Why Isn't AIP Founder Sarah Palin's Reverend Wright?
Reverend Jeremiah Wright said this:
And they will not only attack you if you try to point out what's going on in white America, U.S. of K.K.K.A.
...and this:
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
And Joe Vogler, the founder of the Alaskan Independence Party, said this:
"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home."
Why isn't Vogler's quote just as controversial? Wright called America the "U.S. of K.K.K.A." Vogler professed his "hatred for the American government." Wright said "God damn America." Vogler referred to our "damn flag."
You can argue that the parallels aren't perfect. Sarah Palin supposedly wasn't a member of the AIP. But she courted the group repeatedly over the years, and her husband was a member for around seven years. You could argue that the AIP isn't really a fringe party in Alaska. But Wright's church isn't really fringe on the south side of Chicago, either. And Vogler said what he said.
Just to reiterate: The Republican vice presidential candidate repeatedly courted -- and her husband belonged to -- a secessionist group founded by someone who professed hatred for the American government and cursed the flag.
Because Obama and Wright are black.
September 3, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give it time. I think the MSM will actually use this as another vetting question. "Why didn't Johnny Mac know about the AIP... blah blah blah". Granted, there is the race issue, but I think that this one might get legs too.
http://thepajamapundit.com/
September 3, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it does play into the CW that she is a weirdo. Something definitely fringy and untrustworthy about her. Reminds me of Huckabee in a way, that there's some emptiness in that stare.
September 3, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, especially since she "supposedly" was never a member...that is weird.
September 3, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The best evidence of her affinity and felicitation to the AIP movement is the way that she handled her recent pregnancy after her water broke. She flew over 8 hours back to Alaska to ensure that her child would be a native born Alaskan - as her husband said, paraphrasing "fish pickers don't come from Texas."
Consider the movement: they obviously would have more affinity towards native born Alaskans and vice-versa. Transplants would obviously tend to value their U.S. citizenship more than native borns. So being native born is a positive marker and indication of affinity for the movement - important enough for Palin to take unnecessary risk with her pregnancy.
Actions speak louder than words. There's no denying these actions. If she's "country first" then that country is Alaska.
September 3, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"She flew over 8 hours back to Alaska to ensure that her child would be a native born Alaskan"
I thought it was because she really wasn't pregnant. She was faking it and flew home to perpetuate the fraud. The baby is really her granddaughter. Or have we moved on to some other bullshit storyline now?
September 3, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
What type of mother risked an infants life with an 8 hour flight and 45 minute drive, where she bypasses major NICU hospitals, even when she lands to drive to a rural hospital that cannot provide the specialized care her infant needs once born? What kind of mother is that if not extreme and lacking maternal instinct. IF, you choose to beleive she was pregnant on that flight.
The reason that AIP and Fogler are not like Wright and Trinity is becasue they are white.
It is the same reason that Timothy McVeigh is not considered a terrorist.'
It is the same reason that Bristol is not being labelled a 'baby moma' while Michelle Obama is labelled despite being married for over 3 years before having a child.
The reason this will not make be spun like Wright is because the culprits are white.
White entitlement at play in the new millenium.
Just as a black man's testimony was discounted and only a white man's word was trusted under the law.
This is nothing more than racism.
However, the biggest problem that I see with this is that it forces DUMBASS DEMOCRATS to fight a battle that Obama can't win.
No matter if Palin is inexperinced or a secessionist...as long as she is white she wins.
Only Obama loses in these discussions...Obama loses when Wright is an issue and when inexperience is an issue because he is not white.
Therefore his weaknesses are deal breakers.
Palin's weaknesses are game changers!
All based on race.
Like Mo Def says ...when white boys are doing it, it is called success, when I'm doing it, it is suspect.
America was not afraid of Timothy McVeigh but they were afraid of Willie Horton.
America is not afraid of Sarah Palin, they are afraid of Barack Hussein Obama.
September 3, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's it...a new bumper sticker:McCain/Palin...the Man trying to keep a brutha down!"
September 3, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least it would be accurate.
September 3, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you have an explanation for why she gave a speech, flew across the continent, then by-passed well-equipped hospitals to drive to a small town clinic for the birth of her Down Syndrome child, let's hear it.
Maybe trying for a politically-correct miscarriage to avoid an abortion?
September 3, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
... all hours after her water broke.
September 3, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, stay with the left-wing lies. She wasn't really pregnant, it's her grand daughter remember? She had to fly home to complete the fraud. Gosh, I guess when you develop too many fake conspiracies it's hard to keep them all lined up.
September 3, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
In evaluating the story, the choice was: 1) she is an idiot with little concern for the health of her baby, or 2) this was a cover story to cover up a family embarrassment. I think it was more charitable to go with option 2) --especially when everyone was surprised and she wasn't showing when she announced her preganancy at 7 mos and Bristol was out of school with "mono" for 5 mos.
September 3, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check out Sarah Palin's Pregnancy Decision Map.
It was thirteen hours between when her water broke and when she landed in Anchorage. Rather than go to a hospital there, her husband drove her to a hospital outside of Wasilly, 45 minutes away.
If Sarah was carrying a baby, it looks like her much vaunted executive capabilities could use some work.
http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/4628/sarahpalinla4.png
September 3, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's so they can pick up another oil share check. I don't think you can get that if you aren't born in Alaska. I might be misunderstanding that, but I haven't looked it up yet.
September 3, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe she wanted her doctor to do the delivery...I know that sounds wacky but we can still choose our own doctors...Obama hasn't ruined that yet (and hope he never gets the chance to).
September 3, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her doctor had admitting privileges at the hostpital in Anchorage that had the NICU.....she bypassed that hospital.
September 3, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you getalife?
September 3, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes you can. You're only required to be a resident of the state for one year, with the intent to remain permanently at the time you apply for the dividend.
September 3, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her husband was, she's given speeches to it and she sought the endorsement.
The hypocrisy is nausea-inducing.
If Michelle Obama had been a member of, and Barack had been connected to, a group of black people who advocated taking Chicago out of the United States, Sean Hannity would have been foaming and the mouth and having apoplectic fits and you would have been bouncing off the walls of your cage about it. One of the Right's favorite baseless theories is that Latinos are conspiring to separate the South Eastern U.S. into a Latino homland--Aslan, Aslund, Asthma--whatever you guys call it and they get themselves worked up into a high dudgeon over it.
Well here's a real separatist conspiracy for you, and you don't seem to think its a big deal. These people are real, actual, self-professed, flag-hating enemies of the United States. They are not a party, they are a seditious conspiracy. The fact that its members are ineffectual loons is not a mitigating factor, its an aggravating factor if the question is whether a nominee for the second highest office in the land should be associating with them.
If you really were/are in the Army, remember that part of your oath about defending the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic? It came right after the part about bearing true faith and allegiance. As it happens, I took the same oath when I was admitted to practice in federal court, and I don't recall any qualifiers that limited that duty depending upon whether the enemies were to the left or to the right.
September 3, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it does play into the CW that she is a weirdo. Something definitely fringy and untrustworthy about her. Reminds me of Huckabee in a way, that there's some emptiness in that stare.
September 3, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
AIP is one issue to stay away from. Bringing up AIP will only resurrect Wright as an topic.
September 3, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's moronic. Wright has been litigated and folks have moved on. People don't know about AIP and it's even more damaging since the republicans are supposed to be the ones who really, really love their country.
Thinking like yours is why we lose. Who would have thought that draft-dodging Bush would have the balls to attack war hero Kerry? They did it and it worked. We need to grow a pair.
September 3, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think I love you, freerider.
