IAP Political Forum

So the national media wasn't terribly interested in the fact that Palin apparently fired a government employee for refusing to carry out her personal vendetta, lied about it, "corrected" her statement when confronted with the truth, and possibly continues to lie about it today, but they are all agog over her unwed daughter being pregnant.

Typical.

The only policy issue this involves is Palin's belief that the only birth control that should be taught in public schools is abstenance--despite repeated studies showing how poorly this actually works.

Palin's choice is nutty, but McCain thought a Hail Mary play to the far right crowd was necessary, I guess.

Here's Palin pontificating on our nation's history during her 2006 Governor's race:

Question: Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
Palin: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.
Source: eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html

Ha. The pledge wasn't even in existance until the late 1800's, and "Under God" added much later than that.

Yep. Another Dan Quayle in the making.

I have a feeling this will actually matter to people.

Ah well. At least it appears the father will be stepping up to the plate.

Pretty sad though, if you ask me.

It's sad too, because the issue of the trooper getting fired is a bigger deal and is a direct public concern. I see the daughter's pregnancy as a private matter. It's a shame how families get brought into politics (I'm also tired of candidates families being touted for positive coverage).


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02vetting.html?em (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02vetting.html?em)



Disqualify her?


Of course not, because the pregnancy announcement lends itself to this:



They're willingly dragging 17 year old girl into the political spotlight to woo the religious right.

This is cheap and disgusting. I have less respect for both McCain and Palin for this.

Yes it is a topic of interest. She is running for VP of a already controversial nomination. To answer neue regel about rather or not she is to blame for her teens actions? No she is not. But if anyone, especially "conservatives" see nothing wrong with teenage pregnancy we have a problem. Things happen but when you are being watched by the world and expect to push your values and beliefs across to others your shit better be in order.

So this family goes through what millions of other families go through every year.... if they deal with it with grace, dignity and support...they'll be fine....If the opposition wants to beat her down because of the same circumstances they themselves have either personally experienced or have had someone close experience...they risk alienating voters.

I say let the Democrats cast these stones from the shelter of their glass house.

the main issue about this should be how poor an abstaince-only education can be. 

My wife had an interesting strong reaction to this, and I wonder whether others, particularly women, will have the same reaction.

My wife and I are almost 50, and her values are rather traditional.  For what it's worth, she's a successful fortune 500 executive, and has always worked, and she strongly pushes women networking in the workplace.

Her reaction was that Palin is prioritizing ambition over motherhood and family, and with a downs baby and a pregnant minor daughter, and three other kids, she should be focused on her family more than on being vice president. 

Could it be that the issues with her family, and her desire to put more effort into her job than in her family, might collide with the pro-family stance of the GOP?

IMO, some women will see it that way. Other women will relate well to a career woman balancing family.


You are making an assumption about her balance between job and family that may or may not be true. That would be pure speculation.

As for the pregnant daughter, all I can say is this ... people can cast stones at the girl but the truth is, a large percentage of people have sex before marriage. Some get caught with a pregnancy, most don't. Not too dissimilar to having a couple of drinks and then driving.

ok once again you make an unsubstantiated claim about Palin's stance on issues.  I do not know, so I am not saying she does not hold this view, but I am asking since you made the claim, if you can back it up.

I'm sorry but imo that's backwards. It's not about people casting stones at her from the glass house -- this is the Republican's glass house that's getting stoned. You have it backwards. It's just one more example of 'do as we say not as we do' that people find hypocritical about the Republican party. If it weren't for Rep.'s constantly pushing the family values nazi agenda (family values IS a former nazi agenda. Not going to argue about it), we wouldn't even know about her daughter.

Lesbian daughter? -- Don't wanna talk about it. That's "personal". But I can go ahead and push for laws that affect every other lesbian daughter who isn't the daughter of a law maker and i can go ahead and tell the rest of the gay world that it's only a "choice". I don't see Cheney telling his daughter it's all just a "choice", otherwise I'm sure he wouldn't be speaking to her at all any longer.

