Bombshell: Serious Palin vetting took place one day before official selection

By: SilentPatriot on Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008 at 6:00 AM - PDT

You gotta be kidding me:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was not subjected to a lengthy in-person background interview with the head of Sen. John McCain’s vice presidential vetting team until last Wednesday in Arizona, the day before McCain asked her to be his running mate, and she did not disclose the fact that her 17-year-old daughter was pregnant until that meeting, two knowledgeable McCain officials acknowledged Tuesday.

In the first and most telling executive decision of his potential presidency, John McCain makes a rash, reckless decision that, God forbid he falls ill while in office, will be disastrous for this country. Is that the kind of judgment we need in the White House for another four years?

Heather caught this video last night from MSNBC of Rachel Maddow blasting Buchanan for praising Palin… after, of course, he said her nomination would be disastrous.

John Cole makes a great point:

McCain had three months free to do whatever- to fund raise, to campaign, to make the case for himself, to shore up the base, to work on the platform, and, presumably, to begin vetting his running partner.

What, then, did the McCain team do with the extra three months they had to choose their candidate? Beats me, but it sure as hell was not a careful examination of Sarah Palin.

Who do you want as Commander In Chief? An intemperate flyboy, or a cautious thinker?

What’s even worse is that despite all the evidence proving the McCain did a piss-poor job of vetting Palin, McCain still insists that the background check was thorough and he’s pleased with the results. Wow. Just wow.

To me, the question is no longer whether or not Sarah Palin is ready to be VP; it’s whether or not John McCain has the temperament and judgment to be President. His choice of the eminently unqualified Palin pretty much answers that question.

For every article that says he didnt know another one says he did.

This will all blow over just like all the drama around Obama did.

SP is new therefor the target of the moment.

It will blow over like the JW story did (Which was on 24 hour news for 3 weeks).

This process was beyond shabby, and I don't believe it will blow over.

Alot of people in his campaign did not do their jobs. If this is what people call "Serving at the pleasure of the candidate" they have dropped this ball.

And I still can't get over how, if Obama had picked someone with these very same qualifications, he would be getting blasted by the same people who are praising this pick.

My myspace says doesnt want kids. However if i knocked someone up i would damnw ell take care of my child.

And it isnt that she doesnt want any. Its that she wants abstinence-only. And i dont see how that emans she wants to see teenagers out on the street without heathcare, food, education, or clothing.

Abstinence only is great if you can get all teenagers to go along. The likelihood of that is zero percent since it hasn't happened in all these years.

If she has opposed programs that would help pregnant teens then it's easy to jump to the conclusion that she wants them out on the street. It may not be explicit as in her saying this is what I want since she probably never gave the consequences any thought, but it's implicit since that could turn out to be the result of a teen being denied those necessities. Maybe she assumes that every family is going to rally around their pregnant team but unfortunately that's not the case all of the times and sometimes even when the families want to, they can't afford to do it.

It will blow over like the JW story did (Which was on 24 hour news for 3 weeks).

This process was beyond shabby, and I don't believe it will blow over.

Alot of people in his campaign did not do their jobs. If this is what people call "Serving at the pleasure of the candidate" they have dropped this ball.

And I still can't get over how, if Obama had picked someone with these very same qualifications, he would be getting blasted by the same people who are praising this pick.

Some of this will blow over but considering the rabidity of the media and those who want to stick it to Fox News, they may keep it going for some time. It's not that there is only one story brewing....it's that they've got several.

Double standards exist and that's the reality. Life isnt' fair and that's the reality. Obama has done well for himself despite adversity. He is not going to be afforded the same courtesies and he's going to have to work doubly harder "to prove himself" even when he shouldn't have to do so. That's just a fact of his life and I am sure he has developed thicker skin because of it and a lot of this just bounces off him. I believe he'll ultimately be even mentally tougher because of this experience and more to come.

And I still can't get over how, if Obama had picked someone with these very same qualifications, he would be getting blasted by the same people who are praising this pick.

Obama should had been blasted ahd be picked SP.

Joe Lieberman is a stupid, idiotic, fool. Why doesn't the fool just change his registration to Republican since he's speaking at their primary and loves W, Dick & McCain. Never liked this fool and cannot stand him now. He's a disgrace imho.

Being someone who has dealt with Huckabee for 10 years.........*shudder*

Are you from Arkansas? What's wrong with Huckabee? I thought he was a popular Governor.

I ike this opinion piece by Hilary Rosen:

Am I "Off Message" on Sarah Palin?