September 3, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to play Devil's Advocate:
Dems attack Palin and the AIP. Here is the Republican response:
If the Democrats want to attack Palin with the views of Vogler and the AIP, that's fine. First of all, Sarah did not belong to the AIP the way that Obama and his family belonged to Wright's church for nearly 20 years. Vogler was never Palin's spiritual advisor like Wright was to Obama. It is true that Palin courted the members of the group, but that is because she is committed to reaching people outside of her party, just like John McCain is. Palin obviously does not agree with the views of the AIP. If she did, she would have joined, the way that Obama joined Wright's church after he listened to Reverend Wright.
This would be a mild example of a Republican response. There are plenty of things on which to attack Palin/McCain and the Republicans. Vogel would be one sure to open up the Wright controversey once again.
In terms of Palin and religion the following article may bear more fruitful arguments:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/website-with-sp.html
September 3, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, here is the better link that I was looking for. I think CNN even played some of it this morning:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
September 3, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the church she was been a member of for about 20 years should be pretty relevant, right?
So check out what her pastor had to say.
September 3, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are both linking to the same church issue concerning Palin.
Note that she was not associated with this church/pastor for 20 years.
My observation is that her religion issue is more concerning than Obama's, because of the way Palin herself invokes God in her conversation.
September 3, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you wet the bed at night over what the Repugs and Religious Right just might say about something you say?
It's ridiculous to hem the truth in with fear.
It's ridiculous and not working anymore.
September 3, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
We only need to grow one: Hillary has a spare.
September 3, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. I think AIP should be a big topic. Lots of the GOP base would consider the idea of Alaska seceding to be absolutely un-American, unpatriotic and almost like treason. You have to consider that one of her first acts if she elevated to president could be to help Alaska break off from the union. With all its oil. Then the US would be dependent on another foreign nation for energy. Scary scary scary. This needs to be talked about.
September 3, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm, she did mention in that little "What does a vice-president do?" remark that she would want to be able to use the position to help Alaska...
September 3, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not about what anybody said... it's about having the video.
That's all that matters. If we've got the video, we've got something.
If we don't it's like a tree falling in a forest that no one hears... it never happened.
September 3, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference here is black and white.
September 3, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can I get an amen from the congregation?!?!
http://pufferfish.typepad.com/
September 3, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
September 3, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly!
September 3, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is Joe Vogler black?
Case closed.
September 3, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it amusing that her husband belonged to the group, but stopped in 2002 and there are on again and off again reports that she also participated in the group. But we are to discredit those reports because the republicans said that she didn't belong, notwithstanding her husband belonging to the group. Give me a break, she was a card carrying member until it wasn't politically expedient and she still supports the group as evidenced by her march 2008 speech to the group.
September 3, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Palin's husband left th e group in 2002. Why then? That is when Sarah first entered the national scene when running for lt. gov (which she lost).
September 3, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we have a consensus.
September 3, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh...about that thing Vogler said about being buried in Dawson? He actually ended up buried in a trash dump, wrapped in a blue plastic tarp.
September 3, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
it's true, it won't gain nearly as much traction as reverend wright did.
however, i think you started to hit upon something worth noting, greg.
AIP is a political party, Rev. Wright presided over a church. The stated goals of the church are community-based and faith-based, with positive ends. The stated goals of the AIP are seceding from the United States.
The rhetoric of Rev. Wright can be spun as superfluous from the work the church does and the good it has produced over the years. The rhetoric of Vogler fits in lock-step with their stated goals of breaking away from the United States, which is infinitely more radical, more dangerous, and more damaging.
September 3, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that AIP is a political party and not a church makes her association with them that much more egregious, IMO.
September 3, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
And it's not like the Vogler stuff is some anomaly culled from hundreds of thousands of hours of speechifying. It's right in line with what they put on their web page.
September 3, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You can argue that the parallels aren't perfect."
"Sarah Palin supposedly wasn't a member of the AIP." Like Obama supposedly was a Muslim? You guys are unbelievable.
September 3, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pathetic.
September 3, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, Mr. Seargent even says "she 'supposedly' was never a member." WTF is wrong with you people. I doubt she was ever "supposedly" a member of the Nazi party either...or the KKK or any other group you want to smear her with. At least the guys who made the fake Muslim smear had a basis to build their lie on.
September 3, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think she was a member, but don't say there's no basis to suggest that she was a member. Their party secretary at first said she was a member, her husband was a member, and she just opened up their convention 12 weeks ago.
September 3, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
She wasn't a registered member but she was introduced as a former member when she spoke at their convention a couple months ago (a convention she's spoken at several times throughout the years), so her actual affiliation is still up in the air. And her husband was definitely a member from 1995-2002.
September 3, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama "wasn't a registered" muslim either, but he did have the outfit.
September 3, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
:sigh:
If you can't see the difference between the Muslim smear and this, well, then there is officially no sense in engaging you anymore.
September 3, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
He does seem to be more wacked and desperate than usual the last few days. I think the desperation thing is setting in.
September 3, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's really sad. hehe
September 3, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the past two days he's brought up the "present" thing and now the Muslim smear. I guess he's starting over from the beginning of the book.
September 3, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the same on another board I participate on. Funny how the themes run parallel from one place to another. You'd think they'd gotten marching orders or something...
September 3, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe they're all just responding to the same lunacy on your part.
September 3, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, just the "more insane than usual" aspect of the comments here:
It's not really her baby.
She "supposedly" wasn't in some group.
Her husband had a DUI (when he was 22).
How can she do the job of VP with 5 kids to take care of.
She hasn't got the experience to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency (even though she has more than the "Messiah" himself). You guys have gone completely nuts. There's no other explanation (well I guess there's the "intellectual dishonesty" argument and you're all "party before reallity" people).
September 3, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, now we're "insane" because we refuse to concede that the Palin has more experience than Obama. I agree with some of the other posters: you are beginning to sound desperate.
September 3, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually you picked the only one that is debatable...depending on what one considers "experience." I think the "experience" arguments y'all have been making are "laughable." The others "she's a sleeper secessionist"..."she faked her pregnancy to hide the fact that it was her daughter's"..."a mother of 5 can't possibly handle the job"...those are the insane ones.
September 3, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe if McCain had spent some time vetting her then maybe these questions wouldn't have come up? Did the McCain campaign not expect people to go snooping around?
Just like the excuse that was always used with Obama: the American people don't know her and thanks to McCain in five months she might to be one melanoma away from the presidency...do you not think we should be allowed to investigate her associations with a group of secessionists that her husband belonged to for 7 years? Since McCain has chosen to squirrel her away instead of allowing the press to question her on these and far more IMPORTANT issues, it's no wonder the rumors and misinformation has gotten out of control.
I agree that the pregnancy issue was ridiculous...I don't believe in some grand conspiracy and I believe most of the posters around her agree with that. I will say, though, as a woman who has gone through a high-risk pregnancy, I question her JUDGEMENT in choosing to put her baby at risk after her water broke.
As far as people saying she's got too many responsibilities to handle the job, I haven't seen too many of those posts myself. I've seen a few with people relaying that OTHER people have said that to them but I certainly haven't seen a plethora of them. As someone who chose to go back to work after my first daughter was born, I would never question another woman's choices. I will say, though, that she cannot have it both ways. She can either choose to keep her family private or not. Before I learned anything else about her, she was advertised as a mother of five including a baby with DS. She asks for privacy for her 17 year old pregnant daughter and then advertises that the father of the baby will be at the convention. Right or wrong, I believe that when you use your family on your resume, some people are going to take shots at you.
September 3, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I notice no ones taking shots at Obama's kids...and wouldn't put up with anyone who did...of course it's fair game for her cuz she said she's a mother. I'm sure Obama has admitted to being a father sometime during his campaign.
