Sarah Palin: Why A Fifth Child at 44?

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Rick336

Author Sam Harris in the Los Angeles Times had this to say about McCain's choice of Palin:

"McCain not only has thrown all sensible concerns about good governance aside merely to pander to a sliver of female and masses of conservative Christian voters, he has turned this period of American history into an episode of high-stakes reality television."

Here's the entire article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,5745350.story



Rick

And here is Harris' response to criticism of the original piece.

Sam Harris: Sexist Pig and Liberal Shill

I've received more than the usual amount of criticism for my recent opinion piece on Sarah Palin, most of it alleging sexism and/or an unseemly infatuation with Barack Obama. For those who care, I'd like to briefly respond:

My alleged sexism: It is true that I used some hackneyed, gender-slanted language in the piece ("get sassy," "girl-next-door," etc.). This was deliberate. Clearly, I played this game at my peril. I can say that if Sarah Palin were a man of similar qualifications, I would have used equally slanted language to describe him. I might have called Mr. Palin a "frat-boy" or a "lumberjack." I would have invoked some silly macho phrasing like,"Watch Cousin Jim flip Putin the bird." My concern is not that Mrs. Palin is a woman. My concern is that she is a totally unqualified and poorly educated woman who was added to the Republican ticket as a token woman (and Creationist wacko). For what it's worth, the article was vetted by the two women closest to me (wife and mother) and by two female editors at the LA Times. If anything, the editing at the Times made the piece even more "sexist."

My alleged Obamamania: Many McCain supporters have written to say that (1) Obama is also unqualified (or even less qualified than Palin) and (2) I have shown myself to be a hypocrite by not objecting to Obama's religiosity. Briefly: My criticism of Palin should not be construed as uncritical acceptance of Obama. Needless to say, I find Obama's religious pandering repulsive. The suspicion that he is pandering, out of obvious necessity, and not quite as religious as he makes out, is somewhat comforting, however. But even if Obama were precisely as religious as he appears, he is not a Creationist, Rapture-Ready blockhead. Palin, by all appearances, seems to be one. This is a difference worth noting. Whatever you may think of his politics, Obama is very intelligent and reasonably well educated. Palin thinks the universe is 6000 years old. Unfortunately, I wrote my article before some of the most disturbing signs of her religious extremism came to light.

So, let me simply declare that I would be overjoyed to have a qualified woman in the White House. I would, likewise, be overjoyed to have a qualified African American in the White House. In fact, I would be overjoyed to have a qualified WASP man in the White House. I will be guardedly optimistic to have a very smart (and somewhat qualified) Barack Obama in the White House. And I would be frankly terrified to have a religious bumpkin like Sarah Palin in the White House. I think you should share this last conviction. Hence my latest opinion piece.

Best,
Sam

[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by u-dog

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/20576


This article from Politico is now on Yahoo. Check it out. Two right-wing pundits (Peggy Noonan for one) are talking about the Palin choice. Its a hot microphone faux paux. ITS PRICELESS!!

Full transcript over at Good As You. There's a youtube link too.

[tymejumper]

Originally Posted by u-dog

Ok, this is true but... what kind of a mother would expose her own daughter to this kind of scrutiny? Assuming that she is a "good Christian Girl" who is aware of the bad judgement she has employed then must this notariety not be massively humiliating? How does Sarah justify that?

We have talked a lot about this at work. I work closely with 2 Republicans and they have said that as a mother(they both are) that what she is doing is terrible and she should not have opened her child up to this type of public media and humilation. They also stated that she has her hands full with a Downs Syndrome child and a pregnant teen and obviously does not have her priorities in order, she should be more concerned over her 2 children instead of running in politics. They would not have previously voted for Obama, but are now. They don't want her running the country if McCain dies, which he may he is older.

Personally, I don't think there IS a justification for sacrificing your child to further your career, and that is what she is doing. She just really threw the poor girl to the wolves.

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by tymejumper

They don't want her running the country if McCain dies, which he may, he is older.

I agree. For McCain to pick this woman is reckless and irresponsible. I only hope the country is smart enough to see that.

Rick

[nmwolfboy]

Here are some informative links i've found:
Palin's Start in Alaska: Not Politics as Usual (New York Times)

Wasilla housewife's letter (Anne Kilkenny)

Documents Detail Palin's Political Life (politico.com)

2006 Democratic Alaskan Gubernatorial candidate Tony Knowles' Palin research

Project Votesmart's Palin page

Mayor Palin: A Rough Record (Time Magazine online)

John McCain is well-known for regularly publishing his list of 'pork' projects that he finds objectionable. Sarah Palin's requested projects have made his list three times. So much for her being anti-earmarks. LA Times article.

