Chalk up another guy with Palin derangement syndrome. Rep. Charlie Range, Chairman of House Ways & Means Committee, suggested that Palin was mentally “disabled” (i.e. retarded) and therefore not viable as a vice-presidential candidate. Here’s the video including Rangel’s interview:
Oops. Well, not surprising given Rangel’s history. Even if Palin didn’t have a child with Down’s Syndrome, it’s still inaccurate and inappropriate. It’s hard to believe that a “politically” disabled Palin (or anyone) could work her way up from City Council to Governor with 80%+ approval ratings. The natural corollary to Rangel’s statement is that only “disabled” voters would appoint Palin in office - so do we infer that the state of Alaska, former Hillary supporters like Trump, and McCain are all “disabled” as well?
Backtracking a bit on statement by qualifying Palin’s disability as “political,” he then makes a strange argument for foreign policy, saying that proximity to a foreign nation has no bearing understanding that nation. No doubt Palin has a lot to catch up to foreign policy-wise; most governors (not to mention people in congress) who leap to the national stage do. But Alaska has long history with Russia, and yes, part of that has to do with its proximity.
And as the actual physically disabled person on the video points out, Rangel really puts his foot in it with a backhanded slap to one a revered Democratic model - Franklin Roosevelt, who suffered from polio.
The use of the word Hypocrisy is one of my pet peeves. Just for fun, I did a google search for Hypocrisy.
Here’s the first result from princeton.edu:
an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction
Hypocrisy is saying things you don’t believe.
If a person believes that divorce is a sin and counsels people against divorce and subsequently gets divorced, this is NOT hypocrisy. That is failing to live up to one’s ideals; a moral failing, but not hypocritical.
If a person derides someone who believes that divorce is a sin for getting divorced, yet they have no philosophical problem with divorce, that IS hypocrisy.
The question is, should we have ideals that we strive for that we sometimes, or even most times, do not attain or should we have no ideals whatsoever.
A preacher is supposed to point towards the good. They are not perfect. If they rip people to shreds for their failings, they are fools. When people fail, that’s where forgiveness comes into play. When people have made mistakes that they have to live with, that is where sympathy is needed.
Some conservatives are far too judgmental of others. This makes them easy fodder when they inevitably fall. Does it make what they were talking about invalid?
Sarah Palin’s daughter is pregnant. I guess she could have beat the crap out of her, screamed and yelled at her, and treated her like dirt. But, it’s done now. She’s pregnant. They can either abort the baby or work together through the tough times ahead for the baby, the father, and Palin’s daughter. They chose the latter.
Oh my God! This is outrageous. If that’s your reaction, you’re helping Sarah Palin and John McCain win in November.
Sarah Palin in an American flag bikini with a rifle at a shooting range. So a lot of women are thinking she looks great for a mother of five. Everyone else in the picture is in swimsuits and facing over the water. My guess is they’re at a shooting range.
A girl, who I guess is a Plain daughter, with some guy. They are holding three guns. The girl is wearing ear muffs (safety first!), so I assume they’re at some kind of shooting range. This may look odd in Boston, but in Alaska, Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, etc., this is nothing unusual.
The same girl on the phone holding a bottle of alcohol. I assume she’s been drinking. So what.
Same girl and a friend holding more alcohol. Good times.
Same girl again doing a tongue out pose with a friend. This kind of stuff is common on facebook and myspace. This pose is extremely tame by those standards. Miley Cyrus anyone.
Two more girls with yet another bottle of alcohol. Looks like they did some damage to that bottle of Captain Morgan’s. Wake me up when something interesting happens.
Sarah Palin in a mini skirt. She looks like she’s ready to go out for the night. Besides gaining some male votes and making some women wonder how she pulls this off with five kids, what’s the gotcha here?
This is supposed to discredit Palin? If anything, it just reinforces positive feelings people have about her. The only thing remotely “wrong” here is the underage drinking. By putting all the pictures together, it implies Palin knows about the drinking and condones it. We have no evidence of that, but let’s assume she does. So what?
Two of the drinking pictures look to be at home. Most states allow this. I have no idea, and have no interest in finding out, but the drinking age in Alaska could well be 18. How old is this girl? I don’t know and don’t care. She has an underage daughter who drinks! For, yawn, shame.
Sarah holding a gun in a bikini. Now there’s a scandal. We know she likes guns, so what’s the problem? How dare a woman at her age with children wear a bikini! Are we seriously that backwards?
Look at Sarah Palin in the mini skirt looking like a hooker! I guess that’s the implication. First, I have no idea when this picture was taken. Second, let’s assume it was from the night she was picked as McCain’s VP. So? Women aren’t allowed to wear mini skirts? Is this 1948? Who thinks like this? Who thinks this is a problem?
