The water break scandal! Palin's baby not her own? [Archive]

andyandy

30th August 2008, 04:47 PM

Mentioned in the other thread, from which I have shamelessly stolen MaGZ's pun.....

It hasn't even been 24 hours since Alaska Governor Sarah Palin accepted Senator John McCain's invitation for her to become his running mate and already there are rumors abound that may ultimately turn into a major scandal....Concerns over Palin's judgement have taken center stage.

Palin reportedly flew from Texas to back to Anchorage when she was apparently 7 months pregnant.

The governor's water broke during the energy conference she was attending in Texas but she stayed and gave a 30-minute speech before boarding an Alaska Airlines plane home to deliver the baby.

One reader of the Daily Kos commented how this could be possible:

"I don't see a commercial airline letting a pregnant woman whose water had already broken board a plane. Especially for a flight that far, that is way too dangerous. They don't let pregnant women fly in the last few months of pregnancy as it is."

In fact, a call to Alaska Airlines by Gambling911.com revealed that they will not allow a woman to board a flight whose water has broke. It is unclear if the airline made an exception for Governor Palin.

The idea that Palin - who is steadfastly against abortion - made that flight while in labor after her water broke is enough to make some question her judgment.

http://www.gambling911.com/politics/sarah-palin-flew-more-3000-after-water-broke-082908.html

now, if this is true then it has the potential to be a pretty big story. Either the facts add up to reckless endangerment of a baby's life or a cover story for someone else (like the daughter). The question is, is it true?

And I would just like to congratulate America on having the world's most interesting elections. They certainly beat dull old Britain. :)

andyandy

30th August 2008, 05:08 PM

Apparent confirmation of the facts:

The governor's water broke during the energy conference but she stayed and gave a 30-minute speech before boarding an Alaska Airlines plane home to deliver the baby.

http://www.ktuu.com/global/story.asp?s=8194634

from an Alaskan news source in April.

On a list of things I would be doing if my waters had broken, staying to give a conference speech and then flying 3000 miles probably wouldn't be that high. Seems strange.

andyandy

30th August 2008, 05:17 PM

So, she only announced she was pregnant in March, already seven months pregnant but not showing, her waters broke in April and she then flew 3000 miles back home. No wonder there are rumours.

The governor, who recently turned 44, told a handful of reporters as she was leaving work to expect a new member of the first family, then headed to a reception at the Baranof Hotel to feast on king crab.

Palin said she's already about seven months along, with the baby due to arrive in mid-May.

That the pregnancy is so advanced astonished all who heard the news. The governor, a runner who's always been trim, simply doesn't look pregnant.

Even close members of her staff said they only learned this week their boss was expecting.

"I thought it was becoming obvious," Palin said. "You know, clothes getting snugger and snugger."

But people just couldn't believe the news.

"Really? No!" said Bethel state Rep. Mary Nelson, who is close to giving birth herself.

"It's wonderful. She's very well-disguised," said Senate President Lyda Green, a mother of three who has sometimes sparred with Palin politically. "When I was five months pregnant, there was absolutely no question that I was with child."
http://www.adn.com/front/story/336402.html

a picture of the lady seven months pregnant:

http://www.adn.com/politics/v-gallery/story/339576.html?/politics/v-enlarge/story/339576-a339575-t3.html

Jimbo07

30th August 2008, 05:20 PM

andyandy

30th August 2008, 05:30 PM

One thing makes me wonder about this...

... having a Down's Syndrome child is somewhat consistent with her being an older mother.

Is this really going to be a scandal? Really? A Google search doesn't really turn it up on the majors...

Well, it's definitely the sort of thing that major news outlets would want to do some research into before accusing someone of faking their own baby's birth...

on the Internet however such rumours are going to grow unbounded. Having said that I would be amazed if discussion on whether it is wise to fly 3000 miles after your waters have broken doesn't make the news in the next couple of days. And with that there will be the suggestion that there could be more to this than meets the eye. Unless of course the American media is controlled by right-wing forces......

Oh wait. Maybe it will remain undiscussed. :)

andyandy

30th August 2008, 05:35 PM

gdnp

30th August 2008, 05:50 PM

If she was covering for her daughter, there may be a significant sympathy backlash if the story breaks nationally.

I would not expect the McCain campaign to get a pass for doing such a poor job vetting their pick, however.

NorfolkAtheist

30th August 2008, 05:58 PM

I love a good scandal as much as the next guy, but if Palin was lying about her pregnancy to cover for her daughter why make up the story about her water breaking before her speech and 9000+ mile flight? Why not just claim that her water broke soon after arrival so that it wouldn't call in to question her judgment?

zigaretten

30th August 2008, 06:08 PM

There is a family picture purportedly taken in March with the 16-year-old looking decidedly plump

http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/MessageTopic.asp?p=9555186&Pg=2

(about fourth posting down)

and claims that she took some time off school over the same period. Not that that is proof or anything...... just more suggestions.

Edited to add a better source for the picture:

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/339587.html

Here is a link to a similar picture, if you look closely you can see that Sarah is wearing the same jacket and the two youngest kids are wearing the same outfits under their jackets (Piper = orange and Willow = red) but this picture accompanies an article dated October 23, 2006.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/story/8334949p-8231037c.html

liverleef

30th August 2008, 06:09 PM

boy those kooks over at daily kos are pretty desperate to dig something up on this lady.

boloboffin

30th August 2008, 06:11 PM

This is the one of the craziest things I've ever heard. It was bad enough when people were openly speculating that the oldest daughter is currently pregnant (when all she's got is a little tummy), but this pretend-I'm-pregnant story is about the speed of 9/11 Truth advocates (and we had a few posting at DU about this very thing).

People expressed surprise at her pregnancy announcement in month seven, but then she was still around a lot of people. This was baby no. 5 for her as well, so she definitely had a handle on her limitations.

Granted, her flying around in the eighth month and then after experiencing what's being called "her water breaking" (I've seen where it wasn't quite so drastic) -- that isn't playing so well among a lot of people. But the sheer heinousness of these cover-up allegations threatens to overwhelm any actual discussion of Palin on the merits.

NorfolkAtheist

30th August 2008, 06:14 PM

boy those kooks over at daily kos are pretty desperate to dig something up on this lady.

Did this rumor originate from The Daily Kos? Have they even mentioned it?

Note: Edited to include quote.

joobz

30th August 2008, 06:15 PM

liverleef

30th August 2008, 06:20 PM

Did this rumor originate from The Daily Kos? Have they even mentioned it?

Note: Edited to include quote.

I just noticed andyandys comment about the folks at DK speculating about it.

varwoche

30th August 2008, 06:24 PM

leftysergeant

30th August 2008, 06:25 PM

Maybe it has something to do with her being nutso.

ETA: Didn
t stop to see how far down the page I was. This is in response to why she would make up such an absurd story.

Also, please note, that it is not unusual for a very young mother (under 18) to have a child with Down Syndrome. I knew a few in college when I was majoring in Special Education. Best age is between 18 and 30.

NorfolkAtheist

30th August 2008, 06:25 PM

I just noticed andyandys comment about the folks at DK speculating about it.

Yep. Found their page for it. Read the first few comments and they're crying out for this to be deleted from the site. Good to see most of my fellow liberals are not falling for this.

gdnp

30th August 2008, 06:29 PM

This sounds rather made up.
As was mentioned, Downs is common among older pregnant women.
Also, I do not know what or who she would be trying to protect. This isn't the 50's. Why hide it? Especially since if you get caught, you make yourself look like an anachronistic fundementalist who is more interested in you own image over the well-being of your daughter.
In parts of the country an unwed teenager having a baby is no big deal. In conservative religious circles, that is not the case. It could still be considered Palin "taking a bullet" for her daughter and family, which would be seen by many as admirable.

No, my skepti-senses say untrue without evidence.

Mine as well, along with the 30-fold higher risk of Downs in mom vs. daughter.

As for her giving a speech like that, I can see it playing in her favor. Shows how serious she takes the job...
Anyone who would risk her unborn child's health for the purposes of a political speech has in my mind come down on the wrong side of work/family trade-off big time.

snoop_doxie

30th August 2008, 06:34 PM

And I would just like to congratulate America on having the world's most interesting elections. They certainly beat dull old Britain.

AndyAndy,

you mean dull old Britain doesn't have any scandals to throw about? ;)
i have watched parliament in action, (only when they are trash talkin') the members stand up and say "if only the right mr. so&so, from "hampton on shire" understood the ramifications of his poorly evolved legislation, maybe he would NOT introduce it!" then everyone that agrees says "here! here!" (loudly). then the right mr. so&so stands at the podium and says something as pointed and sarcastic. i thought that was much more interesting than any congressional session i tried to sit through.
the build up and the attention paid to every life moment of the candidates has gotten very tiring to me. the process in the UK is much quicker, yes?

joobz

30th August 2008, 06:34 PM

Anyone who would risk her unborn child's health for the purposes of a political speech has in my mind come down on the wrong side of work/family trade-off big time.
Definitely. But don't we want a president/vice president who takes work over family life?

NorfolkAtheist

30th August 2008, 06:37 PM

Definitely. But don't we want a president/vice president who takes work over family life?

Time for the McCain slogan to be modified! "Country First. The Unborn Second."

Brainster

30th August 2008, 07:22 PM

Here's something I found when a little birdie told me about this story:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_977748b9ff757b082.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13609)

Photo is from March. Article here (http://alaskareport.com/news31/z49194_republican_convention.htm):

The second day of the Alaska Republican Convention had some fireworks - a raging Don Young, a surprise announcement, and a more pregnant-looking Sarah Palin getting multiple standing ovations.

I sure hope the feminists are paying attention to all this scolding of a woman for being too much of a workaholic.

BenBurch

30th August 2008, 07:30 PM

Sefarst

30th August 2008, 07:37 PM

Maybe it has something to do with her being nutso.

ETA: Didn
t stop to see how far down the page I was. This is in response to why she would make up such an absurd story.

Of course, why waste our time examining this claim rationally and trying to analyze what motive she could possibly have (not to mention the lack of evidence) if we can just say she's crazy?

Also, please note, that it is not unusual for a very young mother (under 18) to have a child with Down Syndrome. I knew a few in college when I was majoring in Special Education. Best age is between 18 and 30.
http://www.ds-health.com/risk.htm Here's a table where we can compare frequencies of down syndrome. Sarah Palin would have had a 1/40 chance of having a baby with down syndrome while her daughter would have had a 1/1250 chance.

leftysergeant

30th August 2008, 07:42 PM

Here's something I found when a little birdie told me about this story:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_977748b9ff757b082.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13609)

Nothing unusual about a woman planning on abducting a child to deliberately gain weight or pad her stomach around people she knows. I still need a lot more time-stamped photos to be sure, but she does not look pregnant in a lot of the photos of known provenance. Bristol, however, does look like she's been naughty./

[QUOTE]I sure hope the feminists are paying attention to all this scolding of a woman for being too much of a workaholic.

She's being bashed for being a critic of women who want to be able to function as something other than baby factories and possibly lying about a major event in her life. Her judgement is to be questioned. She shows a lot of inconsistancies in her conduct and policy statements. Was she really needed that badly in the lower 48 at such a critical time?

gdnp

30th August 2008, 07:44 PM

Definitely. But don't we want a president/vice president who takes work over family life?

This is a joke, right? You just left out the winky smiley.

Missing a baseball game is one thing. Risking your (unborn) child's health, without a compelling reason, is irresponsible. "I had to give a 30 minute speech" is not, I am afraid, a compelling reason.

joobz

30th August 2008, 07:49 PM

This is a joke, right? You just left out the winky smiley.

Missing a baseball game is one thing. Risking your (unborn) child's health, without a compelling reason, is irresponsible. "I had to give a 30 minute speech" is not, I am afraid, a compelling reason.
Certainly I am playing devil's advocate, but I'm far from joking.
Obviously the severity of the situation depends on multiple factors, all of which she would be aware of having given brith multiple times before. (e.g., time of contractions, was the water fully broke or was there a small trickle?, how far dilated was she....)

I think the story gives her a political "hard core" edge which could easily play well.

NorfolkAtheist

30th August 2008, 07:54 PM

Sefarst

30th August 2008, 07:59 PM

Brainster

30th August 2008, 07:59 PM

Nothing unusual about a woman planning on abducting a child to deliberately gain weight or pad her stomach around people she knows. I still need a lot more time-stamped photos to be sure, but she does not look pregnant in a lot of the photos of known provenance. Bristol, however, does look like she's been naughty.

She's being bashed for being a critic of women who want to be able to function as something other than baby factories and possibly lying about a major event in her life. Her judgement is to be questioned. She shows a lot of inconsistancies in her conduct and policy statements. Was she really needed that badly in the lower 48 at such a critical time?

Errr, abducting a child? What planet did that story come from? Hilarious. Try looking at some photos, say of Bristol six months ago, and Bristol now. I guess she got pregnant all over again? Or maybe she's the one stuffing a little pillow in her sweater now so her loss won't be obvious?

How do you think they pulled this off? Did they put Sarah in a room and then have her daughter give birth in another bed? Were there holograms and thermate involved?

Did anybody notice that the first person to post this story is MaGZ? You know, truther MaGZ? Did anybody notice that AndyAndy's link goes to a freaking Gambling site? Amazing how they broke the story.

Skepticism, folks, not cynicism. Just because that cretin Thom Hartmann pushed the story on his show yesterday is no reason to abandon Occam.

leftysergeant

30th August 2008, 08:00 PM

http://www.ds-health.com/risk.htm Here's a table where we can compare frequencies of down syndrome. Sarah Palin would have had a 1/40 chance of having a baby with down syndrome while her daughter would have had a 1/1250 chance.

Please note two facts. First, there is a reduction in the number of live births with Down Syndrome between 19 and 24, then it starts going up.

Note too that there are no statistics listed for detected Downs before age 33.

This may have something to do with the availability of abortion. There is an difference between identified Down's children and live births over 3r that age might be more inclined to bear the child. Those younger may just quietly terminate the pregnancy .

zigaretten

30th August 2008, 08:06 PM

Following is an interesting article, I had not realized that Trig was born on April 18, since he was due in mid-may that makes him about a month premature which would explain why Gov. Palin was willing to travel to Texas at that point. Some other points:

".....she consulted with her doctor, family physician Cathy Baldwin-Johnson....

Palin said she felt fine but had leaked amniotic fluid and also felt some contractions that seemed different from the false labor she had been having for months......

.....Palin kept in close contact with Baldwin-Johnson. The contractions slowed to one or two an hour, "which is not active labor," the doctor said.

"Things were already settling down when she talked to me," Baldwin-Johnson said.

Palin did not ask for a medical OK to fly, the doctor said.

"I don't think it was unreasonable for her to continue to travel back," Baldwin-Johnson said."

"Some airlines have policies against pregnant women onboard during the last four weeks of pregnancy......

Alaska Airlines has no such rule and leaves the decision to the woman and her doctor, said spokeswoman Caroline Boren.

So the Palins flew on Alaska Airlines from Dallas to Anchorage, stopping in Seattle and checking with the doctor along the way.

......After four kids, the governor said, she knew what labor felt like, and she wasn't in labor."

"Baldwin-Johnson said she had to induce labor, and the baby didn't come until 6:30 a.m. Friday."

http://www.adn.com/626/story/382864.html

gdnp

30th August 2008, 08:21 PM

Errr, abducting a child? What planet did that story come from? Hilarious. Try looking at some photos, say of Bristol six months ago, and Bristol now. I guess she got pregnant all over again? Or maybe she's the one stuffing a little pillow in her sweater now so her loss won't be obvious?

Oh please. No one is suggesting that anyone abducted the child. The obvious point being made was that if Palin wanted people to think that she was pregnant so that she could take responsibility for her daughter's child, this would not be too difficult to fake.

How do you think they pulled this off? Did they put Sarah in a room and then have her daughter give birth in another bed?
All it requires is a few sympathetic medical personnel. Since medical records are privileged, leaking health information without patient consent is a HIPPA violation with associated penalties, including dismissal and possibly criminal and civil charges. That being said, I would be surprised if such information had not leaked.

It is less likely that the birth certificate would have been faked. This is a public record.

