McCain: Stop questions on Palin background

[Bob Juch]

John McCain’s campaign on Wednesday angrily called for an end to questions about its review of Sarah Palin’s background, deriding a “faux media scandal designed to destroy the first female Republican nominee” for vice president.

“This nonsense is over,” declared senior campaign adviser Steve Schmidt in a written statement.

The statement stood out for its admission that Palin is under siege — it condemns “this vetting controversy” — and for its attempt to blunt questions about how rigorously McCain and his campaign explored the background of a candidate who may get the nation’s second most powerful job. It also suggested that Palin is a victim of gender bias in the media.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26527513/

[PunkAssBitch]

[McCain's campaign] also suggested that Palin is a victim of gender bias in the media.

And here. Did they say how ugly it was here, when dodgersteve, nelly and jeemie were making remarks they would not have made if the nominee had been A Boy?

Those campaign people should stop in here more often, to check the pulse of the nation.

[Bob Juch]

[McCain's campaign] also suggested that Palin is a victim of gender bias in the media.

And here. Did they say how ugly it was here, when dodgersteve, nelly and jeemie were making remarks they would not have made if the nominee had been A Boy?

Those campaign people should stop in here more often, to check the pulse of the nation.

We need to sic NOW on them.

[Myrtle Edmonds et al.]

[McCain's campaign] also suggested that Palin is a victim of gender bias in the media.

And here. Did they say how ugly it was here, when dodgersteve, nelly and jeemie were making remarks they would not have made if the nominee had been A Boy?

Those campaign people should stop in here more often, to check the pulse of the nation.

Yeahhhhhh!

[Weyoun]

John McCain’s campaign on Wednesday angrily called for an end to questions about its review of Sarah Palin’s background, deriding a “faux media scandal designed to destroy the first female Republican nominee” for vice president.

“This nonsense is over,” declared senior campaign adviser Steve Schmidt in a written statement.

The statement stood out for its admission that Palin is under siege — it condemns “this vetting controversy” — and for its attempt to blunt questions about how rigorously McCain and his campaign explored the background of a candidate who may get the nation’s second most powerful job. It also suggested that Palin is a victim of gender bias in the media.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26527513/

Well, they have a point. It's not like they've uncovered much in the way of *substantive* information. For example, the vetting controversy. Sounds like all the basics were run through. And? If, in fact, there's nothing wrong with Palin after turning her life upside down, where does this issue actually go? Nowhere, but in the mean time it's spreading a negative cloud of everything.

Another example is the "movement" - entirely among Dems and the media - to have McCain pull a McGovern. But Eagleton lied to McGovern about electroshock, and a vice presidential candidate with depression issues seems a bit more relevant than whether or not the candidate's spouse belonged to a political party that wanted less federal government intrusion in his home state.

You do realize how ridiculous this looks? Basically, the media's had to make up for lost times, by condensing all its bashing into a few days. It's too bad the media has found much actually worth bashing about.

[SportsFan68]

Give me a break. When people finally quit dinking around with the irrelevant stuff and get to the real issues, it'll be like McGovern and Eagleton.

With that call, McCain is making it look like he's hiding something, which the press will find if they only look hard enough. He just about guaranteed an increased Woodward-Bernstein intensity.

Here are two excerpts from Wikepedia about Eagleton. I added the emphasis but did not intend for it to be sarcafont, just emphasized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Eagleton

Having been declined by the "name" Senators, McGovern turned to lesser-known candidates, and Eagleton, who had opposed the Vietnam War, was selected on July 14 with only a minimal background check. Eagleton made no mention of his earlier hospitalizations. Newspapers soon revealed them. McGovern and Eagleton initially joked about the case with Eagleton saying he would undergo a psychiatric examination if other candidates (e.g., Nixon) would do the same. But the charges kept coming. Columnist Jack Anderson wrote a column falsely accusing Eagleton of being arrested for drunk driving — a charge that Anderson had to retract.

