Posted 1 year, 2 months ago in 
Loading ...
I am disappointed in the article “Palin the star as McCain visits Colorado Springs.” I went to the rally and that article did not mention how many people were there, which was over 10,000. The picture was so small you could barely even see the candidates. Had that been Obama, The Daily Sentinel would have put in on the front page of the paper in color.
Why must the Sentinel exploit Palin’s daughter? Sure, she is 17, unwed and pregnant, but do you really care? Or is it just because it’s a Republican candidate’s daughter? She is not running for office. Her mother is.
Unwed, teenage pregnancies are a facet of our society. I know many people that married in that situation and are still going strong 30 years later. If Bristol was the daughter of a Democrat, not a word would be said about her pregnancy or the fact that she is unwed.
The excitement to see McCain and Palin was that of substance. Look at Palin’s long list of achievements she has accomplished in a short amount of time. I’d say she has more than adoration of the crowd, she has respect and experience.
MEGAN GREGG
Grand Junction
50 Responses to “Palin’s daughter is being exploited because Palin is a Republican”
Posted September 11th, 2008 at 5:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Megan,
You must be quite young since you seem to think the Daily Sentinel has a bias toward any Democrat. History disputes that position. The coverage of Palins’ daughter has nothing to do with party. It has to do with the hypocrisy of Palins’ public policy positions when measured against her private life.
Posted September 11th, 2008 at 5:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Although she is obviously young, dc, isn’t it a good thing that someone so young is taking some action in a matter that she cares about? To think that The Sentinel could have a Liberal slant is quite a surprise, but heck…at least the young lady believes in something…
Posted September 11th, 2008 at 5:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curm,
I happen to agree with the young lady that the “pregnancy” is not an issue. It should never be a political issue. However, Mrs. Palin has made it one by trying to push her “abstainance only” educational mandate and her position on abortion.
Posted September 11th, 2008 at 5:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I just assumed she was young, based on the wording of the letter. That way, it’s an admirable effort.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 7:02 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc: “The coverage of Palins’ daughter has nothing to do with party. It has to do with the hypocrisy of Palins’ public policy positions when measured against her private life.”
Care to explain what that hypocrisy is?
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 8:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
It’s not hypocritical that a “Faith & Family Values” proponent like Sarah Palin has a 17-year old unwed daughter turn up pregnant. It’s ironic as hell, but it’s not hypocritical.
What *is* hypocritical is that all the “Faith & Family Values” types are suddenly A-OK with the idea of a pregnant, unwed 17-year old, and the Liberal Left, who are suddenly NOT ok with that.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 9:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish,
I will retract the “H” word RE the sex ed issue. Curms’ characterization as “ironic” suits that situation best. However, the “H’ word definitely applies to Palins’ “Bridge to Nowhere” antics and the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of “pork” she was only too happy to receive. To pitch herself as a reformer is laughable.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 9:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, I think when it comes to pork, you will lose the argument if you compare Palin to Obama.
And let me add this, the Democrats’ obsession with Palin now shows every indication of panic.
Palin is nor running for president and MCain should be your target. Attacking Palin is going to lose you more and more support. It has altready cost you the lead in the presidential race and is now threatening your congressional candidates.
C’mon man, put up a better fight. It will make the election more interesting. I would hate to see the Democrats take a big loss in November. It will swamp the psychologists with depressed liberals.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 9:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
If Democrats are the desperate ones, why did McCain pick an unknown, unqualified, un-researched running mate? For the shock value?
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 9:42 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmudgeon, I think he picked her so he could win the election. So far, my friend, it seems to be working.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 9:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, you’re admitting that McCain without Palin would have lost vs. Obama? That *is* interesting….
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 9:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t think there is any doubt that any Democrat running this time had overwhelming odds of winning. The fact that Obama’s lead was shrinking prior to Palin’s selection is an indication of the weakness of his candidacy. Despite that, I believe that if McCain had chosen someone like Romney, Obama would still have been favored to win. Now, the game has changed. If McCain can break even in the debates, he will be the favorite.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 9:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Could be, bullish, could be…
Have you factored in the Bob Barr contingent? We could be looking at another ’spoiler’, don’t you think?