I would like to see confirmation that the daughter disappeared for 2 months with mono. If the times correlate, then it does seem an unusual coincidence.

zigaretten

30th August 2008, 08:28 PM

Note too that there are no statistics listed for detected Downs before age 33.

"Because the risk of having a baby with Down syndrome rose above the 1 in 250 mark at the 35th birthday for women, it had become the standard of care to offer the screen for Down syndrome to all mothers 35 years and older. At the beginning of 2007, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated that all women regardless of age should be offered the opportunity for screening."

http://www.ds-health.com/prenatal.htm

Wait a few years and they'll have data for the under 35 group as well.....

Sefarst

30th August 2008, 08:29 PM

I would like to see confirmation that the daughter disappeared for 2 months with mono. If the times correlate, then it does seem an unusual coincidence.

I was sick at home with chickenpox when my little brother was born, what an unusual coincidence...

It's only an "unusual coincidence" if you are giving this ridiculous conspiracy theory merit without any evidence. People get sick, people have babies, and sometimes it happens at the same time.

gdnp

30th August 2008, 08:35 PM

Following is an interesting article...
http://www.adn.com/626/story/382864.html

This is the quote I found most interesting:

Palin said she won't take maternity leave but will go with Trig to doctor's visits, physical therapy, whatever he needs. She's breast feeding and plans to bring Trig to work with her, just as she did with Piper.

I doubt she was breast feeding her daughter's baby. I suppose this could be faked as well, but we're straining credulity here.

as to her judgment:

Still, a Sacramento, Calif., obstetrician who is active in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said when a pregnant woman's water breaks, she should go right to the hospital because of the risk of infection. That's true even if the amniotic fluid simply leaks out, said Dr. Laurie Gregg.

And this one really shocked me:

Trig has Down syndrome, a genetic abnormality that affects a child's intellectual and physical development, the governor confirmed.

"When we first heard, it was kind of confusing," Palin, 44, said. She called the revelation "very, very challenging" and said she initially felt sad.

But the family has worked through that. Palin said she and Todd feel blessed and chosen by God. With a big family including four older kids, grandparents, aunts and uncles, Palin said, they will have lots of support for what's ahead. In their eyes, she said, "he's absolutely perfect."

Wow. She didn't find out her kid had Down syndrome until he was born, worked through the sadness, and was back on the job in 3 days.

That would speak to a certain coolness under pressure.

gdnp

30th August 2008, 08:43 PM

I was sick at home with chickenpox when my little brother was born, what an unusual coincidence...

It's only an "unusual coincidence" if you are giving this ridiculous conspiracy theory merit without any evidence. People get sick, people have babies, and sometimes it happens at the same time.

yeah, and teenage girls get pregnant, parents get embarrassed, and illnesses are faked to cover up the pregnancy all the time. This would certainly not be the first.

Right now, I agree that this is in the category of unsubstantiated rumor. Without any concrete evidence it will fade quickly, and we can get back to the real issue of her lack of qualifications. ;)

Kopji

30th August 2008, 08:45 PM

I remember reading from a diary of a pioneer woman. Just reading along and there was an entry something like 'Gave birth to baby Mikey today'. The next day she was milking cows before dawn again. Tough pioneer stock.

I just can't see this one going anywhere at all. My complements on the quality of CT here though. Creative minds...

zigaretten

30th August 2008, 08:48 PM

Wow. She didn't find out her kid had Down syndrome until he was born, worked through the sadness, and was back on the job in 3 days.

No, she knew from early testing.........

"The Palins released the following statement:

"Trig is beautiful and already adored by us. We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives. We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed."

http://www.ktuu.com/global/story.asp?s=8194634

(which is the same link from post #2 above)

gdnp

30th August 2008, 08:53 PM

No, she knew from early testing.........

Thanks. I missed that. The other reference left the impression that she did not know until she had delivered.

Brainster

30th August 2008, 08:55 PM

She is a workaholic type, clearly very driven. Of course, some people are uncomfortable with that in a woman, even today. It's seen as somehow unfeminine. Of course, legend has it that these people are hidebound conservatives, but apparently some liberals are afflicted with it as well. We can only hope that someday everybody will accept that women can be strong.

And lest the fact that she took so few days off make it seem like the baby isn't hers, here's what she said when she announced (http://www.adn.com/front/story/336402.html) she was pregnant:

Palin said she's not aiming to take any time off from her job as governor, assuming all goes well with the pregnancy. She said when she had Piper -- Palin was mayor of Wasilla at the time -- the baby was born on a Monday and she returned to the office on Tuesday.

Wow. She's amazing. Or perhaps she was covering up for somebody else's pregnancy when she pretended to have Piper?

C'mon folks. If Occam were here, he'd be slitting his wrists with that razor.

Sefarst

30th August 2008, 08:59 PM

yeah, and teenage girls get pregnant, parents get embarrassed, and illnesses are faked to cover up the pregnancy all the time. This would certainly not be the first.
Really? It happens all the time?

A teenage girl gets pregnant and none of her friends tell anybody? Her mother, a politician regularly in the spotlight, decides that she's going to wear a pregnancy suit and lie to everyone, risking her career and reputation, just to avoid a little embarrassment (she would have to keep this pregnancy suit on everywhere, even just to step outside to get the mail in case someone snaps a picture of her looking thin)? They get doctors, nurses, and hospital staff to help go along with the lie. She forges a birth certificate. She then accepts the nomination for vice president, thereby raising the stakes on her lie.

And we're basing all of this on the fact that her daughter had mono. Would you agree with me that it's absolutely ridiculous?

leftysergeant

30th August 2008, 09:05 PM

We knew through early testing he would face special challenges

And she didn't think that she should take any abnormal precautions at the time of his birth, but had plenty of time to fly to Alaska with all the great hospitals within driving distance of where she was.

She was two months earlier. Even at that age, premies are prone to respiratory problewms. Add to that the fact that Down's usually involves an enlarged tongue and you can see where it might be a good idea not to be too far from a medical facitlity with all the bells and whistles whne the baby pops out.

Either way you slice it, she does not come off as VP material, especially in a year when health care is a major issue.

joobz

30th August 2008, 09:15 PM

She is a workaholic type, clearly very driven. Of course, some people are uncomfortable with that in a woman, even today. It's seen as somehow unfeminine. Of course, legend has it that these people are hidebound conservatives, but apparently some liberals are afflicted with it as well. We can only hope that someday everybody will accept that women can be strong.
That's my problem with the condemnation of her regarding her life. It is a type of sexism to not allow a woman politician to be a bad mom. I've said this with Clinton. I do not vote for a president based upon how good a family man [woman] the person is.

Interestingly, though, I can remember back to the days of Kerry when I would here many republicans(many women republicans) insult Teresa for being opinionated and gruff....

gdnp

30th August 2008, 09:16 PM

Really? It happens all the time?

Yep. I can think of two girls in my high school that got sick and returned 2 weeks later a few pounds lighter.

A teenage girl gets pregnant and none of her friends tell anybody? Not if she didn't tell her friends.

Her mother, a politician regularly in the spotlight, decides that she's going to wear a pregnancy suit and lie to everyone, risking her career and reputation, just to avoid a little embarrassment (she would have to keep this pregnancy suit on everywhere, even just to step outside to get the mail in case someone snaps a picture of her looking thin)?
She did not announce her pregnancy till the seventh month, and delivered in the 8th. The airline personnel supposedly did not know she was pregnant. They get doctors, nurses, and hospital staff to help go along with the lie.
All bound by law and medical ethics to keep the information confidential.

She forges a birth certificate.
Have you seen it? Who is listed as the mother?
She then accepts the nomination for vice president, thereby raising the stakes on her lie.
Bad judgment if she did.

And we're basing all of this on the fact that her daughter had mono.
Actually, we're basing this all on internet rumors that it happened. Even her daughter's mono is a rumor as far as I am concerned.

Would you agree with me that it's absolutely ridiculous?
About as ridiculous as a woman in premature labor with a child with Down syndrome would get on a plane for a long flight after her water had broken.

Sefarst

30th August 2008, 09:39 PM

Yep. I can think of two girls in my high school that got sick and returned 2 weeks later a few pounds lighter.
Not if she didn't tell her friends.

And you know they had babies?

She did not announce her pregnancy till the seventh month, and delivered in the 8th. The airline personnel supposedly did not know she was pregnant.

It doesn't change her reasoning.

All bound by law and medical ethics to keep the information confidential.

I'm not sure, but doesn't Doctor-patient confidentiality extend only to the patient? In this case, if she wasn't really pregnant, she wasn't really the patient. All it would take is someone calling the doctor or the hospital and asking if she actually gave birth.

Have you seen it? Who is listed as the mother?

Wasn't it you who said it was public record?

About as ridiculous as a woman in premature labor with a child with Down syndrome would get on a plane for a long flight after her water had broken.
According to what zigarretten just posted, she was not in "active labor" according to her doctor and, also according to her doctor, she was given the OK to fly. The doctor actually had to induce labor later.

BenBurch

30th August 2008, 09:40 PM

on the other hand, maybe she flew thinking she might lose the baby in a way that would bring no blame down upon her?

Jimbo07

30th August 2008, 09:42 PM

on the other hand, maybe she flew thinking she might lose the baby in a way that would bring no blame down upon her?

Wow! I mean... wow! Where do you guys get this stuff?

Again... really again, I dislike the Republicans, but she's only been on the national scene two days. That's pretty over-the-top!

Brainster

30th August 2008, 09:44 PM

on the other hand, maybe she flew thinking she might lose the baby in a way that would bring no blame down upon her?

Wow, I thought there could be nothing scuzzier on this thread, but you have gone way below my expectations.

Sefarst

30th August 2008, 09:47 PM

Wow, I thought there could be nothing scuzzier on this thread, but you have gone way below my expectations.

BenBurch does a good job of destroying his own credibility and reputation. It saves everyone else the trouble.

WildCat

30th August 2008, 09:49 PM

Brainster

30th August 2008, 10:02 PM

It's Trooferism all over again. The baby's not hers but she was irresponsible flying but maybe she did it intentionally. But it's not her baby. I demand to see a videotape showing Governor Palin giving birth. According to an FOIA request I filed with the FBI, there are 87 video tapes out there.

Personally I subscribe to the "no-baby" theory. It's all a gimmick to make everybody feel sorry for her. But even if there is a baby that doesn't mean it's hers. It could be Barack and Michelle Obama's. Have you seen it? I hear it's black, as black as John McCain's bastard baby. Now that I think about it, didn't Michelle Obama suddenly disappear about the time that the McCains brought home their new child?

Hey, I'm just asking retarded questions!

leftysergeant

30th August 2008, 10:09 PM

Again... really again, I dislike the Republicans, but she's only been on the national scene two days. That's pretty over-the-top!

But her reputation for ethical conduct before she was tapped was already flaky. Read about the way she is alleged to have treated her ex-brother-in-law, and what happened to a state offical who didn't help her out.

Brainster

30th August 2008, 10:12 PM

But her reputation for ethical conduct before she was tapped was already flaky. Read about the way she is alleged to have treated her ex-brother-in-law, and what happened to a state offical who didn't help her out.

Thread derail attempt noted and denied.

leftysergeant

30th August 2008, 10:27 PM

I don't consider it a derail. I was just saying that Republicans should not get so defensive about people jumping on her like that after some of the crap they threw at the wall during the Clinton years.

Has to do with schadenfreude.

Best yet, the whole question is absolutely, 100% testable.

Not going to hold my breath until she does prove it.

Travis

30th August 2008, 10:39 PM

Wow, this thread proves that otherwise intelligent people can become seriously irrational when politics gets involved.

gtc

30th August 2008, 10:43 PM

I demand to see a videotape showing Governor Palin giving birth.

Hey, keep your kinks to yourself. :D

Sefarst

30th August 2008, 10:44 PM

Wow, this thread proves that otherwise intelligent people can become seriously irrational when politics gets involved.
A few are not "otherwise intelligent" and make a habit of posting nonsense.

BTW: Happy Birthday:)

dickenslover

30th August 2008, 10:52 PM

Initially, I thought people were stretching, then did a little research. Would a girl gain weight with mono? Mono starts with a loss of appetite.

How does she look now? Did she lose any weight? I had hard time finding a pic with her stomach. She seems to be the designated baby holder in the family. This is the best one I could find. She seems to have lost a lot of weight in one from 8/28

blog.mlive.com/elections_impact/2008/08/medium_20080828-alaska-gov-sarah-palin-family.jpg

leftysergeant

30th August 2008, 10:55 PM

Hey, as long as the Roverbots are out there calling Obama a stealth Muslim, I have no problem with someone speculating on a more testable theory about a Republican candidate.

WildCat

30th August 2008, 11:15 PM

Hey, as long as the Roverbots are out there calling Obama a stealth Muslim, I have no problem with someone speculating on a more testable theory about a Republican candidate.
...and her 16 year old daughter.

NorfolkAtheist

30th August 2008, 11:19 PM

I see the Swift Boaters have been outdone by an order of magnitude as far as smear campaigns go. Now that the bar has been raised (or lowered depending on how you look at it) what shall this new benchmark of low-blow political smear be called?

Brokewatergate?

Random people posting ugly theories on the internet hardly outdoes the coordination and scope we saw with the Swift Boaters.

That said, this has gotten pretty ugly.

After reading the article linked from zigaretten's posts it appears that Palin was given poor advice from her doctor, Baldwin-Johnson. Baldwin-Johnson gave her the okay for the very long flight knowing full well that Palin's water had broke, that this had happened prematurely, and that the baby had Down's syndrome. The doctor was somehow able to determine that it was safe to fly given these conditions just by speaking to Palin over the phone.

So, it seems like Palin was following the advice her doctor was giving her (according to that article). If that is the case, I think that we should be calling the doctor's judgment into question more so than Palin's (although I wouldn't take her entirely off the hook).

Luckily, it all turned out okay.

Let's move on to more substantive reasons why she's a bad V-P pick, shall we?

gdnp

30th August 2008, 11:20 PM

And you know they had babies?

No, they had abortions. They would have had to disappear longer than this to have babies.

I'm not sure, but doesn't Doctor-patient confidentiality extend only to the patient? In this case, if she wasn't really pregnant, she wasn't really the patient. All it would take is someone calling the doctor or the hospital and asking if she actually gave birth.They would not give you that information.

Wasn't it you who said it was public record?Perhaps official government record would be a better description. Has anyone gone to Hawaii and asked for a copy of Obama's birth certificate? Did they get one?

According to what zigarretten just posted, she was not in "active labor" according to her doctor and, also according to her doctor, she was given the OK to fly. The doctor actually had to induce labor later.
According to the doctor, or according to her? That is, is this what the doctor said to the reporter, or what Palin told the reporter the doctor said?

There was another obstetrician quoted who said a woman should go directly to the hospital after her water breaks because of the risk of infection. I am amazed that an obstetrician would tell a woman whose water has broken to get on a plane without having her examined to see how dilated her cervix is. It defies common sense. I'm not an obstetrician, but my wife has delivered 3 kids. She was told not to fly for the last 6 weeks.

For our first child, labor was induced and it still took 15 hours. The second took 7 hours. Things progressed very rapidly at the end, and she delivered within half an hour of arriving at the hospital. The third we took less of a chance and got to the hospital early. Still, first contractions to delivery was 5 hours. See the pattern here? Each subsequent pregnancy the labor tends to progress more quickly.

zigaretten

30th August 2008, 11:27 PM

How does she look now? Did she lose any weight? I had hard time finding a pic with her stomach. She seems to be the designated baby holder in the family. This is the best one I could find. She seems to have lost a lot of weight in one from 8/28

blog.mlive.com/elections_impact/2008/08/medium_20080828-alaska-gov-sarah-palin-family.jpg

Your photo may have been posted somewhere on 8/28, but it is actually a picture from Palin's inauguration which was in December of 2006.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/mccain/1134867,082908_palin.article

zigaretten

30th August 2008, 11:35 PM

According to the doctor, or according to her? That is, is this what the doctor said to the reporter, or what Palin told the reporter the doctor said?

I'll link it again.............

http://www.adn.com/626/story/382864.html

"Palin kept in close contact with Baldwin-Johnson. The contractions slowed to one or two an hour, "which is not active labor," the doctor said.

"Things were already settling down when she talked to me," Baldwin-Johnson said. Palin did not ask for a medical OK to fly, the doctor said.

