Forget Her Pregnant Daughter, Focus on Troopergate

ST. PAUL -- Barack Obama's right. The families of candidates for high office ought generally to be "off limits." And that is especially true when it comes to their kids.

So let's put aside the discussion of whether her child's out-of-wedlock pregnancy raises any questions about the whether it was wise for Alaska Governor Sarah Palin -- the presumptive Republican nominee for vice president whose name John McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds continues to mispronounce -- to promotion abstinence education.

Pay attention, instead, to the wholly legitimate -- and rapidly evolving -- scandal known as "Troopergate."

While much of the national media was trying to get a conversation going about Palin's pregnant daighter, a dramatically more unsettling story was evolving with regard to Palin's abuse of her position as part of an effort to punish an in-law with whom she had fallen out.

Each passing hour brings new evidence of just how serious this abuse-of-power scandal has become.

Palin on Monday hired a lawyer to defend her interests as the investigation surrounding the firing of her public safety commissioner explodes into a full-blown political crisis.

Thomas V. Van Flein, an Anchorage lawyer, is attempting to gather documents relating to Palin's firing of a top state law enforcement official who apparently angered her by refusing to dismiss a state trooper who was involved in an exceptionally nasty divorce fight with the governor's sister.

The official in question Walt Monegan, a former Anchorage police chief, says that when he served as Alaska's public safety commissioner he was pressured by Palin to fire the governor's brother-in-law.

When Monegan failed to fire the state trooper Palin wanted dismissed, the governor fired the public service commissioner.

The buzz in Alaska Monday was about "electronic evidence" of Palin's wrongdoing.

Monegan says he has emails sent by Palin before she fired him.

Emails! Confirmations of abusive pressures!

Let's be clear about the issues raised by this scandal:

If Palin fired Alaska's public service commissioner because he refused to dismiss her brother-in-law, she did not merely act inappropriately. She violated the public trust and almost certainly broke the law.

And if Palin has lied about her abuses of power -- in the face of an official investigation approved by the Alaska legislature -- she has committed wrongdoing that that disqualifies her from consideration for the vice presidency.

The comparison here is not to Richard Nixon's Watergate-era deceits.

The comparison is to Nixon's vice president, Spiro Agnew, who had to step down after it was revealed that he took bribes while serving as governor of Maryland.

If Palin is an Agnew in waiting, McCain would be wise to ask her to leave his ticket now -- before her troubles begin to define his campaign.

Comments (64)

1. First, McCain's campaign is looking like it's about to go down in ignominious flames regardless of how he attempts to defuse the soon to explode scandal over his massively incompetent choice of VP --not to mention the inept and/or virtually nonexistent vetting process Sarah Palin was subjected to.

   Second, it's a reasonable conjecture that she is gone in very short order.

   Third, since McCain is now facing fourth and long from his own half-yard line with time ticking rapidly toward zero and an eight point deficit it's time for a new kind of hail mary.

   It's time for a whole new kind of VP vetting process.

   It's time to give the average Jo(e) a realistic shot at the number two slot.

   Introducing a whole new reality show with a name and a game that's certain to electrify the nation --especially one that is addicted to mind-numbingly stupid and cynically manipulative television.

   It's called, "POW!" --pronounced simply, "pow".

   Here's the gig. Contestants are chosen from the basic constituencies that the Repugs are aiming to lure to the booth in November --a Nascar dad, a soccer mom, a CEO, a fire-breathing preacher, (pick your favorite "categories"), plus token black and latino contestants.

   All are carefully vetted beforehand (of course), and then forced to live in a Hollywood designed prison camp where two contestants at a time trade places over the course of their incarceration playing the role of guards over the other inmates.

   This has the potential to make compelling tv. The guards will face real dilemmas about how to treat their captives and instruments of enhanced interrogation will be available for the guards to avail themselves of.

   Viewers will be able to text in their choice for Veep --with those sending the messages entered into a Cabinet lottery.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/01/2008 @ 10:56pm

2. Why should candidates' families generally be 'off limits'...? It's the candidates themselves who bring out their families - including their kids - for all to see in their quest for votes, right? They can't have it both ways: either their families are part of the campaign or they are not. And if Sarah Palin or Barack Obama decide to use their children to further their own political goals, they shouldn't complain if the stories written about their families aren't all sweetness and light.

