IT IS POINTLESS to hope that the story about Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter will be allowed to fade away gracefully. Such things are the red meat and mashed potatoes of political blogs, where so much of the grassroots campaigning seems to go on these days.
But is pregnancy the big deal some people hope it to be?
To be sure, the vice presidential candidate is a supporter of abstinence-only sex education, but looking for a causal link between the mother’s political and social beliefs and the daughter’s pregnancy requires making a number of unwarranted assumptions.
The primary assumption would have to be that the candidate’s daughter had been shielded by her mother from all knowledge of sex. But as a 17-year-old American child who has spent her life in an earthy and fecund family, there can be little doubt that Palin’s daughter has long known exactly where babies come from and why. She may have been a little foggy on her chances of getting pregnant, but most children are — no matter how many sex-ed classes they take.
The story of the Palin family is too close to the stories of many other American families for her opponents to assume that she can or should be embarrassed by her daughter’s pregnancy. Everybody knows good parents whose children have made bad decisions. Those parents — and their children — should not be finally judged for those decisions, but for how they as a family deal with the consequences.
By that standard, Palin’s handling of the matter of her daughter’s pregnancy has been mostly admirable. She has been supportive and, by all accounts, loving. Should she be as supportive of her daughter’s decision to marry the baby’s father? Well, sometimes good parents make bad decisions — or at least reserve their veto power for times when they can make it stick.
But as a political issue, the pregnancy is a non-starter. Barack Obama is right to say families should be off-limits, and most people are likely to agree. Because of that, any attempt to make political hay out of the situation is likely to result in a backlash.
The amazing thing is that the pregnancy story has managed to overshadow real issues with Palin’s candidacy — her self-serving editing of her political record, her association with a group of secessionist wing nuts in Alaska and her alleged misuse of power in her two years as governor.
Palin has more than her share of vulnerabilities as a candidate, but her daughter’s pregnancy is not one of them.
Patrick S. Kelley
Editorial Page Editor
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pat: Excellent editorial on the issue of Mrs. Palin's 17 year old daughter. Both you and Senator Obama have earned points with me by rejecting the left wing vicious attacks and attempts to score political capital on the mistakes of a teenage girl. Thank you. However, there you go again in reciting untruths, taken directly from those same left wing blogs, about Mrs. Palin's political past and policies. She has NOT been associated with a secessionist movement in Alaska. That is simply false. She has NOT "edited" (if that means falsely stated) her political record. As to her Brother-in-Law, Trooper Wooten, any fair minded person would agree with her that he should be fired. The Alaska patrol itself conducted an investigation in which they found that: 1) he had said that he would put a bullet in his father-in-law's head if he hired a lawyer for his daughter to represent her in their divorce; 2) he used his stun gun to taz (sp?) his stepson; and 3) he was drinking beer in a patrol car while on duty. This Trooper is 35 years old. Mrs. Palin's sister was his 4th wife. They have been divorced since 2005. Since then, he remarried and is already divorced from her, his 5th wife. The McCain-Palin ticket offers widely different policies from the Obama-Biden ticket. Lets keep the debate on the differences in their policies and truthful reporting about their individual failings. Merely repeating left wing blog garbage is below the editor of a fine newspaper.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
She was never a member of the association, her husband was. Just FYI for those who might misinterpret.
I eagerly await your editorial questioning Obama's association with Ayers and Khalidi, both avowed terrorists.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
open_eyes: I would not be holding my breath if I were you. There are more important stories, like falsely reporting Mrs. Palin's political past and policies, than doing any old story about Senator Obama's association with terrorists. We have to have our priorities straight. If we editorialize factually, Obama might lose the election. Come on. What kind of Neanderthal are you, open_eyes?
