September 07, 2008

"But I *SAID* To Be Nice"

Barack Obama has promised he wouldn't wage a smear campaign against Sarah Palin but a number of his surrogates are sure getting their hands dirty. Too many to be a coincidence.

Either Obama is encouraging/allowing these tactics (and lying about it) - or, since his staff is directly ignoring his publicly stated stance, he is not a much of a leader.

Either way, who would want to vote him into the White House?

Posted by Vox at September 7, 2008 04:31 PM | Sarah Palin , politics
Comments

I can't repond to this- the filter isn't letting me. It must be objecting to the article- I posted it in here. Bottom line- when you argue family values, your family is on the table. It is a question of hypocrisy.

Posted by: Samuel Skinner at September 8, 2008 12:49 AM

So democrats have no family values then? Hmmm... maybe that's it. Maybe that's why the media was so much kinder to John Edwards... an ADULT who IS a political figure who not only had an affair with a woman, but who had a bastard child with her and all of this taking place while his poor wife is dieing of cancer. Yeah... that must be why HE wasn't on the cover of US Weekly with the title "Babies, Lies and Scandals." But lets pick on a teenager who IS going to be marrying the father and has nothing to do with being in Politics.

Posted by: Lori at September 8, 2008 11:59 AM

Do I have to talk slowly? When you campaign on the platform of "family values", your family is open to investigation. Democrats may or may not have them- but they DON'T force them on others. It is NOT part of the Democratic platform.

As for Edwards... you do realize Newt Grinich did the exact same thing? Honestly, it is like the two traded notes. Amazingly though, neither Edwards nor Newt is the canadite, so their screw ups are completely unrelated to the current election. We are interested in the Presidential canidates- the only reason Palin is important is because McCain is on death's door.

Posted by: Samuel Skinner at September 8, 2008 03:54 PM

Just because Palin's daughter is pregnant doesn't mean she is being a hypocrite about her family values. Look, teenagers are going to do what they do. A parent cannot follow their teens around 24/7. I grew up in a family that instilled family values but I still did things that went against that when I was a teen. It doesn't mean my parents didn't do a good job, I knew exactly what I was doing at the time even if they were mistakes. Looking back now that I'm an adult, there are things I should have done differently and know better based on my values.

I'm sure when the situation came up in their family, I'm sure the parents were supportive and had discussions about what they could all do moving forward with it. Now if Palin had told her daughter to get an abortion, I could see that making her a hypocrite.

And you know McCain is on death's door because.....?

Posted by: Lori at September 8, 2008 08:50 PM

To say that Democrats don't "force their values on others" is ridiculous. What cave have you been living in?

Having a teenager make a mistake doesn't show Palin to be hypocritical or lacking in family values. Had she forced her to abort the child, that would have been hypocritical. Had she tossed her out on her ear or withheld her love and support, that would have shown a lack of family values.

I think the main problem here is that the left seems to have no concept of what family values actually are. They imagine it as some esoteric concept and, unlike pornography, they don't even know it when they see it.

However, this post was about Obama's pledge to avoid the low road. He is either a liar or an ineffective leader, since his campaign is most assuredly going very low.

Years ago we were 'negotiating' with Yasser Arafat and he kept promising to stop the violence perpetrated by the Palestinians. However the bombings continued. I can't remember who pointed it out, but the gist was, "either he is lying about wanting it to stop, or he is unable to get it to stop. Either way, why would we be dealing with him"

Same thing here. Either he is lying, or he is not respected. Not much of a leader.

Posted by: Vox at September 9, 2008 10:05 AM

The Republican platform is based on abstinence only education. A candidate who can't even apply that to their own children... you guys remember Dukakis? It is the same thing. Of course, it wasn't hypocrisy in his case, just lack of emotion, but I think you get my point.

I said Democrats don't insist on the platform of "family values", which is code for regulating America's sex life.