September 3, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you see the father of Obama's 17 year old knocked up daughter at the airport to meet him today after telling the press they required "privacy"? If she was SO concerned about the prying eyes of the press, why isn't that young girl back in Alaska? Why are she and her husband-to-be being paraded in front of the media like a couple of show dogs?
There's nothing wrong with families playing a role in the campaign and of course there's going to be family photographs, etc. The McCain campaign, however, put her motherhood front and center...."she's got five children, she's got a DS child, she's living what she espouses"...this was integral to selling her image to the Christianists. I'll repeat...they can't have it both ways.
September 3, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's those 50's that Obama has been getting in the Rassmussen poll that has him on edge.
September 3, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Where? I know there's a picture of him in local Somali garb (which most people are too ignorant to be able to distinguish from Muslim garb), but I didn't know there was a picture of him in any Muslim garb.
Face it, the evidence for her supporting AIP is far stronger than any evidence for Obama being a Muslim.
Palin supports AIP:
Supporting evidence:
(1) AIP secretary claimed she's a member
(2) Palin's husband is on record as a member for several years
(3) Palin addressed their convention—this year
(4) Party has stated aims to plant "sleepers" in high positions in national office
(5) She flew back to Alaska to have her baby born there, despite signs that she might already have been experiencing early labor
Contradicting evidence:
(1) Palin was evidently never stupid enough to actually officially register as a member of this party
(2) Palin claims not to support AIP
Obama being a Muslim:
Supporting evidence:
(1) Unnamed references claim he is
(2) His father was an atheist who had been raised a Muslim, and his step-father actually was a Muslim (ZOMG!)
(3) He went to school in Indonesia. There are madrassas in Indonesia. Therefore his school must have been a madrassa, even though everyone who knows the school says it's not.
(4) There's a picture of him in Somali garb, which if you squint your eyes looks kinda like Muslim garb
(5) He's not of pure European descent and neither are most Muslims
Contradicting evidence:
(1) He's been a member of a (arguably controversial) Christian church for a very long time
(2) He's raising his children as Christians
(3) He was sworn in on a Bible and not a Koran, unlike that scary Muslim Ellison
(4) He'll tell you that he's a Christian and not a Muslim—this would be very damaging for a Muslim to do, although presumably not impossible
So, tell me, which of these claims have more support again?
September 3, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
(1) Obama was evidently never stupid enough to actually officially register as a Muslim
(2) Obama claims not to support Mohamed
September 3, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was asking for supporting evidence, not contradicting evidence. I think there's already enough contradicting evidence, so we don't need any more, regardless of how weak it is.
September 3, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that there's funnay! Did she give the fake orgasm excuse: "Yeah, I spoke at their conference, but I didn't really mean it".
September 3, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desperation.
September 3, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Was her husband a member for 7 years? Did she give a speech to open up their convention a few months ago?
Don't try and dismiss the conversation because you disagree with Greg's word choice.
September 3, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I seriously heard that Barack Obama "supposedly" was never a Muslin either. Seriously.
September 3, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again you didn't answer my questions.
September 3, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure I did, there are a bunch of organizations she wasn't a member of...just like Obama wasn't a member of many...why is it ok to smear her but not him? What oganizations was Michelle Obama a member of?
September 3, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you think it's entirely irrelevant that her husband was a REGISTERED member of this party and that she gave a speech to open their convention?
September 3, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
AIP Vice Chairman of the AIP, Dexter Clark:
"Our current governor who I mentioned at the last conference, the one we were hoping would get elected, Sarah Palin, did get elected . . . .and there was a lot of talk about her moving up. She was an AIP member before she got the job as mayor..."
September 3, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The issue of her membership hasn't been cleared up. Deal with it. She personally has not addressed it or anything else since she was picked, which in itself, is so absurd I can hardly believe it. You and your ilk are doing some serious dissembling here, trying, gamely but unsuccessfully to turn this on Obama. We had months of that, and everyone has made their peace with Rev. Wright, Rezko, Ayers, and the rest of it. 65% of this country now says Obama shares their values, to about 45% for John McCain.
We have had about 3 seconds of Palin on the scene, so you are damn right we are going to examine her record, her views, everything that is relevant to the person who could be a 72 year old, cancer surviving heartbeat away from the most important and most powerful position in the world. Do you even realize how far you and your Party have strayed from your core principles of discipline and experience in choosing her? You chose politics over substance, and are getting creamed for it. Say all you want about Obama, he has been vetted by America for almost 2 years. It is a little late to start crying "Muslim" now, my friend.
September 3, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The issue of her membership hasn't been cleared up." Neither has the issue of Obama's birth certificate. (See, I can go find all the fake BS I want to match the fake BS y'all are shoveling)
September 3, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've seriously lost it.
The AIP Chairmen referred to her as a "former member," she's spoken at their convention several times and her husband was a registered member for 7 years.
Please show me the "fake BS."
September 3, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The original article asks why the two aren't being treated the same, Wright and the other guy. The he says they may not be exactly the same because she "supposedly" wasn't a member. They aren't the same at all. Obama was a member of Wright's church for 20YEARS! He sat there and listened to him every Sunday (and probably at Bible study on Wednesday evenings). Wright was Obama's mentor (Obama said that). To compare that relationship to Palin's is fake BS.
September 3, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, to be clear, you're saying that Palin has no ties whatsoever to the AIP?
September 3, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nowhere near the ties Obama has to Wright, nothing close enough to make any valid comparrison to the 2 sittuations.
September 3, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whether or not the two situations are equal is debatable (I'd say that the platform of a political party has far more relevance than the rantings of a preacher). But at least you're admitting that she does have some level of affiliation with the AIP, the exact level of which has yet to be officially determined. That's a start (because by your ridiculous KKK analogy it looked you were denying any connection).
September 3, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, Wright was Obama's mentor, Obama says so himself. Obama was a member of Wrigt's church for 20 years. Obama said he had never heard Wright say anything like the statements that have been attributed to him. Palin's husband was a member of the API party years ago and she spoke at there convention. Are you honestly saying that Palin's connection to API is the same as Obama's connection to Wright?
September 3, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, Obama called Wright his "spiritual mentor." And that's the biggest difference for me. I get that Obama had a longer and more involved relationship with Wright than Palin had with AIP, but Palin's was a political relationship while Obama's was a religious one. Like I said above, when we're talking politicians running for office, I think their political affiliations are more relevent.
September 3, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Palin's was a political relationship while Obama's was a religious one."
...and then there's the fact that Palin's is "supposed" and Obama's is self-admitted, but those pesky details shouldn't matter either.
September 3, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. There is nothing "supposed" about the connections I've laid out. Was introduced as a "former member" by the Chairmen, has spoken at several of their conventions, married to a man who was a member for 7 years. Nothing "supposed" about that relationship.
September 3, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama sat in the pew listening to Wright nodding his head saying amen for 20YEARS....no valid comparrison.
September 3, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama sat in the pew listening to Wright nodding his head saying amen for 20YEARS....no valid comparrison.
September 3, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, Obama called Wright his "spiritual mentor." And that's the biggest difference for me. I get that Obama had a longer and more involved relationship with Wright than Palin had with AIP, but Palin's was a political relationship while Obama's was a religious one. Like I said above, when we're talking politicians running for office, I think their political affiliations are more relevent.
September 3, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may actually be able to make a tenuous comparisson to the Ayres relationship...of course I doubt she ever had a fund raiser in this guys home...but you never know. She "could" have.
September 3, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure those speaking engagements brought in plenty of campaign contributions from AIP members.
September 3, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least it's a more valid comparrison.
September 3, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic, but you keep repeating yourself and it's a silly circular argument.