. . .

Thomas Eagleton died in St. Louis on Sunday, March 4, 2007, of heart and respiratory complications. Eagleton donated his body to medical science at Washington University.[9]He wrote a farewell letter to his family and friends months before he died, citing that his dying wishes were for people to "go forth in love and peace — be kind to dogs — and vote Democratic."[10]

[SportsFan68]

Well, they have a point. It's not like they've uncovered much in the way of *substantive* information. For example, the vetting controversy. Sounds like all the basics were run through. And? If, in fact, there's nothing wrong with Palin after turning her life upside down, where does this issue actually go? Nowhere, but in the mean time it's spreading a negative cloud of everything.

Another example is the "movement" - entirely among Dems and the media - to have McCain pull a McGovern. But Eagleton lied to McGovern about electroshock, and a vice presidential candidate with depression issues seems a bit more relevant than whether or not the candidate's spouse belonged to a political party that wanted less federal government intrusion in his home state.

You do realize how ridiculous this looks? Basically, the media's had to make up for lost times, by condensing all its bashing into a few days. It's too bad the media has found much actually worth bashing about.

There's plenty substantive that didn't need uncovering, it's all on the record.

She is 100% anti-choice, with a more stringent line than McCain even.

She called for removal of polar bears and one endangered whale from the endangered species list, putting her even to the right of the Bush administration.

She claimed to stand up to the "good ol boys" with regard to the bridges to nowhere, when she had nothing to do with it because of when it happened, prior to her election as governor.

She supports big oil wherever she can, including ANWR drilling. Makes me wonder who those good ol boys she's been standing up to are.

[nitrah55]

In today's Washington Post, a detailed article quoting named McCain sources says that the McCain campaign's first detailed, sit-down, one-on-one interview with Sarah Palin was last Wednesday, the day before McCain offered the VP slot and two days before she was announced as VP candidate.

Look, everybody knows that she wasn't McCain's first or second choice. Several outlets have reported that McCain was threatened with a floor fight if he had named either Lieberman or Ridge, either of which he would have preferred.

Republicans are making a virtue of necessity, and gathering the wagons around her, which is fine. McCain is finding out, however, that making a dramatic VP pick will also shift focus from the message of the day at the convention to the dramatic pick, particularly if it's someone even other Republicans don't know much about. (Kay Bailey Hutchison was quoted last week as saying she didn't really know Palin, for instance.)

So, there's the story that she's the new kid on the block and the story that McCain had his back to the wall. Both legit, I think.

I'm just sitting back and watching the role reversals that are happening. Like NOW hammering Palin. Like Tim Pawlenty saying last night on MSNBC that he didn't think that parents should be expected to be responsible for the behaviour of their teenage kids.

And so it goes.

[mellytu74]

Well, they have a point. It's not like they've uncovered much in the way of *substantive* information. For example, the vetting controversy. Sounds like all the basics were run through. And? If, in fact, there's nothing wrong with Palin after turning her life upside down, where does this issue actually go? Nowhere, but in the mean time it's spreading a negative cloud of everything.

Another example is the "movement" - entirely among Dems and the media - to have McCain pull a McGovern. But Eagleton lied to McGovern about electroshock, and a vice presidential candidate with depression issues seems a bit more relevant than whether or not the candidate's spouse belonged to a political party that wanted less federal government intrusion in his home state.

You do realize how ridiculous this looks? Basically, the media's had to make up for lost times, by condensing all its bashing into a few days. It's too bad the media has found much actually worth bashing about.

There's plenty substantive that didn't need uncovering, it's all on the record.

She is 100% anti-choice, with a more stringent line than McCain even.

She called for removal of polar bears and one endangered whale from the endangered species list, putting her even to the right of the Bush administration.

She claimed to stand up to the "good ol boys" with regard to the bridges to nowhere, when she had nothing to do with it because of when it happened, prior to her election as governor.