You're Gay? You're disgusting and should just go back to hiding. You're a threat to the 'family values'. Unles it's just a little hanky-panky in a mens washroom.


The point is Republicans, as a party, love to critizise and judge everyone else on a basis of morality from a fake religiously inspired moral 'high ground'. Now that it's their turn all of a sudden it's "no big deal...you people are stupid for making it an issue...blah blah blah". Its the very same hypocritical crap we see in attacking a candidate again and again on his experience only to turn around and nominate someone with even less experience just to try and woo women voters.


Tiz true the author of this quote iss constiantly making unsubstantiated claims but it's not an unsubstantiated claim insomuch as it is a Republican party stance on the issue, correct?


Ahk

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090102305.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090102305.html)

No one is railing on Bristol for getting pregnant, but rather calling out her mother for failing to support policies which could have prevented it.

Let's be fair here...the Republican's (kinda general, since a bunch of (D) feel the same way) favor setting the moral bar high. That doesn't mean Republicans are perfect...far from it. But the goal is still high. Setting the bar high and missing the goal is not hypocritical.


Being judgmental is NOT a trait of a true Christian. That being said, some things NEED to be criticized and called into account. Some things are just plain wrong in a society.

ps: the issue of the girl being pregnant has no place in the election, and on this, I agree with Obama 100%.

Okay, fair enough. Then you wouldn't be disappointed if the entire "family values" plank was missing from the platform? Most everything about the ambiguous, (i.e.make it whatever I want it to be when I want it to be),
family values schtick involves moral judgment upon others and the making of hypocritical mine fields. Can we agree this is subject matter better dealt with by individuals and not political agenda or, in all but extreme cases, laws?


It is if you make it a point of contention with others but not yourself. (Rhetorical use of the word "you" here).


Ahk

I'm not even sure what 'family values' in the political context means. McCain doesn't have a section on his website addressing it. I can't imagine I'd care too much if that label were gone.

This shouldn't be apart of politics anymore than the stupid Jeremiah Wright crap. Palin isn't her dumb daughter just as much as Obama is not his dumb pastor. But yes this will probably matter to people. Never under estimate the stupidity of Americans and why they vote or don't for people.

Striving for and maintaining traditional values does not conflict with the fact humans are imperfect.

Arguing against it is akin to:

People speed, so we shouldn't have laws on speeding.

People drive drunk, so we shouldn't have laws on driving drunk.

People have sex, so we shouldn't have laws on prostitution and molestation.

Etc, etc, etc.

No Patton. The comparrisons are not remotely similar, imo, especially if we're talking about administering legislation about any given issue.


Except everything you mention affects anothers imminent safety, so no, that's not what I'm saying, it's not even close. How is gay marriage remotely close to the social effect of driving drunk? It isn't. Nor is it close to speeding or molestation. All of those things involve protecting innocents from being hurt by another’s choices. We, or at least I, am talking about choices that are personal and do not make physical victims of others.

An unwed mother does not equal 1000 deaths on the highway this month. A gay guy getting freaky in a bath house does not equal highway deaths either.

So gay marriage is not like drunk driving. Not even close. Being gay and accepting it as a non-choice is not like speeding in your car. Not even close. Having a child out of wedlock is not remotely like molestation. Are we saying that Palin's daughter has affected her society like a drunk driver would?

No sorry but closer to the truth "Family Values" attempts to legislate what kind of sex people can have, not protecting potential victims of a sexual behaviour.


Ahk

Differences in morality and the perceived harms of immorality are opinions held by those beholden to them...they are unique an differ the way humans themselves are unique and different....brow beating someone with different morals and opinions thereof accomplishes nothing other than possibly making yourself feel better and a little more self-rightous.

I used the word "akin" on purpose.... because like most things in life, comparisons can rarely, if ever, be accomplished with complete exactness....so analogies are used to convey the idea...of course...if the idea is lost in translation or altogether ignored...then the attack on the specific differences of said analogy is made upon the example.