Why is mcbush a "maverick"? I don't understand that one. Maybe you can convert us.
September 3, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desperate desperation.
September 3, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least you admit that you're serving up fake BS here.
The topic here is her ties to the AIP. I wish some would stop taking the baby bump bait (see the Schmidt story on the front page).
September 3, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The level of your sheer idiocy has hit a new low, wallace. It appears that desperation and fear are beginning to grip you now.
You don't have to feel that way though, come on over and leave the dark side behind.
September 3, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
My idiocy? Y'all are claiming she faked her pregnancy and is a sleeper seccesionist...You really need some help.
September 3, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never said a thing about the pregnancy, and only want to know her reason for being even ASSOCIATED with the AIP, who stated goals include secession. She will need to answer that herself, your talking points are not sufficient. Jeez. Can you even hear yourself?
I know you are earning McMaverick points, but is it really worth it?
September 3, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Y'all includes all of the meatheads on the thread...scroll up and you'll find the "faked her pregnancy" claims.
September 3, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, that's your biggest problem. You attribute every comment on a given thread to the one person you're currently talking to, regardless of what that person has actually said.
September 3, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not attributing all of the comments to one person. I do generalize the "tone" of the thread (which is completely nuts). However, (and I know I'm repeating myself, because no one will truthfully answer this), the original question posed by Greg Seargent was is this Palin's Rev Wright? 98% say no because Palin and the AIP guy are white, and you as well as anyone else who has any sense of decency, won't say "no, the relationships aren't really comparable. It has nothing to do with race." Then it spins off into 27 different arguments about what year her husband joined, when her water broke, which hospital her doctor had admitting privlages to...when the point is, the reason he's not her Rev. Wright is because he's not her Rev...right?
September 3, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You = You
Y'all = You'ns = Youz guys
September 3, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, some are jazzed up about the baby issue, but that is really a smoke screen put up to take attention away from the political disaster that is her record. My friends on the left should let that go and hammer the AIP, and the complete, utter ridiculousness of her claim to be a "reformer".
A sampling:
She was before earmarks before she was against them. She hired a lobbying firm with ties to Jack Abramoff to secure about $30mil in earmarks for a town of 7000 people.
She was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. And althought the bridge wasn't built she never returned the Federal dollars.
She was for corruption in Alaska before she was against it. She was Secretary of Ted Stevens 527 before speaking against him around the time she ran for Governor.
There's plenty more, that's just the beginning. The vetting is still being done, amazingly. No smears, no "fake bs" here.
Response?
September 3, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why isn't Vogler's quote just as controversial? Wright called America the "U.S. of K.K.K.A." Vogler professed his "hatred for the American government. Wright said "God damn America." Vogler referred to our "damn flag."
Because there are two standards in the media for Democrats and Republicans.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
Take ANY ONE THING about Palin, apply it to Biden, and ask yourself how many minutes would pass before Williams, Brokaw, Couric, Matthews, Gibson, et. al would openly call for him to be tossed off the ticket.
Keep in mind that we aren't talking about Fox News. The leads of our most "trusted" news organizations would be on the war path for Biden's head.
September 3, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
This song is gonna be a chart buster in a few days. This shit calls in her patriotism and will bring her down.
September 3, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, what Vogler is saying is worse - at least Wright's goal is different - he isn't trying to overthrow the government or to destroy the union - Vogler is.
September 3, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
But she never was a member of the party and didn't spend 20 years meeting with him. He wasn't her mentor. Oh yeah, I forgot. Truth doesn't matter to you. She was never in the Nazi party either, why not hang some Hitler quotes on her too?
September 3, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
She has more than Obama...
September 3, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Was her husband a Nazi? Did she give a speech on the opening day of the Nazi convention?
I know it's hard for you, but try not to be so intellectually dishonest.
September 3, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Y'all are the ones being dishonest, you are trying to compare statements by the leader of a group she doesn't belong to, to the statements of the pastor of the church Obama went to for 20 freaking years. A guy he himself said was his mentor. That is dishonest.
September 3, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
We don't yet know what her exact affiliation was with them, but she certainly had some ties - she is married to a former member and she has spoken at their convention several times.
September 3, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, YOU are making an intellectually dishonest comparison between a group that her husband belonged to and she spoke to and a group that she has absolutely no relation to.
September 3, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never said "no relation." I did say since she "supposedly" wasn't a member that y'all were reaching. Also there is no way to honestly compare this relationship to the Obama/Wright one.
September 3, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Here we go 'round the mulberry bush..."
September 3, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
ok, sure thing. how about her going to a church where at least one sermon described terrorist bombings in israel as god delivering his punishment to the non-believing jews?
how's that work for you?
September 3, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please stop picking on Sarah! Her husband is off limits! Her attending AIP meetings and conventions with him had to do with their private, marital relationship. Her speaking to them as mayor and Governor is simply being a gracious hostess.
This piling on is really anti-woman, anti-redneck and anti-Alaska (the biggest state in the "Union"). So please stop.
September 3, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is snark, right? It's getting difficult to distinguish from the hackery that's going around...
September 3, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't be. Snark, irony and sarcasm are illegal west of the Susquehanna.
LK
September 3, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but I'm in Maine. We've got our own rednecks, and our own moose even, but we're Easterners, by God.
September 3, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although I love Texas! And New Mexico! Go Tena!
September 3, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you've ever quartered a moose with a lightsaber...
...you just might be a Newfie Jedi,
LK
September 3, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I"m with Kathleen here - hands off Sarah. She's just a nice woman with great credentials and y'all are sexists!
'And now you're playing the race card against her. Poor Sarah! She can't catch a break.
Y'all are mean!
September 3, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get it raht! Y'all is singular. All y'all is plural.
September 3, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've heard this before, but I've never heard it from a Southerner before. I grew up in Georgia, and I've lived in Virginia for the last 7 years. I've never heard y'all used as anything other than the plural. We do actually use the word "you" when referring to the singular. (As for where the contraction goes, y'all vs. ya'll, I will admit I've seen numerous Southerners put it in the "wrong" place.)
What part of the country are you from if you actually use y'all as singular? It ain't common in most of the South, that I can tell you.
September 3, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've got it, man!
Well, hey: for some reason the usage of apostrophes seems to have become, for many Americans, a problem as complex as integral calculus.
September 3, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. Take it from a life-long Southerner, "y'all" is strictly plural. Sometimes it is used when addressing just one person ("Are y'all going to the barbecue?"), but in that case the reference is to a group: you and your family, you and your SO, you and your friends, you and the group you normally hang out with, etc.
September 3, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bristol Palin should be off limits, as should minors related to anyone running for office. Maybe someone should remind people of the joke McCain told about Chelsea Clinton in 1998. Check it out: http://thinmansblog.blogspot.com/
September 3, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who is Bristol?
September 3, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a town in Connecticut where ESPN has its headquarters.
...God I hope that's not the reason she picked the name.
September 3, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you think Miss Wasilla would name a child after a town in Connecticut? In the lower 48? One of those tiny little states in the dreaded northeast? Get serious! ;-)
According to Slate:
September 3, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not forget that Andrew Sullivan pointed out that Sarah Palin attended a Jews for Jesus meeting where the speaker said that terrorism in Israel was because the Jews didn't believe in Jesus:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/3/84555/55316/359/584418
September 3, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
if obama is guilty by association...then so is palin
September 3, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm… But, does it work the other way around, as well? Just something to think about.
September 3, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Easy--because Rev. Wright was the Obamas' minister. To a lot of Americans, that's a big difference. Your minister is like a part of your family. Remember the rhetoric about Obama's daughters sitting in the pew? That hits home for many people. The Palins weren't subjecting the whole family to Vogler's rants--Palin's husband was a member. It's just not the same thing.