"I don't think it was unreasonable for her to continue to travel back," Baldwin-Johnson said."

"Baldwin-Johnson said she had to induce labor, and the baby didn't come until 6:30 a.m. Friday."

SezMe

30th August 2008, 11:37 PM

I see the Swift Boaters have been outdone by an order of magnitude as far as smear campaigns go.
C'mon, WildCat. A couple days of rumors by a bunch of keyboard kommandos outdoes a coordinated, national-level, multi-million dollar, multi-media several-month attack campaign by an order of magnitude?

Talk about a credibility killer. Exaggerate much?

dickenslover

30th August 2008, 11:40 PM

Thank you for clearing that up!

I still can't make up my mind on whether she handled a pregnancy phenomenally weirdly or is just trying to hide something.

In her defense, I can imagine that they had a certain amount of personal issues to work through when learning the child would have DS. That would cause someone to delay announcing what is normally a happy event.

On the other hand, she flew across country that far pregnant, her water broke, and after some delay, she flew back home --where the doctor had to induce labor so that she would deliver the next day? A 6 pound preemie? And she really didn't look pregnant? Lucky for her if she can maintain such a trim figure throughout and not suffer fatigue. Even better for her that she can go back to work 3 days later. Most mothers I have met are unable to get a release to go back to work for quite a while. If that is the case, she's definitely a tough cookie.

I wish I didn't question the story she has given, but it gets harder for me to believe it. I honestly just dismissed it when I first heard it. It would have to be difficult for the governor to pass this off. Surely she endures a lot of daily scrutiny.

Ultimately, in the sense that she might be making her daughter's life easier --well, that would be ok. But, is she making up a saint-like story and trying to buy points for her political profile? Well that bugs me right under my skin.

Suspicion is an ugly thing.

leftysergeant

30th August 2008, 11:41 PM

...and her 16 year old daughter.

And did Palin ever call El Rushblob a low-life misogynist for referring to Chelsea as the Clinton family dog? Here's some gander sauce for the silly goose.

And Palin's OB-GYN is a quack, in my opinion. You do not take that sort of risks with a special-needs pregnancy.

Her pick of a doctor also says something about Palin's judgement on health-related issues.

So does the fact that she doesn't beleive in family planning with five kids already well-grown. Not someone I want presiding over the senate when health care questions are on the floor.

Travis

30th August 2008, 11:43 PM

A few are not "otherwise intelligent" and make a habit of posting nonsense.

BTW: Happy Birthday:)

Thanks.

Hey, as long as the Roverbots are out there calling Obama a stealth Muslim, I have no problem with someone speculating on a more testable theory about a Republican candidate.

I don't condone that either......but does it help things to sink to their level? Isn't it better to maintain the moral high ground and not forfeit it?

leftysergeant

31st August 2008, 12:05 AM

I'm tired of Democrats being nice to the GOP. When someone aims a boot at my crotch, I will do my best to take his foot off. Fighting fair is for suckers.

Brainster

31st August 2008, 12:32 AM

I'm tired of Democrats being nice to the GOP. When someone aims a boot at my crotch, I will do my best to take his foot off. Fighting fair is for suckers.

You do understand that the only people pushing the Obama is a stealth Muslim card are widely considered retards by the responsible Republicans on this board? I appreciate that David Wong sometimes can't tell us apart, but there are one or two liberals around here who know that I do push back against the irresponsible and nutty charges about Obama, because I know that they discredit the Republicans just as much as these idiotic claims discredit Democrats.

I mean, I am the only Republican hereabouts who came up with a line of attack against Jerome Corsi that was cited by the Obama campaign and then cited by numerous conservative bloggers as a reason to disown Corsi, although I freely admit that Boloboffin pushed it far enough up the left blogosphere to get it to the New York Times. How about you, Lefty? What have you done for Obama lately compared to that?

And I did it because I thought Corsi was poison for the Republicans. This is poison for the Democrats. You may not see it, but other Democrats have on this very thread. Save Obama, save the Democrats. Kill the cheerleaders on this idiotic story. (Gratuitous Heroes reference)

brodski

31st August 2008, 12:35 AM

Brainster

31st August 2008, 01:04 AM

What's the shortest verse in the Skeptics' Bible?

"Occam Wept."

geni

31st August 2008, 01:39 AM

good lord, do US elections ever get decided on anything as relevant as policy? I mean, does it really matter?
Shouldn't the question be "will she be good at the job" rather than "what kind of mother is she"?

Well no one really has any idea how good she would be at the job and as vice president she doesn't bring policies so much as values.

SezMe

31st August 2008, 02:07 AM

good lord, do US elections ever get decided on anything as relevant as policy? I mean, does it really matter?
Shouldn't the question be "will she be good at the job" rather than "what kind of mother is she"?
In this particular case, as geni says, she is a policy empty vessel. She has admitted she knows little about Iraq, one of the two major foreign policy issues in the election. She knows less about the other, fighting terrorism.

Domestically, Alaska is so completely different than the lower 48 that she has little, if anything, to add to the debate about ecomomic, education, transportation, security, etc., etc. policy issues. So we are left to the personal minutia. Some legitimate issues regarding her mayoralship and some ethics issues at the state level are beginning to emerge and I expect to hear more about them - and more - in the days to come.

As stated upthread, I think this pick says for more about McCain than Palin and I also hope to see this get more discussion. The theme of the Republican convention is "America First" so I think a legitimate question is, "Is Ms. Palin the best person McCain could find to put America first." To me the answer is a bleedingly obvious, "NO!" but we'll have to see if that question gets a full airing.

My answer to your question more broadly taken is that policy issues play a horribly disappointingly small role in national-level politics but do play a more important role in state and local elections. Exhibit A to support my argument would be the use of same-sex marriage in the 2004 election. If Billy and Bobby get married, will that affect jobs, security, Iraq, foreign relations, etc. Again, clearly not. Yet the Republicans used this issue quite effectively in that race to boost turnout, especially in the eleven states where the issue was on the ballot.

All things considered, I think the debate in this forum is pretty good. Sure there are some wingers who have nothing to contribute and some reasonably decent people sometimes make really dumb posts but I get some useful information and ideas from those I disagree with and those who see things my way.

But no politician ever lost by underestimating the intelligence of the populace. Consider Obama's religion. Pulling data from memory (risky, I know) about 10% of polled Americans thought Obama was a Muslim prior to the Wright dustup. Post-Wright, with the seemingly endless replaying of Obama's CHRISTIAN pastor comments, Obama's major, well-received on both sides of the aisle speech about his christianity, etc. the number jumped to 12%. Go figure.

It ain't pretty, brodski.

leftysergeant

31st August 2008, 02:51 AM

good lord, do US elections ever get decided on anything as relevant as policy? I mean, does it really matter?
Shouldn't the question be "will she be good at the job" rather than "what kind of mother is she"?

That she did wierd and irrationally dangerous things when ( supposedly) facing a potentially complicated delivery speaks to her judgement. She comes up short. Just what we need, two short-sited dimbulbs in the top two slots.

She endangered both her own life and that of the child by flying and being away from proper medical facilities for several hours after her waters broke. She thinks no more clearly of potential consequences of her actions than does Grampa.

Brainster

31st August 2008, 02:52 AM

In this particular case, as geni says, she is a policy empty vessel. She has admitted she knows little about Iraq, one of the two major foreign policy issues in the election. She knows less about the other, fighting terrorism.

Thread derail. Please keep this thread on the topic of Sarah Palin's latest child and the circumstances surrounding his birth.

Brainster

31st August 2008, 03:00 AM

That she did wierd and irrationally dangerous things when ( supposedly) facing a potentially complicated delivery speaks to her judgement. She comes up short. Just what we need, two short-sited dimbulbs in the top two slots.

She endangered both her own life and that of the child by flying and being away from proper medical facilities for several hours after her waters broke. She thinks no more clearly of potential consequences of her actions than does Grampa.

Her body, her choice? Or would you like the government to tell women what they can and cannot do during pregnancy? Or should you just sit in judgment?

Wow. This thread is reaching the awesome category. I'm flabbergasted.

leftysergeant

31st August 2008, 03:08 AM

Sure it's her choice. And, having decided to carry the child to term, she then made some stupid decisions. No conflict here.

andyandy

31st August 2008, 03:10 AM

good lord, do US elections ever get decided on anything as relevant as policy? I mean, does it really matter?
Shouldn't the question be "will she be good at the job" rather than "what kind of mother is she"?

Absolutely, they should be the more relevant questions. However it certainly did seem that her being a good "hockey mom" was put up by the Republicans as one of the key attributes. If you put something on the table as an attribute then I think it is fair game for comment.

To be honest, whilst it would make a bigger scandal if the baby was really her daughter's, I can understand more readily why someone might do that to protect their daughter than why someone would fly 3000 miles after their waters had broken. Given the fact that

1. Older women have more complications giving birth.

2. She knew her baby had Down's syndrome.

3. Childbirth generally becomes quicker with more children.

I find it incredible that anyone would believe it was sensible to spend several hours on a plane on a long haul flight across the length of North America. And if I did get medical advice suggesting that such a thing was a good idea I would certainly consider a second opinion......

to do otherwise would appear to put your own life and your baby's life at undue risk and also risk significantly disrupting all the other passengers on the flight. I know we live in a world of moral relativity, but in terms of responsibility of actions it seems a little unacceptable to me.

Minadin

31st August 2008, 03:18 AM

Don't let your insane BDS get the better of you.

Damien Evans

31st August 2008, 03:22 AM

Brainster

31st August 2008, 03:45 AM

Absolutely, they should be the more relevant questions. However it certainly did seem that her being a good "hockey mom" was put up by the Republicans as one of the key attributes. If you put something on the table as an attribute then I think it is fair game for comment.

To be honest, whilst it would make a bigger scandal if the baby was really her daughter's, I can understand more readily why someone might do that to protect their daughter than why someone would fly 3000 miles after their waters had broken. Given the fact that

1. Older women have more complications giving birth.

2. She knew her baby had Down's syndrome.

3. Childbirth generally becomes quicker with more children.

I find it incredible that anyone would believe it was sensible to spend several hours on a plane on a long haul flight across the length of North America. And if I did get medical advice suggesting that such a thing was a good idea I would certainly consider a second opinion......

to do otherwise would appear to put your own life and your baby's life at undue risk and also risk significantly disrupting all the other passengers on the flight. I know we live in a world of moral relativity, but in terms of responsibility of actions it seems a little unacceptable to me.

And, as a result of this rash decision, her baby was born and lives today, albeit with Down's as was well-anticipated. But please, elaborate on this concept of responsibility of actions and what you will accept from women. Quite a few of us might be interested in learning the sorts of restrictions you would place on pregnant women. Should we immediately ban all travel by anyone who shows? Should we have water-checking machines to ensure no gals who've had their water break can get on an airplane?

While of course maintaining the right to an abortion until the second before birth or even after.

Lonewulf

31st August 2008, 03:48 AM

Should we immediately ban all travel by anyone who shows? Should we have water-checking machines to ensure no gals who've had their water break can get on an airplane?While I may not fully agree with the criticism at hand, there IS a difference between "morality" and "legality". Just questioning the morality of a person's decision, does not necessitate a call for legal action. I know it's hard for some to accept, but...

leftysergeant

31st August 2008, 04:07 AM

I'm not calling for restrictions on anyone's actions. I am just reserving my right to state that I consider her actions indicative of a far lower intelligence and soundness of judgement than I would expect of an elected official who may find herself with the future of all life forms on earth in her hands.

LTC8K6

31st August 2008, 04:27 AM

http://www.adn.com/photos/v-gallery/story/509850.html?/1521/gallery/509852-a509987-t3.html

Picture of Bristol was taken in 2006...

ZenFountain

31st August 2008, 04:35 AM

This story will only end in backlash against liberal bloggers who appear willing to unscrupulously claw at any inkling of a scandal and plaster it on every corner of the internet. It's hypocritical too because if a conservative blogger posted anything about Obama's children the internet may very well explode, but here everyone is expected to sit back and take it as legitimate "investigative journalism" into the character and judgment of someone running for the highest public office. I can't imagine a woman (a man, yes) being so stupid, willing to subject their family to intense public scrutiny with a scandal lurking right under surface, but then again I know very little about Palin and little surprises me in our current political environment. It's going to get ugly methinks.

SezMe

31st August 2008, 04:40 AM

Thread derail. Please keep this thread on the topic of Sarah Palin's latest child and the circumstances surrounding his birth.

You do understand that the only people pushing the Obama is a stealth Muslim card are widely considered retards by the responsible Republicans on this board? I appreciate that David Wong sometimes can't tell us apart, but there are one or two liberals around here who know that I do push back against the irresponsible and nutty charges about Obama, because I know that they discredit the Republicans just as much as these idiotic claims discredit Democrats.

I mean, I am the only Republican hereabouts who came up with a line of attack against Jerome Corsi that was cited by the Obama campaign and then cited by numerous conservative bloggers as a reason to disown Corsi, although I freely admit that Boloboffin pushed it far enough up the left blogosphere to get it to the New York Times. How about you, Lefty? What have you done for Obama lately compared to that?

And I did it because I thought Corsi was poison for the Republicans. This is poison for the Democrats. You may not see it, but other Democrats have on this very thread. Save Obama, save the Democrats. Kill the cheerleaders on this idiotic story. (Gratuitous Heroes reference)
Heed your own advice, Brainster.

LTC8K6

31st August 2008, 05:01 AM

http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_v01.jpg

Poor Bristol, still pregnant a year later! Taken in Juneau in 2007.

Pregnant in 2006, 2007 and gave birth in 2008! Poor thing....

andyandy

31st August 2008, 05:17 AM

And, as a result of this rash decision, her baby was born and lives today, albeit with Down's as was well-anticipated. But please, elaborate on this concept of responsibility of actions and what you will accept from women. Quite a few of us might be interested in learning the sorts of restrictions you would place on pregnant women. Should we immediately ban all travel by anyone who shows? Should we have water-checking machines to ensure no gals who've had their water break can get on an airplane?

While of course maintaining the right to an abortion until the second before birth or even after.

Well for starters I think there should be a travel restriction on women whose waters have broken flying long-distance unless it is an absolute emergency. I don't believe that you need to extrapolate blanket travel bans for any pregnant women. Though if you want me to suggest further regulations how about women over 32 weeks pregnant shouldn't travel on long haul flights? And if it is essential travel they shouldn't do so without a letter from their GP and notifying the airline of their situation? Given that this seems consistent with medical advice and many company airlines' policies this would not seem to be unreasonable.

Just as driving a car whilst drunk is stupid and irresponsible regardless of whether or not you crash, you cannot simply look at the consequences "the baby was fine so what's the problem?" and therefore conclude it was the sensible thing to do.

With regards to other restrictions? Well I think that women who drink to excess or continue to smoke heavily during pregnancy without very concerted efforts to stop (in the case of serious addiction) are grossly negligent. I would have a pretty low opinion of someone who had so little regard for their personal responsibility. Whether their baby went on to develop foetal alcohol syndrome or was born significantly underweight does not change their failure of responsibility. What you put in your body is more difficult to regulate than cross continental travel, but certainly there could be a case for social service involvement as you would have indicated a profound failure in parenthood.....

Direct parallels with abortion are not relevant as long as you accept the basic arguments for abortion. When you are committed to carrying a baby to full term then that future life will exist outside the womb and therefore gross negligence which will have or could have a significant impact on that baby's life can not be easily dismissed. I would agree that women should not have a "right" to abortion "up to the second" of birth. So it is just as well that they do not. In a very small number of medical emergencies that decision can be made by the doctors but that is very different from the right which anyone can request. What does happen however is that there is a cut-off point for women to have the "right" to choose an abortion. Beyond that point those rights are significantly regulated by medical and legal considerations. Given that most pro-choice advocates already accept this regulation on what they can do with their bodies, to suggest that they would have to ideologically oppose any other regulation is baseless. And even if you believe that life begins at conception, then women have to accept responsibility for actions which could harm that life.

Personal responsibility, dirty words in today's society, but it doesn't mean they should be.

sophia8

31st August 2008, 05:32 AM

Certainly I am playing devil's advocate, but I'm far from joking.
Obviously the severity of the situation depends on multiple factors, all of which she would be aware of having given brith multiple times before. (e.g., time of contractions, was the water fully broke or was there a small trickle?, how far dilated was she....)