A common theme here.

There may be hope for you after all, patton

Okay your point is understood. But after all I did say...
So I do recognize one individuals rights end where anothers begins. If I thought divorce was breaking someones spine I'd be against it.

My point (overall and on this thread originally) is that if your* party is the party that is promoting 'family values', (which is just a term to cover a whole range of potential legislation or making 'special' rules for certain people), then your party is going to be the party that is the one 'casting stones from a glass house', not the other one.

This also means that if your party is the party promoting 'family values' then it's always going to be bigger news every time any of you get divorced, have a pregnant unwed teenager, get 'caught' being a homosexual, etc. I'm sorry but I can understand the other sides gloating in this case because now it's 'you' (the reps) who gets to know what it feels like when other people are making your harmless personal details the issue of a moral spotlight. In fact it was the family values crowd that put that spotlight there in the first place.


No?
Ahk
*Rhetorical. 'You' meaning anyone generally strongly aligned with the Republicans

I do not think Republicans like myself or anyone are blaming the mother or looks down on the daughter for her pregnancy. I find it disturbing that teens continue to get pregnant but I don't see them as criminals or worst than any one. I am not Christian and I don't believe in any religion but I think there are such things as morals. Now putting aside this girls pregnancy and saying this doesn't belong in politics, come on, you had to know this subject was going to surface. Hell we live in a place where we track idiots like Paris Hilton, and Brittney Spears and call that news. I am upset at McCains poor decisions in the last weeks. We can sit here and talk about what does or does not belong in politics all day, but truth is this will matter when it comes to the election in Nov. I am just wondering why McCain is trying so hard to throw it all away. Of course the democrats are not going to comment on it because we are burning down our own house.

Your absolutely right....the saying "a few bad apples spoils the whole bowl" is appropriate.

Everytime a man stumbles...I am reminded of how imperfect we all are....whenever it is someone who espouses or is to represent my world view...it is like an added twist to the knife...the Pastor in Denver (the name escapes me)...Mark Foley...and the Senator playing footsy in the airport(again the name escapes me)

Glass houses are not the sole property of either party.

(http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/blessing.jpg)

Conservatives believe in raising babies and killing taxes and Liberals well... ya know... they think the opposite

I guess they could puncture the babies scull and suck out its brains and Then cut the baby apart and pull it out piece by piece as to not punish their daughter with a baby for making a mistake as Obama said he would do for his child.

Oh yeah. Are you telling us there aren't any Republicans who had abortions? How would we know? Maybe she's had 6 already and just lied about it. That would seem typical sex-in-a-mens-room lying to me.

Maybe she's just glad to be living in a country that gives her the choice and doesn't force her to have the child and chastise her at the same time for having it out of wedlock by narrowing her choices even more.

You don't want a police state unless it's for woman or people 'not like you' (gays, single parents who 'bring down the state', etc). Then all of a sudden it's legislation time. Feel free to make ushy-gushy baby killing noises though. Very compelling. "You kill babies".



Big talk from a someone who'd probably have an abortion if he was pregnant in a minute flat, regardless of what he thought.
Ahk

*Fun with Spaces*



It's only natural to want to kill those who disagree with you.


Alright bud, I've heard enough of this.

Now turn off the computer, and Saw XXIV, and go get some fresh air.