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 9:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Don’t know if Barr will pull in more votes than Nader. If Obama keeps moving his positions to the center (note last night how he called fo ROTC to be let back into Columbia), Obama may lose some of the whacko left wing vote.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 9:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ms. Gregg, if she were more astute, would recognize the fact that she is witnessing the Republicans attempting to don the vestments of victimhood.
Last night, I did watch the so-called ‘interview’ of Ms. Palin, and what I saw was someone who did not even know what was the “Bush doctrine” in the conduct of American foreign policy. When asked if she supported it, something that was done twice, she looked like a deer caught in the headlights and totally evaded the question, going off into some ultra-nationalistic rhetoric. After two attempts at eliciting a question on the issue the interviewer had to explain it to her. Given that the “Buch doctrine” has been a central tenet of the current administration for over 8 years, one would think that any person running for president or vice-president would at least be familiar with it.
Several of her supposed qualifications in foreign affairs is that her state borders Russia. Wow! I must then be an expert in Mexican/American relations as I have stood near the border with Mexico. I must also be an absolute ‘genius’ on American/Canadian relations as I have visited that country many times.
Let us not forget that the Republicans are also attempting to portray her as a ‘leader’, because she is supposedly ‘head’ of the Alaska national guard. Really? That is an ‘ex officio’ title. It does not mean that she knows how to ‘run’ it, or has done anything with it.
So, let us all take a deep breath shall we, and look at reality. We should be doing that instead of getting all tied up in the hoopla!
As far as Ms. Palin’s daughter, if politicians do not want to have them become subjects of criticism, don’t bring them into the discussion or on stage to garner votes. They should not ’showcase’ them then take umbrage when they become the objects of criticism themselves.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 9:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Gonna be a wild ride for the next few months, I think. It’s not gonna break my heart if McCain wins. If he’s the reformer he claims to be, great. He wasn’t who the arch-conservatives and religious right really wanted as the nominee, so that alone is enough for me.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 10:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmudgeon, Peggy Noonan is a Republican. But in this op-ed from today’s Wall Street Journal she makes an excellent analysis of the presidential campaign which I believe you will find to be very even-handed. If you can access it, I recommend you read it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122116841707025101.html?mod=todays_columnists
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 10:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
That was a great piece…thanks, bullish!
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 10:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Two observations:
1. The more the left squirms, fidgets and fusses about Sarah Palin the more it shows her to be the perfect choice.
2. Not eveyone is as smart as RL, my guess is there are probably a minimum of 5-10 million voters that do not know one can see Russia from Alaska. Stupid people should not be allowed to vote!
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 10:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: “As far as Ms. Palin’s daughter, if politicians do not want to have them become subjects of criticism, don’t bring them into the discussion or on stage to garner votes. They should not ’showcase’ them then take umbrage when they become the objects of criticism themselves.”
I see, so your suggestion, RL, would be for her to have left her 17 year old and her baby at home because, by bringing them on stage at the convention, with her “noprmal” children, she gets what she deserves?
Do you even realize what you are saying?
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 10:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog asks: “Do you even realize what you are saying?”
I absolutely do. One does not need to ‘hide’ them, but using them as pawns to gather sympathy or votes is called ‘using’ children. And, while it has become common, in almost all areas, including attempting to ’sell’ a candidacy or issues, I personally consider it a “Fagin” practice. It will continue just as long as some allow themselves to be guided by ‘emotion’ rather than reason and logic.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 10:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall states: “Stupid people should not be allowed to vote!”
It is interesting that Rexall uses the word “stupid”. I would rather use the word ‘ignorant’. I would not use the word “stupid” except in reference to someone who chooses to remain “ignorant”, and it is a choice, as almost everything else is.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 11:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall said:
“one can see Russia from Alaska”
Technically correct, but only in the Diomedes Islands in the middle of the Bering Strait which are roughly 2.5 miles apart and one is claimed by each side. The mainlands are too far apart to be seen from each other.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 11:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: “One does not need to ‘hide’ them, but using them as pawns to gather sympathy or votes is called ‘using’ children.”