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Since we are all human, I suppose that it is inevitable that a reporter's personal beliefs will invade his professional obligation, as a member of the "fourth estate," to accurately, completely and fairly report facts. Liberal bias in the media has been with us for years. However, I am troubled that it has reached the point that it is obvious and even accepted within the profession. A good example is the coverage extended to Obama's European trip this summer when all three major network news anchors went along. That had never happened, even for a presidential trip of historical proportions (like Nixon going to China in 1972). I think that it is ironic that in spite of the media's best efforts, Obama is no more than tied with McCain. Perhaps our citizens are finally waking up to the media's "dirty little secret" and filtering what they see and hear from them. I hope so. Kansas presents a special case since we are a people less likely to "question authority." In view of the fact that every major paper in the state (by major, I include the Emporia Gazette, the Dodge City Globe, the Garden City Telegraph, the Hutchinson News, etc.) is now overtly liberal, I hope that that changes even in Kansas. We'll see.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The media is the only private sector business given constitutional protections. I can't recall the author who said so, but I remember well his quote: "For every right comes a corresponding duty." The media has abused its special rights by completely forgetting its duty to accurate and fair reporting. No wonder that Fox News, a newcomer to an industry well entrenched, has surpassed them all. It decided to give a new idea a try - present both sides fairly. It has caused a serious conundrum within the industry. It is about time.
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jayhawker
You might want to re-read the paragraph that begins "By that standard." I think there's more there than first meets the eye.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL jayhawker - I'm just one of those conservative "Neanderthals" that graduated Summa Cum Laude.... :)
I'll tell you an overseas trip that I'm currently alot more interested in than Obamas - Rice's visit to Libya. What a historic trip. In 2003, Libya announced they had a WMD program that nobody knew anything about, and much more advanced than enyone would have guessed (23 tons of mustard gas), that they were giving up. Now, we have historic reopening of relations with the US..... but we'd rather cover Obama talking to a crowd in Germany after a concert...
Well, I know why the Libya trip is not newsworthy. Because it would be a feather in Bush's cap. And we can't have that. Oh no.
Jayhawker, netloafer - do ya think we should send the Gazette a bill for doing all their reporter's homework for them? - LOL
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good point, netloafer. In my excitement over a Gazette editorial that actually departed from the moveon.org model, I failed to notice that Pat had criticized the Palins for supporting their daughter's decision to marry the baby's father. Oh, my. Is there any other way, netloafer, to read that paragraph other than the editorial endorses a single unwed mother over a married, two parent home for this baby? I understand the problems that may come with a youthful marriage, but have we moved that far from personal responsibility? By their irresponsible conduct, these two people have created a responsibility in this new life. At least they are willing to live up to that. Wow, Pat, if you see this differently than I, we have little common ground to agree upon. To me, this is the most basic of all human responsibility - parents to a child. With this kind of attitude, no wonder abortion is viewed as an acceptable means of birth control.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Excellent post, open_eyes. Isn't it ironic that it has been the Neanderthal presidents (Reagan and W) who are the only ones who have actually brought outlaw nations into the civilized world (Reagan with the end of the Cold War and Bush with Libya). The more enlightened among us would brought these problems to the UN, who would have voted at least 147 Resolutions condemning these parties. Of course, it would only be a Neanderthal who would actually do something about it.
Posted by shoehorn (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think that is what Obama meant when he said "We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree to reducing unwanted pregnancies". Same thing, different words.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, jayhawker, and Mr. "GREAT foreign policy" himself, Clinton, is the one that basically enabled the North Korea nuke program. Not to mention the billions of $$ that Saddam swindled under the Oil-For-Food program, along with help from France, Russia, & China, while starving his own people. Another feather in Clinton's foreign policy cap. But at least everyone loved us then.
These days, I get more of my facts from my cave paintings than the Gazette - LOL
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
shoehorn: Sometimes the obvious escapes me, so I apologize in advance. A friend of mine once said that he liked telling jokes when I am in the group, because it was good for two laughs - the first when he told it, and the second 15 minutes later when I got it. I'm not sure what your point was with the Obama quote. Could you elaborate?
Posted by eiggohp (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
At least neither Mrs. Palin nor her daughter chose to "suck the babies down the sink" as some think they should have the right to do so..... The liberals have sent many, many people to Alaska to try to dig up dirt on her.....and they never look at their own lives....they are not lillywhite either....everyone has some past things that they have done that they hope never are made public knowledge. "Let him throw the first stone"!
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
eiggohp: Excellent points. Did you also notice the hypocrisy of actually arguing that since she is a mother that she was not qualified to be vice president? I'm not sure exactly what they were saying, but it sounds like they were saying that if you choose to be a mother, you are not smart enough to have an important job. I am not a woman, but if I were, I think that I would be insulted.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Right, eiggohp - Gloria Steinem, that wonderful champion of women's rights, the ultimate feminist, said that "Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton".