 Enough with who's pregnant... that is a family matter not a political one...
 I move we change the direction of this thread to talk about Palins Troopergate investigation.
 This speaks to executive power abuse ...this speaks to using executive power to fire public officials who don't agree with the executive. This sounds remarkably similar to another executive ...does it not? I would like to know how "troopergate Palin" feels about the firing of all those US attorneys by the Bush administration on partisan grounds and how legal she believes that is ...Doesn't anyone else see the similarities and the republicon mindset here?
 I don't care if she has twenty daughters and they all have bastard triplets that would be unlikely to effect the way she governs. But abusing executive powers  by firing public officials who do their job but not the executives bidding tells VOLUMES about how she will abuse the powers of the office. If she does this in Alaska what will she be like in Washington??  I am glad to hear the investigations findings should be out in October ( before the election) Lets see if by some amazing coincidence the investigations findings are delayed a little ...oh say like December ...wouldn't that be convenient??
 http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/30/1310109.aspx
 I also want to know if in addition to McShames knowing about Palin's daughter's reproductive condition he also knew about this abuse of executive power Palin is being investigated for . If he did... doesn't THAT tell volumes about McCain as well??? If he didn't doesn't THAT tell even more??

Troopergate, an unbelievably thin resume, and far-right policy positions aren't the only issues to raise regarding Palin.

Now there's something new. Her hubby, it turns out, has made some interesting political choices:

"This afternoon, the director of Division of Elections in Alaska, Gail Fenumiai, told TPMmuckraker that Todd Palin registered in October 1995 to the Alaska Independence Party, a radical group that advocates for Alaskan secession from the United States." (my emphasis)
--source: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/todd_palin_was_registered_memb.php

This is a breaking story. At first it was reported that Palin herself was a member, now it appears that "only" her husband was. He ended his membership, coincidentally(?), in the summer that Palin ran for elected office for the first time.

Here are some more related details:


source: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/aip_founder_professed_hatred_f.php

Sounds to me like she is perilously close to the looney-fringe right wing nut crowd that peoples a large part of the Republican Party.
I notice that she hasn't been available to the press since her nomination. Two nearly identical speeches, and that's it. I wonder why? Desperate damage control? Is the GOP VP nominee going to be held incommunicado?
Dan Quayle is looking better and better and better.

Judgment. What does this say about McCain's judgment?

Nothing good.

Rezko, Ayers, Wright, smoker, $740 million in earmarks, an unbelievably thin resume, and far-left policy positions aren't the only issues to raise regarding Obama........but go ahead and keep nipping at the BOTTOM of the ticket......LOL

Yes, Palin was a brilliant choice by McCain, demonstrating his sound judgment and great wisdom...um...but no one can talk to her. At least not until the vetting-by-the-newmedia-because-the-McCain-campaign-is-too-incompetent-to-do-it is complete.

 Top... bottom ...middle... We have a pretty good idea as to how John McSame and Sarah Quailin would run the whitehouse. Bush policies continuation, PTSD with old age and failing health, abuses of power by nutjob religious fundamentalist with no resume' ... yeah they look great!

Oh, you are a master of smoke-and-mirrors, aren't you....


Maybe she's a little busy...or did you think this was unimportant?


We'll see how available she is after "her first, and perhaps most important, chance to define herself to the American public" is over.

If you want smoke and mirrors, just wait until tonight. How much smoke will there be about her courting a seccessionist movement? How about her stand that abortions should be illegal even in cases of rape? How about her enthusiasm for government pork?

You think we'll get the straight scoop? Or smoke and mirrors? We'll see. Me, I'm all ready for a lot of smoke and mirrors about how she likes mooseburgers; shoots rifles; and is a mother of five, including one with Down syndrome. You know, important stuff like that.

lol.. dude you are kinda going off the edge :)

Its fun to watch.

Yes, indeed, McCain's implosion is fun to watch. Will she make clear that she thinks that it should be illegal for a woman to have an abortion even if the conception was the result of rape or incest?
Or do you think we'll hear more of what a great maverick she is because she said "no" to the Bridge to Nowhere after she had said "yes?"

Will we hear her explain why she thinks religion should be taught in High School science classes?

How much time will she spend explaining why all the studies are wrong, and how teaching abstenance only is the most effective way to prevent unwanted pregnancies, her own "compelling life story" notwithstanding?

I'm curious. Those of you who are so enamored of her, please tell me, does she believe the world was created 10,000 years ago? Does she think dinosaurs and humans co-existed? I think voters should know things like that, but I doubt very much we'll get much of that kind of insight tonight.