So Palin is using her pregnant unmarried teen age daughter to garner simpathy votes?
You said she should have left her off the stage. Had she done that, you and others would have charged her with hiding from the problem. Give me a break.
Why don’t you use your energy doing something that will help elect your man instead of jumping on Mrs. Pailin’s character. All you are doing is, in fact, getting her more and more simpathy votes.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 11:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
And the Bering Strait, of course, is as tense and militarily fortified as the Korean DMZ.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 11:42 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Glen Greenwald has an excellent, fully supported piece on Salon today about the “liberals are picking on Palin because she has kids” meme. Turns out, just as Laitres suggested above, that it is just another trumped up “poor me, always the victim” charge that Repubs use whenever they can. Check it out:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Just like the lipstick deal, and just like the Mccain campaign crying foul when the press wants to (gasp!) interview their choice for Veep, playing the victim card is their all-time favorite trick. Meanwhile they run the dirtiest, nastiest campaign we’ve probably ever seen. Like I said, if it weren’t for double standards, they would have none at all…
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 11:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The shallowness of the McCain campaign is being noted, even by some who call themselves ‘conservative’. Even David Brooks of the New York time, has pointed that out. The McCain campaign has become nothing more than ’smoke and mirrors’. McCain has previously stated that he wanted a ‘different’ type of campaign yet, if one looks at what he is doing, or allowed to happen to his campaign is quite at odds with it. And, for that, he must, first and formeost, accept the responsibility. If he has a shred of dignity left, he will act according to his words. So far, some of us have lost all respect for the individual, never mind retaining any shred of ‘trust’ in him.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 11:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“playing the victim card is their all-time favorite trick.”
toaaronuu, you are one funny guy.
“Meanwhile they run the dirtiest, nastiest campaign we’ve probably ever seen.”
Who is playing victim there?
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 11:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I gotta go with bullish on this one…’victimhood’ is by no means a one-party trick. Anyone remember Hillary vs. Obama?
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 11:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“So far, some of us have lost all respect for the individual, never mind retaining any shred of ‘trust’ in him.”
RL, you also are one funny guy. I suspect that if he played nice while Obama kept saying that McCain wanted to be at war in Iraq for 100 years, you would have had more respect for McCain?
All you and the rest of your victimized friends are doing is starting to make your list of excuses for why you are going to lose this election. Go ahead, keep adding to your list. You’ll need it.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 12:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmudgeon states: “…’victimhood’ is by no means a one-party trick. Anyone remember Hillary vs. Obama?”
No, it is not a ‘one party’ tactic. But, the fact that one does it does not excuse the other one, and it will continue as long as so many ‘fall for it’, thereby totally ignoring the issues. And the Obama/Clinton campaign is over. So, let us take the lesson and move on instead of engaging in the same idiocy which so many constantly fall for. It is only the ‘fool’ who engages in the same activity expecting different results.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 12:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sheesh…There is just no place for a moderate on this board.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 12:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Are you being victimized curmie?
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 12:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No, I wouldn’t dream of trespassing on your turf, Willis.
It’s just frustrating that there’s so much of a “you’re either for us, or against us” vibe. From many, on both sides.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 12:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL—I’ll stick with stupid—it is more fitting. You have obviously never watched any of the “man on the street” type segments that several different shows do. People are asked questions that any voter should know——most of them are well beyond ignorant.
Curmie—-I am moderate!
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 12:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Cumudgeon states: “Sheesh…There is just no place for a moderate on this board.”
It is my hope that curmudgeon has not been offended by my post but, I was speaking of ‘tactics’, what should and should not be tolerated, and not on any issue.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 12:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Whatever, Bullish. There’s a huge disconnect between Mccain putting out an ad painting Obama as a pedophile enabler, and then turning around and accusing him of calling Palin a pig, when Obama did no such thing. The difference is that MccainCo consistently cries wolf with one side of the mouth, and spews bile on the democrats with the other, while the Democrats have so far played nicely, all the while fending off disgusting tactics like the pedophile ad. The so-called attacks on Palin are a Rovian construct, designed to paint the repubs as victims, as well as paint the media as biased.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 12:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall states: “RL—I’ll stick with stupid—it is more fitting. You have obviously never watched any of the “man on the street” type segments that several different shows do. People are asked questions that any voter should know——most of them are well beyond ignorant.”