Warning! This pundit isn't feeling the same way as most of my colleagues about Sarah Palin. She is being attacked for her lack of experience for the job and for whether she should be putting her family first instead of her career. This just isn't that unusual in my book. And the more it goes on, the more uncomfortable I feel with that message.

I am a woman who someone took a chance on several years ago and gave me a job that had only previously been done by old white guys. Experience? How do you get any if no one takes a chance on you? And the decision to take a chance can be instinctive, as John McCain said. Sure it was a gimmick. But would we feel better if it was Tim Pawlenty? What someone does on a small scale can be a good indicator of what they do on a large scale. So suggesting that she would do any worse than the host of guys who have auditioned for the job isn't that compelling an argument to me. And what about the argument that she is a negligent mother who will be distracted from her important role. I am a mother who constantly feels the pressure from others about whether I am fit to be a parent, whether I put my kids first often enough and whether my son with learning disabilities gets enough of my attention. Who has the right to to judge my family?

My grandmother always said "You can't tell time on someone else's clock". Judgments about people's personal lives are better left unsaid and unrealized.

So why then do I think that Sarah Palin would be a terrible vice president? Because I also think that John McCain would be a terrible president.

I don't care about how Sarah Palin or John McCain take care of their families. I care about how their policy choices affect my family and millions of other Americans.

-McCain and Palin get their health insurance paid for by the government (hers in Alaska and his in Washington). Yet they oppose giving the 42 million other Americans the same access to affordable healthcare.

-John McCain's kids don't have to worry about paying for college. Yet, he has opposed every single education support program to help others.

-McCain and Palin say they will stand up to oil companies. Yet the only energy policy they support gives millions of dollars in tax breaks to oil companies to do more drilling and he has opposed every piece of federal legislation to explore alternative fuel sources.

-McCain and Palin say they will revamp how Washington does business. Yet his campaign is filled with lobbyists and she has been in bed with Senator Ted Stevens funneling federal money for useless projects in Alaska for years.

-McCain and Palin want us to leave their families alone. Yet they want make rules for our families by eliminating our right to make our own choices over abortion; eliminate our access to family planning education or domestic partner benefits; and our freedom from discrimination. They want to control what our kids learn in school about sex and about science. In short, through the policies they promote and the judges they support, they want the government to be more in control over our private lives than at any time in history.

-McCain and Palin now say their campaign is about change, too. Yet, the only real change they have proposed is a change from a suit to a skirt in the VP's office and one man fighting a misplaced war for another in the Oval Office. That seems to me to be the right reason to oppose them in November. And unlike some others who have focused on the process or on her personally, it is the reason why I don't think this unconventional choice of VP by John McCain will stand up to hype and result in a win in November.

Obama should had been blasted ahd be picked SP.

Why?

For Roman:- You wanted someone to give Obama credit for his stance on Palin's daughter so here it is:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenth...o_b_123194.html

Why?

I think Jack meant because she is a republican.

Just a couple of random thoughts (it's my first time posting on this thread):

Palin's pregnant daughter is clouding the issue. People really should be talking about SP's record as governor (i.e.: Hilary Rosen's piece as posted by Wales).

However, as far as getting pregnant at 17, can you really always blame the parents? Especially nowadays? Once that child gets her driver's license and the family's old Volvo, she is essentially powering a bedroom on wheels. Palin was prob too busy with little Willow, Meadow, River, Bunker, Mountain and Wood Sprite while also running a state chock-full of lucrative petrol, gas and mineral resources to check up on whether lil Bristol really was at the library Saturday night.

I also think that if the Dems (and FTR I am not affiliated with either party but am considering voting for Obama) want to start attacking Sarah Palin on her record (or lack thereof) as I saw last night on CNN, they need to tread very carefully. Obama has equally small political experience and Palin's gubernatorial responsabilites trump his senatorial work. It's going to make them look like hypocrites -- especially the professional feminists who attacked Kansas's female governor for not siding with Hilary Clinton doing the nominations race.

Has there ever in the history of the USA been an instance when a running mate was picked and then for whatever reason was scrapped/dropped out and a new one named?

If there hasn't with the way things are going I think we could have a historic first!

Yes back in the early 70's McGovern dropped his VP pick because it comeout he under went ECT.

IMO McCain is stuck with Palin. I don't think he could recover from dropping her. His team could try to get women all fired up by saying Obama and the media caused her to dropout but i highly doudt it would work.

Just a couple of random thoughts (it's my first time posting on this thread):

Palin's pregnant daughter is clouding the issue. People really should be talking about SP's record as governor (i.e.: Hilary Rosen's piece as posted by Wales).