I think the story gives her a political "hard core" edge which could easily play well.
On the one hand - yes, with her fifth pregnancy, she'd have a good idea of how fast her labour would progress.
On the other hand, she would - or should - have known by then that once the amniotic sac is broken, labour is already underway, the placenta is getting ready to separate and the baby is wide open to infection; she should have wrapped everything up fast and headed to the nearest maternity unit.
I can't see her lying about it being her baby. But I do see a woman who is more concerned with her political career than her baby's health.
On the other (third - or is it fourth?) hand, when I went into labour with my last baby, I insisted on not going to hospital until I'd finished cooking the family supper. Women in labour are not wholly sane people. Seriously.

gdnp

31st August 2008, 05:46 AM

You do understand that the only people pushing the Obama is a stealth Muslim card are widely considered retards by the responsible Republicans on this board? I appreciate that David Wong sometimes can't tell us apart, but there are one or two liberals around here who know that I do push back against the irresponsible and nutty charges about Obama, because I know that they discredit the Republicans just as much as these idiotic claims discredit Democrats.

I will remind the other members of the board who started the Michelle Obama's Whitey video thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115075&highlight=whitey+video)

I guess starting a thread based on an unsubstantiated rumor is OK as long as you state "Alright, I am going to go on the record right up front that I doubt the existence of the video myself, but it is a major topic of conversation on the blogs and so I thought it would be good to get the thoughts of the folks here."

Fair enough.

Alright, I am going to go on the record right up front that I doubt the kid is really her daughters, but it is a major topic of conversation on the blogs and so I thought it would be good to get the thoughts of the folks here.

Shall we continue now?

chipmunk stew

31st August 2008, 06:34 AM

I see the Swift Boaters have been outdone by an order of magnitude as far as smear campaigns go.
:dl:

This whole topic is sleazy and pathetic, but to say that the Swift Boaters have been outdone by a rumor that will burn out long before it becomes the basis of a 527 attack ad is a stretch unbecoming of a skeptic.

Travis

31st August 2008, 06:54 AM

Frankly I feel that the water broke thing is probably an exaggeration. More likely she had some contractions that went away and having already had four kids she knew she was alright and gave the speech and flew home.........Then someone whispers the story to someone else who tells it to yet someone else and eventually the story has her full out water broke doing lamaze with an OB/GYN in the room but she stubbornly gets up to give the speech sweating, out of breath and uttering, "stay in damn you!" and then following the speech is put in a wheelchair and driven to the airport, possibly running over some orphans along the way, and flies home drinking heavily on the plane.

shemp

31st August 2008, 07:22 AM

Wow, I thought there could be nothing scuzzier on this thread, but you have gone way below my expectations.

I'll take a shot at it: She was hoping she'd have the kid in the toilet and could "accidentally" flush it off the plane.

Seriously, I'm amazed at this thread. Some of you are behaving just like the twoofers you regularly deride. I suggest this whole matter get dropped unless and until there is some substantial evidence.

Sefarst

31st August 2008, 07:25 AM

No, they had abortions. They would have had to disappear longer than this to have babies.

So you said:

yeah, and teenage girls get pregnant, parents get embarrassed, and illnesses are faked to cover up the pregnancy all the time. This would certainly not be the first.

and to back up this assertion, you give examples of two girls you knew whom you believe had abortions. Are you seeing the chasm-size gap in logic here?

And again, I'd have to ask how you could know all of this, if I'm even going to begin to accept your poor anecdotal evidence as any kind of rational argument. The better explanation would seem to be that people get sick and lose weight from puking and having diarrhea.

They would not give you that information.

You know this?

Perhaps official government record would be a better description. Has anyone gone to Hawaii and asked for a copy of Obama's birth certificate? Did they get one?

Go ask for it if you're that interested. Of course, why waste your time investigating something when unsubstantiated rumours are so much more fun.

According to the doctor, or according to her? That is, is this what the doctor said to the reporter, or what Palin told the reporter the doctor said?

According to the doctor. Read zigarretten's article, please.

There was another obstetrician quoted who said a woman should go directly to the hospital after her water breaks because of the risk of infection. I am amazed that an obstetrician would tell a woman whose water has broken to get on a plane without having her examined to see how dilated her cervix is. It defies common sense. I'm not an obstetrician, but my wife has delivered 3 kids. She was told not to fly for the last 6 weeks.

It sounds almost as if you weren't there for Governor Palin's pregnancy and don't know any of the details about it... You can be "amazed" at what an obstetrician would say and believe it defies common sense in your medical opinion because, after all, your wife had three kids and now you're an expert.

For our first child, labor was induced and it still took 15 hours. The second took 7 hours. Things progressed very rapidly at the end, and she delivered within half an hour of arriving at the hospital. The third we took less of a chance and got to the hospital early. Still, first contractions to delivery was 5 hours. See the pattern here? Each subsequent pregnancy the labor tends to progress more quickly.

As much as I would like to extrapolate a rule regarding labor times from the anecdotal evidence of someone on a message board, it would appear that Sarah Palin's body didn't follow this pattern. She gave a speech, had time to talk to her doctor, go to the airport, fly back to Alaska, go to her doctor's office, and labor STILL had to be induced.

varwoche

31st August 2008, 07:30 AM

I see the Swift Boaters have been outdone by an order of magnitude as far as smear campaigns go. Now that the bar has been raised (or lowered depending on how you look at it) what shall this new benchmark of low-blow political smear be called?

Brokewatergate? I partially get where you're coming from because I'm surprised to see so many normally reasonable posters indulging in such ridiculous speculation.

But to say this outdoes the swifties is beyond laughable. For brokewatergate to even in the same league it would require: (1) tens of millions of dollars used to create a full on media blitz including a slick ad campaign, book, and faux documentary, (2) personnel in common between the Obama campaign and the brokewatergate campaign, (3) behind the scenes connections to Obama's campaign manager. (I could go on at some length but hopefully you get the point.)

Sefarst

31st August 2008, 07:43 AM

I partially get where you're coming from because I'm surprised to see so many normally reasonable posters indulging in such ridiculous speculation.

But to say this outdoes the swifties is beyond laughable. For brokewatergate to even in the same league it would require: (1) tens of millions of dollars used to create a full on media blitz including a slick ad campaign, book, and faux documentary, (2) personnel in common between the Obama campaign and the brokewatergate campaign, (3) behind the scenes connections to Obama's campaign manager. (I could go on at some length but hopefully you get the point.)
The same mentality is there. This hasn't turned into a media blitz, but BenBurch has stopped just short of accusing her of infanticide and we have a message board full of people, that, just based on a couple rumours, are now challenging her morality, integrity and credibility.

applecorped

31st August 2008, 07:52 AM

Sigh......I'm going back to bed. This thread is depressing.

Tricky

31st August 2008, 08:01 AM

This whole topic is sleazy and pathetic, but to say that the Swift Boaters have been outdone by a rumor that will burn out long before it becomes the basis of a 527 attack ad is a stretch unbecoming of a skeptic.
Yeah, when I see a book come out about this, financed by Democratic fundraisers, and see half of the Democrats defending the findings of that book, then I'll believe it has something in common with the Swift Boat slur.

As is, I don't see any of our more notable Obama supporters on thse boards defending this ridiculous conspiracy theory. About the only slam that sticks is that she might be less than an ideal mom for sending her Down syndrome baby to handlers only three days after delivery. Whether or not there is anything wrong with that is debatable, but it certainly seems in contrast to the "family values" message that the GOP has tried to cultivate.

Sefarst

31st August 2008, 08:07 AM

Björn Toulouse

31st August 2008, 08:17 AM

http://gov.state.ak.us/photos/PalinFamily_Outside_v01.jpg

Poor Bristol, still pregnant a year later! Taken in Juneau in 2007.

Pregnant in 2006, 2007 and gave birth in 2008! Poor thing....

Yes, indeed. Poor Bristol. I feel very sorry for her. Certainly all of her friends are by now aware of the baby rumor, plus the focus on her midsection in photos of her family. What a thing for a teen to have to deal with. Very sad.

boloboffin

31st August 2008, 08:17 AM

What's the shortest verse in the Skeptics' Bible?

"Occam Wept."

:dl: :dl:

The Painter

31st August 2008, 08:18 AM

I have gotta' say I wasn't really impressed with her, but the way the left-wing nut-jobs have been jumping up and down, and grasping for straws to attack her, she must be a good choice.

As is, I don't see any of our more notable Obama supporters on thse boards defending this ridiculous conspiracy theory.

WOW, all of you who slamming Palin, in this thread, are not notable on this board. You are looked down on by the more elite Obama supporters. WOW. Hey pass the arugula.

gdnp

31st August 2008, 08:23 AM

So you said:

and to back up this assertion, you give examples of two girls you knew whom you believe had abortions. Are you seeing the chasm-size gap in logic here?

And again, I'd have to ask how you could know all of this, if I'm even going to begin to accept your poor anecdotal evidence as any kind of rational argument. The better explanation would seem to be that people get sick and lose weight from puking and having diarrhea.

How do you think the typical prominent religious family handles the situation when their unmarried teenage daughter gets pregnant? Birth announcement in the paper? Or is your assertion that their little girls just don't get pregnant?

You know this? Yes. I am a physician. Not an obstetrician, but every year I have to go through compliance training related to the privacy of medical records. Releasing such information violates federal statutes and hospital policy and would get the person fired.

Go ask for it if you're that interested. Of course, why waste your time investigating something when unsubstantiated rumours are so much more fun. Do you understand the concept of rhetorical question? The blogs have been speculating for over a year over whether Obama's Hawaii birth certificate was forged. Yet the only copy I have heard released was the one released by his campaign. That would suggest that you can't just walk into the bureau of vital statistics and look up someone's birth certificate.

According to the doctor. Read zigarretten's article, please.

Thanks. He already pointed this out.

It sounds almost as if you weren't there for Governor Palin's pregnancy and don't know any of the details about it... You can be "amazed" at what an obstetrician would say and believe it defies common sense in your medical opinion because, after all, your wife had three kids and now you're an expert. As I said, I am a physician although not an obstetrician. What I can tell you is this:
1) Obstetricians do not typically recommend women fly in the last month of pregnancy
2) Down syndrome is associated with a variety of other birth defects, not all of which can be excluded prenatally
3) when a woman has premature rupture of the membranes (defined as rupture before 37 weeks, which this was if she was 8 months pregnant) the standard procedure is to check to see if the fetus is in distress, to see if the mother is infected, to see if the mother is dilated and effaced and thus about to deliver, and check for fetal lung maturity since there are drugs that can be given if the lungs are not yet mature. All of these require physical contact between a physician and the patient. None can be done over the phone. Or in an airplane at 24,000 feet, unless there happens to be a physician with fetal monitoring equipment on board.
4) The fact that Palin was in her 40's, that this was her 5th pregnancy, and that she was carrying a fetus with Down syndrome would make it all the more imperative that these steps be followed.
5) If there had been a bad outcome in this case, there would be medical experts around the country lining up to testify that this was malpractice.

gdnp

31st August 2008, 08:28 AM

Do we know that she sent the baby off to "handlers"? Maybe her husband took off work. Maybe she worked from home. Who knows?

Actually, one of the articles stated that she took both of her two younger children to work with her because she was breast feeding. I have already stated that it begins to strain credulity that she faked the breast feeding.

The Painter

31st August 2008, 08:32 AM

As I said, I am a physician

Really?? You post a lot. I've never meet a doctor with that much free time.

Tricky

31st August 2008, 08:32 AM

As is, I don't see any of our more notable Obama supporters on thse boards defending this ridiculous conspiracy theory. About the only slam that sticks is that she might be less than an ideal mom for sending her Down syndrome baby to handlers only three days after delivery. Whether or not there is anything wrong with that is debatable, but it certainly seems in contrast to the "family values" message that the GOP has tried to cultivate.

WOW, all of you who slamming Palin, are not notable on this board. You are looked down on by the more elite Obama supporters. WOW. Hey pass the arugula.
Please try to pay attention. See the bolded part? I said they weren't defending the "not her baby" conspiracy theory. Certainly they are criticizing Palin, but mostly based on her policies and actions, not because of some silly internet rumor.

Tricky

31st August 2008, 08:36 AM

Really?? You post a lot. I've never meet a doctor with that much free time.Do you have any substatiative response to the points gdnp has raised, or shall we just be treated to some more of your witty ripostes?

The Painter

31st August 2008, 08:40 AM

Yeah, when I see a book come out about this, financed by Democratic fundraisers, and see half of the Democrats defending the findings of that book, then I'll believe it has something in common with the Swift Boat slur.

As is, I don't see any of our more notable Obama supporters on thse boards defending this ridiculous conspiracy theory. About the only slam that sticks is that she might be less than an ideal mom for sending her Down syndrome baby to handlers only three days after delivery. Whether or not there is anything wrong with that is debatable, but it certainly seems in contrast to the "family values" message that the GOP has tried to cultivate.

Here's my bold part. Tell us who are the more notable supporters and who are the less notable supporters? You are saying there is a class structure here. Which clique are you in?

Tricky

31st August 2008, 08:44 AM

Here's my bold part. Tell us who are the more notable supporters and who are the less notable supporters? You are saying there is a class structure here. Which clique are you in?
I would say they are the ones who make frequent pro-Obama posts. That is to suggest that the occassional troll who pops in, shoots off his mouth, then leaves, is not a notable pro-Obama poster.

If you can't figure out who they are, then you aren't paying much attention.

WildCat

31st August 2008, 08:45 AM

:dl:

This whole topic is sleazy and pathetic, but to say that the Swift Boaters have been outdone by a rumor that will burn out long before it becomes the basis of a 527 attack ad is a stretch unbecoming of a skeptic.
Immediately after she is named the VP candidate the smear machine is already kicked into high gear. And it's not just aimed at the VP candidate - but also her 16 year old daughter.

With youtube and internet forums you don't even need a 527 group to buy radio ads to spread this stuff - it's done much cheaper and with no accountability this way. Not that this precludes some 527 group from actually running with this story and buying radio and TV ads - it's ony been 2 days since she was named the VP choice after all.

WildCat

31st August 2008, 08:57 AM

I'll also point out that it was John Kerry who made his service in Vietnam the #1 reason he should be elected POTUS - remember his "reporting for duty" salute at the Dem convention? How he invited his shipmates to the convention? How they made ads for him and held press conferences? This made his Vietnam service fair game for scrutiny and/or criticism, sleazy as it may have been.

I don't recall Palin claiming her disabled baby was her #1 qualification to be VP. In fact, we barely have heard a peep out of her about anything before the smears against her and her daughter started coming. Didn't Thom Hartmann get this rumor going on his radio show the same day McCain picked her?

Nogbad

31st August 2008, 09:19 AM

I am slightly baffled as to why it is a smear to be honest. If it were to be true, which seems unlikely given the intense spotlight politicians are always under, in my neck of the woods the good parents took the kid in as their own if a young daughter had been a little careless, so Palin would get kudos for this. The bad parents kick the kid and baby out.

I can't see where this is supposed to go. If it is true it is interesting but not harmful (at least not in my book).

UserGoogol

31st August 2008, 09:26 AM

It's Trooferism all over again. The baby's not hers but she was irresponsible flying but maybe she did it intentionally. But it's not her baby. I demand to see a videotape showing Governor Palin giving birth. According to an FOIA request I filed with the FBI, there are 87 video tapes out there.

There's nothing implausible about September 11 being done by the White House in of itself. Prior to 9-11 at least, any idiot could get in a plane, threaten some people, and then crash the plane into stuff. The problem is merely that there is a lot of evidence that says it's Al-Queda, and faking that would require an insane conspiracy. Similarly, any idiot can fake a pregnancy, and in fact idiots do from time to time. I think it is more likely that she didn't fake the pregnancy, but I don't really care.

WildCat

31st August 2008, 09:38 AM

My g/f, a big Desperate Housewives fan, informs me this (mother faking pregnancy for daughter's rep) was actually a plot on that show last year.

I think some people mistake TV fiction for fact.

BenBurch

31st August 2008, 10:24 AM

Wow, I thought there could be nothing scuzzier on this thread, but you have gone way below my expectations.

