• Gay BlogAds


  • Gay News Watch


  • Chris Tweets



  • « Sarah Palin's lies | Main | Log Cabin's big McCain mistake »

    September 02, 2008

    More Palin problems

    Posted by: Andoni

    Mccain_eyes_shut Drip, drip, drip.

    When Senator John McCain chose and then introduced Sarah Palin as his running mate in Ohio, he stressed how she was a reformer who fought against Washington pork, just as he had. Well, in addition to the "bridge to nowhere" pork she sought and then accepted money for as governor which I posted  on yesterday, today's Washington Post  details another $27 million in earmarks (pork) which she lobbied for and got as mayor of her small town of Wasilla when she was mayor. That's over $1000 for every resident.

    As mayor, Palin was so into federal pork, that she hired a lobbying firm to get federal money. This is not the modus operandi of a fighter against pork.

    McCain introduced Palin as his compatriot against wasteful government spending. There is nothing wrong with that so long as it is true. But what we have is a myth. They are trying to tell us that red is blue and think that we are too stupid to notice.

    As I noted in Reckless and hypocritical, McCain's decision to pick Palin was hurried and based on impulsive instinct, not careful judgment. Today's New York Times reveals just how little vetting Palin underwent before McCain announced her.

    In the most important decision to date for him in this campaign, McCain demonstrated how he makes important decisions. It is not a model I want to see for anyone sitting in the Oval Office.

    |

    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e554d9bb9d8833

    Comments

    1. Chad on Sep 2, 2008 8:55:12 AM:

      You know Andoni, there may be a more general point here. Instead of this modus operandi being particular to McCain, how about Republicans general. Just this morning a drug the FDA approved is being questioned, after that it has been released and is on the market. It seems that Republicans do their vetting, testing, AFTER things are released to the public. Think about it. New drugs, toys, food. They release it and the public is the guinea pigs, the testers, the vetters. Nice if you can get away with it.

    1. Kary on Sep 2, 2008 10:11:49 AM:

      In addition, we have a woman who does not want sex education taught in public schools with a pregnant 17-yr old daughter. And she wants "creationism" (ignorance) taught alongside evolution. This alone should disqualify anyone for being vice president. Oh, that's right..the Republicans ARE the stupid party.

    1. MARTY on Sep 2, 2008 10:45:09 AM:

      What worries me is someone I saw on the news the other day touting Palin by saying, "She's just like one of our family, and that means I'm going to vote for her!" I believe this to be the aspect that Rove and all of those who advised McCain were counting on -- her popular appeal will trump anything factual that comes up to discredit her. As Obama said recently, "The Republicans may not know how to govern, but they sure do know how to campaign." [a paraphrase of what he said]

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Sep 2, 2008 12:56:54 PM:

      Actually, the American public is well aware of the fact that Obama and his fellow liberals have no problem whatsoever with earmarks or lobbying, especially not when they benefit his wife.

      Now, Andoni, how about favoring us with an explanation for your little ethical breach yesterday, in which you, "as a physician", made a diagnosis of a patient you had never actually seen and an accusation of "malpractice" without any knowledge whatsoever of what her doctor was telling her?

    1. Chester on Sep 2, 2008 1:51:40 PM:

      Now that we know she was/is a book-burner, does anyone know if "Heather Has Two Mommies" was on the list?

      North, it's different when the anti-earmark candidate picks a pork queen as a partner.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Sep 2, 2008 2:57:49 PM:

      Ah, but you see, Chester, Obama was in favor of earmarks, then against earmarks, before he was in favor of them once again as he is now and with his selection of Biden.

      Obama has embraced an idea proposed by one of the most conservative members of the Senate, sharing the desire for a moratorium on the local spending projects.

      And remember, as Andoni is careful not to point out, both Biden and Obama voted FOR the "bridge to nowhere" and its associated earmark packages.

    1. Scott on Sep 2, 2008 3:32:07 PM:

      Insane conservative, religious fundamentalist heterosexuals will accept anything one of their own does and they believe Sarah Palin is one of them. They are already turning any scrutiny Sarah Palin gets as sexism after only two days!

      Sarah Palin laughing at a cancer victim.
      http://tinyurl.com/5hramd

    1. Hawyer on Sep 2, 2008 3:46:37 PM:

      You know - the Sarah Palin debacle has become a poster child for the utter irresponsibility of the Republican party - across-the-board:

      On McCain's part, the cynical and deplorable irresponsibility of a 72-year-old cancer survivor propping up this light weight who hadn't owned a passport or been out of the United States until last year - as a serious candidate for the vice-presidency - apparently without a Google search.

      And on her part, the narcissism of actually accepting the appointment - full-well knowing the media frenzy that would descend on her pregnant 17-year-old unmarried daughter, like buzzards on a shit wagon. If she had even a modicum of "family values" she would have declined on the grounds of the incredibly "inappropriate" timing.