However, as far as getting pregnant at 17, can you really always blame the parents? Especially nowadays? Once that child gets her driver's license and the family's old Volvo, she is essentially powering a bedroom on wheels. Palin was prob too busy with little Willow, Meadow, River, Bunker, Mountain and Wood Sprite while also running a state chock-full of lucrative petrol, gas and mineral resources to check up on whether lil Bristol really was at the library Saturday night.

I also think that if the Dems (and FTR I am not affiliated with either party but am considering voting for Obama) want to start attacking Sarah Palin on her record (or lack thereof) as I saw last night on CNN, they need to tread very carefully. Obama has equally small political experience and Palin's gubernatorial responsabilites trump his senatorial work. It's going to make them look like hypocrites -- especially the professional feminists who attacked Kansas's female governor for not siding with Hilary Clinton doing the nominations race.

Palin is being blamed because she's aginast Sex Ed and up until now she and peeps like her say that it's all up to parents and it's their fault if their kids get pregnant. So if u go by want she has been saying for years yes it's all her fault. She can't have it both ways.

Don't get y peeps r buying into this whole thing about Palin being Gov trumps Obama. Obama has been the one going on trips and getting all the reports and talking to the top peeps.

Many former and current Gov's have come out and said that they don't really command the NG , that it's all the Millitary they can call them out but they don't really have any say on what they do. Obama can attack her on her record on her support for all of Ted Steven's pet project's or as some peeps call them "scams"???.

IMO McCain is the hypocrite playing the experince card when his VP pick doesn't have any. Obama's VP has more experince that McCain and Palin and Obama put together.

Karl Rove is right McCain picked Palin to win and Obama picked Biden to get things done once he wins.

IMO if McCain wins he will find away to replace Palin.

Just a couple of random thoughts (it's my first time posting on this thread):

Palin's pregnant daughter is clouding the issue. People really should be talking about SP's record as governor (i.e.: Hilary Rosen's piece as posted by Wales).

However, as far as getting pregnant at 17, can you really always blame the parents? Especially nowadays? Once that child gets her driver's license and the family's old Volvo, she is essentially powering a bedroom on wheels. Palin was prob too busy with little Willow, Meadow, River, Bunker, Mountain and Wood Sprite while also running a state chock-full of lucrative petrol, gas and mineral resources to check up on whether lil Bristol really was at the library Saturday night.

I also think that if the Dems (and FTR I am not affiliated with either party but am considering voting for Obama) want to start attacking Sarah Palin on her record (or lack thereof) as I saw last night on CNN, they need to tread very carefully. Obama has equally small political experience and Palin's gubernatorial responsabilites trump his senatorial work. It's going to make them look like hypocrites -- especially the professional feminists who attacked Kansas's female governor for not siding with Hilary Clinton doing the nominations race.

Cat you lost me in reference to her record. In the beginning you say they should be tallking about her record but then you say they should tread carefully in attacking her on her record. I'm unsure as to whether record and experience are being used interchangeably.

The problem with the way the word "experience" has been thrown around for awhile is that it is not being used to express any quality but only quantity, as in he spent umpteen years in the senate and tht makes him qualified. It really depends on what one did qualitatively during all those years for it to be of major significance as far as I'm concerned.

I don't see myself becoming a Democrat any time in the near future but the more this election goes on the more I am convinced that I will never be a Republican unless they completely overhaul that party. What does it mean to take off your Republican hat and put on your American hat because people are in a storm? I thought that Americans were always that first and foremost.

Are you from Arkansas? What's wrong with Huckabee? I thought he was a popular Governor.

The only reason he got the job in the first place was because a democrat was involved in a scandal and Huckabee was the Lt. Gov. But then, he WAS elected two times after that. But I feel like it was mostly because of his religious roots that he got elected. The only memorable good things he did, IMO, was fix the roads (which he actually did do well), and lose weight. Obviously the latter has nothing to do with leading. He vehemently opposed an educational lottery (something that pretty much every surrounding state has) to appease his Baptist supporters. He also granted parole to many convicted felons. IMO, he was always elected to keep things from happening (the lottery and liberal social issues), compared to actually getting things done. We've a had new governor for just about two years and have gotten a lot of new companies and expansion under him already. Huckabee could never manage to actually clinch the jobs from big companies. IMO, our new governor is a lot better just because of the fact that he isn't running the state by religion. He mainly keeps he his hands out of controversial issues and lets voters vote on what they want.

Edited September 3, 200817 yr by bandbfan