I'll bet you money, that Steinem would say more favorable things about her if she had aborted her baby, or urged her daughter to abort hers. Wow. What a sad, sad commentary on what people consider to be the barometer of a person's character.... seems a little upside down to me.... Well, Ms. Gloria will never adorn one of MY cave paintings....
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For quite awhile now on Fox News, they've been discussing & comparing media news bias. And yes, they have both sides on there discussing it. Comparing the US magazine covers, & others. They haven't mentioned the Emporia Gazette yet, but I expect they will any second.
7:00pm tonight & tomorrow night Greta is doing a full hour on exploring Gov Palin, for anyone interested in learning more about her.
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pat Kelley is a skilled craftsman. He didn't accidentally throw the word "mostly" to along with admirable. It was a message in a bottle, so to speak. I think it could easily have been read to mean that Sarah Palin and her daughter made the wrong "choice." All Pat Kelley did was give himself a little bit of plausible deniability.
Is there media bias? I think we're way past that stage. I just read that a couple of days ago Andrea Mitchell (MSNBC) and the wife of Alan Greenspan said something along these lines - "Only uneducated people will vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin."
A week ago Sally Quinn of the Washington Post got all lathered up because John McCin didn't check with her and the rest of the media before he chose Sarah Palin.
"My first reaction was shock. Then anger. John McCain chose a running mate simply because she is a woman and one who appealed to the Republican's conservative evangelical base. Now, with news that Palin's 17-year-old unmarried daughter is pregnant, McCain's pick may not even find support among "family values" voters."
Apparently the media thinks they're the ones with the thumbs up/thumbs down vote. And, apparently the values voters didn't get Sally's memo. They're very suportive of Sarah Palin and her "choices."
Is there media bias? Of course there is. Game - set - match.
If I had anything to do with the McCain campaign I would play it for all its worth, and it's worth a lot of votes. Why is it/why will it work? Beacuse the reservoir is so deep. You can see it in the media reaction to Sarah Palin.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Democratic leadership today promised "serious reprecussions" against Joe Leiberman for his speech at the RNC. This isn't a slam at the Dems, I'm sure the Repubs would have done the same thing. That's what is so sad about our current 2-party system & its partisanship. It doesn't matter what is best for the country & the people, just do what your party wants you to do. McCain & Palin's "maverick" status as people who will buck their own party when they believe it is the right thing to do is looking better and better all the time. Contrast that to Obama's claim of "a new kind of politician" - he has voted 100% with the Dem party. How is that a new kind of politics? How is that "change"?
I've changed my mind about Pat Kelley. A new poll says over half the people believe the media has been unfair to Palin, and something like 26% say the media bias has made them even more likely to vote for her.
Keep it up, Pat!!!! I'll run and get you some more rope if you need it!!!!
Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
www.stripes.com is the Stars and Stripes. Current issue has interviews with the candidates and what they tell the troops. Obama's lack of knowledge is readily apparent to anybody in uniform and McCain is the polar opposite.
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
USNretired
I read them both. Thanks. I haven't read Stars and Stripes since back in the sixties.
I was amazed at Obama's failure to grasp the issues. Honestly, it surprised me. I've heard and read so much about his ability to analyze and it took me off guard to see him miss the marks so badly on military issues, from retention to stop loss, etc.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 8:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It has become crystal clear that the liberal media, The Gazette included, has chosen it's candidate for president and will not let qualifications, facts, or truth get in the way of promoting him with shameless bias.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
USNretired: You are absolutely correct. Obama didn't have a clue. When asked about Stop Loss, he responded about the length of deployment - in other words, he doesn't even know what Stop Loss is. He responded to questions about Iran by saying that he would "reach out" to countries in the region (whatever that means). He said that the surge (which he opposed) has reduced violence, but refused to admit that it has worked. When asked if he would keep a troops in Iraq after his "drawdown," he said that he would, but he didn't know what their mission would be (that would be up to the Generals). Wow. He was clearly in over his head. Big time.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 9:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Do I just have a suspicious mind, or does anyone else out there think the "between the lines" attack upon Ms. Palin by our ultra-liberal left-wing Mr. Kelly might have been prompted by this week's Gazette reader poll in which 61% of Gazette readers voted Sarah Palin more qualified for vice-president than Joe Biden? Coincidence? I bet ol' Pat and Chris are kicking themselves in the pants for ever asking that question! What a heartbreaker it must be for The Gazette staff to discover their readers aren't near as stupid as they thought. We're still clinging to our guns and religion, though; and we vote.
Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pat Kelley cares about our community and our country, about that I have no doubt. It amazes me, however, that he could be so misguided, and worse, so willing to accept one party's talking points to frame his editorials. Like Ray Call before him, he is a wordsmith of great accomplishment. I wish that I had his talent. Ray Call was even better - Ray wrote tartly, clearly and succinctly. However, neither understood that few in his audience are the dunderheads that they apparently believe us to be. I believe that both, being the accomplished and talented writers that they are, could write reasonably and convincingly for their liberal point of view if they did their homework and conceded points when those points are obvious. For all their talents, both fail to convince anyone of their point of view and are usually poor spokesman for the hard (but not extreme) left. This editorial regarding Sarah Palin is a good example. It starts off reasonably, but Pat simply couldn't help himself but to parrot left wing blog garbage that is not even true. When he does so, he loses credibility. You may be correct, Bjnemp, that seeing Palin rise in the polls, rather than fall as the left attempted, Pat and the others of his persuasion are pulling the last strings available to stop her before she has a chance to be accepted.
Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on September 6, 2008 at 11:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well said, Jayhawker. I don't understand people who put political partisanship before patriotism. I am a devout Independent with conservative leanings. I have voted for Democrats and for Republicans. I vote for people and their quality of character and ideals, not blindly due to party affiliation. This year the choice is clear. America is not ready for anyone as liberal and unqualified as Barack Obama. McCain is not perfect, but he loves our country and will be true to our best interests. Palin is a breath of fresh air and is capable and willing to stir things up in Washington. I don't think we taxpayers can afford Obama and Biden.
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jayhwaker/Bjnemp
I read the Stars and Stripes piece and came away with a bit of a different take.
I noticed the brevity of Senator McCain's response about stop-loss. "I hate it." And his solution - increase the size of the military. It's in keeping with his view of national defense. It's straight from the Powell Doctrine of using "overwhelming force" if it becomes necessary. McCain believes that the great tactical blunder of Iraq was not applying enough force once we got there. The result was a failure to stabilize the country.
Obama's view, as it is with most things, is studied and nuanced. But once you ferret your way through the response you'll see that his answer to issues like stop-loss is "strategic redeployment." I think of it as strategic retreat. Obama's view, however, is well in keeping with the Democratic Party's position on national defense. The last Democrat I can remember who truly believed in a strong national defense and international posture was Scoop Jackson.
That's what I took away from the answers both men provided. The difference is stark.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't so much have a problem with asking questions and digging into the records of the candidates as I do with the imbalance that the media is showing in that area. Fine, questions Palin's associations, her past, etc... but lets do it for all candidates. (But lets stick to the facts). It seems every time something comes to light about Obama (such as Rev Wright, Ayers) - it is completeley ignored by mainstream media, except for Fox News. Only after Fox runs it for a couple of days does the rest of the media RELUCTANTLY pick it up, because by then they are forced to. Remember the SNL skit during the race with Hillary of the media handing Obama a pillow and making sure he was comfortable while they hammered away at Hillary? Obviously it's not just a paranoid delusion of conservatives only.... that's why I didn't say a single word denouncing Kelley's article in my first post on this thread, only that I eagerly awaited the same questions leveled at Obama. Oh, and to be equally fair, Patrick - don't do any research. Just pull any wild rumor you can find off of whatever right-wing attack blog you can find.... It seems we readers end up doing all the research, eventually. Anyone figured out yet what we should charge the Gazette? By the word, or by the article?
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 7, 2008 at 7:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jayhawker, Open-Eyes, USNRetired, et all:
Did any of you get the opportunity to watch Bob Woodward being interviewed by Scott Pelle on 60 Minutes tonight> If so, I'd appreciate your take.