      Notwithstanding the suffocating hypocrisy of these Republican Bible-banging, gun-toting, drill-America-dry-first corporate oil shills - who have politicized the right to privacy and the reproductive freedom of women - who have railed against sex education - who now serve up their pitiable knocked-up teenager to the world as the sine qua non of the values crowd.

      These people are nauseating. I'm ready to emigrate if McCain is elected.


    1. Thor on Sep 2, 2008 4:08:54 PM:

      She needed the money to build the bridge to no ware so she could cross it and become VP.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Sep 2, 2008 4:31:37 PM:

      And on her part, the narcissism of actually accepting the appointment - full-well knowing the media frenzy that would descend on her pregnant 17-year-old unmarried daughter, like buzzards on a shit wagon. If she had even a modicum of "family values" she would have declined on the grounds of the incredibly "inappropriate" timing.

      So basically, Hawyer, you're calling Obama a liar.

      Because, as people tried to cite yesterday, the Obamamessiah defensively tried to say that "families are off-limits".

      Why would Democrats and the media attack Palin, especially since their own candidate claims to believe that "families are off-limits" and that he would "fire" anyone who would ever do such a thing? Can't we trust Obama's word?

      As Robbie at The Malcontent brilliantly put it:

      It’s like watching thousands of rapists going, “Why did you walk down that alley? You knew we were there.”

      Next:

      Insane conservative, religious fundamentalist heterosexuals will accept anything one of their own does and they believe Sarah Palin is one of them.

      Or so says the person who believes it thoroughly rational that Trig Palin is actually Bristol's baby, which she carried simultaneously with another to be born months later.

      By the way, you and Hawyer need to coordinate; you shouldn't bash cancer survivors in one comment while whining about how awful doing so is in another.

    1. Hawyer on Sep 2, 2008 5:54:25 PM:

      North Dallas Thirty on Sep 2, 2008 4:31:37 PM:

      So basically, Hawyer, you're calling Obama a liar.

      Because, as people tried to cite yesterday, the Obamamessiah defensively tried to say that "families are off-limits".

      NDT Darling - I purposely tuned to Fox last night to get their take on 17-year-old Bristol and her 18-year-old baby-daddy - and yes "Virginia" they were milking it for all it was worth. Last time I checked, Fox is primarily a Republican advocacy outlet. Obama need not fret about protecting the little WWJD slut's reputation; it's out of his hands now.

    1. Charlie on Sep 2, 2008 6:15:25 PM:

      a 72-year-old cancer survivor

      Was there a bash in this phrase that I missed? Looked like a statement of fact to me. Awful liberal of you to be so touchy!

      By the way, NDT, how is it different to be spreading a rumor about Palin's baby than it is to be spreading one about the source of said rumor? I don't want to hear anymore that the source of the rumor is "said to be" an Obama operative, and have that clause be your justification for attacking Obama on this potential hypocrisy. I could just as easily say the rumor was "said to be" started by Sarah Palin herself, and with no more proof to back it up than you apparently have, should I make conclusions about Palin's character based on the fact that she fed this weird rumor to a gullible liberal outlet and ultimately made herself look like a victim? I'm certainly open to the possibility that Obama's people got the rumor out of Alaska, but until I see proof, it is just a possibility and no more meaningful than the vile speculations about Palin's character that have been swirling around this blog and getting you all worked up.

    1. Charlie on Sep 2, 2008 6:22:18 PM:

      Obama need not fret about protecting the little WWJD slut's reputation

      Now, Hawyer, that's really not very nice. Can we get a reality check? You're bashing a seventeen year old girl. While we know she hopes to marry the father of her baby (despite reports that he "doesn't want kids"), we really have know idea how "WWJD" she actually is, or how much of a "slut."

      My grandmother was a strict Southern baptist and my mother rebelled and got pregnant at eighteen. Now admittedly, my grandmother was never in contention for the vice presidency, a fact for which we should all be thankful. (Her style of arguing was to shout "shut up you're wrong" and wag her thick fingers at us. God rest her soul.)

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Sep 2, 2008 6:38:53 PM:

      I'm certainly open to the possibility that Obama's people got the rumor out of Alaska

      Well, you should be.

      As Obama operatives scour records in Alaska for dirt on Gov. Sarah Palin, they are also seeking embarrassing materials about her husband. And it isn't just the Obama campaign. Several left-wing groups with ties to MoveOn.org have used their network to offer as to $5,000 for damaging employment or personal information about him.


    1. Kevin on Sep 2, 2008 6:50:32 PM:

      "Obama need not fret about protecting the little WWJD slut's reputation..."