Sorry to be the dissenter here, but this seems pretty obvious to me.
September 3, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Palin's husband belonged to a group whose sole purpose was to secede from the United States. Her husband isn't a part of her family?
September 3, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about the rants of the Jews for Jesus guy? She was in church that day. Did she get up and leave? Or does she really feel that God is is using the Palestinians to punish Israel for not converting?
I think this is a much larger issue than a lot of the others. This could seriously have foreign policy implications.
September 3, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Jews for Jesus fellow should be brought up a lot more by the media, but that's another conversation altogether, isn't it?
September 3, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are kidding, right? Her husband? And she supposedly attended, but than she didn't attend, but then she did attend conventions. What do you think they talked about when they talked about politics? Give me a break.
September 3, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is meant as a response to David Sloane, too:
Hell, yeah, here's a guy who sat down at the Palin dinner table every night. Absolutely. But I thought we were talking about Joe Vogler and why he "isn't" Wright.
September 3, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you really that dense? Have you not figured out yet that Jeremiah Wright isn't really the terrible person he's been painted as? He didn't preach those words for the twenty years that Obama went to the church. And there still has been no proof that Obama was at church when he said them. I don't want to rehash all of this, but that was twenty seconds of sound bites! If he's that terrible, where are the other videos? I gaurantee you they would have been shown by now. What, do you think that out of all his sermons, they only managed to tape twenty seconds worth?
In contrast, this guy Joe Vogler's quotes are in direct relation to the purpose of the group he leads. It wasn't a heat of the moment quote. He said something that nobody in the room would have been surprised to hear him say. And Palin is associated with that group.
September 3, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure whether I should respond--there's no need to be insulting.
Of course that wasn't the real Wright. I'm addressing Wright as the media portrayed him, not as he was. And unless I'm wrong, the media was dominated with the image of Wright as an anti-American social poison to which Barack and Michelle subjected their young innocents each Sunday. That image surfaced repeatedly in op-ed columns and in letters to the editor, and on the creepier AM stations, listeners regurgitated that image to radio hosts for what must have been at least two and a half months. This falsehood is still out there. It is catchy, it is attractive to the media, and it plays into social fears that many Americans seem to actually want to have.
And why does this matter? Well, if we're to compare Joe Vogler to Wright, we have to keep that Wright, the received lie, in mind as well. That's what the Vogler story and all these other soft-underbelly stories have to compete with.
September 3, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is Black Liberation Theology analogous to a state secessionist movement? I hope Obama doesn't float that one when he goes on O'really show.
Hating white america is not the same as hating american government.
September 3, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly the attempt to break your state away from a country is an act of love for said country.
September 3, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it is - it's the highest love!
When Sarah Palin says: To hell with the American government, it's love.
When anyone else does - it's treason. Don't y'all know anything?
September 3, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I respect her right to choose, and the painful decision she made about supporting a party that wants to secede from the Union, founded by a man who hates the flag.
She's very brave. And feisty.
September 3, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep...if you love something enough you have to let it go...
September 3, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the key word in Joe Vogler's quote is "government." The right wing will spin this as love for America but hatred to that government by the liberals that supports those commie agents like the ACLU.
Now even I can say, at times, I hate government; especially when it is ran by the Republicans.
September 3, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting - I've been known to say I hate America. I thought that we had that right.
September 3, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
By saying you hate America, you may mean American government; but to the simple minded you just trashed motherhood and apple pie.
September 3, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
YOu miss my point entirely.
We have the right to trash Mother, Apple Pie, the Flag, the president and any damn thing we want to - this is America. Discussion is still allowed and no one is supposed to consider it unpatriotic to air their views.
That's one thing this country was founded on.
September 3, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you missed my point. You said, We have the right to trash Mother, Apple Pie, the Flag, the president and any damn thing we want to - this is America.
That's not true if you are a right wing Republican. They are conditioned to believe those rights don't exist when it comes to trashing the flag, guns, babies, and Republican V P candidates, etc.
September 3, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I should care about these right wing Repugs why?
September 3, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have to care about the right wing nut jobs. I was just answering why Sarah Palin's hubby is not Rev. Wright. We both know the MSM is still controlled but the right wing and they will not let it become an issue.
September 3, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interestingly, the comments were made during the Administration of George H.W. Bush. Damn them lib'rul Bushes!
September 3, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
He may be saying "government" but what he means is he opposes the Federal Government as defined by the Constitution, whereas the ACLU's purpose is to keep the government bound by our Constitution. The latter is pro-American, the former is treason.
September 3, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the patriotism thing is going to hurt, especially since "Country First" is the theme du jour of the McCain camp.
Republicans - country first (and by country, we mean, of course, Wall Street)
Which apparently means for Democrats, it's country last, somewhere behind Birkenstocks and lattes.
Gag me.
September 3, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I keep wondering, which country? Their policies are such a boon to Saudi Arabia and China and others. So they cleverly kept it ambiguous.
September 3, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
It will be tough for the story to regain traction now that NYT has already retracted a false report that Palin was a full-fledged member of the party. It's a Dan Rather situation: if you get one fact wrong, it's as though the entire story were discredited.
September 3, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you trying to force Wright back into the campaign Greg?
September 3, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
*sigh*
No, I think what is going is called something else:
Greg is pointing out the HYPOCRISY here.
September 3, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I get the hypocrisy.
I'm looking at it realistically, and acknowledging that this is a fight that we start, we don't win. Not in today's America. I think the folks inside the Obama campaign have seen this and realize exactly what it is: counterpunching material.
We don't serve ourselves by going there first.
September 3, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
*sigh*
That should have been, "this is a fight if that we start, we don't win."
In other words, don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes.
September 3, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well because one is dem and the other a repubs. The dems are chicken shit to make it an issue
September 3, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats are only chickenshit if they run from the truth.
Since when do we run from the truth? This is getting so fucking old -
September 3, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference is that Wright's comments hearken back to an era of Black nationalism that's perceived to frighten voters; given the real poll impact of Wright's comments once they became public, this is apparently true.
Despite the very real ties of radical American separatists to domestic terrorism, people still see them as kooks without influence. Radical White preachers have never been treated in the remotest bit of proportion to Black ones. That's the difference, and there's no getting around it.
Palin's preacher's said worse than Jeremiah Wright. Many who've endorsed McCain have said worse than Jeremiah Wright. This AIP fellow's said worse than Jeremiah Wright. Now, none of those people made a public disgrace of themselves when given the opportunity like Wright did, but they we never really gave them a chance, did we?
September 3, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you sense what's happening? The media went off the reservation over the last few days, the Republicans have sent out word that they're not going to stand for it, and now the media is starting to grovel and apologize. Back to our regularly scheduled propaganda.
September 3, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
What do Rove and Cheney have on our media that they just grovel like this?
September 3, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
With an attitude like that, you'll never be disappointed.
September 3, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care what anyone said about this country, frankly.
3/4s of the Wright smear was really directed at free speech - Wright and every single one of us has that right - to say what we see is wrong here.
People who can't take that are not American.
IT's an attack on dissent because Wright is black. But it's not just race - the patriotism thing has gone nuts - in America, that shouldn't 'even be an issue.
We are not required to tow our government's line here - and people who expect that are not Americans at the core.
September 3, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm -- it's toe the line, not "tow the line," please.
September 3, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wright was offensive and Obama is proving Wright's belief that America cannot overcome the original sin of racism to be false. However, Wright was ranting against racism and racism is in fact a bad thing. So, I think this stuff is worse. I do not, however, welcome this discussion and hope that Obama keeps hammering away on the issues.