I am delighted at that compliment.

If you have reviewed as many murders as I have, you would not think that was all that unlikely.

Jimbo07

31st August 2008, 10:26 AM

I am slightly baffled as to why it is a smear to be honest. If it were to be true, which seems unlikely given the intense spotlight politicians are always under, in my neck of the woods the good parents took the kid in as their own if a young daughter had been a little careless,

Yeah, if it were a real scandal, I'd expect it to be bigger amongst religious conservatives where teen pregnancy doesn't occur... LALALAICANTHEARYOULALALA...

andyandy

31st August 2008, 10:27 AM

Immediately after she is named the VP candidate the smear machine is already kicked into high gear. And it's not just aimed at the VP candidate - but also her 16 year old daughter.

With youtube and internet forums you don't even need a 527 group to buy radio ads to spread this stuff - it's done much cheaper and with no accountability this way. Not that this precludes some 527 group from actually running with this story and buying radio and TV ads - it's ony been 2 days since she was named the VP choice after all.

I'm not sure you could elevate it to a smear machine campaign. Where is the machine? It's a scurrilous rumour but even the facts are suitably remarkable to elicit interest. All this was reported long before she was named vice president candidate, it's just that because she was such a left-field pick that no one outside of Alaska previously knew anything about her.

Just as Jonathan Edwards's illegitimate child was deemed in the public interest, so too are questions as to whether choosing to fly 3000 miles after your waters had broken whilst carrying a child with Down's syndrome was sensible. The rumours as to whether this is actually her child only arise from people's incredulity over her actions. When the campaign seemingly puts your being a good "hockey mom" high up on the list of your attributes, then you are putting it on the table for discussion.

It would be preferable to look at her policies, to look back at her career, to look back at her published works to get some idea about her judgement and ability to potentially lead America. However there seems such a deficit, and such an unimpressive resume for such an important job, her being a "good hockey mom" and discussions on her domestic judgement are elevated far beyond where they should be. That's not the critics fault, it's McCain's for choosing such a lightweight.

andyandy

31st August 2008, 10:30 AM

My g/f, a big Desperate Housewives fan, informs me this (mother faking pregnancy for daughter's rep) was actually a plot on that show last year.

I think some people mistake TV fiction for fact.

It's also happened on East Enders and Hollyoaks, so it must happen :)

NoZed Avenger

31st August 2008, 10:48 AM

I'll take a shot at it: She was hoping she'd have the kid in the toilet and could "accidentally" flush it off the plane.

Seriously, I'm amazed at this thread. Some of you are behaving just like the twoofers you regularly deride. I suggest this whole matter get dropped unless and until there is some substantial evidence.

. . . When shemp is the voice of reason in a thread, everyone else should step back and think a bit. :)

When *I* appear to be the voice of reason, start repenting -- the end is indeed nigh.

TjW

31st August 2008, 10:49 AM

I would just like to compliment andyandy for having a particularly unbelievable 'Planet X' option in the poll.

andyandy

31st August 2008, 10:56 AM

I would just like to compliment WildCat for having a particularly unbelievable 'Planet X' option in the poll.

I don't think he would appreciate the insinuation that he started the thread ;)

the debased tabloid rumourmongering is all down to me :D

andyandy

31st August 2008, 10:57 AM

I would just like to compliment andyandy for having a particularly unbelievable 'Planet X' option in the poll.

Glad to see credit where credit is due :D

TheJim

31st August 2008, 12:51 PM

This thread has been entertaining but as someone that saw the very start of this internet rumor I can insure you that this did not come from anyone working in the Obama camp or the DNC or any other political group but Matt Cale of Ruthless reviews. On Friday he wrote a rather mean spirited rant on the site about retards in the white house which is part of a long history of him ranting about retards. In the discussion forum on the site and specifically the thread in the general topics discussion about this years election he made reference to the rumor that was going around Alaska about who is the Mommy. From this point some of the other members of the forum started to look at the pictures and do some other digging around of older articles about the pregnancy. At which point they put together a preliminary article about the coincidences. This was done not so much as proof positive but as almost a joke that is hopefully true. At some point after the first draft and while waiting for the site owner to approve the article for the site one of the members took the research and rewrote the article for Dailykos and at which point it started to make the rounds.

Here is a link to the start of this http://www.theruthlessforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=1146&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=6740

TheJim

31st August 2008, 12:58 PM

To share my thoughts on the rumor. I don't know and I don't care except to say it is about time some on the left did this. It sucks that gutter politics work but they do and they always have and from the look of things they always will so if this is what it takes to keep McCain out of the white house, a whisper campaign about a VPs kid then that is what it takes, the only thing that makes me uneasy about this, is it is not McCain's wife/daughter that has the rumors about them. I wish I could feel sorry about the 16 year old daughter but it was her mother that accepted the spot knowing that there was this rumor going around in Alaska and it was the right that went after Chelsie (SP) in the 90s.

SezMe

31st August 2008, 01:07 PM

My g/f, a big Desperate Housewives fan, informs me this (mother faking pregnancy for daughter's rep) was actually a plot on that show last year.

I think some people mistake TV fiction for fact.
Your g/f has questionable tastes in TV fare and therefore that is where forumites get their ideas? Lately, WildCat, you disappoint.

FaisonMars

31st August 2008, 01:43 PM

The DailyKOS is not an unbiased source by any stretch, and they do not have enough evidence to make the charges they make that Palin lied. (There apparently were rumors going around about this in Alaska back in March, so this story doesn't originate with dKOS.)

But there are enough independent bits of circumstantial evidence to make me wonder and to hope that there will be some more serious investigation.

1. The post-labor flight to Alaska is the biggest thing for me. When I heard that on Friday, I thought that sounded crazy... are the doctors in Texas really that bad? And apparently the flight attendants on the commercial flight did not know she was in labor. Even if the babygate rumor is false, this shows incredibly bad judgement (as does firing that police commissioner who would not fire her sister's ex).

2. Palin showed signs of being pregnant very late... Her staffers were very surprised when she announced. She was supposedly at almost seven months in this photo: http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/9515/3073504041standaloneprovb5.jpg
which I just can't believe.

3. Bristol was out of school for at least 5 months with mono... that's an unusually long time for a mono infection. Unnamed "classmates" saw her pregnant during this time.

4. There's some fishy business involving online official photos of Palin from early 2008 going missing.

Any one of these things is not enough to get my attention, but all of them together make me take notice. It shouldn't be hard for the Palin family to squash this rumor quickly if it is false.

The irony is that it shouldn't matter: Bristol should be able to get birth control, have an abortion early on, or have the kid (even if he's mostly raised by Sarah and Todd) without shame. It's social conservatives like Palin that have tried to keep the stigmatization of sex going. Palin is anti-abortion rights and pro abstinence-only sex education (which has been shown not to decrease the number of unwanted and/or teenage pregnancies). People like Palin have created a world where a cover up like this is necessary.

However, if the story IS true (and I actually think it probably isn't, but we need more information), Palin is unfit for office having perpetrated the cover up.

BenBurch

31st August 2008, 02:13 PM

Hmmm....

http://www.democraticwarrior.com/forum/showthread.php?t=78149

Still not sure I buy it. But there seems to be a rather large number of people who do.

dickenslover

31st August 2008, 02:53 PM

I'm just amazed that she would have labor pains, the water would break, she would deliver a speech (hours later) with no apparent distress, then take an hours long plane trip back to Alaska. If she did this, I admire her hardiness and greatly question her judgment.

I think most of us are just trying to make sense of why anyone would do this. So we grasp at a straw that has some supporting evidence. I honestly don't know what to think.

I still can't believe she was picked for the VP slot. At this point everything seems bizarre and believable.

Tsukasa Buddha

31st August 2008, 03:32 PM

I'm rather clueless when it comes to pregnancy, and the story sounds rather interesting.

But seriously, the twooferness of this conspiracy theory is rather hilarious.

andyandy

31st August 2008, 03:49 PM

I'm rather clueless when it comes to pregnancy, and the story sounds rather interesting.

But seriously, the twooferness of this conspiracy theory is rather hilarious.

Really? A trans-governmental conspiracy involving thousands of insiders to commit massive state-sponsored murder of civilians versus a woman telling a few lies to protect her daughter? I'm not sure there is a huge amount of similarity on which to draw equivalence :)

in this case the facts as they stand seem more remarkable than the potential conspiracy theory, regardless of the truth.

not_so_new

31st August 2008, 03:50 PM

I'm rather clueless when it comes to pregnancy, and the story sounds rather interesting.

But seriously, the twooferness of this conspiracy theory is rather hilarious.

I don't buy into this conspiracy much myself, seems like a tempest in a tea pot especially with all the other concerns about Palin that seem to be more valid.

That said.....

Something not right about this baby issue and this goes to the credibility of her as a potential president of the US (given McCain's age and heath).

If there are questions unanswered or questions with unsatisfactory answers I think it is valid for further research. It only enters the rarefied air of "conspiracy theory" crack pot BS when plausible answers are presented that should satisfy all but the most twooferness types among the electorate.

In this case it seems that plausible answers are, yet to be suppled and further investigation is warranted.

Time will tell on this one, I remain skeptical but with raised eyebrows.

Tsukasa Buddha

31st August 2008, 04:02 PM

Really? A trans-governmental conspiracy involving thousands of insiders to commit massive state-sponsored murder of civilians versus a woman telling a few lies to protect her daughter? I'm not sure there is a huge amount of similarity on which to draw equivalence :)

More like the picture analysis, the lack of information being used as evidence, etc.

BenBurch

31st August 2008, 04:08 PM

More like the picture analysis, the lack of information being used as evidence, etc.

Agreed. BUT - that she would choose to fly in that condition speaks VOLUMES.

That she would abandon the 24/7 care of that child to keep her office as Governor, much less the immense duties of a national campaign, speaks WHOLE LIBRARIES.

Were it my child, and having had a close friend with a Downs baby who did not make it to her fourth year, I would have quit everything to be home to take care of that child and make its every living moment as good as it is possible to be under those conditions; Career be damned.

I think, even if it is her child, and I assume right now that it is, she needs to do the right thing and go take care of it.

andyandy

31st August 2008, 04:16 PM

More like the picture analysis, the lack of information being used as evidence, etc.

When people on the thread start clinging dogmatically to the discussion points raised as FACT and start typing in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS for no apparent reason then you may have a point. Until then it is a perfectly valid discussion on a rather remarkable occurrence. Sure, there is nothing enough of any substance to elevate the speculation especially high on the probability scale, but it would be a poor state of affairs if the legacy of 911 has been to stifle any questions of any official's account of any event. :)

dirtywick

31st August 2008, 04:20 PM

Agreed. BUT - that she would choose to fly in that condition speaks VOLUMES.

That she would abandon the 24/7 care of that child to keep her office as Governor, much less the immense duties of a national campaign, speaks WHOLE LIBRARIES.

Were it my child, and having had a close friend with a Downs baby who did not make it to her fourth year, I would have quit everything to be home to take care of that child and make its every living moment as good as it is possible to be under those conditions; Career be damned.

I think, even if it is her child, and I assume right now that it is, she needs to do the right thing and go take care of it.

She has a husband.

Oh, but that's the woman's job, right. My bad.

BenBurch

31st August 2008, 04:37 PM

She has a husband.

Oh, but that's the woman's job, right. My bad.

A child with that sort of problem needs BOTH parents. I am a father. I would have abandoned my career for my child under such circumstances. In fact, though I will not go into details, I had a very similar crisis with one of my children and I did change my career path so that I could be at the hospital, which was 250 miles away, several times a week.

And I cannot imagine not making that choice.

It shows her to be of bad character that she has not.

dirtywick

31st August 2008, 04:46 PM

A child with that sort of problem needs BOTH parents. I am a father. I would have abandoned my career for my child under such circumstances. In fact, though I will not go into details, I had a very similar crisis with one of my children and I did change my career path so that I could be at the hospital, which was 250 miles away, several times a week.

And I cannot imagine not making that choice.

It shows her to be of bad character that she has not.

Yeah, I guess abandoning your career, and the money and health care that goes with it would have been the smart move. After all, she could have let her fisherman husband handle all of that. I mean, it's only six mouths to feed, right? That wouldn't be knee jerk at all.

BenBurch

31st August 2008, 04:52 PM

Yeah, I guess abandoning your career, and the money and health care that goes with it would have been the smart move. After all, she could have let her fisherman husband handle all of that. I mean, it's only six mouths to feed, right? That wouldn't be knee jerk at all.

As if she had to worry for a minute about health care. Give me a break.

dirtywick

31st August 2008, 04:53 PM

As if she had to worry for a minute about health care. Give me a break.

She would if she didn't have a job. Which is what happens when you abandon your career.

BenBurch

31st August 2008, 05:05 PM

dirtywick

31st August 2008, 05:13 PM

BenBurch

31st August 2008, 05:15 PM

Annual salary for AK Governor is $81,648. And it seems there is a health care benefit for retired elected officials there as well, but its beyond me to work out the details of it.

Plus, as I said why add a national campaign to this personal calamity? That assures she will be AWAY from the child 24/7. At least as Governor she could be home at night.

BenBurch

31st August 2008, 05:16 PM

And, yes, I can sit here and pass judgement. As a parent I think I earned that right.

Upchurch

31st August 2008, 05:18 PM

Wow. This is pretty stupid.

Sefarst

31st August 2008, 05:29 PM

Her husband works for BP and earns over $50K/year. All Alaskans get a large check from the state each year as well. I'll try to find her net worth, but I believe she is no pauper.

In any case, it all comes down to what you think a child is worth. Obviously I think they are worth more than she does.

What a saint you are. :rolleyes:

Well folks, I guess we see things for how they are now. If you thought the evangelical Republicans were bad about passing judgment on people's personal lives and shouting moral condemnations based on knee-jerk reactions about individuals they've never met, wait until you get a load of the Democrats. They've been out of power for 8 years and boy are they ready to make up for lost time.

They'll dig through your family pictures, call your daughters fat, accuse you of wanting to murder your babies, and don't even think of returning to work after you've had a child, ladies. At least not until you've fulfilled your quota of days taken off work (don't worry, a chart will be sent to your house telling you how many days you need to take off to prove you love your child). They'll clear up some misconceptions for you as well. For example, you might have thought your doctor is the person you should consult on whether or not certain behaviors and activities are healthy for you and your child -- this is a common mistake. You'll just need to call our hotline of Democratic moralists and they will either confirm or overrule your doctor's advice. It's a brave new world, folks, a brave new world...

BenBurch

31st August 2008, 05:39 PM

SDC

31st August 2008, 05:49 PM

Is there anyone here who would be willing and able to advise me whom to vote for?

The Painter

31st August 2008, 06:02 PM

I would say they are the ones who make frequent pro-Obama posts. That is to suggest that the occassional troll who pops in, shoots off his mouth, then leaves, is not a notable pro-Obama poster.

If you can't figure out who they are, then you aren't paying much attention.

Pathetic. Quantity over quality. How absurd.

gtc

31st August 2008, 06:07 PM

And did Palin ever call El Rushblob a low-life misogynist for referring to Chelsea as the Clinton family dog? Here's some gander sauce for the silly goose.

Do you realise how deranged this sounds? You have no evidence that Palin publically complained about Rush back when she was a councillor and then Mayor of Wasilla (not that you've actually looked). So you think this means that you have the right to smear her and her daughter?

I thought you were above this.

So does the fact that she doesn't beleive in family planning with five kids already well-grown.

How do you know that she wasn't using family planning but got pregnant anyway? What right do you have to think that you know better than this woman about what family planning choices she should make?

I'm tired of Democrats being nice to the GOP. When someone aims a boot at my crotch, I will do my best to take his foot off. Fighting fair is for suckers.

Listen to yourself. You are justifying attacking one woman and her daughter due to the actions of conservative political commentators.

You have destroyed any credibility you might have if you ever want to complain about the political tactics of conservatives.

Domestically, Alaska is so completely different than the lower 48 that she has little, if anything, to add to the debate about ecomomic, education, transportation, security, etc., etc. policy issues.

I'm amazed you even allow them to vote.

I'm not calling for restrictions on anyone's actions. I am just reserving my right to state that I consider her actions indicative of a far lower intelligence and soundness of judgement than I would expect of an elected official who may find herself with the future of all life forms on earth in her hands.