   Now, about this abuse-of-power case: if the facts are as stated above, and they can be backed up by solid evidence, it should spell the end - not just of Sarah Palin's chances for the vice-presidency, but of her political career. But I don't think it will come to that - even if the story's clear-cut and the evidence solid. I just can't see it happening.

   Posted by Amsterdam69 at 09/01/2008 @ 11:03pm

3. This is a call for all Obama supporters to ignore the 72 year old war hawk and his laughably inexperienced side kick from Alaska. Do not give the conservative media what it wants; do not play into the hands of the hardcore right. Sarah Palin is simply put part of a carefully planned political strategy to lure Democrats into saying something stupid or arrogant about a mother who, regardless of what the liberal community might think or say about her, will nonetheless be heavily supported by the Christian evangelical block of the Republican party. This is inescapable fact. Any attempts to tear down this obviously underqualified and potentially reckless choice for Vice Presidential candidate with will do a few things which are counterproductive to our cause:

   Even giving Sarah Palin the time of day will:

   1) Envigorate the right, encouraging more conservative Republicans (who's minds are already made up about Barack Obama and therefore probably won't change about McCain/Palin) to turnout and vote

   2) Open the door to negative attacks on Obama, further highlighting Republican talking points

   3) Show a disregard for the politics of hope, undercutting our movement for change's mantra of abandoning the political bickering and negative ways of the past And probably most importantly:

   4) Interfere with what is her's and McCain's inevitable collapse. The work is already done: America is ready for change and it won't come from the direction of McCain/Palin. Everyone knows this already. And negative attacks against a governor from one of the most sparsely populated states in the Union won't help us achieve our goal, which has been and should always be:

   To elect Barack Obama the President of the United States because he will make a great President. Let us focus on why.

   Posted by tskinner at 09/01/2008 @ 11:05pm

4. Did everyone miss that this woman was lying from day 1.

   I could not believe she was saying that she was against the "bridge to nowhere" when she was actually for it until Stevens got in trouble.

   Her "fisherman Husband" works in the oil business but that was an unconvenient truth...so wahlah...he's a fisherman..

   And three I heard her say she had never called about the trooper...yet I was hearing the gentleman that she fired, on MSNBC saying she had called him herself and so had her husband.... But he did not have enough evidence to fire the trooper...

   Posted by Chiva at 09/01/2008 @ 11:12pm

5. Time for an Eagleton.

   And for Mitt to whip out his fat checkbook.

   Meanwhile, Dems should be paying more attention to the real issues, the disasters after 8 years of GOP incompetence & corruption.

   Don't expect the MSM to do this on their own.

   Posted by sloper at 09/02/2008 @ 12:29am

6. Is there any way possible to stop attaching "gate" to a word associated with a scandal?

   Can we maybe go back to "dome" (as in Teapot Dome).

   It's ri-goddam-diculous to keep doing this.

   Posted by skeletonman at 09/02/2008 @ 01:12am

7. The Christian right vetted Palin, and yet didn't find it important that her teen daughter is pregnant. It is shameful of them and Palin to subject her daughter to this.

   I grew up in a religious background and you got this all the time -- people are trusted as long as they say the right things "Jesus is my lord and saviour etc" even when evidence of their lack of character and honesty is in front of everyone.

   Posted by freezecoll at 09/02/2008 @ 01:27am

8. Did everyone miss that this woman was lying from day 1. I could not believe she was saying that she was against the "bridge to nowhere" when she was actually for it until Stevens got in trouble. Her "fisherman Husband" works in the oil business but that was an unconvenient truth...so wahlah...he's a fisherman.. And three I heard her say she had never called about the trooper...yet I was hearing the gentleman that she fired, on MSNBC saying she had called him herself and so had her husband.... But he did not have enough evidence to fire the trooper... Posted by Chiva at 09/01/2008 @ 11:12pm

   Yeah yeah yeah but you don't get it. It's ok when a Republican breaks the law. Just not a Democrat. It's ok when a Republican lies. Just not a Democrat. Or at least that is what you will hear from the Republicans on this site when they come by to justify her lies.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/02/2008 @ 01:34am

9. It's ri-goddam-diculous to keep doing this. Posted by skeletonman at 09/02/2008 @ 01:12am I can't agree more.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/02/2008 @ 01:36am

10. So she's a power-abusing lying law-breaker.

    OMG .. she's Dick Cheney with a tampon!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/02/2008 @ 02:14am

11. ...and these really need to set their clock on the server. its actually 6:16am in my zone (EST) which makes this one time zone oceanward from CA west coast?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/02/2008 @ 02:15am

12. ".....before her troubles begin to define his campaign."