September 3, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was watching MSNBC last night and they made a point to announce that the chairman of the AIP says that Palin was never a member. They simply accepted that fact. She will use that to try and sidestep this issue. I would say that since there is a recording of the vice chairman saying she was (BTW has that been scrubbed yet?) and other people, like a woman referenced in Jake Tapper's blog who say she was a member and Palin's husband was a registered member. Nevertheless she has a talking point to say she wasn't. Don't be surprised if the Bush/Cheney/Rove machine doesn't manage to get that ethics investigation minimized. They have been getting away with egregious ethics violations for a long time. I'm just saying that Obama supporters and others who are also alarmed/outraged at the though that Sarah Palin could conceivably have her finger on the button next year need not just assume this stuff will tank her/McCain. We need to keep the word out and also focus on things like the flip flops. She's new and she has already totally bullsh*ted the American people with her earmark and bridge to nowhere claims. Sarah Palin is unacceptable and I am outraged. She is mobilizing the conservative base? She needs to further mobilize our base too, this woman cannot get anywhere near the oval office.
September 3, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really think we should pay people who kidnapped Josh Marshall and Greg Sargent. I'm sick of these impostors, I want the real Josh and Greg back.
September 3, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell are you doing here then?
Besides trolling, I mean.
September 3, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Palin did not name her memoir after one of his speeches; Palin did not call him her "spiritual mentor" for 20 years; and Palin did not listen to him give an antiAmerican, antiwhite speech once a week for 20 years.
September 3, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neither did Obama - you disingenuous orangutang -
September 3, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! I didn't know Wright did this once a week!
The the-baby-is-Palin's-grandson stories have a high smell of bullshit. But it's amazing that people try to find evidence to support it.
Dr Zaius' brand of bullshit doesn't even come with an effort to find evidence, it just requires a douchebag to say it as if it were true.
September 3, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least part of the reason the AIP hasn't become a big issue yet, is that there's such a dizzying array of political negatives about Palin so far, it's hard for any one of them to gain a foothold.
I'm with Andrew Sullivan on the following: after all the noise, the major issues with Palin are her 1) complete lack of interest in foreign policy, 2) demonstrable lying -- evinced in bridge to nowhere and trooper-gate.
The major issue with McCain, of course, is 1) recklessness and flippancy (lack of due diligence in the most important executive decision he's ever made), 2) poor judgement.
The Republicans are going to defend this ludicrous choice to the death -- just watch -- and in the process become an even more anti-intellectual and evangelical-based party. It's not a happy time for America to see one of its two major parties go down this road; it's a sign of major national decline.
September 3, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I think not. At one time I did - now I think it's healthy.
It's not America that is declining -it's simply the conservative movement, dude.
It's shattered and that's not a bad sign - it's a good sign.
September 3, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The danger is that if they succeed we'll be just a step away from fascism. And don't expect people simplistic enough to believe that holding the "right" positions on abortion, guns, and environment is qualification enough to be president to be especially vigilant or capable of protecting the more subtle and nuanced aspects of the American experiment -- not going to happen.
Also, the intellectual decline of the Republican party dumbs down the discourse in this country to outrageously low levels. eg, PALIN COMMANDED THE ALASKA NATIONAL GUARD! That's not good for anybody.
September 3, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shit, if they win, a whole lot of States will be forming their own Independence Parties!
September 3, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wright was offensive
Maybe to you.
I didn't find anything he said offensive.
September 3, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Tena!
I was just thinking of writing something similar. I was never offended by Rev. Wright, because there is such a thing as context. What he said, is that he only damned America when it was playing God and acting Supreme, by enslaving, diminishing and oppressing human beings. What he suggested is that our policies overseas had consequences, sometime dire ones. That isn't offensive, it is spot on.
September 3, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well Dorn - I grew up around Black Liberation Theology.
I understand where WRight is coming from - and it's legitimate. It's a legitimate recognized Christian theology.
Vogler is a nut - just like the 5 or so nuts who formed the Texas Secession Party and whose leader is still on the run as a tax rebel.
They are nuts and this story should be everywhere - the mere fact she had anything at all to do with these nuts is relevant as hell.
September 3, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
off topic but priceless--in case you guys have not seen this: McCain actually hammered pork barrel projects from Palin! Talk about an ad that writes itself!
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,284198.story
September 3, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hilarious.
September 3, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that AIP is a political party and not a church makes her association with them that much more egregious, IMO.
September 3, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uhm, folks, do we REALLY want to engage in guilt-by-association? I say leave that stuff to the Republicans. Besides, there's plenty of other, factual reasons to oppose Palin and her new champion, John McC.
September 3, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. Is there video? One of the reasons Wright got so much play was that there was video.
2. The video also seemed to confirm a false story line that was developing around Obama "He isn't one of us." You don't have that same story line forming around Palin, so this story doesn't play to that.
3. The media still isn't sure enough about the relationship between Palin and the group. They've mentioned it as a possibility, but they aren't going to go into it fully until/unless they're sure of the relationship.
4. Nobody on the Obama team wants to dwell on it because it does reintroduce Wright into the conversation. As a result, the media doesn't have anybody pushing it at time. I suspect that when McCain finally tries to introduce Wright back into the campaign the Obama team may start pushing the story, but they might not because there's a difference between a presidential candidate and a vice presidential candidate. It's as least as likely that they'll say this is old news and try to move on.
September 3, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/intrusive-personal-questions-from-palin.html
Monday, September 01, 2008
"Intrusive Personal Questions" from the Palin Vetting Questionnaire
"Mr. McCain’s advisers said repeatedly on Monday that Ms. Palin was 'thoroughly vetted'"- The New York Times
Palin "responded to a 70-question form that included 'intrusive personal questions' a senior campaign aide said today."- The Washington Post
"Intrusive Personal Questions" from the Palin Vetting Questionnaire:
1) Did we forget anything?
2) Secession from your own country is
a) Patriotic
b) A qualification to be the potential leader of that country
c) Maverick-y!
d) None of the above
3) John McCain has said that he has followed your record for "many, many years." Divide those "many" years by the number of years of your actual record. The result is
a) Three days
b) Two years as mayor of a town of 9000, and 20 months at the helm of the vaunted Alaska National Guard
c) 0: experience, as we know, is not relevant to one's record
d) Czechoslovakia
4) Moose Burger : Abstinence as Moose Hunting :
a) Brother-in-law
b) 50 state flag
c) Bridge to Nowhere (after it was made impossible)
d) All of the above
5) Did we forget anything?
6) Three Vice Presidential candidates are moving from three equidistant fixed points towards a podium. One, in his slightly glazed stare and awkwardly quasi-combative speech bears a faint resemblance to Dan Quayle; the next can only assist the ticket as we near closer to Rapture; the third seems to have stumbled out of one of Christopher Buckley's sharper efforts. Which one arrives at the podium first?
7) "Nothing that has come out did not come out in the vet." This sentence actually means:
a) Everything has come out and everything has been vetted
b) Everything that was vetted has come out
c) Everything that has come out was vetted
d) The vet came out and vetted the vets vetter than anything has ever been vetted. Really.