There's also a rumor floating around that Sarah Louise Heath Palin is heiress to the Heath Candy fortune. I cannot find anything that independently confirms this. Unless something that i can confirm is found, this rumor is likely a false one. Not that being an heiress has much to do with where someone would stand on the important issues, but it would speak to the branding of Palin as 'just regular folk.'

[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by nmwolfboy

John McCain is well-known for regularly publishing his list of 'pork' projects that he finds objectionable. Sarah Palin's requested projects have made his list three times. So much for her being anti-earmarks. LA Times article.

That last one is important, so I'm going to post a little (okay, a lot) of the text. Please click through and read the whole thing, though.

Before we begin, remember that at the time, Wasilla, Alaska (the town Palin was mayor of) had a population of around 5,000 people. Also, former Senator Ted Stevens has now been indicted on federal corruption charges.

Three times in recent years, McCain's catalogs of "objectionable" spending have included earmarks for this small Alaska town, requested by its mayor at the time -- Sarah Palin.

This year, Palin, who has been governor for nearly 22 months, defended earmarking as a vital part of the legislative system. "The federal budget, in its various manifestations, is incredibly important to us, and congressional earmarks are one aspect of this relationship," she wrote in a newspaper column.

Wasilla received $11.9 million in earmarks from 2000 to 2003. The results of this spending are very apparent today. (The town also benefited from $15 million in federal funds to promote regional rail transportation.)

Taylor Griffin, a McCain campaign spokesman, said that when Palin became mayor in 1996, "she faced a system that was broken. Small towns like Wasilla in Alaska depended on earmarks to take care of basic needs. . . . That was something that Gov. Palin was alarmed about and was one of the formative experiences that led her toward the reform-oriented stance that she has taken as her career has progressed."

Palin, he said, was "disgusted" that small towns like hers were dependent on earmarks.

Public records paint a different picture:

Wasilla had received few if any earmarks before Palin became mayor. She actively sought federal funds -- a campaign that began to pay off only after she hired a lobbyist with close ties to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who long controlled federal spending as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He made funneling money to Alaska his hallmark.

Steven Silver was a former chief of staff for Stevens. After he was hired, Wasilla obtained funding for several projects in 2002, including an additional $600,000 in transportation funding.

That year, a local water and sewer project received $1.5 million, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, which combs federal spending measures to identify projects inserted by congressional members.

When Palin spoke after McCain introduced her as his running mate at a rally in Ohio last week, she made fun of earmarking. She said she had rejected $223 million in federal funds for a bridge linking Ketchikan to an island with an airport and 50 residents, referring to it by its derogatory label: the "bridge to nowhere."

In the nationally televised speech, she stood by McCain and said, "I've championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress thanks, but no thanks, on that bridge to nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said, we'd build it ourselves."

However, as a candidate for governor in 2006, Palin had backed funding for the bridge. After her election, she killed the much-ridiculed project when it became clear the state had other priorities. She said she would use the federal funds to fill those needs.

This year she submitted to Congress a list of Alaska projects worth $197.8 million, including $2 million to research crab productivity in the Bering Sea and $7.4 million to improve runway lighting at eight Alaska airports. A spokesman said she cut the original list of 54 projects to 31.

"So while Sen. McCain was going after cutting earmarks in Washington," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, "Gov. Palin was going after getting earmarks."

Just in case somebody missed it in the third paragraph from the bottom, Palin didn't 'reject' the funds as she indicated last Friday, she just moved the 223 MILLION DOLLARS from the federal government to other unspecified projects in her state.

======

Mark my words. This one's got legs.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Matt Algren

Just in case somebody missed it in the third paragraph from the bottom, Palin didn't 'reject' the funds as she indicated last Friday, she just moved the 223 MILLION DOLLARS from the federal government to other unspecified projects in her state.

As noted in the commentary after her speech last night (Shields on PBS), she lied about The Bridge to Nowwhere. As you note, she took the money and put it elsewhere. Not exactly the actions of a reformer.

[BruceChris]

She'll be there to defend us, and you'll be glad that you voted for her.

P&L, BC (You can keep an assault rifle in the White House, if you're elected, right?)

[nmwolfboy]

The Anchorage Daily News published an article today addressing some of the lies misrepresentations in Gov. Palin's speech last night. Apparently she's only against earmarks when she's actively running for VP. And in attempting to claim credibility in building infrastructure (the natural gas pipeline), she exhibits either a talent for mendacity or a complete disconnect from reality.