      "Insane conservative, religious fundamentalist heterosexuals will accept anything one of their own does and they believe Sarah Palin is one of them."

      "Now that we know she was/is a book-burner..."


      It's a bizarre moment indeed when the gays have become the screechy, laughably moralistic nut-jobs and the religious right leaders become the sensible, calm ones.

      What planet is this? Or better yet, what the hell is happening to us?

    1. Charlie on Sep 2, 2008 7:07:45 PM:

      Well, you should be.

      As Obama operatives scour records in Alaska for dirt on Gov. Sarah Palin, they are also seeking embarrassing materials about her husband. And it isn't just the Obama campaign. Several left-wing groups with ties to MoveOn.org have used their network to offer as to $5,000 for damaging employment or personal information about him.

      I'm supposed to believe the American Spectator any more than I was supposed to believe Daily KOS? C'mon. How about a source that at least tries to PRETEND to hide its bias?

      It's a bizarre moment indeed when the gays have become the screechy, laughably moralistic nut-jobs and the religious right leaders become the sensible, calm ones.

      Bizarre, yes, and would be funny if it wasn't so disturbing. Pull it together, people. At this point the only verifiable thing that we can say about Sarah Palin is that she does kinda look like Tina Fey.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Sep 2, 2008 7:18:45 PM:

      Don't worry, Kevin; Barney Frank says it's OK.

      Wonder how long Obama can keep up this charade when all of his supporters are publicly stating that there's nothing wrong with attacking Palin's family.

    1. Geena on Sep 2, 2008 8:35:16 PM:

      >It's a bizarre moment indeed when the gays have become the
      >screechy, laughably moralistic nut-jobs and the religious
      >right leaders become the sensible, calm ones.

      I hope we all live to see the day when a gay or lesbian has the honor to be on a national ticket.

      And God help that person now that a new level or personal inquiry and speculation has become the standard in national politics.

      On the baby, Mary Cheney had her privacy. We should give the Palin daughter the same.

    1. David on Sep 2, 2008 9:37:27 PM:

      I'm beginning to think that Andoni is the only the only one with some balls around here. This woman, if elected, will have no problem involving herself in your family. Telling you whom you can or cannot marry. What you can do with your uterus. The list goes on. I'm sick of this "holier than thou" attitude of some people here. All is fair in love and war, and for me this a war. I am fighting for my rights as a human-being, and this woman believes that I am less than that. Privacy is a luxury that a person who is running for V.P. of the U.S. is not afforded. If you want privacy, go work at McDonalds.

    1. Charlie on Sep 2, 2008 10:52:51 PM:

      Don't worry, Kevin; Barney Frank says it's OK.

      Please note:

      Rep. Barney Frank is among the first Democrats to publicly say Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s family background, including the pregnancy of her unwed teenage daughter, should be fair game for campaign discussion.

      "Among the first" hardly sounds like a majority to me. But since you insist....

      "They’re the ones that made an issue of her family," Frank, D-Mass., said Tuesday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

      Do you think it's appropriate for Sarah Palin and the McCain campaign to trot out the private details of her family and then cry foul when people actually discuss or investigate these details? Why was it important for them to let us know that Trig has Down's Syndrome? Why did they need to tell us that Bristol is pregnant? They could have waited until uncouth liberals exposed these issues and THEN cried foul about families being private. They chose not to. Why do you suppose that is? If you're stumped, I'll offer a suggestion: political gain. I'm not going to judge Palin's decision to use her family's foibles for political gain (especially since these days, all the candidates do it .. it makes them "relatable") but I will suggest it's pretty ridiculous for you to make an issue of the morals of discussing Palin's family when clearly she WANTS us to be discussing her family.

      And for good measure:

      The campaign of Democratic presidential nominee has strictly avoided any comment on issues related to Palin’s family, specifically anything focused on her daughter’s out-of wedlock pregnancy.

      "I think people’s families are off limits and people’s children are especially off limits," Obama said Monday.

    1. Charlie on Sep 2, 2008 10:53:50 PM:

      Don't worry, Kevin; Barney Frank says it's OK.

      Please note:

      Rep. Barney Frank is among the first Democrats to publicly say Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s family background, including the pregnancy of her unwed teenage daughter, should be fair game for campaign discussion.

      "Among the first" hardly sounds like a majority to me. But since you insist....

      "They’re the ones that made an issue of her family," Frank, D-Mass., said Tuesday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

      Do you think it's appropriate for Sarah Palin and the McCain campaign to trot out the private details of her family and then cry foul when people actually discuss or investigate these details? Why was it important for them to let us know that Trig has Down's Syndrome? Why did they need to tell us that Bristol is pregnant? They could have waited until uncouth liberals exposed these issues and THEN cried foul about families being private. They chose not to. Why do you suppose that is? If you're stumped, I'll offer a suggestion: political gain. I'm not going to judge Palin's decision to use her family's foibles for political gain (especially since these days, all the candidates do it .. it makes them "relatable") but I will suggest it's pretty ridiculous for you to make an issue of the morals of discussing Palin's family when clearly she WANTS us to be discussing her family.