You just accused half of the country of being amoral. And you think I do ad hominums?

"However, this post was about Obama's pledge to avoid the low road. He is either a liar or an ineffective leader, since his campaign is most assuredly going very low."

Lets look at what the site says. First, conacting a relatives union. Next, investigating troopergate. And finally an email...

Apparently it calls Palin a Nazi, bad right? Lets look at the letter...

... Okay, this is a new low. Lets look at what the letter says:

Wow... it DIDN'T call Palin a Nazi. It called Buchanan a Nazi. Look the guy up- he goes into the "grey area".


Of course, we have two cases of investigations (because investigating your opponent is OBVIOUSLY mudslinging) and one instance of them blatantly lying about mudslinging.

In short, Obama has kept his promise and they have made up BS. The only way he would have not triggered their "He broke his promise" is if he pulled a Kerry.

Note that this is why I dislike people who claim that all they are doing is "unserious". Because it is a great way to ignore the fact that you are committing libel. Course, we don't use British law, but given the fact you could have clicked on the link to see the original... sloppy.

Posted by: Samuel Skinner at September 9, 2008 05:09 PM

I had to get rid of the quote boxes- they wouldn't take. I know- you explained it. Anyway, just click on the article and click on the individual articles to look inside.

Posted by: Samuel Skinner at September 9, 2008 05:10 PM

"You just accused half of the country of being amoral. And you think I do ad hominums?"

When did I ever accuse half the country of being amoral? Either your reading comprehension is very poor, or you are confusing my blog with another one you've been reading.

Another indication of your poor comprehension is your claim that "The Republican platform is based on abstinence only education" I pointed you right to the site where you could find the platform. Either you are too lazy to read it or you couldn't grasp it, so I will give you the relevant passage here. Far from being what the platform is based on, it is on page 81 out of 92.

Each year more than three million American teenagers contract sexually
transmitted diseases, causing emotional harm and serious health consequences, even
death. We support efforts to educate teens and parents about the health risks associated
with early sexual activity and provide the tools needed to help teens make healthy
choices. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent
effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, including
sexually transmitted HIV/AIDS. Therefore, we support doubling abstinence education
funding

Hmmm, sounds like a full program to me, with an emphasis on the only 100% effective method of prevention.
Further, Bristol Palin received sex education in her school, not just abstinence only. Perhaps, had her mother's message not been watered down by the school system, she would not be preparing for motherhood. However, to claim that a teenagers mistake, one which she is owning up to, one which she is fully dealing with the consequences of, reflects poor parenting or hypocrisy is blatantly absurd. The way she and her family are dealing with it shows quite the opposite to be true.

"Wow... it DIDN'T call Palin a Nazi. It called Buchanan a Nazi"

Yes, and that would be bad enough. Buchanan may be a nut job, but he is not a Nazi. But they are explicitly trying to link Palin to him and claim, by association, that she is therefore a Nazi or, at the very least, a Nazi sympathizer. Clearly the left has no concept of who the Nazi's actually were since they try to call anyone who disagrees with them a "Nazi" and/or a "Fascist". It is an effective smear with those who have no concept of history, they know those words are scary, but they don't know how outrageous the association is.

Investigating your opponent is standard. Investigating their record is especially important.
However, to claim you won't be trying to roust skeletons and smears to use against your opponent (or rather, your opponent's running mate) and then sending staff members to do just that is dishonest. If you just have no control over your staff, you are an ineffective leader. That is pretty bad when you have been claiming your executive experience is running this presidential campaign.

Finally, whether what I am doing meets your definition of seriousness, or mine, if I had committed libel it wouldn't matter. What, pray tell, do you think I posted that rises to that level?

Posted by: Vox at September 10, 2008 11:39 AM

"I said Democrats don't insist on the platform of "family values", which is code for regulating America's sex life."

Which proves you have no concept of what family values are.

Posted by: Vox at September 10, 2008 11:42 AM