    I beg to differ. I think they have already inextricably, indefinably and succinctly defined his campaign.

    Posted by bobforer at 09/02/2008 @ 02:38am

13. whoops, the "indefinably" in the post directly above should read "indelibly." Sorry, my "enter" finger was a little too quick, and my eyes a little too slow, while using spellcheck.

    Posted by bobforer at 09/02/2008 @ 02:45am

14. John Nichols is right: Abuse of power is worse than hypocrisy. Let's not elect an Agnewian Vice President!

    Wow, doesn't the adjective "Agnewian" really say it all? It makes you want to hold your nose!

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/02/2008 @ 03:02am

15. sure. why not? let it be troopergate, but truth will come out.

    enquiring minds need to know!

    but like it or not, people will talk...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/02/2008 @ 03:03am

16. HAPP will show up as soon as Limbaugh gives him some talking points...about 12:30pm EST.

    heheh

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/02/2008 @ 03:06am

17. What the MaveriK will bring to the WH:

    A scofflaw, a dope fiend and a slut. The real Trinity?

    This appears to be a step up from the last VP.

    now we will get to hear all about how the Fundies will accept the l'il First Bastard into their ranks, how sometimes "people make mistakes" blah blah. Palins daughter will be on public healthcare (if she isn't already covered by governor insurance) so no worries there. Most other single moms will be up for "personal responsibility" insurance (read: NONE!)

    The Taliban didn't care about Cheneys gay daughter while they went out and bashed homosexuality, why should they care about the L'il First Bastard while they go out and bash sex education. Unlike Liver, Palin cannot say abstinence worked for her family!

    A valuable lesson here kids, wrap that Rascal!

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/02/2008 @ 03:20am

18. We should discuss Sarah Palin's daughter, though - insofar as her own policy affects her.

    George Lakoff has argued in an "AlterNet" article (posted September first) that Palin's family history fits the "strict father" family model. The "AlterNet" authors then printed this (posted September second):

    "Palin only supports abortion if the mother's health is in danger. Rape and incest don't register with her as legitimate reasons to honor a woman's right to choose -- not even if the women is her own daughter. In 2006, when her daughter Bristol was only 14, Palin said that she would not support choice even if her daughter were raped."

    Yes, this is strictness, isn't it? Too strict for most of us, I'd like to believe. It certainly fails to conform to Lakoff's preferred "nurturant" family model, doesn't it?

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/02/2008 @ 03:23am

19. "John Nichols is right: Abuse of power is worse than hypocrisy."

    Perhaps, but doesn't hypocrisy sometimes lead to abuse of power?

    Posted by bobforer at 09/02/2008 @ 03:30am

20. Her kids became fair game when they showed up in the campaign as part of her credentials- "She has FIVE wonderful children, one going to Iraq and a downs child. Isn't she the perfect Mom!. Pretty easy on the eyes too! Elect her, she has experience".

    She got 114,697 votes, now she might have enough experience to fight Mugtatda al-Sadr!!

    She supported the Bridge to Nowhere, even spent 10's of millions of tax payer dollars on the road to it, till she opposed it.

    She smoked pot, till she opposed it.

    fits right in with the other 3 candidates. Except SHE was 2nd in a beauty contest. We have a winner for the GOP, God, guts and cuteness.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/02/2008 @ 03:34am

21. Posted by JakobFabian at 09/02/2008 @ 03:23am

    Strict absentee father figure?

    IF he works the pipeline, and fishes, and runs a 2000 mile race, he ain't around a lot.

    Careful, your minor daughter could get into trouble if Dad is off being a union steelworker and mom is running a state gubment!