      And for good measure:

      The campaign of Democratic presidential nominee has strictly avoided any comment on issues related to Palin’s family, specifically anything focused on her daughter’s out-of wedlock pregnancy.

      "I think people’s families are off limits and people’s children are especially off limits," Obama said Monday.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Sep 3, 2008 2:46:44 AM:

      Do you think it's appropriate for Sarah Palin and the McCain campaign to trot out the private details of her family and then cry foul when people actually discuss or investigate these details?

      What gay liberals call "investigation", Charlie, is claiming that Trig Palin is not Sarah Palin's son and that she's covering up for her daughter based on theories about how Bristol Palin is carrying simultaneous babies to be born months apart.

      What gay liberals call "discussion", Charlie, is calling Bristol Palin a "WWJD slut".

      And you know what? Barney Frank says that's all a-OK, because "they're the ones that made an issue of her family".

      Again, as Robbie put it: "It’s like watching thousands of rapists going, 'Why did you walk down that alley? You knew we were there.'"

      And as far as Obama goes, he swore up and down that he would not tolerate such attacks and that he would condemn and banish any of his supporters who did such a thing.

      Since he hasn't bothered to condemn or banish Frank, it is rather obvious that he agrees with what Frank is saying.

    1. Charlie on Sep 3, 2008 4:11:53 AM:

      What gay liberals call "investigation", Charlie, is claiming that Trig Palin is not Sarah Palin's son and that she's covering up for her daughter based on theories about how Bristol Palin is carrying simultaneous babies to be born months apart.

      You know, I do hate to keep stopping you on semantics but I really only saw ONE gay liberal who pushed this belief. Can you point me to others?

      What gay liberals call "discussion", Charlie, is calling Bristol Palin a "WWJD slut".

      Again, a single quote from a single person. Are you suggesting that conservative Republicans shy away from these sort of attacks? Because I'm reasonably certain I can provide evidence to the contrary.

      And as far as Obama goes, he swore up and down that he would not tolerate such attacks and that he would condemn and banish any of his supporters who did such a thing.

      Since he hasn't bothered to condemn or banish Frank, it is rather obvious that he agrees with what Frank is saying.

      Well, first, I don't know what power you are vesting in Obama that he can banish Frank from anything. *waves wand* "Bad gay, be gone!" I thought when you referred to him as the Obamamessiah, you were being ironic, but perhaps you believe he actually has some special powers that he can banish elected officals to ... somewhere? Frank doesn't work for Obama and Obama has absolutely no control over him. Second, I didn't actually see Frank attacking anyone in the article you provided, only saying that it was okay for others to attack. Oh, that's the same thing, right? Like our current president who swore to fire the person who leaked a CIA operative's name to the press ... until it turned out to be someone indispensable and then he added "...if they broke the law." I'll concede that the Democrats are often hypocritical, self-serving, and even downright evil, but if you are suggesting that the Republicans, taken as a whole, are actually better, you are more deluded than I realized. Your moral high ground is neither high, nor ground.

    1. North Dallas Thirty on Sep 3, 2008 4:58:51 AM:

      You know, I do hate to keep stopping you on semantics but I really only saw ONE gay liberal who pushed this belief. Can you point me to others?

      Sure -- if DailyKos would quit deleting their diaries. But there are more, and of course, Andoni counts as another.

      Again, a single quote from a single person. Are you suggesting that conservative Republicans shy away from these sort of attacks?

      Plus Scott, plus Dave, plus Chad, plus Kary......

      And what's the point of your last sentence? Are you trying to justify these attacks by claiming it's OK because, as you allege "conservative Republicans" do them?

      Frank doesn't work for Obama and Obama has absolutely no control over him.

      Why? Did Obama suddenly lose his voice? Jeremiah Wright didn't work for Obama either, but it didn't seem hard for Obama to condemn Wright (after Obama was suitably humiliated, of course).

      I'll concede that the Democrats are often hypocritical, self-serving, and even downright evil, but if you are suggesting that the Republicans, taken as a whole, are actually better, you are more deluded than I realized.

      Again, which means what? Is it OK for the Dems to be "hypocritical, self-serving, and even downright evil" because you allege that Republicans are?

    1. Charlie on Sep 3, 2008 5:29:53 AM:

      Do you ever, ever deviate from the Republican party line? Because you know, regardless of how you've justified your sins to yourself, the Bible says that you are an abomination.

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    © Citizen Crain - All Rights Reserved | Design by E.Webscapes Design Studio | Powered by: TypePad