[Rick336]

Here's a great op-ed article by EJ Dionne, Jr. in the September 9th Washington Post about the McCain campaign's secrecy about Sarah Palin:

"The lesson is that McCain's counselors are not interested in fair treatment, and they are certainly not interested in the truth."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090801907.html


Rick

[ctozrn]

There was an article in our local paper saying that yesterday, Palin and McCain criticized Obama for earmark spending but that Palin asked for TWICE the amount that Palin asked for. I forget the exact amount but it is just astonishing to me that she has such nerve! The other thing I have thought about is the fact that she is such an evangelical Christian but she has shown NO Christian love or values. Just because you go into politics does not mean you need to be mean and crude. There are many politicians that walk their faith everyday. Sarah Palin is not one of them. For all the speaking in tounges and evangelical crap that she is involved in, the love of Christ is nowhere to be seen.

Simply amazing.

[BruceChris]

Is it the Pun? No.

Is it the Pollack Joke? Wrong again

It's the Sarah Palin Joke.

Just start thumbing through some of the liberal blogs, and you can't miss them. Many of them make her out to be dumber than a doorknob. And I guess it would be very unChristian of me to chuckle, but I do, now and then.

'nuff said, Bruce Chris

[Daniel]

The article in the NYtimes- yes- the very paper that Palin denounced in her acceptance speak at the Republican Convention- has done some investigating reporting on her time in office(s). It's really something else. Reminds me of words I heard uttered by Mark Shields (the News Hour with Jim Lehrer PBS) a few nights ago: "She peaked this past week." And what he was referring to was the favorable press coverage she has been getting. Well. This article heralds a change in the wind. And it's blowing something fierce.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us...4palin.html?hp

Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes

WASILLA, Alaska — Gov. Sarah Palin lives by the maxim that all politics is local, not to mention personal.

So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.

Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.

When Ms. Palin had to cut her first state budget, she avoided the legion of frustrated legislators and mayors. Instead, she huddled with her budget director and her husband, Todd, an oil field worker who is not a state employee, and vetoed millions of dollars of legislative projects.

And four months ago, a Wasilla blogger, Sherry Whitstine, who chronicles the governor’s career with an astringent eye, answered her phone to hear an assistant to the governor on the line, she said.

“You should be ashamed!” Ivy Frye, the assistant, told her. “Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now!

And that's just for starters. Keep in mind, this isn't an op-ed. This is what a free press does- it looks under all the rocks in any given situation.

The facts speak for themselves.

[Jennifer5]

I was going to make comments on many different things, but now that the conversation isn't really focused on those points anymore I'll just try to summarize my opinions.

I think that Sarah was doing the right thing by having baby #5.

I think big families are wonderful, although I agree that you should always try to consider adoption as part of creating a big family.

My mom was currently being faced with the question of whether of not to abort my baby brother, he was downs and had many other medical problems which meant that it would have been a miracle if he lived to be a year old... she didn't have to decide, she miscarried a couple weeks later. I believe in pro-choice! My mom definately wouldn't have aborted if it was just downs, with everything else, I don't know what she would have done... but I in no way blame her for getting just because she got pregant at 42 (surprise). I've definately seen where it has been very hard on the siblings when there is a downs child, you can love them endlessly, but it's also not really fair to them.


I have no problem with her choice to have that baby. I DO have a problem with people saying that she went right back to work though, I think that if she really believed in family, she'd spend more time with hers. This is probably the one and only thing that I think was a good choice... I know enough about her politics to be scared of her.

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Daniel

The article in the NYtimes- yes- the very paper that Palin denounced in her acceptance speak at the Republican Convention- has done some investigating reporting on her time in office(s). It's really something else. Reminds me of words I heard uttered by Mark Shields (the News Hour with Jim Lehrer PBS) a few nights ago: "She peaked this past week." And what he was referring to was the favorable press coverage she has been getting. Well. This article heralds a change in the wind. And it's blowing something fierce.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us...4palin.html?hp



And that's just for starters. Keep in mind, this isn't an op-ed. This is what a free press does- it looks under all the rocks in any given situation.

The facts speak for themselves.

Daniel,

Thanks for the link. I read the entire article in NY Times. But I'm not sure those who now support McCain/Palin will give it much thought. Many of them already think the news media is biased against McCain/Palin and will probably dismiss it as just more "liberal media" attacks on them. The Republicans have done a great job of becoming defenseless victims of the "liberal left".

Rick