8) You are a right-wing, red-state conservative. During the Clinton Administration, you believed that President Clinton's behavior with Monica Lewinsky disqualified him from the Presidency on moral grounds; you fervently raised the terms "Lincoln Bedroom" and "Johnny Chung" to invoke notions of utter corruption, and regarded the "Travelgate" firings as an abuse of power. In the face of the recent revelations regarding Palin's directorship of Ted Stevens' 527, support of the Bridge to Nowhere, "Troopergate" imbroglio, and illegitimate pregnancy of her 16 year old daughter, you:
a) Blame George Soros
b) Talk about Bill Clinton instead of Palin
c) Hold your hands over your ears and loudly shout "La la la"
d) Try to change the subject
9) "Foreign policy experience" includes:
a) Being near another large nation
b) Seceding from your own country and then taking up residence in the new nation
c) Being close to "Nowhere" in your support for the Bridge to Nowhere, which is different than being "Somewhere"
d) Blame George Soros
10) If you were seeking to choose as your running mate someone who would please Evangelical Conservatives with very traditional values, who would be without taint of corruption or misuse of government power, and someone who, in line with your campaign's own slogan, would put "Country First", after thorough vetting and "intrusive personal questions", you would choose someone who:
a) Supported the Bridge to Nowhere
b) Supported the secession of Alaska from the U.S. (Slogan: "Alaska First!")
c) Was the subject of a state ethics investigation due to allegations that she had tried to have her brother-in-law fired and that she fired the state public safety commissioner due to his unwillingness to fire the brother-in-law
d) Would suffer from allegations that her 16 year old child had become pregnant illegitimately, despite her fervent support for abstinence only sex education
e) None of the above
Cite:
Head of State:
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/intrusive-personal-questions-from-palin.html
September 3, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bringing up loose associations that a candidate has with controversial people in an attempt to discredit them without any evidence that he/she actually shares their controversial views = Bad.
Bringing family into it = Bad.
Come on people- she doesn't believe that global warming is man-made, she is under investigation for abuse of power, she supported the bridges to nowhere (some of the greatest pork of all time), and much much more. There is plenty of stuff that matters that we can worry about.
Just because they try to do this nonsense to us doesn't mean we have to do it back. This WILL backfire. If you want to discuss Reverent Wright, I'm sure the Republicans would be happy to have that discussion with you and start playing those youtube videos over and over again while you try to read that interview. This is a debate that does no good for Democrats.
This really doesn't matter. She is from Alaska and courted all kinds of voters. Some of them are complete lunatics, but it happens.
Trying to make the Wright parallels just proves the point that this doesn't matter. Wright didn't matter, and neither does this nonsense.
September 3, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a plan - like Kerry? Ignore it and it will go away?
Yeah, right. Let's not fight for what we believe in - let's pretend it's all ok and stick our heads under the covers like Kerry did.
Sure - let's reprise '04 - hide from the possibility that the media and the Repugs will say bad things - that works. IT's worked really well for 8 fucking years.
September 3, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think we should have to hide it, but if we say this matters, then I think we are also saying that Wright matters. It's hypocritical.
It makes more sense to go after them for substantial issues. If the debate stays about substance, then everybody wins when Obama is president. This has absolutely no substance at this point. There is not one statement that has been released showing her support for the more extreme views of this party.
September 3, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS A SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE.
I'm sick to death of being told by a bunch of commenters what is and is not going to be OK to talk about.
This has gotten stupider and stupider and stupider.
September 3, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where's the substance? How does the little we know about this affect what a Vice President Palin (I just vomited a little) might do in office?
She is not going to fight for secession. She does not secretly hate the American government. It's not an issue with what is known so far, although journalists should certainly take a closer look at it.
September 3, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where's the substance?
aw christ - that's the kind of question that makes me wonder who and what you are.
The substance is very simply the hypocrisy of continually painting Dems as unpatriotic while the Repugs get to pretend they are the only ones who love this country. Well, their VP choice apparently hangs out with people who don't love this country and that is a very substantial issue -
September 3, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The substance is very simply the hypocrisy of continually painting Dems as unpatriotic while the Repugs get to pretend they are the only ones who love this country. Well, their VP choice apparently hangs out with people who don't love this country and that is a very substantial issue -"
I agree with this totally. Like one of the other responses said, this is great information to diffuse issues, but not to ignite them. This can demonstrate that everyone has associations with controversial people, but that doesn't mean they agree with them.
I don't like the way the debate seems to be framed in the same old way that the Wright situation was. People seem to be saying that she is crazy or that she may be a secret member of this group because of a loose association.
I didn't like the way that the Wright situation was framed and I'm not going to like it if it's being framed that way on the other side. This points out the general Republican hypocrisy, but I think it says nothing about Palin as a candidate.
September 3, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I agree. This should be put in a case that says "In event of Rev. Wright, break glass." Use it to deflate attacks, not to reignite them.
Similar to Obama not bringing up B. Clinton's pardons until they went after him on Ayers.
September 3, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a great point. It's an excellent defense against the Wright thing if they try to bring it back into it, but it's a weak offense.
September 3, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the platform of a political party that she has some level of connection to is far more important than what a Pastor said in Church.
September 3, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
As far as we can see right now, her only connection to the party was trying to court their voters. If she did that by expressing support for or trying to further some of the extreme views of the party, then let's talk about it. Until that time, this is a distraction from real issues.
September 3, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
That and being married to a long time member.
September 3, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not about what her husband believes or believed; it's about what she believes. I guess if he was a real lunatic, that might make it fair game, but he seems like a regular guy to me.
I'm scared of a McCain/Palin presidency for thousands of reasons, but secession of Alaska and secret America hating just don't seem to be in the realm of possibility.
September 3, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Careful...you're aweful close to the kind of responsible analysis that will not be tolerated here.
September 3, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is mcbush labled a "maverick"? How about you convert us. I don't get it.
September 3, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought guilt-by-association was how things worked?
But I agree with you above, it makes for a better defense than offense.
September 3, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her connection with The Party is obvious. Everything she says is laced with AIP talking points -- just watch the videos and listen to her words.
Ferchristsake, when running for Gov., her campaign slogan was the AIP battle cry -- "Alaska First!"
...do you need a photo of her AIP tats?
LK
September 3, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wright's offensive was speaking out for a better America,
he questioned how its citizens were being treated, as they worked and hoped for a better chance to succeed.
The comments of Palin's pastor, Joe Vogler, founder of the Alaskan Independence Party, is much different-
He, Palin's husband and herself hope to break away from this country. In this 9-11 era, they would be considered "terrorists".
Vogler speaks of hatred for the govt., with a white supremist bent.
Vogler sounds like an old russian mole out to take over Alaska-
not the first time it has happened.
If this came from someone on the left-
they would be hounded and ruined.
September 3, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
To answer your question, it's not as controversial because the media has a bias against liberal Democrats. Oh, wait, if that were true they'd be pushing this story.
September 3, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Alaska secedes, all of us who might want to leave the country if McCain wins can move to...Alaska!
September 3, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
September 3, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is not like Wright.
Wright served 6 years in the military and received accomdations, he advocated America living up to its promise.
Volger argues for secession of Alaska, one of THE most subsidized states in the Union.
September 3, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The corporate overlords are clamping down on Sarah Palin coverage. We've arrived at one of those odd moments in American politics where the tabloids will have to do the work that the regular media won't. If you want mainstream coverage of Sarah Palin, you'll have to read the Enquirer or TMZ.
September 3, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.
People magazine got it right. They put Palin on the cover with Trig and the title Politics, Lies and Scandals.
The reason that AIP and Fogler are not like Wright and Trinity is becasue they are white.
It is the same reason that Timothy McVeigh is not considered a terrorist.'
It is the same reason that Bristol is not being labelled a 'baby moma' while Michelle Obama is labelled despite being married for over 3 years before having a child.
The reason this will not make be spun like Wright is because the culprits are white.
White entitlement at play in the new millenium.
Just as a black man's testimony was discounted and only a white man's word was trusted under the law.
This is nothing more than racism.
However, the biggest problem that I see with this is that it forces DUMBASS DEMOCRATS to fight a battle that Obama can't win.
No matter if Palin is inexperinced or a secessionist...as long as she is white she wins.