Posted by create (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 6:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, 5 biased guys hammering away on the Gazette for being biased.
Whether on TV or computer, most people will choose whatever news that presents their own slant. One study of Fox News relating to the mix of guests plus their political ideologies revealed that conservatives outnumbered all other points of view. I'd say that's a slant towards Repubs and conservatives.
Oh my gosh, that was just one study wasn't it. Dang! Wrong again! Slap me down!
You know, I ordinarily enjoy reading you handful of guys and I respect your opinions -- ordinarily. But this hammering on TEG here is ridiculous. Why not quitcherbitchin for a moment and put together a well-phrased op-ed article supporting your candidate. Then we can all comment on it. I'm sure TEG will print it. They'd be stupid not to.
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not as interested in biases. I assume they're there. But I do think the Republicans have tapped into something and they're using it skilfully. Is it all perception? It could be. But that's not the point. Perception, if it is that, can often become reality.
I'vw lurched back and forth during this election cycle. I've landed and will be getting my yard sign soon. From here on out I'll be tuning out the noise.
As to what the Gazette prints, all I can say is that they can print whatever they like. They own the presses. In fact, if someone tries to take that freedom away from them I'll be the first one down to 517 Merchant with my blunderbuss or baseball bat to defend them.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you for your views, create. Now you know Exactly what we feel like. Only we are battling against 18 of 20 major outlets being biased according to a UCLA study (that university bastion of conservatism):
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Med...
"Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter."
I've consistently said that NO major media news is completely unbiased, including Fox News. I've consistently said that I view them right of center, but not nearly so right as most are to the left. And that their strong point is that at least they show both sides, and present both views the majority of the time.
We have put together an article. We have posted, dug up articles, facts, posted links pertaining to all 4 candidates. Many of them (probably not mine though) have been well-phrased. And commented on. I'd say the sum total of them add up to one heck of an article.
I don't want bias. I just want to see both sides. I stated my first post here didn't slam this article at all. I just asked for the same both ways. I don't understand how asking for things to be even-handed is biased. I feel more like it is the American way/duty to point out inaccuracies and biases. (Unless we live in a communist or hard-core Muslim state where we're not allowed to). So I feel it would be pretty unAmerican of me to quitmybitchin until the 90% bias (18 out of 20) barometer gets moved a little closer back to the center. Or to at least make sure the uninformed and ones who believe whatever MSNBC feeds them get their eyes opened a bit....
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree, netloafer - I'll defend that right. And I'll defend one's right to bitch about it.
I'm just curious - how would you feel, create, if the Gazette published glowing reviews of Palin & McCains speeches, and omitted Obama's completely?
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Until the Democrats can effectively counter the current Republican strategy, the Republicans will keep using it. While all that is happening you can be sure that both sides are in skull sessions working up effective counter attacks in case the other side does find success in their response to current strategy and tactics.
Right now the Republicans are using their strategy very effectively. And, of course the Democrats are upset. When Vince Lombardi coached the Green Bay Packers the team had a simple philosophy. Coach the Packer sweep with Hornung and Taylor. Practice it over and over again. Then use it in the game - over and over and over again. During the games everyone knew it was coming, but the Packers kept running it. Why? Because it worked - over and over and over again. It used to infuriate their opponents. They knew it was coming but they found themselves almost powerless to stop it.
Will the Democrats develop a succesful counter-strategy? Probably. Smarter people than any of us on this forum are working the issue. And the Republicans are almost certainly working on a counter strategy for any Democratic counter strategy. But for right now they are on their heels and, understandably, that doesn't sit well with the campaign and its supporters.
I suspect when all is said and done we McCain supporters will get just as upset. There are two months and a lot of politickin' to go.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I truly say this honestly, and without sarcasm, or smugness of belief that nothing will be found: I truly want to know any dirt or improper activities dug up/found out about Palin. I want them brought to light. The country does not know much about her, and they deserve a close scrutiny of her record. I want the facts brought forward and made public record. And if I see things that persuade me one way or the other, well, then, it will persuade me one way or the other. What I DON'T need is it being spun, for instance, as the article create posted, with something like the "pulsating contempt" of the GOP convention. The only "pulsating contempt" I saw at that convention was on the faces of the Code Pink protestors. I've seen alot of contempt displayed very openly by Bush haters, much more so than people who do not like Obama. I wonder which convention more of those people attended, the Dem or Repub? Think any of them showed "pulsating contempt" when the Dem speakers blasted Bush? I saw Oprah crying, I will here and now descibe the look on her face as "pulsating contempt", and dare anyone to prove me wrong. (There's my sarcasm).
You are 100% correct, netloafer. There are counter-strategies upon counter-strategies to no end being worked on by both sides. And it's gonna get worse before it gets better.
ALL that I, and others, are asking for, is for whatever comes to light, regardless of which party, is for the news to report it fair and impartially. And if you want to print an emotion-laden op-ed piece, then let's see a counterpoint as well to comment on. For both sides to comment on. I know, the Gazette can publish what they want. I'm just asking, and wishing, that news outlets were more places of where people turned to get info, not propaganda machines. Wishful thinking on my part.
Who knows. It might even improve the Gazette's circulation..... which would mean more $$ for them..... hint hint....
Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Open-Eyes
I believe you and I will pull the same lever in the ballot box. In the end I'm going to feel very proud of my vote, win or lose.
You can expect the opposition to come out with guns blazing. They are going to find every reason they can to discredit this woman. They'll find earmarks, but I suspect she'll be able to find Barack Obama's earmarks just as easily (the $3.2 MM that he got for Joe Biden's lobbyist son). They'll find influence in troopergate. That's fine. Let the Democrats defend the idea that it's alright to use a taser on a ten year old child or threaten to blow his father in law's brains out.
They say they're pro-woman. They say she's not the "right" woman. Who was, then? Hillary Clinton? I think she may have been. I've not been a Hillary Clinton admirer, but she had 18 million powerful reasons to be on the ticket. Why didn't the Democrats select her? Do you think if they had they would be in the position they are now?
Many seem to be grossed out by the fact that Sarah Palin's seven year old daughter licked her hand and then straightened out Trig's hair. Now there's offense for you. There's an issue. There's a reason not to vote for a candidate.
They say they want to talk issues. How's this for issues - Sarah Palin's daughter. Her Christian faith. The pregnancy she brought to term. Not seeming to know that a woman's role is in the home, not in national leadership.
I know which lever I'm going to pull in November. Illinois SB 1082 did the trick for me.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
netloafer, I suspect we will as well, and I will feel proud, win or lose. However, regardless of my typical leanings, and being the fierce independent that I consider myself, regardless of how strongly I currently feel, I WILL keep my options open. If I were to find out that Palin embezzled millions in Alaska, and McCains POW story is completely made-up, that will affect my decision just as much as if I were to find out Obama had a secret pact with Iran to destroy America from within - LOL. I doubt either is going to happen, just saying I always try to keep an open mind... :)
Speaking of the issues regarding Palin - I think those same people complaining about the issues you just listed need to go back and see what was said about Geraldine Ferrarro when she was a VP candidate. Amazing how what was things that were considered assets/strong points then are now considered liabilities/weaknesses. Geraldine was on the other night, even though she supports the Dems, blasting the media treatment of Palin - basically telling her "You Go, Girl". To me, Geraldine had the right attitude to have - she was against Palin because of the ISSUES, not all the other crap. Isn't it amazing how NOW (Nat Org of Women) is very much anti-Palin? And exactly why? I'm not saying they have to vote for her or support her just because she's a woman - I don't think anyone should support or not support any candidate based solely on their race or gender - but they seem to be against her basically because she wouldn't abort her unborn child. NOW has a very strict leftist-mantra, and if you don't conform to that, then you might as well be a man - LOL
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Illinois SB 1082 - now there's a perfect example of the slippery slope. Give it another 10 years, and the right people in power, and that bill will be extended to children up to the age of 2. (Ok, I'm exagerrating - I sincerely hope)
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There's a perfect example of why I never say never, and always try to keep an open mind - I just now read that Lance Armstrong is coming out of retirement, and plans to race in the 2009 Tour De France. Seriously.
http://sports.iwon.com/news/09082008/v48...
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, waddaya know. How interesting. It seems Olbermann & Matthews have become too biased & opinionated during the conventions, and could not keep their reporting neutral. So MSNBC is replacing them as news anchors. They will be moved to other slots.
Guess a few of us crazies here on this board weren't the only ones to notice. Interesting read - this is just one link, if this link doesn't work just google it and you will find plenty.
http://www.rr.com/view/content/story.cfm...
This article might be just on my provider, just in case I'll post it below
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Published - Sep 08 2008 01:22PM CDT | AP
By DAVID BAUDER - AP Television Writer
MSNBC is replacing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as co-anchors of political night coverage with David Gregory, and will use the two newsmen as commentators.
The change reflects tensions between the freewheeling, opinionated MSNBC and the impartial newsgatherers at NBC News. Throughout the primaries and summer, MSNBC argued that Olbermann and Matthews could serve as dispassionate anchors on political news nights and that viewers would accept them in that role, but things fell apart during the conventions.
Gregory, the veteran Washington hand, will anchor MSNBC's coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debates and election night, network spokesman Jeremy Gaines said Sunday. The change was first reported by The New York Times.
The tipping point appears to have come during the GOP convention when Olbermann criticized MSNBC for showing a Sept. 11-themed video prepared by the Republicans.
MSNBC executives, who had publicly defended their anchors' roles while privately monitoring them throughout the political season, made the change over the weekend after discussions with Olbermann. Despite the controversy around him, Olbermann has been a hero with left-leaning viewers and keyed MSNBC's growth among coveted young viewers.
During her acceptance speech last week, Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin talked about the "Washington elite" not accepting her qualifications for the job. Some delegates on the convention floor began chanting, "N-B-C, N-B-C."
Olbermann began to have difficulty keeping his opinions in check, or simply stopped trying.
He sarcastically dismissed GOP pundit Pat Buchanan on the air after Buchanan said the Republicans had been enlivened by the entrance of a conservative Republican.
"Those reading US Weekly with the picture of her and her youngest daughter with the word `scandal' written across it won't be so happy," Olbermann said.
He expressed little sympathy at another point when GOP anger at rumors over the Internet about Palin were being discussed.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 8, 2008 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
continued...
"We'll see if people feel sorry for unfounded rumors on the Internet," he said. "If that's the case, Senator Obama's probably standing up and cheering and waiting for people to feel sorry for him."
Perhaps most embarrassing, Joe Scarborough was discussing positive developments in John McCain's campaign at one point when Olbermann was heard on an offstage microphone saying: "Jesus, Joe, why don't you get a shovel?"
Scarborough, a former Republican congressman and host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe," got in another nasty on-air exchange with MSNBC reporter David Shuster, and Matthews snapped at Olbermann on-air when it appeared Olbermann was criticizing him for talking too much.
All the drama made MSNBC a punch line when top NBC anchor Brian Williams appeared on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" last week. "Is there no control?" host Jon Stewart asked him. "`Is it `Lord of the Flies?'"
A sheepish Williams said that every family has a dynamic of its own.
"But does MSNBC have to be the Lohans?" Stewart said.
Olbermann was in Denver during the Democratic national convention, but performed his co-hosting duties for the GOP convention in a New York studio. NBC President Steve Capus said the decision was not political, that Olbermann had been sent back to anchor coverage of Hurricane Gustav.
MSNBC's decision comes just before Olbermann's "Countdown" show is set to air, on Monday, his interview with Barack Obama. That will put Olbermann in direct competition with his nemesis, Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, who interviewed Obama last week and is airing a portion of it Monday in the same 8 p.m. EDT time slot.
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 9, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A good article comparing the treatment Obama got last night on O'Reilly vs Olbermann. Quite a contrast. Olbermann's role on MSNBC will not be that of a commentator, since he can't be trusted to just report the news anymore without letting too much of his own personal bias show through.... personally, I think of the 3 candidates that appeared on O'Reilly, he was hardest on Hillary... JMO.... but there are still 2 more segments with Obama to go on O'Reilly....
http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/2008090...
Posted by open_eyes (anonymous) on September 9, 2008 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
netloafer, speaking of earmarks, don't forget the $1 million he sought for the hospital his wife is vice president of (it did not pass Congress). You know, the one where shortly after he was first elected Congress she got promoted and her salary nearly doubled.....
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)