She supports big oil wherever she can, including ANWR drilling. Makes me wonder who those good ol boys she's been standing up to are.

I am with Sprots on this.

If we are discussing her family (and probably her husband's AIP membership), as PERSONAL issues, yeah. Absolutely.

As far as controversial statements made by her pastor (and available online at the church's own website for everyone to watch)...well, the controversial pastor horse is really out of the barn at this point, isn't it?

If we are discussing what she voted on/supported while she was mayor and as governor -- then I think it's fair game.

This isn't nonsense from the Daily Kos. These are on-the-record stories from reliable news sources.

The wanting the Bridge before she didn't want it - and she's on record in the Anchorage and Fairbanks papers about this. The lobbyist. The Ted Stevens' 527. The firing of the Wasilla librarian over alleged censorship issues.

I think they are legitimate questions because they go to her style of governing. What can we expect from her if something happens to John McCain?

If there are questions about her views, I think the public deserves to know.

The election IS about the issues.

How does she view homeless veterans? Infrastructure? Public transportation as an alternative to high gas prices? Alternative energy sources? Pay equity for women? Health care?

Where does she agree with McCain on these and where doesn't she? I think they are important questions.

As far as "pulling an Eagleton," I see no point. If anything, it would completely cut down McCain's resurgence as a maverick and do him far more harm than good.

Although my own belief is that, if he really wanted to be a maverick, he would have thumbed his nose at everyone and picked Olympia Snowe.

Yes, it probably wouldn't have energized the base -- she's pro-choice and it was her vote (along with Susan Collins) that probably kept Bill Clinton in office.

But, as far as I know, her credentials are pretty impecable.

[silverscreenselect]

When Eagleton was nominated, it was before the Watergate scandal and really before any careful vetting of candidates existed. It's safe to say that a lot of both winning and losing candidates wouldn't have stood up to the type of careful scrutiny that exists today. It's also easy to see how McGovern and Eagleton couldn't have known this would play out the way it did.

After what happened to John Edwards, anyone with an IQ in double digits could have foreseen what would happen if McCain picked a virtual unknown. I don't think the McCain campaign was unprepared for this firestorm; I think they were counting on it.

A McCain-Romney or McCain-Pawlenty ticket this week would have generated zero public interest and the convention could have gone in one of two directions. Either four days of what Fred Thompson did last night (which gets old quickly) or a four-day Trash Obamafest, which would have been highly risky.

Now there is intense public interest (when was the last time you heard anyone talking about Obama's acceptance speech) and a good speechwriter will allow Palin to introduce herself and set forth her positions in a non-threatening manner. Then tomorrow night McCain can do what he does best, express righteous anger at the way Palin has been treated and reinforce his own "maverick" image going against what all the experts said he should/would do. If Palin looks good, McCain looks better for standing by her and rejecting what the "Washington establishment" said he should do.

This whole affair has been as staged by the Republicans as the leadup to a professional wrestling spectacular is staged. The difference is that everyone in wrestling is in on the gag. The Democrats and the media have allowed themselves to be duped into playing the part.

There's a lot of risk for McCain here, especially if Palin flops or there is something really tawdry in her woodwork (as opposed to a 22 year old DUI or a pregnant daughter). But McCain was behind and needed to do something to stir the pot. He wasn't going to win on the issues and relying on being able to tear down Obama was risky. Now, he's let the Democrats themselves largely take the issues off the table.

Some think McCain's move is the equivalent of a 60 yard Hail Mary with two seconds left on the clock. I think it's more like an underdog going with a no huddle spread offense the whole game after having carefully practiced it all week. A calculated risk that offers the only serious chance of victory.

[gsabc]

Like Tim Pawlenty saying last night on MSNBC that he didn't think that parents should be expected to be responsible for the behaviour of their teenage kids.

Does this guy have kids of his own?