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/02/2008 @ 03:37am

22. Did you all hear the CHEERS! that went up when she said she was union?

    I think the repubs where so enamored of the cute brunette standing next to the hot heiress that they forgot who they were for the last 30 years!

    Buwhahahaha

    Union, dope smoker, pregnant teen daughter, power abuser, no experience.

    Cheers!

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/02/2008 @ 03:39am

23. Having a child out of wedlock is a mortal sin. Sarah Palin should know that. Abstinence is the only way, the Christian way, to avoid sex before marriage. Sarah Palin vigorously endorsed that. Can we tolerate the hypocrisy of a Sarah Palin? What would Jesus do? He'd vote for Obama. Ivan Ladizinsky Delray Beach, FL

    Posted by ladizinsky at 09/02/2008 @ 03:44am

24. So the Democrats are up to their old game of character assassination. They are also physically assaulting delegates at the Republican convention. So much for a new direction for politics. It's amazing that Obama is orchestrating all of this while he talks of changing politics in America. If this is what he is changing it to, we should watch out.

    Also I want to say kudos to our president for the handling of the disaster preparations for hurricane Gustav.

    Posted by abell12ct at 09/02/2008 @ 03:45am

25. I mostly agree. But two considerations. Mom advocates abstinence. Abstinence obviously does not work. Mom you failed. If she did not advocate such naive notions for the rest of us; then, you'd be right. 2. She wants to make abortion illegal for the rest of us.. Her advocacy will lead to unsafe abortions.. Yes, the kid need be ingnored. The issue. Not ignored.

    Posted by cyclezealot at 09/02/2008 @ 08:26am

26. Posted by tskinner at 09/01/2008 @ 11:05pm

    yep.

    the woman is to be ignored.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2008 @ 08:36am

27. Only the facts ma'm...

    "The presentation of Palin as an anti-earmark, fiscally conscious pol is challenged by a review of recent political records. As mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, she hired the firm of Hoffman Silver Gilman & Blasco to help secure spending projects for her town. The expenditure apparently paid off. From 2000 through 2002, Wasilla received more than $5.5 million in federal cash for transportation and social service projects."

    "The use of the earmark system that -- as a vice presidential candidate -- Palin now criticizes continued into her tenure as governor. As the Los Angeles Times reported, the state of Alaska requested 31 earmarks worth $197.8 million for next year's federal budget. And according to Citizens Against Government Waste, Alaska received $379,669,715 in pork during fiscal year 2008, nearly $100 million more than any other state."

    "When introduced to the public last Friday, McCain said of Palin: she "championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending." Palin herself touted her opposition to the infamous Bridge to Nowhere, the nearly 400 million-dollar project that Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens requested and which became a rallying cry for McCain. As subsequent news reports pointed out, during her gubernatorial run in 2006, Palin backed the project and sympathized with the communities who wanted the Bridge to Nowhere money. Only when it became a national joke did she change her tune."

    McCain's chief surrogate and confidante, Sen. Lindsey Graham said of Palin's foreign policy experience, "if she can handle Ted Stevens she can handle Russia."

    Why do new con repubs for continued corporate dic'tatorship lie soooo much.

    OH DUH!

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/02/2008 @ 08:46am

28. "Making matters worse, on Monday the Washington Post reported that Palin had previously served on Ted Steven's political 527 group."

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/02/2008 @ 08:53am

29. Poll_________Date____McCa____Obam

    USA T/Gallup__8/30-31__43______50

    CBS News ____ 8/29-31__40______48

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/02/2008 @ 08:59am

30. '...look, I've got two daughters ... if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby' -- Barack Obama -- 29 March, 2008

    'Once again, a politician has gotten tripped up talking about abortion.' -- Jessica Arons -- The Nation -- 14 July, 2008

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/02/2008 @ 09:15am

31. "Also I want to say kudos to our president for the handling of the disaster preparations for hurricane Gustav," gushed "ABell."

    Uh, no, those kudos rightfully belong to Mother Nature. The levees around New Orleans still aren't strong enough to protect this national treasure from any hurricane that is stronger than a Category Two. The fact that Hurricane Gustav has failed to be anywhere near as strong as Katrina is a free gift of undeserved good fortune. Planning had nothing to do with it.

    If we as a society don't bother to plan for a hurricane until it appears in the weather reports, we're TOO LATE. So the Republicans canceled their party so that they can watch television and pray that they won't be punished for three years of inaction - sure, I guess we can all do the same, can't we?

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/02/2008 @ 09:21am

32. Forget Her Pregnant Daughter, Focus on Troopergate

    no. no. no.

    Forget Palin, Focus on Mccain.

    in fact,

    Forget McCain, Focus on What Your Plans Are.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/02/2008 @ 09:42am

33. Yeah, I have two daughters too. I'm a social liberal, financially conservative, that means using funds effectively/efficiently and humanitarianly-- doesn't mean greed rules, but our laws and constitution do. Which leads to freedom of choice that comes from a good extensive education.

    And my daughters have to deal just as many current modern day stressors as their friends with repub socially conservative parents, but neither of my kids are pregnant because they know how to prevent it from ever happening. They have a choice per their education. And they don't think any guy knows more about their choices than they themselves do.

    Any criticism I have of Palin isn't because of the choices her daughter made but the issues that her mom believes limit others to make good choices for themselves. It's anti-American, anti-freedom and laws to protect us from losing them.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/02/2008 @ 09:56am

34. er, Any criticism I have of Palin isn't because of the choices her daughter made, but the issues that Palin believes 'in, in order to' limit others to make 'their own' good choices for themselves.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/02/2008 @ 10:00am

35. Actually, JOHN NICHOLS some may consider her daughters situation all the more reason for the ab-ed. Some may not. Nice little shot at her though.

    As for "Troopergate" well you sure SOUND like you care about truth justice and exposing law and disorder. Can't help wondering what you're enthusiasism level would be if the subject was Michele O.

    You'd still want justice, right John?

    John?

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/02/2008 @ 10:20am

36. First republicans claim that they have better family values and then whine if you look at their families and say that their families are off limits,but they are the hypocrites that made their families an issue..Apparently,everyone is just supposed to believe them about the family values thing and not question it.Palin has beliefs about birth control and how to raise kids with an abstinence only view and one should look at her family to see if her philosophy works for her kids before trying it on ours.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/02/2008 @ 10:32am

37. Just as Edwards put his political ambitions before family so did Palin.Edwards knew that by running for POTUS that his affair would be exposed and Palin knew that she was going to put her daughter through this if she accepted the position with McCain.This is all Palin's fault.Was the modern GOP energized by having a war hero,like McCain, running for POTUS?No.They get energized by someone who puts ambition before family and who is under investigation for abuse of power and with little experience in anything.Not the GOP I voted for in 1996 when the GOP was energized by a disabled combat veteran.Now they get energized by people who hid in the National Guard during Nam and who refused to fight and by someone who puts ambition before family.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/02/2008 @ 10:54am

38. Her daughter and troopergate, does not concern me. What scares the heck out of me is if something happens to McCain who is 3 years from the National male life expectancy. Is that Palin a hyper-neocon would be president. She is more conservative than either Cheney or Bush, pro-big oil, for teaching creationism in our schools, anti-abortion in a major way, seems to be anti-contraception too. Knows nothing about the economy, or foreign policy.

    Heaven forbid McCain becomes our president, but if he does I will pray daily for his health.

    Posted by Extraneous at 09/02/2008 @ 10:59am

39. So the Democrats are up to their old game of character assassination. They are also physically assaulting delegates at the Republican convention. So much for a new direction for politics. It's amazing that Obama is orchestrating all of this while he talks of changing politics in America. If this is what he is changing it to, we should watch out. Also I want to say kudos to our president for the handling of the disaster preparations for hurricane Gustav. Posted by abell12ct at 09/02/2008 @ 03:45am

    Hahahahahaha. Wow really? That's your tactic? This coming from the person who's party is calling Obama a "secret Muslim." Questioning his patriotism. What a joke. This is a legitimate concern about illegal activity from a vice presidential candidate and you try to brush it off as "character assassination." SHE IS UNDER INVESTIGATION. She has been since BEFORE this started. That is why she hired a lawyer two weeks ago. This isn't character assassination this is an examination of the reason a candidate is under investigation.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/02/2008 @ 11:37am

40. Abell-You mean character assassination like what Bush/Rove did to McCain back in 1999 and like what the GOP is doing to Obama?That's politics.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/02/2008 @ 11:41am

41. "Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin's background."

    This from the New York times article today. They are vetting her NOW. If they are just getting a team on the ground now to look into her background it shows how much of a desperation pick this truly was. They didn't really look into who she was and just jumped the gun to try to find someone to take the fire away from Obama. What a joke. Yeah true experience and leadership ability....

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/02/2008 @ 11:41am

42. "A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice"

    http://tinyurl.com/6rm76q

    For all you Republicans saying this choice was brilliant and he thought so far ahead on this one. Read this article. They didn't even properly vet her. They just chose her as a reactionary tactic. Great candidate you got there. Shows the foresight of true leadership. You know they say the wise man surrounds himself with people more intelligent than he. If these are the people McCain is surrounding himself with then God help us.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/02/2008 @ 11:45am

43. If the Republican's keep this up I just might have to give Happy better odds.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/02/2008 @ 11:54am

44. Just one question...

    If McCain/Palin win?....

    will ANY Republican EVER be able to say they support "abstinence-only" "sex education"...

    without people laughing their asses off and pointing to Veep Sarah's grand-baby?

    Actually...they're laughing NOW!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/02/2008 @ 11:58am

45. But I thought Obama was all about a new way of politicking. But no he goes after his opponent's daughter. Despicable.

    Posted by abell12ct at 09/02/2008 @ 12:04pm

46. Abell-Obama hasn't gone after the daughter.In fact,he said that she was off limits.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/02/2008 @ 12:11pm

47. lotta good that did. Besides we all know he is pushing this behind the scenes.

    Posted by abell12ct at 09/02/2008 @ 12:15pm

48. Abell-No one is going after the daughter and you know it.You guys told us that you had better family values and then whine when we look at your families.Palin, and Palin only, is responsible for putting her daughter through this because she knew that running as a family values candidate would mean that everyone would want to look at her family.If you are going to push a particular philosophy of child rearing,as Palin has done, then you are inviting people to come in and look at your family.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/02/2008 @ 12:21pm

49. No one is going after the daughter and you know it.

    Posted by i'm nobody

    You are kidding about that right? I mean you do watch the news don't you?

    Posted by abell12ct at 09/02/2008 @ 12:28pm

50. ABell-No,I'm not kidding about that.You are just confusing going after mom's beliefs with the daughter.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/02/2008 @ 12:57pm

51. But I thought Obama was all about a new way of politicking. But no he goes after his opponent's daughter. Despicable. Posted by abell12ct at 09/02/2008 @ 12:04pm

    Actually, if you learned how to read you would have seen his quotes about not going after family, like you Republicans did. HE said Palin's daughter was off limits. Jesus CAN you read or do you just make things up in your mind.

    "Barack Obama's right. The families of candidates for high office ought generally to be "off limits." And that is especially true when it comes to their kids."

    Can't believe you missed the FIRST sentence of the article.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/02/2008 @ 1:05pm

52. ABell-No,I'm not kidding about that.You are just confusing going after mom's beliefs with the daughter. Posted by i'm nobody at 09/02/2008 @ 12:57pm

    No it's not that he/she/it is confusing the two. It's the fact that that is the Republican talking point. Try to stop them from examining the mothers confused values by masking any observations about the ironic situation as an attack on the daughter.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/02/2008 @ 1:07pm

53. ABELL, do YOU support "abstinence only" sex ed?

    Would some Repub/conservative pushing that MAYBE find a hard time stopping the laughter now, with Bristol and Lyle's bundle of joy on the way????

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/02/2008 @ 1:08pm

54. But I thought Obama was all about a new way of politicking. But no he goes after his opponent's daughter. Despicable. Posted by abell12ct at 09/02/2008 @ 12:04pm

    What's also funny about this is you are a representative of the party who was the first to start attacking peoples families. Bush did it to McCain. McCain did it to Obama. Now you guys are whining when not even the candidate but some people on a blog do it to your VP.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/02/2008 @ 1:10pm

55. Ccc-You are correct.It is just a talking point that has no basis in reality.The party of personal responsibility does not want Sarah Palin to have to take personal responsibility for putting her daughter through this and prefers to blame democrats for what Sarah Palin did.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 09/02/2008 @ 1:18pm

56. And what if Palin changes her view about teaching sex education in school due to this event?

    Will the far religiously right that honors her now, continue to do so?