Worst of all, how can a liberal use these to beat someone up. These photos show activities that liberals condone, indeed celebrate. Except from that the guns of course, because guns are bad, mmmmk.
Maybe the idea is that ultra conservative holier than thou types will reject Palin and her kids for these pictures. If someone thinks that, they just don’t know religious conservatives.
Update: A commenter just said that these pictures are photoshopped fakes. I was suspicious of the one of Palin in a mini skirt. It looks ’shopped to me. I was going to bother to check, but I just didn’t feel like it. It doesn’t matter. If they are real, it’s not a problem for Palin. If they’re fakes, that’s just more votes for McCain/Palin come November. Would a man be subjected to this? Hmmm, let me check my inbox for pictures of Biden in a speedo with a bong.
The Republicans sure tried their hardest to demonstrate they were a new party. I don’t know who runs the cameras at these conventions. Is it the parties or the networks? Either way, I think every woman and every black person in the audience got a close up. To boot, as I watched the roll call out of the corner of my eye, nearly every delegation was fronted by a woman.
It seemed a bit over the top to me, but at least the Republicans are putting it out there. We’ll see if it’s effective.
Sarah Palin struck the ball well and got on base. I don’t think the speech was a home run like some pundits, but Palin got the job done. That’s all she needed to do. Palin had to stand tall and show that she would not be pushed around by Obama’s attack dogs.
Palin showed she’s tough, willing to meet the challenge of a big moment in history, and able to weather the storm of criticism.
In the process, Palin diced up Obama nicely, providing the “red meat” the Replicrowd needed.
Palin’s line of the night: Obama has time to write two memoirs but no time to write a meaningful piece of legislation. Ouch.
Some Democrats and their surrogates are charging that the Sarah Palin choice is affirmative action. Most of the time it’s brought up in the form of a question to a Republican. The Democrat asking the question uses a sarcastic tone. Doing so is bad politics.
The sarcastic tone is meant to mock the Republican, but it makes it harder to separate the negative connotations from the Democrat asking the question.
Democrats strongly believe in affirmative action, so they should be thrilled.
Does anyone believe that a white man, who had Barack Obama’s identical message, resume and oratory skill, would have beaten Hillary in the primary?
I suppose the thinking is that hard core Republicans will view this “affirmative action” with disdain and sit out the election. If Hillary voters aren’t going to fall for the “Palin ploy”, is affirmative action baiting likely to work on Republicans? It might shave off a few votes, but Palin more than compensates by exciting the social conservative base.
Attacking Palin on experience is a loser and so is trying to charge McCain with affirmative action. Some Democrats are throwing out worse comments.
Shouldn’t she be with her daughter at a time like this?
Shouldn’t she be at home taking care of her infant son?
Yikes! Talk about sexism.
The woman is governor of a state. I don’t think going back to her day job is going to give her more time at home.
Call me crazy, but being VP might be easier than being a governor. As VP, you’re basically a figurehead at state functions, rarely vote in the Senate, and if, and only if, the President wants your opinion, you give it. You can be more activist as a VP, but you don’t have the responsibility the President (or a governor) does. The buck keeps going past you.
I’m no expert and I base this on absolutely nothing, but is having an infant with downs syndrome terribly different than having an infant in general?
I’m pretty sure the Palin’s are going to have help with their children whether she’s VP or “just” governor of Alaska.
Palin’s husband can deal with the kids. Why are people acting like she’s a single mom?
Barack Obama has young girls, why shouldn’t he be home nurturing them?
Michelle Obama works, is that wrong as well?
Coming from Democrats, these arguments are horrendous. This would be like Republicans going after a Democrat for starting their own company and selling it for millions of dollars. It just doesn’t make any sense.
More importantly, how are these arguments going to win over independent women and disaffected Hillary voters? If Sarah Palin has a strong showing with her speech at the RNC tonight, Democrats will be scrambling for another argument.
Hillary Clinton has a serious dilemma on her hands. This was her best year to get elected. If Obama wins, tow things can happen. Obama is a miserable failure; this would allow her to run 2012, but puts the whoever the Democrat candidate is at a definite disadvantage. Obama is average to a roaring success; she can’t seriously contend until 2016. She’ll be in her 70’s. If McCain is too old now, age would be a definite handicap for Hillary, fairly or not.
Hillary’s best chance at the Presidency now is a McCain win and she runs in 2012. McCain may not run for a second term, may die, or may be very vulnerable if his first term goes poorly. Hillary would be the clear front runner. If Obama loses now, Democrats would be loathe to give him a second chance. 2008 would be an emotionally painful memory for Democrats if Obama loses.
All she can do now is hope a very secret hope. Or can she. The Clinton’s are not know for being passive witnesses to history. It will be interesting to watch their moves as this campaign unfolds.