Nice to know that American hubris isn't confined to the right.

But to say this outdoes the swifties is beyond laughable.

I think it outdoes the swift boat rumours in some ways. It is a much more personal attack; it draws in her daughter not just his actions; and it seems to be more ludicrous on the face of it. This is just my opinion.

To share my thoughts on the rumor. I don't know and I don't care except to say it is about time some on the left did this. It sucks that gutter politics work but they do and they always have and from the look of things they always will so if this is what it takes to keep McCain out of the white house, a whisper campaign about a VPs kid then that is what it takes,

That is enormously dishonourable.

the only thing that makes me uneasy about this, is it is not McCain's wife/daughter that has the rumors about them. I wish I could feel sorry about the 16 year old daughter but it was her mother that accepted the spot knowing that there was this rumor going around in Alaska and it was the right that went after Chelsie (SP) in the 90s.

What you are saying is that the children of women who stand for public office are fair game and if people don't like that then women shouldn't stand for public office.

Again, this is entirely dishonourable.

FaisonMars

31st August 2008, 06:08 PM

dKOS has updated the story:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/31/145838/319/386/581332

Apparently the hospital where Palin gave birth (in Wasilla, AK, not in Anchorage) doesn't list Trig on the list of babies born that day (April 18).

Also, Bristol has several moving violations in Feb., including a collision on Feb. 8 in front of a Medical Family Center (maybe she was getting her mono checked up?).

Still nothing that convinces me one way or the other.

Sefarst

31st August 2008, 06:09 PM

Bullpucky. I never said anything about requiring any of that. If you want to abandon your disabled child to the care of others, that is of course your own business. I just want anybody who is a heartbeat from the presidency to be of less reprehensible character than that.
Ben, you've got me all wrong. I know what its like to be abandoned to the care of others. I remember the time when my mother abandoned me to the care of my father while she went to work. When I was 7 my parents abandoned me to the care of a babysitter while they went out and "saw a movie" (I know the real reason was that they just didn't love me very much). I even attended daycare during some of my formative years! Trust me, I know what it's like to not see your parents for 6, sometimes 8 hours of the day. I've seen pictures of myself as a baby being held by a person they call my "grandmother" without either of my parents in the photo. THEY LEFT ME ALONE WITH THIS WOMAN!

So I don't take lightly your criticisms. I just thank God that we have you as our moral guidance.

TheJim

31st August 2008, 06:30 PM

That is enormously dishonourable.

I wish honor meant something in elections but in real life honor is frankly for losers. Ask the 2000 version of McCain after SC, Carter after the October surprise, Gore after invent the internet and love story, Goldwater after the daisy ad, or Kerry after the swift boat. This of course is just the tip of the ice burg and there will be tens and hundreds more honorable people that get screwed over this fall over a lie and or half truth come November.

What you are saying is that the children of women who stand for public office are fair game and if people don't like that then women shouldn't stand for public office.

Again, this is entirely dishonourable.

Nice strawman you made but of course does not reflect what I actually said and actually goes against the example I brought up. Male or Female a politician that decides to enter a national campaign and make a point of using their children has to expect in todays age to have their children be targets of smears and other tactics. If it was Palins husband instead this would still a major story, ask John Edwards. And Edwards was not even relevant anymore where was the honor in that?

Hell where is the honor in playing "fair" and loosing when the next leader of the free world is a man so reckless that he picks a VP that has zero opinion about the Iraq war, has made no statement about any other piece of FP except to build a natural gas pipeline to Canada and the only places she has been outside of the US are Canada I would suspect along with a quick stop in Germany, a vacation in Ireland many years ago and a base in Kuwait. Whose education plan revolves around adding creationism to the bio classes. Who reduced funding for museums and libraries while mayor to pay for a new hockey team. Who actually said that she has no idea what the VP does or how it would help Alaska. Someone with no experience at all of living in a city, county or state with more than a million people and the issues this brings including transportation and an economy not based on just oil profits.

BenBurch

31st August 2008, 06:38 PM

...
So I don't take lightly your criticisms. I just thank God that we have you as our moral guidance.

Cry me a river.

I don't know if you know how some well-off parents deal with their DD children, so I'll tell you; They outsource them. Here we have a facility near here I have some experience with that is for DD children, and either children are placed there entirely or they are bussed in daily from their home or a nursing home placement. And I have to tell you it is not much more than a care-taking environment, and many of those parents have washed their hands of their children. Many do not have them home for Holidays or anything, this is especially true for the older children.

Some parents of course are more involved than that and the day care is what they need because the demands of such a child 24/7 are enough to exhaust anybody, but clearly Ms. Palin is not that sort of parent; She has left her child to others to go off and fight a hopeless political battle. She is about as unfit as they come, therefore.

So, you can take your smarmy self-righteousness away with you; I know what a parent's duties to a child are and this does not meet them.

MaGZ

31st August 2008, 06:51 PM

Is there anyone here who would be willing and able to advise me whom to vote for?

Chuck Baldwin, I understand he wants to cut aid to Israel.

Whiplash

31st August 2008, 06:57 PM

Hey, as long as the Roverbots are out there calling Obama a stealth Muslim, I have no problem with someone speculating on a more testable theory about a Republican candidate.

I do not understand this mentality, back to when Perry Logan was still posting here (which was when I first joined, right as he got banned). He often would also endorse just about any and every negative BS against Republicans on the basis that they had first done it to Clinton.

I also see and hear it very often from people on the Left. In media, on the net, on TV, etc. That somehow, everything they do is just fine because the evil, nasty Republican's "did it to us first!!!!". Like children in the backseat of the car.

There are about a million sayings with regards to this mentality. "Don't stoop to their level". "Be the bigger person". "Take the high road". "Two wrongs don't make a right".

Why do people actually tout it as a legitimate rationale? It's not. If the behavior is as wrong and deplorable as you feel it is, then there is no justification to do it "back" at someone else in vengence. That's also wrong. It's hyporcritical as well.

In any case, it all comes down to what you think a child is worth. Obviously I think they are worth more than she does.

Except in the case that the child is unborn and unwanted, correct?

So, you can take your smarmy self-righteousness away with you; I know what a parent's duties to a child are and this does not meet them.

Was this intentional irony?

Sefarst

31st August 2008, 06:57 PM

Some parents of course are more involved than that and the day care is what they need because the demands of such a child 24/7 are enough to exhaust anybody, but clearly Ms. Palin is not that sort of parent; She has left her child to others to go off and fight a hopeless political battle. She is about as unfit as they come, therefore.

I'm with you, Ben. I'll testify alongside you in family court after we report this to Child Services. I'm sure they've probably all ready outsourced the poor baby to one of those facilities. Kudos to you on catching this obvious neglect and abandonment. You were on the trail of these terrible parents without any other clue than that she returned to work after only three days.

So, you can take your smarmy self-righteousness away with you; I know what a parent's duties to a child are and this does not meet them.
You give me too much credit, Ben. None can be more righteous than you. You should put your powers to the greater service of mankind. Start using your bloodhound senses to sniff out bad parents at hospitals, schools, daycares, and in the birth announcement sections of newspapers.

Meadmaker

31st August 2008, 08:53 PM

Brainster

31st August 2008, 09:09 PM

AbleSugar

31st August 2008, 09:40 PM

Is there anyone here who would be willing and able to advise me whom to vote for? This was my post from another thread but feel it might help you.
As Governor, the majority of us Alaskans have really liked Palin. She came with less “baggage” than any other candidates. Her anti-abortion views and stuff didn’t bother me because they didn’t play into her job as Gov.
However, McCain has screwed the pooch by selecting her. So many other better VP choices. Dang it Who can I vote for now. Certainly not Obama. Not McCain. Suddenly Nader is starting to -----ooohh, my head hurts :confused:

BenBurch

31st August 2008, 09:41 PM

Just breathtaking, Ben. I would like you to encourage you to show your comments on this thread to every feminist you know to demonstrate your sensitive and enlightened attitudes towards working women.

You might want to put on a football helmet first, though.

Lie any?

Because I have made it clear with a baby with special needs BOTH parents need to be there. No exceptions. And this is why we need paid family leave as a national law. But the Palin's are well enough off to not need to worry about whether they would be paid or not.

What is simply breathtaking is her callousness.

Morrigan

31st August 2008, 10:06 PM

good lord, do US elections ever get decided on anything as relevant as policy? I mean, does it really matter?
Shouldn't the question be "will she be good at the job" rather than "what kind of mother is she"?

If the allegations are true, she is an outright liar (who also clearly has a problem with admitting her teenage daughter is pregnant). If the allegations are false, she flew for 8 hours while in labour and failed to make any remotely sensical choice in regards to her (and her child's) health.

Either way, she loses. Those are personal failings I certainly would not want in a leader.

But there are enough independent bits of circumstantial evidence to make me wonder and to hope that there will be some more serious investigation.

1. The post-labor flight to Alaska is the biggest thing for me. When I heard that on Friday, I thought that sounded crazy... are the doctors in Texas really that bad? And apparently the flight attendants on the commercial flight did not know she was in labor. Even if the babygate rumor is false, this shows incredibly bad judgement (as does firing that police commissioner who would not fire her sister's ex).

2. Palin showed signs of being pregnant very late... Her staffers were very surprised when she announced. She was supposedly at almost seven months in this photo: http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/9515/3073504041standaloneprovb5.jpg
which I just can't believe.

3. Bristol was out of school for at least 5 months with mono... that's an unusually long time for a mono infection. Unnamed "classmates" saw her pregnant during this time.

4. There's some fishy business involving online official photos of Palin from early 2008 going missing.

Any one of these things is not enough to get my attention, but all of them together make me take notice. It shouldn't be hard for the Palin family to squash this rumor quickly if it is false.

Agreed. The most suspicious parts, for me, are number 1 and 2. There is a photo of Palin being pregnant in 1989 and the contrast is staggering, especially when you consider the fact that a woman's body does not become fitter with more and more pregnancies:

I find some of the arguments (not all, and I'm assuming they are true) in this piece to be quite convincing:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/31/145838/319/386/581332
Of course, if some turn out to be false or misleading, I will concede that the child is hers, but I still think it speaks volumes against her judgement.
The weak arguments are the girl's belly; they flatly state it's the belly of a pregnant girl, but that's pretty much ********, and the last set of photos where it shows Sarah being "not so interested" in the baby as compared to Bristol is flimsy at best. But the points highlighted above are seriously suspicious.

The irony is that it shouldn't matter: Bristol should be able to get birth control, have an abortion early on, or have the kid (even if he's mostly raised by Sarah and Todd) without shame. It's social conservatives like Palin that have tried to keep the stigmatization of sex going. Palin is anti-abortion rights and pro abstinence-only sex education (which has been shown not to decrease the number of unwanted and/or teenage pregnancies). People like Palin have created a world where a cover up like this is necessary.
Yup, this would certainly give a motive for the cover-up, at least.

Really? A trans-governmental conspiracy involving thousands of insiders to commit massive state-sponsored murder of civilians versus a woman telling a few lies to protect her daughter? I'm not sure there is a huge amount of similarity on which to draw equivalence :)

Agreed, I don't get the comparisons to Tr00thers at all.

Morrigan

31st August 2008, 10:19 PM

Sefarst

31st August 2008, 10:34 PM

Lie any?

Because I have made it clear with a baby with special needs BOTH parents need to be there. No exceptions. And this is why we need paid family leave as a national law. But the Palin's are well enough off to not need to worry about whether they would be paid or not.

What is simply breathtaking is her callousness.
Truly I sit at the foot of the master. A lot of people would have been fooled by Sarah Palin's charade, but Ben, you have seen straight through it.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-08-29-sarahwithtrig.jpg

Here they are pretending to look happy right before, I assume, they drop him off at one of those facilities you were mentioning earlier.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-08-29-sarah.jpg

Here she is, neglecting him as she signs the omnibus crime bill.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-08-29-trig.jpg

And here she is, presumably trying to sell the baby to a woman in the supermarket.

But you've seen through this game, Ben, and recognized her for the sadistic monser she is. The world needs more people like you.

BenBurch

31st August 2008, 10:44 PM

SezMe

31st August 2008, 10:56 PM

Well, here's a photo apparently taken earlier this year, at the end of the Alaska legislative session (saw this on another board):

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b48/skater314159/palin_preggers_400.jpg

She does look pregnant on that one. So I guess she's stupid rather than a liar. I'm not sure which is worse. :)
She does? Really? I can't see jack squat either way. It is pretty much a straight-on photo so one cannot judge the size of her belly. And it is pretty dark.

I judge this evidence to be...well, not evidence.

Tsukasa Buddha

31st August 2008, 10:59 PM

Brainster

31st August 2008, 11:10 PM

This is now officially the dumbest thread in the history of JREF's political forums. As evidence I point to the fact that I'm the reasonable person in this thread.

:D

zigaretten

31st August 2008, 11:25 PM

She does? Really? I can't see jack squat either way. It is pretty much a straight-on photo so one cannot judge the size of her belly. And it is pretty dark.

I judge this evidence to be...well, not evidence.

That's what I thought too..........but go to this site:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2071886/posts?q=1&;page=201

...and look at Posts #211 and #216.

SezMe

31st August 2008, 11:58 PM

I did. Same conclusion. No evidence. If this story is going to have some legs, the Donkeys are going to have to come up with something more than this or they will be seen as Asses.

Brainster

1st September 2008, 12:30 AM

Andrew Sullivan tut-tuts (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/things-that-mak.html) that of course he doesn't believe it, but he feels compelled to acknowledge it's out there:

and the rumors buzzing across the Internets and the press corps are unfounded and unseemly. There must be plenty of medical records and obstetricians and medical eye-witnesses prepared to testify to Sarah Palin's giving birth to Trig. There must be a record of Bristol's high school attendance for the past year. And surely, surely, the McCain camp did due diligence on this. But the noise around this story is now deafening, and the weirdness of the chronology sufficient to rise to the level of good faith questions. So please give us these answers - and provide medical records for Sarah Palin's pregnancy - and put this to rest.

Why put it to rest? When your opponents are hanging themselves, the last thing you want to do is tell them they can't have any more rope!

Andrew adds the tantalizing detail of a picture of Bristol with a ring on her wedding finger. Oh, it must be true!

:dl:

I am now officially enjoying this.

Update: A post at Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223) with 1800+ comments. Look, there's a picture of her sitting behind a desk and you can't even tell she's pregnant!

leftysergeant

1st September 2008, 12:41 AM

We will, regardless, be left with the indisputible fact that she has bizarre ideas about fertility and proper OB/GYN care, and shows a stupendous lack of common sense.

Getting knocked up at her age when she has such an important job sure raises questions about her fitness for a high-stakes job. If Gramps croaks and she has to take the big chair, i wonder what sort of whacko she might appoint to offices effecting women's reproductive health. Remember the sicko Bush appointed for that function? It sure is not one of the strong points of Republican policy.

I am not sure that a Republican woman is any more likely to have a clue than a Republican man when it comes to what normal, rational women, with real careers want.

Brainster

1st September 2008, 12:59 AM

Even better. Andrew starts checking birth records (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/births-at-mat-s.html) at "Mat-su". It's a sacred list! But when I clicked on the link, it was gone! Obviously the cover up is in full swing!

:alien011:

Brainster

1st September 2008, 01:06 AM

Can we agree that women of child-bearing age should not be allowed to run for office or even vote? Or walk on the street during the day with their bare ankles exposed. Chain them to the stove, I say!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_977748bba20560b3d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13613)

leftysergeant

1st September 2008, 01:14 AM

We're not saying that they should be kept at home. We're saying that Palin is a dimbulb and makes very poor choices concerning women's health care needs and the proper way to care for a special-needs child.

Why should we trust her judgement in other areas?

She has no training that really qualifies her as an expert on law, foreign relations or defense. That she is a Republican gives me reason to doubt her wisdom on the matters of taxation and the ecconomy, but that is just my opion.

boloboffin

1st September 2008, 01:35 AM

1. If it's the daughter's child (JESUS GOD, what a stupid rumor), then somewhere there's a babydaddy. Until said babydaddy steps forward with a DNA test, no one should ever invoke Bristol in this heinous smear ever again. Anyone who does should be forced to watch Carrie: The Musical in hell for perpetuity.