Only Obama loses in these discussions...Obama loses when Wright is an issue and when inexperience is an issue because he is not white.
Therefore his weaknesses are deal breakers.
Palin's weaknesses are game changers!
All based on race.
Like Mo Def says ...when white boys are doing it, it is called success, when I'm doing it, it is suspect.
America was not afraid of Timothy McVeigh but they were afraid of Willie Horton.
America is not afraid of Sarah Palin, they are afraid of Barack Hussein Obama.
September 3, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Obama won't lower himself to the level of the Republicans and the pundits. And yes there is a double standard....unfortunately ~ always have been, always will be.
September 3, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
There will be just as long as we accept it. IF we don't accept the double standard, then we have a chance to put an end to this shit - or at least a dent in it.
If we ignore this shit - it will not go away. THat's what Kerry did - godfuckingdamnit!
September 3, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely!
September 3, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
EXACTLY...seems pretty simple to understand after 2004.
September 3, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, great, it seems Palin wanted to ban books at the Wasilla library. (Probably because reading books about sex would lead kids to have sex...oh wait....)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us/politics/03wasilla.html?pagewanted=1&hp
September 3, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, they are not the same. Barack Obama is not married to Reverend Wright. Trinity Chicago's aims never included suceeding from the United States. And Michelle Obama did not continue to on as a member of Trinity after Senator Obama left, thinking it was politically inadviseable.
It should be much worse.
September 3, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah Palin's links to the AIP are somewhat indirect. Not irrelevant (imagine if Michelle Obama or Jill Biden belonged to such a group), but lets direct than her long and personal ties to her Church in Wasilla. She has left the Church since moving to Anchorage, but was there just two weeks ago for a talk by one of the leaders of Jews for Jesus, and sat through a speech, and neither rejected nor denounced, the idea that terrorists attack Jews because they have not accepted Christianity. This should be *the* major story for the next few weeks, as Reverend Wright was, if there is any justice. (Personally, I find the Jews for Jesus far more offensive than anything Wright said.)
September 3, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get the people on this thread sighing and saying O well, it's just like this and will be.
No it isn't and no it won't.
If y'all don't care enough to fight for what is right - fine. I do.
September 3, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am right there with you Tena. I will contribute as much more than usual that I can afford this month to Obama's campaign and will go out and register voters. I plan to do some phone banking too. I do think it helps to be active writing editorial comments to newspapers and making polite but substantial comments on blogs regarding arguments like judgment of McCain and the many negatives Palin brings. The media looks at that type of stuff in addition to polls to gauge public opinion. As more things come out about Palin make sure everyone on your email list is sure to hear the story. I urge everyone to help. We are not weak but we have to move to be effective. Do something.
September 3, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for everything.
No, we are not weak. Obama stood up and said so last week - we all put country first, by god, and I'm not letting the Repugs try to paint the picture differently THIS TIME - NO MORE.
I'VE HAD ENOUGH.
September 3, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Palin has claimed executive privilege and now is refusing to testify?!?!
Good lord. Please, more of that in the White House.
September 3, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
do you really have to ask, greg??
it's quite obvious that it's ok when you're a republican and white.
September 3, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! More religious kooks? All we need now is a kidnapping by a cult of kangaroo worshipers.
"Praise Hoppy! I have seen the light!"
September 3, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how many people would be shocked, or likely scared, about Palins Assembly of God church?
The one that performs exorcisms, believes in speaking in tongues, faith healing through laying of the hands, and in some sects the handling of snakes. Her denomination is not well liked by Southern Baptists, and is strongly disliked by fundamentalists.
September 3, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am.
But then, I have a very very jaundiced view of the Assembly of God, inasmuch as 4 Texas women who were Assembly of God murdered their children because they thought Jesus wanted them to.
I'd like to know just what the fuck they are preaching - cause the results are damned scary.
September 3, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if I gave you this before, but this is really frightening.
http://www.jesuscampthemovie.com/
Yes, the results are truly frightening.
September 3, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The answer is simple, he is not black.
September 3, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Folks, folks. There are easy, non-controversial ways to go after Palin that all lead to one conclusion - she's out of the mainstream. Forget the baby rumors, forget he said/she said stuff about membership in a fring secessionist group. Use her own words and positions against her:
*She downplays/denies the human factor in global warming.
*She believes in abstinence only sex-education.
*When it comes to abortion, she won't make exceptions for cases of rape or incest...the only exception she'll allow is if the mother's life is in danger.
Not enough? Go after her alleged reform record:
*The earmarks she won for her town.
*Co-chairing Ted Stevens' 527.
*For the bridge to nowhere before she was against it.
Or perhaps potential risk:
*She's currently the target of an ongoing ethics investigation.
As for experience, try to dig up records from anytime before about 5 days ago where she spoke in any detail - or at all - about Iraq, terrorism, Russia, China, Social Security, health care, the economy, etc. I'll bet you will find little, if anything. I don't care if you have executive experience running one of the smallest states in the country, a state nothing like most of the rest of the nation. If you have never really given serious thought to the issues that will face you as vice-president, if you've never done anything until now (via a McCain campaign crash course) to learn about these issues, you probably aren't experienced enough to be veep and you certainly aren't more experienced than McCain, Obama, or Biden.
Forget Trig, Bristol, her church, and AIP. Focus on her words she said and actions she took while serving as mayor/governor. Facts, documented and easily proven facts. There's so much there...it's all that is needed.
September 3, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I left one thing out....she's supports the teaching or creationism in public schools. Again, a fact that puts her out of the mainstream.
September 3, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are certainly right. I think everyone is just having a bit of fun, if you can call it that. This issue should and will be, as another poster succintly put it, in the "break in case of Wright" cabinet.
September 3, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me say this for the 10,000th time - I'M NOT FORGETTING ANYTHING.
The baby issue resonates with women - men are not getting it, apparently - so I would not continue to comment if I had a penis.
If you don't get the baby thing - well, I'm sorry, but women do.
September 3, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you are correct. And perhaps that's why the polls so far are showing that by significant margins, she appeals more to men than women. (and that's across all women, not just Hillary supporters, who like her much less) And while this might seem counterintuitive - if only because everybody is trying to tell us that she'll appeal to women - I think the reasons are pretty obvious. Women hold other women to a higher standard and see this as an obvious pander/gimmick from the McCain campaign. Men love attactive women in glasses who can shoot a semi-automatic rifle.
All I'm saying, though, is that if you go after her on her wacky, publicly stated positions, lack of record, and shaky reform credentials, the wingers can't accuse us, the Dems, or the media, of making baseless (even if they aren't baseless) character attacks...because we'll just be present facts based on her statements and her record. And again, there's a lot there even without having to resort to the baby/secessionist/Jews for Jesus/Buchanan stuff. The wackier stuff will/should take care of itself on it's own, especially since a lot of it is already out there and causing a buzz. I hate those stupid chain emails that people forward along but why is that they always seem to come from the right wing? Seems that Governor Palin has enough skeletons in her closet to merit some left-wing versions of those goofy emails. I'm not going to send 'em out or even forward them along, but somebody else may want to take up this charge.
September 3, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you got ahold of a penis once in awhile maybe you'd chill out a little.
September 3, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why isn't Vogler Palin's Rev. Wright? I think we know the answer to that question, don't we?
Meanwhile, check out what Digby (who, apparently, grew up in AK) has to say about the secessionist party Palin and her husband belonged to: It has "as much in common with a fringe militia movement group as a political party, even by red state standards." And: "If (Palin) attended the 1994 Alaska Independent Party convention then she was walking perilously close to Tim McVeigh territory."
To read the whole post, go to
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com
and search "Republican Revolutionary."
September 3, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply |