My favorite Amy Carter moment was when a reporter asked her if she had any message for the children of America. She looked at the reporter square in the eyes, thought for a few moments, and then gave this brilliant reply: "No."
Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin dropped the puck at the Philadelphia Flyers game Saturday night and was greeted with either a loud chorus of boos or a mixed response, depending on which media account you read. On the videos I've seen, such as this one, you can hear a lot of boos before the Flyers public address system cranks up the volume on patriotic music all the way to 11, which makes me think they were hearing a pretty negative reception.
Palin came out on the ice with her daughters Willow and Piper, the younger girl dressed in a Flyers jersey. A Fox News producer, Shushannah Walshe, says that Palin intentionally dressed Piper that way to discourage boos:
The GOP Vice-Presidential nominee said at an earlier fundraiser that she would stop some of the booing from the rowdy Philadelphia fans by putting her seven year old daughter, Piper in a Flyers jersey. She said, "How dare they boo Piper!"
What kind of parent would expose a seven-year-old child to a potentially abusive crowd in an attempt to defuse hostility? Philly fans are notorious for being tough -- they once booed Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Michael Irvin as he was being taken off the field strapped to a gurney with a potential spinal injury.
I hate to encourage the Palin sideshow, since the economic meltdown has already made her a non-factor in this election, but there's something skeevy about the way she's used her kids in this campaign. When Bristol Palin's pregnancy was announced, as intense media coverage and ugly blog speculation about the teen were at their height, the McCain/Palin campaign orchestrated an event during the Republican National Convention so McCain could greet Bristol and the child's father, Levi Johnston, on an airport tarmac as the news media broadcast the event live.
McCain's public embrace of the teens was bizarre. If the purpose was to put Bristol Palin and her boyfriend at ease, it could've been done privately. Instead, the campaign used them to demonstrate the social tolerance of the Republican presidential candidate, making a press spectacle of Palin's daughter at the same time they were issuing statements telling the press to lay off Palin's family.
Now Piper Palin's being used as a prop to save her mother the embarrassment of being booed by a sports crowd in a swing state.
Contrast that approach to how the Carters, Clintons and Bushes treated their young daughters during their campaigns and subsequent presidencies. The children were kept out of the public eye as much as possible, reinforcing the message they were off-limits. Chelsea Clinton, Jenna Bush and Barbara Bush never worked political events until they were in their 20s -- aside from the obligatory family gatherings at the end of convention nominating speeches. If Palin has made a single campaign appearance without trotting out her kids, I haven't seen it.
YOU LIBS SURE HAVE IT WRONG PALIN IS SHOWING HOW YOU CAN BE A MARRIED MOM AND WATCH HER KIDS AND STILL GO OUT TO CAMPAIGN.IF THE FANS WANT TO SHOW THIER MEAN SIDE THE KIDS WILL KNOW WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO GET MORE REPUBLICANS ELECTED.
Sarah isn't running for president
Just like Al gore was the first time around
And if Al Gore were to have used his family life in his campaign more the second time. We wouldn't be doing the bush countdown right now.
no one is being honest in this election. we're bailing out all these private corporations... with what money? there are one two places to get this money: (1) borrow it from china (2) raise taxes.
senator obama has said he'll only raise taxes on the rich.
senator mccain has says he'll continue president bush's tax cuts.
the truth is, our taxes are going to go up. either the taxpayers are going to fund the bailouts entirely, or we're going to borrow money from china... and then our taxes will be raised to pay the interest on our loans to china.
why don't any reporters ask obama and mccain: how are you going to pay for these bailouts without raising taxes? (there aren't a trillion dollars worth of spending cuts that can be made.)
I'm still waiting for you to write one post of any substance other then attacking Palin, her womb, and her children.
I knew when Palin was selected we'd see some Republicans trying their hand at identity politics, but man are you guys bad at it. Palin's gender doesn't render her impervious to criticism. When the hockey mom tells people she's using her youngest daughter as a hockey prop, there's nothing remotely unfair about calling attention to it. Are her kids even attending school at this point, or are the Palins dragging them around the campaign trail? The Obamas' kids are in school.
Palin is immaterial, yet you are fixated on attacking her through her children? I know that tomorrow you are going to write a scathing indictment of Hussein for taking his children to the randy Rev. Racists church and teaching them Afro-cetric seperatistism and anti american bullshit....right?
Face it Rogers, you hate women, you hate women who are conservative, who love god and family, that have pride in America. You love nasty shrill harpys like Nancy Pelosi, or olberfilth bobbledheaded lesbians like Racheal Madcow, but when you see a women that pulled herself up from her boot straps and made a good life for herself and her family, you have nothing but hate in your heart.
Worst of all, Gov. Palin is happy, and you really hate that. You like women who sees America as a 'down right mean place' and not as the best country on earth.
Someday you will feel shame, shame for your jackel like attacks on Palins children and her vagina.
NYT straightens out LIES...Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-who-who-who-He-He-He....oh ya....that is funny! I suppose the liberals believe that rag so it might be persuasive to them. I do agree with you about how to tell when a liberal is lying.
# 13 | TWN to the NYT | 2008-10-13 12:57 AM | link | edit
It's a fair question Rogers. Nothing, not even a peep, about voter fraud/fundraising fraud/Fannie/Freddie hijinks/Biden's shady kids and their "hedge fund"/etc.? There must be 20 huge stories worth a lot more attention than Palin.
Gee - and I thought we actually had real topics to discuss in this country. 2 wars, security, health care, economic problems, education, social security, debt, energy. What's it going to take to have people focus on what we need from out leaders and not how they are going to entertain us? This is where I get sick to my stomach over where we as a nation are heading. Perhaps Paris Hilton is the better choice in this situation?
Rex is a standard Republican. Rather than do something with his life " like start his own blog where he can talk about anything his black heart desires " he navigates to a so-called liberal blog and complains about the content there.
If Rex ever went to Japan, he'd complain that everyone there spoke Japanese all the time. How dare they not speak English!
Democrats actually create things... they build things, they do things " Republicans do nothing but whine.
The "Staff" gets uppity, "Rex is a standard Republican. Rather than do something with his life " like start his own blog where he can talk about anything his black heart desires " he navigates to a so-called liberal blog and complains about the content there."
Isn't this your schtick, Rogers? That those who may find some content vis a vis your "interests" with which they don't agree should start their own blog - you'll provide advice?
Seriously, are you only interested in receiving commentary from those who always agree with your thread comments, slavishly? Is this a journal for nothing but attacks on reactionaries, conservatives and, or Republicans? Only intellectual sameness allowed?
I'm beginning to think so, and since you allow nearly all the spam, post unrelated crapola against the rightwing, while removing some of the right's bon mots ...
Also, the fact that you never, ever defend your positions, in relation to the criticism, but inevitably misdirect with asides like this one from "Happyandgay", or some other non sequitur you conflate with the questions asked and the points made to you.
I had to laugh, because a car full of "journalists/newspersons" were booed in Manhattan by the stoked crowd, and one of them commented:
"They must think we're Ditto-Heads!"
What a bunch of freudian idiots "newspersons" just happen to be in this, their goebbelsesque existence and their unconscious support for their choice of the new "Fuehrer"!
Rogers admits, "This Palin story caught my eye because it isn't every day a politician makes the explicit admission she used her child as a prop."
Like the other "journalist/newspersons", you can't help but reveal your true motives in this "Freudian" way. You obscure the facts by raising a strawman argument to knock down.
In this case, Palin is honest in her conviction that the crowd would not boo as much, if she had her daugher wear a Flyer's jersey, instead of a dress, or other appropriate clothing.
Since all politicians bring their family children to such events; the more exciting for children, the better; it isn't the admission that she will be a political "prop", but rather that she won't be boo'ed as much with the appropriate jersey ... that's what is interesting to you ... that Palin is smart, savvy and honest in her public statements!
So, of course you misdirect that using a family member as a political "prop" is to be taken as something "bad" and even possibly, "evil"!
And, look at the number of slavish agreement you have received, parroting the idea that having children at political events is somehow a *corruption*!
Congratulations on finding the caps lock key, something you no doubt identified on keyboard while a youth in school, exactly the place where Palin's kids are NOT (notice the caps used sparingly for emphasis) during their mother's foolish run for office. Of course, the Palin camp likely has private tutors and personal staff to support these kids, which would make Palin slightly askew from the "Joe Sixpack" (sic) lifestyle she models as her own. Joe, Sarah understands her limitations: she is a poorly educated shrew driven at success wielding tacitly racist soundbites for the mouthbreathing set following this election to foment over while her running mate and legion of morons are doomed to be presided over by an African American. (Say it ain't so, Joe.) As solace, I'd use the time remaining in the election not to scream via comments, but to seek out your limitations. Here's a place to start: you're a moron.
Oh boy, here goes Rex again spinning his tall tales. Trying to sound important. Lying again.
How much did I offer to pay if you could have proven that you had the phony job you didn't have - was it $100 or $1000? I repeat the offer, this time with your most recent sad and fake declaration: if you can provide documentation you lived in the country of Japan for one year, I will wire the money to your PayPal account.
If they found a cure for fear it would wipe out conservatism.
This fear twists makes these people weak and full of hatred and intolerance. Sad, really. The US was built on strength, progressive ideals and a love of liberty (yes... liberalism = seeking liberty). Imagine if the Founding Fathers had been a pack of feckless, timorous conservatives crippled by frothing right-wing anger.... well, they'd have sided with mad George III (the same way they sided with mad George W) out of fear of change. They'd have been angry at the liberty-seekers (you know, liberals) because they didn't write the Declaration of Independence in all caps.
Notice how conservatives are always whining, moaning and angry? One of the things they always moan about is "government on our backs". Well, why are they always pushing for government interference in our lives and private choices? From pushing religion (rejecting atheism and other choices), to prohibition on drugs (private choice) and fighting against abortion (personal, private choice), they want the government to decide these things for people. Not merely weak, fearful and angry, they are hypocritical too.
Move over, conservatives. Let the US be strong again, not hogtied by your fear of progress.
everyone's abandoning mccain - chris buckely, chris hitchens, kathleen parker... now the rnc is giving up on mccain and spending all its money (plus borrowing $ 5 mil!) to try to salvage too-close-to-call senate races in order to try to avoid a 60-61 seat democrat senate. this is getting bleak. the fault lies squarely at the feet of the candidate, who picked palin instead of romney & spent the economy's worst week in history talking about obama's character.
Neil says, "... The US was built on strength, progressive ideals and a love of liberty (yes... liberalism = seeking liberty). Imagine if the Founding Fathers had been a pack of feckless, timorous conservatives crippled by frothing right-wing anger...."
The US Constitution is the document, and accepted as law, which LIMITS government. That is what was envisioned as being "conservative", a set of principle included in laws which regulated the nation, as a Republic of States.
The Founding Fathers established a very "liberal" attitude towards the "individual", not the party, not the majority, and not government's control of the individual. Continuing that limitation of government over the lives of individuals is conservative political philosophy, and what was of utmost concern to the revolutionaries against a tyranny - not a "conservative" government, party or group; as you try to infer, here:
"... well, they'd have sided with mad George III (the same way they sided with mad George W) out of fear of change. They'd have been angry at the liberty-seekers (you know, liberals) because they didn't write the Declaration of Independence in all caps."
Conservatives have a tendency to be supportive of traditions and other displays of cultural origins. Normally, those who are Leftists, but label themselves "liberals" would defend the right of Americans to honor their cultural traditions, and not have them mocked, defamed and reviled. However, those same "liberals" attack the displays of culture and traditon of Europeans, and especially white Anglo-Saxon Christians, Catholics and Jews; denying public displays of religiousity.
I guess they are "liberal" in being community organized individuals who have joined a minority to defame some minority - as is their right ...
"Notice how conservatives are always whining, moaning and angry?"
Too funny! What I "notice" on this site is a lot of whining, moaning and anger (wma) expressed towards the rightwing ... and you're a perfect example of that wma, and the obvious fact that your "criticism" is actually projection of your own political angst.
" One of the things they always moan about is "government on our backs". Well, why are they always pushing for government interference in our lives and private choices?"
This funny, and since Obama wants to increase government to include taking over the medical care industry. If that isn't "government interference in our lives and private choices", I don't know what is, Neil. Possibly, you are thinking about the wartime intelligence efforts by the NSA? The NSA created and monitored by Democrats for the vast majority of its existence?
If so, then it isn't any interference in *your* life, unless you are conspiring with terrorists against the USA, or its forces overseas ... and that wouldn't include you loyal and patriotic "progressives" now, would it?
"... From pushing religion (rejecting atheism and other choices) ..."
You use a term, "pushing", and which carries a negative inference. It seems perfectly acceptable for "progressives" to want to teach a theory, as a fact, but deny any other theory to be discussed - Period! As much as you consider the Theory of Evolution to be a fact, it has not been so proven, and thereby become a law of science. Other theories can be mentioned, and acknowledging that no scientific evidence supports that mysticism. Denying the existence of some other theory is not "science", but only "political correctness".
"... to prohibition on drugs (private choice)..."
Give me a break! The whole congress, for the last 75 years has been controlled by Democrats for the vast majority of time! Complain to Democrats about The War on Drugs, and such prohibitions!
"... and fighting against abortion (personal, private choice) ..."
You can't redefine "personal, private choice" into a right in every circumstance. The abortion issue is not a "right", but rather a societal issue. If our nation worked according to the constitution, each state would determine whether abortion should be allowed, or not. Then, within that state, local counties, and cities can/should hold referendums to determine whether it (abortion) should be allowed in the community(s).
"... they want the government to decide these things for people. Not merely weak, fearful and angry, they are hypocritical too."
No, they want government NOT to make those decisions, which you have listed and AGREE with ... smiley ...
What a psychological revelation such obvious projections reveal in the Leftist/"progressive" ideology ... total confusion ...
"At a press conference on June 17, 1971, your hero Republican President Richard Nixon declared a War On Drugs."
Presidents don't make laws, congress makes laws. The War on Drugs is a congressional project, paid for and monitored by them ... not the president.
That's the trouble with trying to make such commentary personal, Anon, because you involve your ego in the debate, and your ego is worthless in support of any position you think you maintain, politically.
Rogers can't repair his own errors, much less mine. However, my statement remains unrefuted in that it (individual repression of "choice" in recreational drugs) has been stymied by a congress which has been Democrat during the vast majority of such "repressive" legislation.
Come on back with your own "whine" to the contrary, why not? Like, you know, actually provide supported contradiction to the above opinion?
Or, is that expecting too much from a "Progressive"?
Anon goes ballistic, "The War On Drugs was not a "Congressional Project" - that doesn't mean anything, by the way. The phrase was coined by a Republican. The concept was created by a Republican."
As mentioned, you make this about ego, and with me as your subject, try to infer that I might not acknowledge some factoid, or another.
So, what? Conservative, anti-drug lawmakers of both parties have supported banning certain drugs, which they declare as "dangerous" for whatever reason; valid or not. If a Republican proposed a greater effort to interdict drugs, where is the responsibility for making it happen?
Congress, and when they do so fund such proposals, they monitor (or supposedly do so) the funds usage(s) and results of their funded directions. The "War on Drugs" may have started because Nancy proposed it, but nothing changed; except law enforcement expansion and involvement of Armed Forces in limited interdiction -- all the work of congress.
"And even you aren't so dumb as to try to sell the idea that the harshest drug prohibition laws were passed by liberals."
I didn't say that. I stated that drug laws have been the responsibility of the congressional majority for the last 75 years - Democrats.
"You're just wrong, and you can't admit it because then the tears
will start flowing again. Waaaaaaaa!"
No, I've said what I've said, and stand by it. You are the one stalking my every post with your effort to build the strawman argument about, "Whine", and so you can knock it down like the callow sophomoric caricature you make of yourself. I'm just glad that you are an example of Democrat/Leftist/Progressive/liberal or whatever label you apply to yourself ... and not the rightwing.
if nixon coined the phrase back in 1971, that wasn't 75 years ago, tadowe.
here's who controlled congress from 1971 until now:
1971-1981 democrats, both houses
1981-1987 republican senate, democratic house
1987-1995 democrats, both houses
1995-2007 republicans, both houses
2007-2008 democrats, both houses
it's been a mixed bag over the 37 years since the beginning of the war on drugs - republicans have had plenty of time in charge. and anon is right that it's conservatives who tend to run and govern on law-and-order, anti-drug legislation, not liberals. plus those bills get signed into law by presidents - half of whom were republicans.
by the way, as a conservative, i'm proud of all that. i think drugs should be illegal, and i think anyone who buys or sells drugs should go to jail for a long time. i believe in the rule of law, and i make no apologies for that.
but i also believe a man isn't a man unless he admits when he's wrong. and in this case it looks like you were wrong.
Kraut maunders, "... it's been a mixed bag over the 37 years since the beginning of the war on drugs - republicans have had plenty of time in charge."
Too rich! The term "War on Drugs", is an euphemism - do you know what that means? No, I suspect that very few of you do, because you are too busy trying to make me the subject.
Nixon had a "Drug War", while Nancy changed that to "The War on Drugs".
So what? Do you actually want everyone who objectively reads this to think that the "fight" against drugs started in 1971? No, I don't suppose you are quite that hidebound and stupid.
Your list of congressional control since "1971" is interesting in its attempt to obfuscate (lie about) the facts, and since this number makes itself apparent:
Democrat control = 26 years
Republican control = 16 years
All since 1971.
Thanks for supporting my contention that Democrats have been in control of the fight against drugs for the majority of the time.
In addition, this from Wikipedia and which says, in part:
The gains in seats in the mid-term election resulted in the Republicans gaining control of both the House and the Senate in January 1995. Republicans had not held the majority in the House for forty years, since the 83rd Congress (elected in 1952) under Republican Speaker Joseph William Martin, Jr..
Since the US government had begun the banning of drugs in the 1920s, it is easy to determine who was in control for most of the putative "Drug War" (but known under other descriptions), and its beginning against illegal drugs; e.g., heroin, cocaine and mairjuanna: whenever it started.
Weepy Tom outs himself as a Republican by using their favored term "Democrat."
And he outs himself as - in the word of Kraut - "not a man" with his inability to admit the facts destroyed his opinion-based argument. All he can do is whimper out a "So what?"
Ah... "So what" - the retort of the flaccid, the weak and the defeated.
But he can't admit the obvious failure, because then he'd have to acknowledge that just like The War In Iraq, the War On Drugs was started by Republicans and escalated by Republicans and will ultimately have to be cleaned up by Democrats.
I wonder if during this Republican-created economic crisis Weepy Tom will stick with name-brand Kleenex or switch to the generic tissues?