2. To hear her tell it, she wasn't in labor and her water did not actually break. End of story without actual evidence to the contrary. I don't know how you could produce such evidence. A stewardess on the plane testifying that Palin was choo-chooing throughout the flight? Idiocy, sheer idiocy.

Dragoonster

1st September 2008, 03:19 AM

Though I really do think remaining Governor rather than retiring to take care of that sweet child is at best heartless.

This is wacky to me. Why should she have retired? First, I doubt she's an expert on care for Down's babies, and assuming she's wealthy enough she'll have hired an expert whether she retired or not. Second, from your posts it seems you want her husband to retire as well. Not a great idea for a family of seven. Third, sure a Down's baby has more needs than regular babies, but regular babies have a lot of needs too. Would you have liked her to have retired five times now? If not, why for this baby and not the others? A Down's baby is sweeter than a regular baby or what?

Finally, perhaps she feels she could do more good for society if she's VP or governor than would be worth abandoning her career.

The story is interesting, I'm reserving judgement, and my initial impressions of her is that I can't stand her. But there's no reason her not retiring is heartless.

leftysergeant

1st September 2008, 04:31 AM

Still, you have to wonder what kind of woo she is feeding us. She is billing herself as a feminist. But, with a house full of kids already, she gets preggers at her age, even while holding down a high political office, and now expects people to buy the McCain/Palin ticket as a good alternative because Hillary isn't the nominee.

Being pro-choice is about making a considered choice.

Her thought processes are a bit odd. (If she is really thinking things out, that is.)

PixyMisa

1st September 2008, 05:08 AM

a picture of the lady seven months pregnant:

http://www.adn.com/politics/v-gallery/story/339576.html?/politics/v-enlarge/story/339576-a339575-t3.html
My first boss was 7 months pregnant when she interviewed me for the job. I didn't notice anything.

Was a litle surprised when she came back after the Christmas break with a new baby.

There is a family picture purportedly taken in March with the 16-year-old looking decidedly plump

http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/MessageTopic.asp?p=9555186&Pg=2l (http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/339587.html)
That photo was apparently taken in 2006.

ETA: LTC8K6 beat me to it. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3992754&postcount=86)

This is the one of the craziest things I've ever heard. It was bad enough when people were openly speculating that the oldest daughter is currently pregnant (when all she's got is a little tummy), but this pretend-I'm-pregnant story is about the speed of 9/11 Truth advocates (and we had a few posting at DU about this very thing).
Agreed 100%. One comment I saw noted that it makes 9/11 Truthers look like rocket scientists.

PixyMisa

1st September 2008, 05:22 AM

Still not sure I buy it. But there seems to be a rather large number of people who do.
Yes, and as Shemp pointed out, we have a special forum just for them.

PixyMisa

1st September 2008, 05:27 AM

I'm tired of Democrats being nice to the GOP.
Er, you're tired of 1952?

PixyMisa

1st September 2008, 05:36 AM

Hey, as long as the Roverbots are out there calling Obama a stealth Muslim, I have no problem with someone speculating on a more testable theory about a Republican candidate.
Yes, I'm sure there are crazy or stupid Republicans who believe such things, and vile Republicans who say such things without believing them.

I've seen you battling troofers on the CT threads. You're smarter than this. I know you don't like Republican policies, but don't let that blind you to common sense and basic decency.

PixyMisa

1st September 2008, 05:42 AM

C'mon, WildCat. A couple days of rumors by a bunch of keyboard kommandos outdoes a coordinated, national-level, multi-million dollar, multi-media several-month attack campaign by an order of magnitude?

Talk about a credibility killer. Exaggerate much?

This whole topic is sleazy and pathetic, but to say that the Swift Boaters have been outdone by a rumor that will burn out long before it becomes the basis of a 527 attack ad is a stretch unbecoming of a skeptic.
I took WildCat to mean "outdone by a couple of orders of magnitude of sleaze", and that's certainly true.

Tricky

1st September 2008, 06:00 AM

I've seen you battling troofers on the CT threads. You're smarter than this. I know you don't like Republican policies, but don't let that blind you to common sense and basic decency.
Listen to Pixy, Lefty. This issue is a non-starter.

It is usually a mistake to make the argument that personal decisions should affect a person's ability to govern. This is the same argument that has been made (numerous times) about Bill Clinton's private life. It wasn't a good argument then. It isn't a good argument now. Had Palin sent her child to an institution, that still wouldn't have made her a bad (or good) Governor, and Governor is all Alaska elected her for. Don't go down the road of saying "poor judgment in private affairs equals poor judgment in official affairs." For one thing, it is a can of worms. For another, it is not true.

There are plenty of issues that are within the scope of politics that you can disagree (or agree) with Palin on, including abortion, allowing creationism in schools, inexperience with international politics, her support for the Bridge to Nowhere, (http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html) etc. The debate ought to be limited to topics like those.

Lonewulf

1st September 2008, 06:02 AM

EDIT: Meh, this thread really is just a waste of time for me. ;)

See y'all in other parts of the forum.

novice skeptic

1st September 2008, 06:15 AM

on the other hand, maybe she flew thinking she might lose the baby in a way that would bring no blame down upon her?

Do you really want to stand by this post?

novice skeptic

1st September 2008, 06:17 AM

BenBurch does a good job of destroying his own credibility and reputation. It saves everyone else the trouble.

I'd like to think it was made in a moment of weakness and he doesn't really think this is a possibility, because otherwise this is akin to Truthers accusing Silverstein or others of being complicit in murder without proof.

varwoche

1st September 2008, 06:25 AM

But the Palin's are well enough off to not need to worry about whether they would be paid or not. Not to imply that I think it matters one way or the other (I don't) but: You said you were going to research the Palins' financial status. Did I miss a follow-up post? Unless I overlooked something, we do not know if this claim is true.

What is simply breathtaking is her callousness. I'm afraid my breath isn't taken -- not even close. Like the saying goes about walking in someone else's shoes.

novice skeptic

1st September 2008, 06:25 AM

And did Palin ever call El Rushblob a low-life misogynist for referring to Chelsea as the Clinton family dog? Here's some gander sauce for the silly goose.

So because 15 years ago, when Sarah Palin was 29 and a city councilor in Wasilla, she didn't make a pronouncement condemning Rush Limbaugh (that we know of) that makes her daughter fair game? Are you seriously suggesting that?

shuize

1st September 2008, 06:44 AM

Thanks, wacky Democrats. I've needed to update my list of "Dumbest Things Ever Heard" and this really is one of the dumbest I've run across in quite a while.

As a McCain supporter, however, I encourage you to try and spread your misguided message about Gov. Palin's role as a working mother far and wide.

Sefarst

1st September 2008, 06:56 AM

Unless she plans to phone in her candidacy, that is. A few photo-ops does not make an involved parent out of you.

I couldn't agree more, Ben. My mother has an entire album of photo-ops she took with me. She has a photo-op of me walking for the first time, a photo-op of me playing with blocks, as well as many others. Her charade runs deep.

And, as I mentioned earlier, I was regularly abandoned as a child. Not only was I abandoned, but I was abandoned to people who took even more photo-ops with me.

Though I really do think remaining Governor rather than retiring to take care of that sweet child is at best heartless.
Indeed, and the formative years haven't really even begun yet. This baby is going to continue to need everyone's full attention for years to come. In fact, ALL babies and children tend to require a lot of attention as they grow up. Yet, these women don't seem to understand that. But with your guidance, Ben, we can make "working moms" a thing of the past.

Brainster

1st September 2008, 07:10 AM

Steve Clemons posts a photo that he says clinches that Sarah was indeed pregnant. Hilariously, he closes with this (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/09/looks_like_sara/):

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan and those who helped dig a bit further than the photos and narratives on hand and for their general sobriety about this uncomfortable subject.

:dl:

General sobriety? Is he Colonel Mustard's commanding officer? Actually the photo he posts doesn't prove much of anything to me, and I suspect what's happening is that the blowback is getting a little furious, so they're trying to put the genie quietly back in the bottle.

Sefarst

1st September 2008, 07:17 AM

We will, regardless, be left with the indisputible fact that she has bizarre ideas about fertility and proper OB/GYN care, and shows a stupendous lack of common sense.

I know, what kind of woman trusts her obstetrician? I'm glad we've got you and Ben to spearhead this one. I hope we can count on you to man the Democratic morality hotline with him.

Getting knocked up at her age when she has such an important job sure raises questions about her fitness for a high-stakes job.

Exactly. A lot of people try and say that having a baby and growing a family is a personal choice for people, but I'm with you, how dare she! What do you say, mandatory hysterectomies at age 35?

If Gramps croaks and she has to take the big chair, i wonder what sort of whacko she might appoint to offices effecting women's reproductive health. Remember the sicko Bush appointed for that function? It sure is not one of the strong points of Republican policy.

Obviously if Sarah Palin is someone who follows the advice of her obstetrician, she's not someone who can be trusted to follow professional medical advice.

I am not sure that a Republican woman is any more likely to have a clue than a Republican man when it comes to what normal, rational women, with real careers want.

Absolutely. A 44-year-old female governor having a baby is obviously irrational and doesn't have a real career. Lead us, this country needs direction and you're just the guy to provide it, Lefty. You and Ben need to get together and compare notes.

Meadmaker

1st September 2008, 07:31 AM

boloboffin

1st September 2008, 07:35 AM

One other thing: Palin going back to work three days after having Trig. Has anyone actually been to Juneau? I have several times. It ain't all that. She carried Trig around with her. Yes, she was Governor, but come on. On the list of high-pressure jobs, Governor of Alaska is WAY down on the list.

novice skeptic

1st September 2008, 07:42 AM

There's nothing implausible about September 11 being done by the White House in of itself.

This thread just keeps on delivering.

novice skeptic

1st September 2008, 07:57 AM

novice skeptic

1st September 2008, 07:59 AM

Getting knocked up at her age when she has such an important job sure raises questions about her fitness for a high-stakes job.

Glad to see the left supports a woman's right to choose.

WildCat

1st September 2008, 08:11 AM

Getting knocked up at her age when she has such an important job sure raises questions about her fitness for a high-stakes job.

...I am not sure that a Republican woman is any more likely to have a clue than a Republican man when it comes to what normal, rational women, with real careers want.
Maybe you and Ben Burch can start up the smear campaign against Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/pressroom/2008_03/20080311_madigan.html):

STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL LISA MADIGAN

My husband, Pat Byrnes, our daughter Rebecca and I are overjoyed to announce the birth of Lucy Lillian Madigan Byrnes.
Lucy was born this morning, March 11, weighing 7 pounds 3 ounces and measuring 20 inches long.
We are thrilled to welcome a second child into our family, and Rebecca is proud to be a big sister.
After working from home for a short time, I will return to the office on a daily basis. While I am home, I will be in daily contact with my staff and, of course, will ensure that the work of the people of Illinois continues without interruption.
How dare she not even take time off work, what a monster!

And to think the Dems actually gave her a prominent speaking role at their Denver convention (http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=28458)! If only they'd known they could have had her tarred and feathered, she's clearly not fit to flip burgers at McDonalds, and this monster actually has aspirations for the Illinois Governor's office!

Of course, I'm sure you guys will find a way to excuse a Dem for doing the same thing.

WildCat

1st September 2008, 08:15 AM

Brainster

1st September 2008, 08:43 AM

I'm saying the neglect starts now, Einstein. Unless she plans to phone in her candidacy, that is. A few photo-ops does not make an involved parent out of you.

Though I really do think remaining Governor rather than retiring to take care of that sweet child is at best heartless.

Speaking of neglectful parents (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-05-10-michelle-obama_N.htm):

The Obamas didn't always agree on his political career. She told the Chicago Sun-Times three years ago that she sometimes felt "politics is a waste of time."

In his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, he wrote that during his failed congressional campaign in 2000, she told him, "You only think about yourself. … I never thought I'd have to raise a family alone."

I will not hold my breath waiting for you to acknowledge that Barack Obama is at best heartless.

applecorped

1st September 2008, 09:07 AM

As a single father, who is raising three girls on his own, this thread contains some very poorly thought out criticisms of Palin. Of all the issues that could be discussed the OP merits no attention whatsoever. The fact that it has gone on for this long shows that neither side has a monopoly on ignorance and mudslinging.

Back to relevant issues please.

NorfolkAtheist

1st September 2008, 09:19 AM

Palin reveals that her daughter, Bristol, is currently pregnant.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080901/pl_nm/usa_politics_palin_dc

DJW

1st September 2008, 09:19 AM

FYI--Fox News just reported that Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter is pregnant and is expected to marry the father of the baby.

WildCat

1st September 2008, 09:21 AM

So much for lying to protect the daughter!

boloboffin

1st September 2008, 09:25 AM

Oh, for God's sake.

PixyMisa

1st September 2008, 09:25 AM

Better call an ambulance, there's been an epidemic of mental whiplash at DNC headquarters!

FaisonMars

1st September 2008, 09:27 AM

Well, it still doesn't mean that Trig isn't Bristol's, but this will certainly take the focus away from Trig.

Pregnant and getting married at 17! That's family values!

Matthew Best

1st September 2008, 09:34 AM

Wait a minute - she named her children "Trig", "Track" and "Bristol"?

I think this woman's judgment has to be seriously questionable.

Sefarst

1st September 2008, 09:44 AM

Well who saw that coming?

Brainster

1st September 2008, 09:49 AM

So now we'll get the "what kind of a woman would run for VP when her daughter's expecting" speculation? And the "we were right even if we were wrong" stuff as well.

I will acknowledge that Thom Hartmann was right, however.

boloboffin

1st September 2008, 09:50 AM

Chaos

1st September 2008, 09:50 AM

Well, it still doesn't mean that Trig isn't Bristol's, but this will certainly take the focus away from Trig.

Well, if she is five months pregnant now, as the article states, she must have conceived around early April or late March, which kind of rules out giving birth on April 18th.

Pregnant and getting married at 17! That's family values!

More importantly, that´s Abstinence Only education.

PixyMisa

1st September 2008, 09:59 AM

...and going onto liberal websites and pumping far more heinous rumors about Palin and her children sure would lessen the eventual blow, wouldn't it?
So the suggestion is that liberals are easily fooled and willing, nay, eager to traffic scurrilous and unsupported rumours?

Well, yes, granted.

FaisonMars

1st September 2008, 10:04 AM

From the NY Times

The campaign intends to cast this as the kind of situation that ordinary American families face.

!!!!

Ordinary families would not need to face this situation if we had real sex education and access to birth control for everyone of breeder age!!!!

Vote for Sarah Palin, so that ordinary families can grapple with the challenges of having pregnant teens. A problem that has a clear and obvious solution, but which we can't implement because of the conservatives' bronze-age religion.

Meadmaker

1st September 2008, 10:07 AM

So the suggestion is that liberals are easily fooled and willing, nay, eager to traffic scurrilous and unsupported rumours?

Well, yes, granted.

That's the problem, isn't it? Even the blogs, if read by any decent number of people, ought to at least have some standards and hold back on a rumour until there is some trace of legitimacy to it. This pseudo-story should never have seen the light of day even at the Daily Kos. Shame on them for printing it.

However, I do think you only identified half the problem. Conservatives are also perfectly willing to traffic scurrilous and unsupported rumours. Idiocy knows no ideology.

FaisonMars

1st September 2008, 10:08 AM

Well, if she is five months pregnant now, as the article states, she must have conceived around early April or late March, which kind of rules out giving birth on April 18th.

Although if Sarah did fake her pregnancy with Trig, it's not out of the question that they would exaggerate Bristol's term to make it look like there was overlap.

But yeah, it does make it seem less likely that Bristol is the mom. Ironically, many more people are going to hear about the rumor now that it's in the mainstream media instead of just the blogs, and more people are going to think, "Hmmm... maybe that's why she made that stupid flight from Texas to Wasilla." Maybe some people will ask her more direct questions or talk to the doctor and finally the rumor will be put to rest.

andyandy

1st September 2008, 10:09 AM

Perhaps, her daughter is faking this pregnancy in order to cover up for her mother who faked her pregnancy to cover up for her. :D

PixyMisa

1st September 2008, 10:19 AM

However, I do think you only identified half the problem. Conservatives are also perfectly willing to traffic scurrilous and unsupported rumours. Idiocy knows no ideology.
True, but the major conservative blogs are better at squelching this sort of stuff than the major liberal blogs. One reason is that the conservative blogs tend to be controlled by individuals, rather than being amorphous swarms like DKos. But another reason seems to be simple civility. Also, the conservative bloggers are (in my experience) more likely to take on other conservative bloggers if they think they are out of line.