Call it a hunch.

Or maybe she'll tell a heart-rending story of how important it is to support teenage daughters who are pregnant. Or maybe not:


Source: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/palin-slashed-funding-for-teen.php

 Not just, Enamored ... don't forget Bonzonite said he would like to have exra-martial sex her. He's thinking with the little head... no reasonong there.
 (http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:7-I1XNjNn_ycjM:http://static.desktopnexus.com/wallpapers/19410-thumbnail.jpg)

Let's at least pretend that we have some standards, ok free?
-Biker
 May be that Reaganite shold have said MILHEMSW? I'm just quoting the man.

(http://media.tumblr.com/5mFXl8jSqdfx1e420sCPiSkV_400.jpg)“Don’t worry, you can divorce her for someone younger once her body gets all stretched out.”

I kinda expect more from you JPN.. I am the rabig guy posting without checking facts NOT YOU... :)

See the updates, it gets a lot worse: what Paul Kane describes as a "slash[ing]" of funds to a non-profit was over a threefold increase from all the government funds they received in 2006.]

Paul Kane of the Washington Post should consider a career as a DailyKos diarist, as he offers "Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms" (link):
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live.

After the legislature passed a spending bill in April, Palin went through the measure reducing and eliminating funds for programs she opposed. Inking her initials on the legislation -- "SP" -- Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million. Covenant House is a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths, including Passage House, which is a transitional home for teenage mothers.
As for why he should consider joining DailyKos instead, Kane didn't endeavor to find out why she did that. And, of course, there are many explanations.

One explanation is that Palin is a sociopath who wants teen moms to suffer. However, I believe that explanation can be discarded.

So, we have to search further, and notably, Kane didn't contact the campaign for an explanation. Perhaps she believes that private rather than state monies should be used? Perhaps, if that's the reason, her beliefs are correct; did Kane endeavor to find out whether that could be correct? Perhaps she thought it would discourage teen pregnancies? Perhaps she doesn't come with the set of assumptions Kane obviously has that there must be a state program for everything? Perhaps she has evidence that Covenant House misspends money? Perhaps there are other programs available? All those possibilities Kane does not even broach.

Please contact the WaPo's ombudsman: ombudsman *at* washpost.com

UPDATE: It's even worse than I suspected. According to their site (covenanthouseak.org/involved.htm), "Approximately 90% of our funding comes from the generous donations of friends like you". And, according to this state document (PDF link), they were only to get $155,000 in 2007. It's not clear whether that was their only source of state funding, and their executive director wasn't available.

UPDATE 2: The $3.9 million was part of a grant for a facilities expansion; see this PDF (you might need to change the extension to "PDF" after downloading).

And, Covenant House's IRS Form 990 (link) shows the funds that Paul Kane describes as "slashed" was over a threefold increase from the government funds they received from all sources in 2006 (FY2006 ending 12/31/06). In 2006, they received:

Contributions $1,667,796
Government Grants $1,194,788
Program Services $0
Investments $67,947
Special Events $271,980
Sales $0
Other $11,139
Total Revenue $3,213,650

Note that they also get money from the feds, including on the facilities expansion.

Please use the address above to send a message to the WaPo about their "reporting".

UPDATE 3: This post earlier said it was "almost a fourfold", but I changed it to "over a threefold" to be mathematically precise. Also, there's a round-up of those sites that simply followed the WaPo's lead without even considering they might be wrong here.

UPDATE 4: A comment (not the post) at corrects Matt Yglesias with this (yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/palin_and_special_needs_children.php#comment-629796):
If you bother looking at the documents, you can see that one program, the Alaska Challenge Youth Academy Program is included in the budget for 2007 but not in 2008. This accounts for nearly all of the discrepancy. You could also see, with a simple search, that the same program is still funded in 2008 (pdf), just on a separate program sheet (in fact, funding was increased, by the governor, by about 50%

FEEL FREE TO READ THE ACTUAL PDF's    24ahead.com/blog/archives/007978.html

I kinda expect more from you JPN.. I am the rabig guy posting without checking facts NOT YOU...