The ignorance displayed by ‘man on the street’ segments is truly abysmal. One I have previously viewed is the one found on the Tonight show. There, we saw individuals who have lived in California all of their lives and do not even know where they are ‘physically’ (forget intellectually and emotionally) even in relation to bordering states. Others cannot even distinguish between continents, countries or states. And, the saddest part in the entire seequence is that some of them are college graduates, law school graduates and even schoolteachers (or at least want to be).
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 12:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AND RL—-Most of them vote Democratic!!
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 12:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Mccain putting out an ad painting Obama as a pedophile enabler”
I suspect that toaaronuu is referring to Illinois bill, backed for Obama, that included sex education for kindergartners. Aside from the fact that the bill did, indeed, contain such an element, it is hard to see where you translate this ad into suggesting that Obama is a pedophile enabler. You see toaaronuu, you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 12:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rexall
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 12:40 pm PM This User Report this comment
AND RL—-Most of them vote Democratic!!
Well, they nearly all admit to hating Bush, have no clue as to who Cheney or Rumsfeld are.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 1:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Besides the fact that the assertions made in the ad discussed above were completely false, (see link) the ad is clearly designed to make the black man in the ad (Obama) look like a pervert. This is not a matter of false claims of victimhood, but rather a complaint about blatant lies and intentional, obvious character smearing. Just because you can’t hear the dogwhistle, doesn’t mean it wasn’t blown.
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 1:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Here’s discussion of yet another dishonest (blatant lies) ad from MccainCo:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/belittling_palin.html
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 1:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Link for post #42:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11checkpoint.html?bl&ex=1221278400&en=139555dd265b8c71&ei=5087%0A
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 1:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Maybe it won’t let me post the link for #42, it’s from the NYT, titled “Ad on Sex Education Distorts Obama Policy”
Posted September 12th, 2008 at 9:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish
RE #8
I made no comparison.
Posted September 13th, 2008 at 7:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
No dc, you did not make the comparison. But one of the primary easons that I believe the selection of Palin was such a great move for McCain is that every time Democrats criticize her for her weaknesses, it is very easy for Republicans to turn right around and point to similar weaknesses in Obama. Whether it’s with the level of experinece (low in both cases), or religion (strong believer vs. Wright believer), or pork (where Palin did much less than Obama).
On the positive side, folks can relate much better to Palin than they can to Obama. Furthermore, she has considerably more managerial experience. AND, most importantly, she is a woman.
Criticize her all you want, it will work against the Democrats.
Posted September 13th, 2008 at 8:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish,
We differ there. While I agree that Dems are making a mistake by being sucked into a diversion, I also believe that the Dems are now returning to the real issue ( John McCains’ transformation into G.W.Bush II ) and Mrs. Palin will self destruct. She will be helped by the inappropriate involvement of her husband in her role as governor of Alaska. Watch the MSM for more insights into the abuse of power.
Mr. Palin will be far more damaging to the McCain campaign than his wife. The odds in the betting parlors of London that she will withdraw are increasing daily.
“One other thing; “Whether it’s with the level of experinece (low in both cases)” vs. “Furthermore, she has considerably more managerial experience”
Which is it?
Posted September 14th, 2008 at 8:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, what are the current odds in London?
Posted September 14th, 2008 at 10:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BFrog: “On the positive side, folks can relate much better to Palin than they can to Obama. Furthermore, she has considerably more managerial experience. AND, most importantly, she is a woman.”
Folks=older white males in this litany
My 22 year old daughter and all her friends with whom I have talked relate far more to Obama than to Palin. I suspect that most black people and hispanics do as well. And I am willing to bet that women in general will vote for Obama/Biden in greater proportions than for McCain/Palin. So who does that leave as those folks who relate to Palin? Mostly the Southern states and western Colorado conservative white males who never saw a religious right winger they did not like.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.