking he’s as stupid as you seem to think.)
No I think he’s manipulative. If you think he’s stupid, that’s your right, but don’t put words I haven’t said in my mouth, thank you very little.
“I already TOLD you, it was Fox. For someone accusing others of having a reading deficit, you’re showing poor comprehension.”
Thanks, I see it.
Yup, that is pretty “scum-sucking” in my opinion. Absolutely beneath contempt.
But wait!!!! Every other news outlet in the country jumped on Fox and labeled it as the total garbage it was.
Let me know when Palin gets the same consideration.
Craig, I may be a liberal but — our “side” has just as many blind spots, sports just as many kooks, and engages in just as many slimy attacks as the conservatives. Holding a certain political view doesn’t convey moral superiority.
Oh, that’s most certainly the case. I’m just trying to present counter-points that show that the right is no better than the left, and asking that Timothy at least acknowledge that fact.
To this point, he’s simply said that such comments are “beneath contempt” and he doesn’t want to argue their validity. Well, maybe I’m misreading him, but that not only doesn’t reassure me, it actually leaves me the impression that he just doesn’t want to address the comments that have been made from those on the right because he would have to admit that the right does not hold any moral superiority after all. If the comments are not valid, then it shouldn’t be that difficult to acknowledge that they were said and reasoning as to why they’re invalid.
Btw, here’s a “baby mama” story link, courtesy of Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jun12/0,4670,TVFoxObama,00.html
“To this point, he’s simply said that such comments are “beneath contempt” and he doesn’t want to argue their validity.”
Sigh.
What I said is that I don’t want to argue the validity of the Left’s smears on Palin because they are beneath contempt. That was in response to you defending those attacks.
If you want to take that as a sign that I can’t defend my assertion that the attacks on Palin using her children are disgusting, that’s your right.
I don’t find using such amorphous genearlities as “the media” or “the Left” to be particularly useful. More specific names and sources are generally more helpful.
What I said is that I don’t want to argue the validity of the Left’s smears on Palin because they are beneath contempt. That was in response to you defending those attacks.
Ok, then. I ask again: why are you not condemning the attacks on Obama and his family by the right? It does seem as though my above point is accurate, that you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the right is no better than the left when it comes to smear tactics.
And what exactly did I say in defense of these attacks? I believe the only remark I’ve used was simply that I think her having a 4 month old is a legitimate concern, and I don’t believe this is an attack.
BRIAN—Most people here agree with what your politics seem to be. Just because they disagree with some of your points doesn’t mean they are against you.
“Ok, then. I ask again: why are you not condemning the attacks on Obama and his family by the right?”
How do you know I haven’t. Just expressed my feelings about the “Baby Mama” smear, which was horrible. But this is the Sarah Palin thread….
“It does seem as though my above point is accurate, that you refuse to acknowledge the fact that the right is no better than the left when it comes to smear tactics.”
In this particular case, I will not acknowledge that because it is obviously false. I have never seen anything like what’s being done to Sarah Palin right now from either side of the aisle, and I was born in 1963. This is truly a new low. I’ve seen nothing like this from Republicans or Democrats before.
“And what exactly did I say in defense of these attacks? I believe the only remark I’ve used was simply that I think her having a 4 month old is a legitimate concern, and I don’t believe this is an attack.”
You’re right. I shouldn’t have said, “defending those attacks.” I should have said you were “excusing those attacks.” There is a difference.
Sorry about that.
Timothy Butler—Could you please give a link to the charges by Daily Kos about the baby actually being the daughter’s, because I can’t find it.
Specifics. PLEASE.
I’m not surprised. I thought I saw something about those threads being pulled. But I’m not going to go look for it. Daily Kos is no place that I want to hang around. Try Google. It’s no secret that that rumor originated on Daily Kos. It’s been discussed other places and forums.
Here’s a Washington Post article on the issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090102983_pf.html
Timothy Butler : In this particular case, I will not acknowledge that because it is obviously false. I have never seen anything like what’s being done to Sarah Palin right now from either side of the aisle, and I was born in 1963.
Your lack of paying attention is not the same thing as the attacks not existing.
Some rumors went around on the internet. A few of the less reputable sleeze reporters followed up on them. That’s it. That’s all that happened with the Sarah Palin baby/grandbaby rumor.
Yet, that’s the worst thing you’ve ever seen? Internet rumors and internet tabloid articles? Rumors and tabloid articles that were accusing her of something most people in her base wouldn’t even find very offensive if it were true?
The “Obama is a secret Muslim” thing got mainstream media attention. The Palin story didn’t get that until they had proof that it was debunked.
Timothy, when you exaggerate, it doesn’t help your point. It does the opposite.
Interesting thing about that Washington Post piece – It indentified Daily Kos as the source for the story that Sarah Palin was a member of AIP, the story that the New York Times ended up retracting.
It also deflects attention (inadvertently or not) from questions that are more pertinent, such as her part in the Ted Stevens organization, her leaving her town in extreme debt, her book banning tendencies, her creationist leanings, what appears to be her less than professional treatment of political opponents and so forth.
Stop that. That’s incorrect and you were corrected on that. You’re being as sloppy as the media you’re criticizing.