See the updates, it gets a lot worse: what Paul Kane describes as a "slash[ing]" of funds to a non-profit was over a threefold increase from all the government funds they received in 2006.]

Paul Kane of the Washington Post should consider a career as a DailyKos diarist, as he offers "Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms" (link):
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee who revealed Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, earlier this year used her line-item veto to slash funding for a state program benefiting teen mothers in need of a place to live.

After the legislature passed a spending bill in April, Palin went through the measure reducing and eliminating funds for programs she opposed. Inking her initials on the legislation -- "SP" -- Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent, cutting funds from $5 million to $3.9 million. Covenant House is a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths, including Passage House, which is a transitional home for teenage mothers.
As for why he should consider joining DailyKos instead, Kane didn't endeavor to find out why she did that. And, of course, there are many explanations.

One explanation is that Palin is a sociopath who wants teen moms to suffer. However, I believe that explanation can be discarded.

So, we have to search further, and notably, Kane didn't contact the campaign for an explanation. Perhaps she believes that private rather than state monies should be used? Perhaps, if that's the reason, her beliefs are correct; did Kane endeavor to find out whether that could be correct? Perhaps she thought it would discourage teen pregnancies? Perhaps she doesn't come with the set of assumptions Kane obviously has that there must be a state program for everything? Perhaps she has evidence that Covenant House misspends money? Perhaps there are other programs available? All those possibilities Kane does not even broach.

Please contact the WaPo's ombudsman: ombudsman *at* washpost.com

UPDATE: It's even worse than I suspected. According to their site (covenanthouseak.org/involved.htm), "Approximately 90% of our funding comes from the generous donations of friends like you". And, according to this state document (PDF link), they were only to get $155,000 in 2007. It's not clear whether that was their only source of state funding, and their executive director wasn't available.

UPDATE 2: The $3.9 million was part of a grant for a facilities expansion; see this PDF (you might need to change the extension to "PDF" after downloading).

And, Covenant House's IRS Form 990 (link) shows the funds that Paul Kane describes as "slashed" was over a threefold increase from the government funds they received from all sources in 2006 (FY2006 ending 12/31/06). In 2006, they received:

Contributions $1,667,796
Government Grants $1,194,788
Program Services $0
Investments $67,947
Special Events $271,980
Sales $0
Other $11,139
Total Revenue $3,213,650

Note that they also get money from the feds, including on the facilities expansion.

Please use the address above to send a message to the WaPo about their "reporting".

UPDATE 3: This post earlier said it was "almost a fourfold", but I changed it to "over a threefold" to be mathematically precise. Also, there's a round-up of those sites that simply followed the WaPo's lead without even considering they might be wrong here.

UPDATE 4: A comment (not the post) at corrects Matt Yglesias with this (yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/palin_and_special_needs_children.php#comment-629796):
If you bother looking at the documents, you can see that one program, the Alaska Challenge Youth Academy Program is included in the budget for 2007 but not in 2008. This accounts for nearly all of the discrepancy. You could also see, with a simple search, that the same program is still funded in 2008 (pdf), just on a separate program sheet (in fact, funding was increased, by the governor, by about 50%

FEEL FREE TO READ THE ACTUAL PDF's    24ahead.com/blog/archives/007978.html

Wow Reaganite, you can do research! Good for you! No, really, I didn't think you had it in you! Almost all of what you posted was irrelevant to the story, such as possible excuses for her heartless cut. Only the very last parenthetical statement was pertinent, and possibly exculpatory.

Good for you. Now let's see what you can do on Palin's trying to fire a librarian for not banning books, association with a cult that calls for the sessession of Alaska from the United States, and lying to the state police about ordering a trooper to be fired (hint: focus on the lying).

May be that Reaganite should have said MILHEMSW? I'm just quoting the man.