    And will her 'flip-flop' be seen by the left as a good thing or bad?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/02/2008 @ 2:12pm

57. Well since McCain and Palin are using her kids pregnancy as an example of how anti-choice Palin is and how wonderful it is that she is keeping the baby, they have opened the door to making the story a political issue and open to public discussion.

    You can't use the story to your advantage and then scream off limits when it does not suit you... Well, I guess you can but folks will see through it.

    Posted by Extraneous at 09/02/2008 @ 2:31pm

58. The troopergate story doesn't bother conservative voters all that much. "Corruption? That's life! Who's to say the guy didn't have it coming?" Corruption of office is not highlighted in typical sermons.

    Teenage pregnancy - now that's something else! The problem for Christian conservatives now, is that this potentially dysfunctional family will become a public model of Christian conservatism with their token knocked up teenager.

    "Abstinence only" is the catchphrase of the day.

    Posted by Rod Bickles at 09/02/2008 @ 2:54pm

59. We're talking about Palin's views on sex ed. over at the CA NOW blog: http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/09/sarah-palin-and.html

    Posted by canow at 09/02/2008 @ 3:52pm

60. The pregnant daughter and the down syndrome son just endears her to the far right "ameners". It makes her life condition understandable to these people. "They can relate". She just scares me, she would be sharing the nuclear trigger.

    Posted by lachatte at 09/02/2008 @ 9:11pm

61. Besides what else can you do except fire people you don't like as governor of Alaska. Especially if they don't share your personal outrage. Screw the law that's only for lesser people anyway. We just need to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    Posted by lachatte at 09/02/2008 @ 9:17pm

62. Exceprt from Yahoo news:

    Obama advisers and surrogates have linked Palin to conservative former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. An Associated Press story from Alaska, dated July 17, 1999, stated that Palin, then the mayor of the small town of Wasilla, was wearing a Buchanan button during a Buchanan visit to Alaska.

    But in a letter to the Anchorage Daily News a week later, Palin wrote: "When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I'll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect. ... The article may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla."

    A week after that, the Associated Press reported that Palin would serve as a co-chair of Forbes' campaign.

    Still, the Miami Herald this week quoted an e-mail from Obama Florida spokesman Mark Bubriski that stated: "Palin was a supporter of Pat Buchanan, a right-winger or as many Jews call him: a Nazi sympathizer."

    ______________________________________________

    I gotcha, Sarah. If Hitler visited Alaska, you'd wear a swastica.

    Posted by bobforer at 09/02/2008 @ 10:39pm

63. There are 60 or so days until the election. Those who choose to continue giving precious airtime to the governor of Alaska's 17-year-old daughter are hurting the cause of not electing another Republican to the White House. Can we be somewhat mature here and acknowledge that a national dialogue focused on the many wonderful reasons why Barack Obama will make a much better President than either George W. Bush or a man who has agreed with his policy decisions 90% of the time is of urgent and vital importance? Can we not see how we'll eat up the next two or three weeks of headlines about someone who really, really does not matter? Except, of course in the sense that the more negative exposure this political ploy of a VP pick gets the less positive exposure our actual candidate for President will? Palin/McCain are obviously not the right choice for America. Regardless of what their children may say or do. Let the narrative focus on why Barack Obama is.

    Posted by tskinner at 09/03/2008 @ 06:33am

64. Troopergate. The best the repubs are going to do is put off the inevitable past election day regarding Palin's illegal moves there.

    So that sets the stage for this Rovian thought, the neo-cons plan to take Palin down AFTER the election and place some other animal (maybe Jeb Bush? or Cheney again?) in her place, once she's served her purpose of swinging the evangelical & Catholic vote.

    But whether they dispose of her or not... god save John McCain, the aging "maverick" who the neo-cons never liked and who never completely towed the Bush line. Having a patsy frothing-at-the-mouth evangelical at the helm might be part of the plan, if she survives Troopergate.

    But then, Obama's gonna win it. Right?

    Posted by Kafwood at 09/03/2008 @ 08:07am