[Weyoun]

Well, they have a point. It's not like they've uncovered much in the way of *substantive* information. For example, the vetting controversy. Sounds like all the basics were run through. And? If, in fact, there's nothing wrong with Palin after turning her life upside down, where does this issue actually go? Nowhere, but in the mean time it's spreading a negative cloud of everything.

Another example is the "movement" - entirely among Dems and the media - to have McCain pull a McGovern. But Eagleton lied to McGovern about electroshock, and a vice presidential candidate with depression issues seems a bit more relevant than whether or not the candidate's spouse belonged to a political party that wanted less federal government intrusion in his home state.

You do realize how ridiculous this looks? Basically, the media's had to make up for lost times, by condensing all its bashing into a few days. It's too bad the media has found much actually worth bashing about.

There's plenty substantive that didn't need uncovering, it's all on the record.

She is 100% anti-choice, with a more stringent line than McCain even.

She called for removal of polar bears and one endangered whale from the endangered species list, putting her even to the right of the Bush administration.

She claimed to stand up to the "good ol boys" with regard to the bridges to nowhere, when she had nothing to do with it because of when it happened, prior to her election as governor.

She supports big oil wherever she can, including ANWR drilling. Makes me wonder who those good ol boys she's been standing up to are.

Do you know anything about her relationship to big oil? Do a little reading on it and get back to me. Hint: her position vs big oil and her desire for energy independence are NOT mutually exclusive.

Basically, your problem with her is that she is a Republican. And that's fine! Those are POLICY differences. That is what the election SHOULD be about. Not about someone's kid, or a husband's DUI from 1986.

[SportsFan68]

Do you know anything about her relationship to big oil? Do a little reading on it and get back to me. Hint: her position vs big oil and her desire for energy independence are NOT mutually exclusive.

Basically, your problem with her is that she is a Republican. And that's fine! Those are POLICY differences. That is what the election SHOULD be about. Not about someone's kid, or a husband's DUI from 1986.

I never said that her desire for energy independence and her position vs big oil were mutually exclusive. Telling me to do some reading on it won't change that.

Basically, my problem with her is not that she's a Republican. My problem with her is that she holds positions that make her a Republican and which are contrary to my positions. All the things I named are what you say the election SHOULD be about. As far as I'm concerned, that's what it IS about, and that's how I'll cast my vote. However, my saying that 10,000 times (or more) won't stop the Woodstein wannabes from screaming the other snarky stuff as loud as they can as long as anybody will listen.

[clem21]

Well, they have a point. It's not like they've uncovered much in the way of *substantive* information. For example, the vetting controversy. Sounds like all the basics were run through. And? If, in fact, there's nothing wrong with Palin after turning her life upside down, where does this issue actually go? Nowhere, but in the mean time it's spreading a negative cloud of everything.

Another example is the "movement" - entirely among Dems and the media - to have McCain pull a McGovern. But Eagleton lied to McGovern about electroshock, and a vice presidential candidate with depression issues seems a bit more relevant than whether or not the candidate's spouse belonged to a political party that wanted less federal government intrusion in his home state.

You do realize how ridiculous this looks? Basically, the media's had to make up for lost times, by condensing all its bashing into a few days. It's too bad the media has found much actually worth bashing about.

There's plenty substantive that didn't need uncovering, it's all on the record.

She is 100% anti-choice, with a more stringent line than McCain even.

She called for removal of polar bears and one endangered whale from the endangered species list, putting her even to the right of the Bush administration.

She claimed to stand up to the "good ol boys" with regard to the bridges to nowhere, when she had nothing to do with it because of when it happened, prior to her election as governor.

She supports big oil wherever she can, including ANWR drilling. Makes me wonder who those good ol boys she's been standing up to are.

This is all very good material to show that Palin has no business being VP, however if it's not made known to the general public it won't matter. As long as the media talks about pregnant 17-year-olds and seccessionist parties McCain is fine. He even has the option of acting offended and playing the victim. So unless the news gets serious Palin'll get through unscathed.