(I'll grant you Ann Coulter. Ick. Don't really count her as a blogger, though.)

TheJim

1st September 2008, 10:37 AM

That's the problem, isn't it? Even the blogs, if read by any decent number of people, ought to at least have some standards and hold back on a rumour until there is some trace of legitimacy to it. This pseudo-story should never have seen the light of day even at the Daily Kos. Shame on them for printing it.

However, I do think you only identified half the problem. Conservatives are also perfectly willing to traffic scurrilous and unsupported rumours. Idiocy knows no ideology.

Are you joking? This story over the weekend lead to the announcement today, with out the blogs going after brokenwatergate it would be at least a few more weeks before this news leaked. This story goes to the thought process of a man that is asking the public to trust him to make military, judicial and tax decisions (don't give me the bs about that is not in the constitution either, in reality the president basically gets what he wants). This is a man that meet his VP once for 15 mins 6 months ago, than had a 45 min phone call before deciding she was the one. He is the one that did not vet her much if at all.

boloboffin

1st September 2008, 10:41 AM

steve s

1st September 2008, 10:45 AM

Although if Sarah did fake her pregnancy with Trig, it's not out of the question that they would exaggerate Bristol's term to make it look like there was overlap.

So this kid could gestate for 10 or 11 months?! Is Bristol going to break a world record?

Steve S.

novice skeptic

1st September 2008, 11:01 AM

McCain says he knew (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2944356420080901?sp=true).

So, what was their strategy for getting this information out to the press? I mean, that baby was going to pop eventually. There is no way I could believe that McCain's campaign didn't have some way of getting this out there...

...and going onto liberal websites and pumping far more heinous rumors about Palin and her children sure would lessen the eventual blow, wouldn't it?

The Truther shill/disinfo argument!

But you may be right. No seriously liberal secular humanist could possibly have speculated about Palin flying to try to abort her baby. Such a post could only have been made by an evil Republican NeoCon being paid to PRETEND to be a Democrat.

novice skeptic

1st September 2008, 11:03 AM

More importantly, that´s Abstinence Only education.

Eh I don't think one case proves anything for or again. Gloucester High School had a more comprehensive sex ed program. How did that work out?

BTW I am not for Abstinence Only education, just saying that you can't pick 1 pregnancy as proof of its ineffectiveness.

Meadmaker

1st September 2008, 11:26 AM

This would have outed anyway. I'm quite comfortable in asserting it would have been before the election (by then the pregnancy would be seven months + along), and would have been just as devastating then as now.

This is devastating? Why? Does anyone here care that Sarah Palin has a pregnant daughter? Does anyone here think it makes her less fit to be President? (Not a typo. The only point of being VP is just in case you have to be P someday.)

PixyMisa

1st September 2008, 11:30 AM

This is devastating? Why? Does anyone here care that Sarah Palin has a pregnant daughter? Does anyone here think it makes her less fit to be President?
Some people seem to think so. I'd like to hear them explain how they reach that conclusion, though.

(Not a typo. The only point of being VP is just in case you have to be P someday.)
I'll let Dick Cheney know. ;)

Sefarst

1st September 2008, 11:33 AM

This is devastating? Why? Does anyone here care that Sarah Palin has a pregnant daughter? Does anyone here think it makes her less fit to be President? (Not a typo. The only point of being VP is just in case you have to be P someday.)

Agreed. Presumably people think this will hurt McCain's stance with the evangelicals, but if Cheney's homosexual daughter didn't hurt Bush politically, why would we think Palin's pregnant daughter would?

Brainster

1st September 2008, 11:46 AM

Are you joking? This story over the weekend lead to the announcement today, with out the blogs going after brokenwatergate it would be at least a few more weeks before this news leaked. This story goes to the thought process of a man that is asking the public to trust him to make military, judicial and tax decisions (don't give me the bs about that is not in the constitution either, in reality the president basically gets what he wants). This is a man that meet his VP once for 15 mins 6 months ago, than had a 45 min phone call before deciding she was the one. He is the one that did not vet her much if at all.

Well, except that this story over the weekend turned out to be entirely false; everybody was focused on her "bump" in February, even though she turned out not to have missed her period since then.

Great work by the blogs, otherwise though.

TheJim

1st September 2008, 11:55 AM

Well, except that this story over the weekend turned out to be entirely false; everybody was focused on her "bump" in February, even though she turned out not to have missed her period since then.

Great work by the blogs, otherwise though.

Actually they have not yet been shown to be entirely false just extremely weak at this point. We will only know they are false when the medical records are released.

TheJim

1st September 2008, 12:12 PM

This is devastating? Why? Does anyone here care that Sarah Palin has a pregnant daughter? Does anyone here think it makes her less fit to be President? (Not a typo. The only point of being VP is just in case you have to be P someday.)

Here are just a few reason this devastating.

-The press is going to play up the vetting story which will bring up McCain judgment

-The press will dig even deeper into Palins past and all of the petty and large scandals which reinforces the vetting process

-This will highlight Palin position on sex ed, contraceptions, abortion and religion. One of the very few issues she has strong policies about and where she is far outside the mainstream.

-This will make Palin the story of the election instead of Obama. For McCain to win he has to do two things show that he is not a generic republican and make the election a referendum on Obama.

-This makes Palin seem like yet another hypocritical politician on sex and more specifically another republican sex scandal. This kills the one big advantage she had with independents her "maverick reformer" label.

-This will bring into play the quote from her mother in law, her former campaign manager, and other Alaskan Republicans about her not being ready again going back to McCains vetting and judgment.

-This will hurt her with the women they were aiming her at, 35-50 mothers. There will be the how could she let her family get that way type discussions.

-There is the timing of the announcement. For all of the potential backlash against the left the timing makes it seem they are hiding it behind hurricane coverage.

-This does not totally end the who is Trigs mom rumors now the low info voter is breaking out the calendar.

-This will be the first thing many people know of Palin come tomorrow morning after the long weekend and tuning out on Friday.

GregHouseMD

1st September 2008, 01:05 PM

Wait a minute - she named her children "Trig", "Track" and "Bristol"?

I think this woman's judgment has to be seriously questionable.

You may have a point.

Names like Jeffery, John, Edward, Aileen, Libby, Andrew, Ted, these are names of children with loving parents, obviously.

Jeffery Dahmer,

John Wayne Gacy,

Aileen Wuornos,

Libby Borden,

Andrew Cunanan,

Ted Bundy.

Serial killers, everyone.

Yes, what a person names their chilren is very important when you make decisions on who to vote for.

boloboffin

1st September 2008, 01:06 PM

Then, on the other hand, IOKIYAR.

Nogbad

1st September 2008, 01:08 PM

Interestingly when the photos were looked at yesterday somebody (can't honestly be arsed to go look) said if she was pregnant last year then she must be pregnant now. Hmmmmmm....*strokes goateee*

Although to be honest I can't say I much care.

Meadmaker

1st September 2008, 02:31 PM

Here are just a few reason this devastating.

-The press is going to play up the vetting story which will bring up McCain judgment

Why? Because he might not have known her daughter was pregnant? Because he stuck with her just because of a few stupid things like agreeing on policy, when this bombshell was ignored?

Sorry, that makes John look better in my book. Not worse.

I could be wrong. Maybe there are people in the country that give a hoot about this. To me, the only people who look bad are the idiots trying to exploit it.

I'm reminded of the people who thought for sure that saying "Mary Cheney" would somehow break the whole conservative block in 2004. I cringed when I heard Kerry and Edwards each bring it up during debates. Fortunately, Obama is smarter than that. He has, quite wisely, said that family is off limits. Unfortunately, he is still judged by the company he keeps. Trying to capitalize on this "issue" is a sure vote loser, IMHO.

nemo

1st September 2008, 03:04 PM

It's time to play taps for Sarah Palin - she will bow out before the week is over. First the brother-in-law, now this. What's next?...

Sefarst

1st September 2008, 03:45 PM

It's time to play taps for Sarah Palin - she will bow out before the week is over. First the brother-in-law, now this. What's next?...
Except everyone in the campaign all ready knew about these issues. It's not like this stuff is a surprise.

leftysergeant

1st September 2008, 04:03 PM

Why? Because he might not have known her daughter was pregnant? Because he stuck with her just because of a few stupid things like agreeing on policy, when this bombshell was ignored?

Sorry, that makes John look better in my book. Not worse.

He is supposed to think before he acts. He stopped a little short of completion on that. He found someone he thought reflected his philosophy of government and society and who would appeal to femninistists who were upset that Clinton didn't get on the D ticket. I don't want him making a decision on launching nukes if that is all the further he thinks things out.

GregHouseMD

1st September 2008, 04:03 PM

It's time to play taps for Sarah Palin - she will bow out before the week is over. First the brother-in-law, now this. What's next?...

The BIL thing is old news.

The pregnant daughter is not a surprise, why should she quit?

Sounds like you're intimidated by her. No one is going to even suggest she step down since there was no surprise except that someone would try to make up a story about her daughter.

TheJim

1st September 2008, 04:13 PM

Why? Because he might not have known her daughter was pregnant? Because he stuck with her just because of a few stupid things like agreeing on policy, when this bombshell was ignored?

Sorry, that makes John look better in my book. Not worse.

I could be wrong. Maybe there are people in the country that give a hoot about this. To me, the only people who look bad are the idiots trying to exploit it.

I'm reminded of the people who thought for sure that saying "Mary Cheney" would somehow break the whole conservative block in 2004. I cringed when I heard Kerry and Edwards each bring it up during debates. Fortunately, Obama is smarter than that. He has, quite wisely, said that family is off limits. Unfortunately, he is still judged by the company he keeps. Trying to capitalize on this "issue" is a sure vote loser, IMHO.

The press does not have to bring up the daughter at all to keep the lack of vetting story alive, this story just shows them that she was not vetted at all or just barely so now there is even more incentive to spend time, money and manpower to look into her past. There have been dozens of stories this weekend alone about how little they vetted her from no one looking at old local papers while she was mayor to the Republicans in state government that said they where not contacted to the leaks from inside the McCain camp that there was very little vetting.

Hell going with the vetting story is a way for the mainstream press to cover the knocked up daughter with out looking like the national enquirer. The vetting story will give them cover on chargers they are capitalizing on a "family matter" while still getting juice from the story.

PixyMisa

1st September 2008, 04:40 PM

I don't get it. Are the Democrats scared by Governor Palin, or just naturally vicious backbiting slimeweasels?

Oh noes! She's going to be a grandmother! She's unfit for office!

Oh noes! She had a relative fired! (Not hired, as is the usual practice.) She's unfit for office. (A valid point, yes, but a very minor one. But look at what's being said. You're nuts, people.)

Not to mention the utter insanity that started this thread.

So, what is it, scared - or scum?

PixyMisa

1st September 2008, 04:43 PM

The press does not have to bring up the daughter at all to keep the lack of vetting story alive, this story just shows them that she was not vetted at all or just barely so now there is even more incentive to spend time, money and manpower to look into her past.
Or, maybe, she was vetted - and Republicans aren't nasty small-minded bigots and don't think that mothers and grandmothers are inherently unfit for office.

Indeed, the only comments I'm seeing to that effect are coming from Democrats.

What I'm seeing from the Republicans is congratulations and best wishes to the young couple.

Sefarst

1st September 2008, 04:58 PM

What I'm seeing from the Republicans is congratulations and best wishes to the young couple.
As am I. I think Fred Barnes said it best earlier today that most Americans have either had a pregnant teenager or knows one. The fact that she plans to marry the father will play well with the religious conservatives too.

Morrigan

1st September 2008, 05:17 PM

She does? Really? I can't see jack squat either way. It is pretty much a straight-on photo so one cannot judge the size of her belly. And it is pretty dark.

I judge this evidence to be...well, not evidence.
Are you looking at the right person? You clearly see the bulge in her profile.

Serial killers, everyone.

Yes, what a person names their chilren is very important when you make decisions on who to vote for.
Sense of humour - you're missing one.

I don't get it. Are the Democrats scared by Governor Palin, or just naturally vicious backbiting slimeweasels?

Oh noes! She's going to be a grandmother! She's unfit for office!

Quote someone who said this, or withdraw your strawman.

Oh noes! She had a relative fired! (Not hired, as is the usual practice.) She's unfit for office. (A valid point, yes, but a very minor one. But look at what's being said.
Why don't YOU look at what is being said, instead of making stuff up in your head?

So, what is it, scared - or scum?

I'm no democract or liberal, but I reject your false dichotomy.

SezMe

1st September 2008, 05:28 PM

Or, maybe, she was vetted <snip>.
No, it is factually true that the vetting process was weak, at best. And, for me, that is the issue here. McCain acting impulsively - again. Not the man I want carrying the football.

chipmunk stew

1st September 2008, 05:29 PM

Or, maybe, she was vetted - and Republicans aren't nasty small-minded bigots and don't think that mothers and grandmothers are inherently unfit for office.

Indeed, the only comments I'm seeing to that effect are coming from Democrats.

What I'm seeing from the Republicans is congratulations and best wishes to the young couple.
You're also seeing that 70-some percent of people have voted Planet X in this poll, while 60-some percent of people have voted for Obama in the Obama/McCain/Other poll.

You're also seeing that Obama himself has called hands-off on this story, and you're seeing many Obama supporters here and elsewhere saying good call, having already done so themselves.

Maybe you have thrown your skepticism out the window by viewing this in terms of Democrats & Republicans.

Sefarst

1st September 2008, 05:32 PM

No, it is factually true that the vetting process was weak, at best.
I think you know what I'm going to ask for...evidence?

FaisonMars

1st September 2008, 05:41 PM

The fact that she plans to marry the father will play well with the religious conservatives too.

THAT... IS... NUTS....

Getting married at 17 to the guy who knocked you up is usually a TERRIBLE idea.

I don't know the Palins or Bristol's boyfriend... maybe this is the rare exception, and they are certainly free to do whatever they want to do, but getting married because of a baby is the wrong reason, especially at 17.

FaisonMars

1st September 2008, 05:46 PM

I think you know what I'm going to ask for...evidence?

McCain met her once, and then spoke to her on the phone again before telling her she was getting the nomination. (And he knows that she is his "soulmate.")

When the chairman of the Republican party of Alaska was told that Palin was the VP pick, he said, "You are ***** kidding me."

McCain's people did not even bother to check the Wasilla paper archives:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/31/mccain-camp-didnt-search_n_122823.html

What McCain didn't know about Palin
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200808u/mccain-palin

gdnp

1st September 2008, 06:06 PM

My uncle wrote a book about institutions, and one of the observations that he made is that if the survival of the institution requires a statement to be made then it will be made regardless of its truth. That does not imply that all such statements are lies, just that you cannot tell anything about the truth or falsehood of the statement by the fact that it was made.

I would place McCain's statement that he knew about the daughter's pregnancy into that category. He may have known and thought it could be covered up. He may have known and had some plan on how the information could be released without damaging the campaign. He may have known and thought it entirely irrelevant. He may not have known, and claimed that he knew because admitting that he did not was felt too damaging. I am sure people can come up with other possibilities as well. Regardless, I think he would have claimed to have known regardless of whether he did or not.

I feel this is damaging to Palin for several reasons. First, even though I don't think that a politician's private life is as important as their policies and competence, there are many religious conservatives out there who are not happy with women in the workplace, believing they should be home taking care of their families. These people will be uncomfortable with a woman with young children working. They are probably more uncomfortable with a woman with a special needs child 6 months old not staying home with her family. If this woman's 17 year old unmarried daughter gets herself pregnant, it raises further questions about whether she is neglecting her family obligations.

Do I think it is Palin's fault that her daughter got pregnant? No. Will conservatives feel the same way? We'll see.

The other judgment issue I see here is mom accepting the VP nod knowing that her daughter's pregnancy would thus become national news. I guess Bristol is learning the hard way that actions come with consequences. Would I give up such an opportunity to protect my daughter's privacy? I guess that depends on how much I wanted it, and how I thought it would affect my daughter.