Another misleading thread by MMFA. Both CNN and UPI did not say that Palin "supports spousal benefits for same-sex couples", as MMFA insists, but rather they correctly state that she vetoed a bill that would have banned her state from providing such benefits.  Neither CNN nor UPI mention her personal feelings, only her veto.

It's not misleading at all, Tommy.  From MMFA's story posted above:

Moreover, Palin indicated in a written questionnaire that she disagreed with the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex couples are entitled to the same spousal benefits given to other state employees, and in another questionnaire, replied, "Yes," when asked whether she would support "a Constitutional amendment to overturn [the] Alaska Supreme Court decision mandating public employers to provide benefits equivalent to marriage to same-sex couples."

So the facts were out there, Tommy - CNN and UPI chose to ignore them.  Thus, "conservative misinformation".

WITH?  Because it belongs here.

By omitting the facts surrounding Palin’s veto, CNN and UPI did not say it, they suggested it, just like MMFA says.

There was no suggestion, it was an accurate reporting of her veto, that's it.  

Nope, you're still wrong.  The suggestion was advanced because Palin's reasons for the veto are on the record and have a direct bearing on the LCR's flawed assessment.

Nope.  MMFA wants to write the story and advance their own agenda instead, CNN and UPI distorted or suggested nothing except the accurate truth in their story.  MMFA would have preferred it another way, they are the ones guilty of suggesting and advancing in this case.

It's entirely possible to say something true that's misleading because the whole story is not revealed.  Children know this, and I bet you do too.

and the point of suggesting palin supports gays is to hurt her not help her

Utter nonsense.  As if someone who gets Dobson's seal of approval isn't going to win the day in a "lesser of two evils" scenario for religious conservatives.  Meanwhile, Obama opposes same-sex marriage, while supporting civil unions.  This makes it sound like her position is similar to his, which appeals to moderates and independents.

a lot of people are turned off by hypocrisy.If true it remains liberal misinformation about a conservative

What?  Supporting civil unions but not gay marriage is not "hypocrisy".

In your typical condescending style, revealing another weak argument, even children don't whine about fair and accurate reporting just because their liberal agenda is not advanced by a media story.

You could learn alot from a child.

You didn't address the point.  Hearing the whole story makes a difference.  When my four-year old granddaughter tells me her grandmother told her she could have a popsicle, I know she's full of it.  The fact is she was told she could have one if she cleaned up her play area, which she doesn't want to do.  She knows full well that giving half of the story creates the impression that serves her purpose.

If you're going to be deliberately obtuse, you deserve condescension.

Your search for the most unrelated and ridiculous analogy never ceases to amaze me.  Your granddaughter's popsicle wish is based on certain conditions being met, so of course telling only half the story is misleading.  Ms.Palin's veto is not based on any preconditions regarding her personal feelings because she did not consider them when issuing her veto.  It was a veto on it's own, not dependent on her "cleaning up her play area".

"A" for effort though, but you didn't make your case, these articles are perfectly fair and accurate. 

I wasn't saying anything about Palin having preconditions, I'm demonstrating a common principle.  If you don't know that she vetoed it for legal reasons, it's natural to believe that she vetoed it because of her personal views.

You really can't get around that.

Why? Her personal views are irrelevant and rightly trumped by her legal duty.  We don't need to know every politician's personal views on issues, as long as they uphold their duties, which is what Palin did, that is sufficient information.

The left, and you, are just irritated because her personal views, that you don't agree with, are not relevant public policy.  And you want that reported even though it has no place or relevance.

"Why? Her personal views are irrelevant and rightly trumped by her legal duty."

Who's saying they shouldn't be trumped by her legal duty?

"We don't need to know every politician's personal views on issues, as long as they uphold their duties, which is what Palin did, that is sufficient information."

Are you insane?  Her views would clearly have an impact on her decisions in the absence of a legal barrier.  What if you had a gay rights bill tied in the Senate?  Guess what happens then? 

"The left, and you, are just irritated because her personal views, that you don't agree with, are not relevant public policy.  And you want that reported even though it has no place or relevance."

They're relevant because her motivation for vetoing the bill affects how people view her actions.  Since omitting that motivation changes the perception, it's a valid complaint.  Sorry.

No, have you never heard of a public official's personal opinion at odds with their public duties?  If not, then you are insane.  Read the headline of this misleading piece by MMFA, there is no suggestion of anything.  Her veto suggests only what it is, you can extrpolate that to whatever you want but it doesn't make it so.  You are just childishly arguing again for it's own sake, with no point.  You bore me when you do that.

"No, have you never heard of a public official's personal opinion at odds with their public duties?  If not, then you are insane."

Of course I've heard of it.  Is that what you naturally believe is the reason for a veto, if that reason is unspecified?

"Read the headline of this misleading piece by MMFA, there is no suggestion of anything.  Her veto suggests only what it is, you can extrpolate that to whatever you want but it doesn't make it so."

Her veto suggests what?  Are people supposed to extrapolate that she did it for legal reasons, with no indication of that whatsoever?  Why is that expected? 

"You are just childishly arguing again for it's own sake, with no point.  You bore me when you do that."

You can't address the point.   How would Palin's personal opinion be "at odds" with her public duties if she were deciding that tied gay rights bill?  Those that are told she vetoed this bill might think she'd support that gay rights bill, when she obviously wouldn't.

where is the conservative misinformation? Should palin support same sex benefits it put her at odds with conservatives. If anything sounds like liberal sabotage...

She can have whatever position she likes.  What the media shouldn't do is to suggest that she has some sympathy for the gay community when she obviously doesn't.

but that is liberal misinformation

You've checked the Republican platform on what to do about gay folks um?

Currently abortion gays and guns are what they're about.

However if you've got some evidence that she's tight with the gay comunity trot it out.

none whatsoever meaning that this is liberal misinformation or even sabotage

Again, nonsense.  By your logic, if you nominated a moderate Republican, pushing the lie that he was an extremist would be good for Republicans.  The more moderate elements would not take that message well, while most of the base probably would have voted for him anyway just because he's a Republican.

um no. were a republican to endorse gay marriage and free and easy abortion, the base would stay home, figuring it does not matter. For good or ill stating a candidate supports liberal causes when the do not is not conservative misinformation. Though it does raise hope mmfa will satrt to hack at liberals too

Moving the goalposts?  Nobody's talking about abortion here.

So while Obama's being painted as an unpatriotic Muslim baby-killer, and Palin has Dobson's seal of approval, the conservative base is going to sit out the election because they think Palin might not be as rabidly homophobic as they'd like?  You have got to be kidding me.

Tommy, I tend to agree with you on this one. Even the endorsement from LCR is a bit tepid - they are "comfortable" with her is not exactly a ringing endorsement and it's pretty clear that the veto was not out of personal conviction on Palin's part. This is a bit of a stretch, IMO.

 

tommy,

As our dear departed friend Solon (God rest his soul) would say "Anyone with two functioning brain cells" would see from the CNN/UPI stories that Palin opposes same sex marriage.

This story appears to be a case of mmfa being overstaffed or under-managed...when producing space wasting stories like this one.

Did Solon die or was that just an expression?  I haven't seen him post for months.

Sorry bruce...it was just an expression. I have no idea about his condition...although his blood pressure was elevating to the exploding point before his disappearance.

I hear he moved to Alaska. ;-)

Unfortunately, those two functioning brain cells have not given them the ability of abstract thought where the extrapolation to it being suggestive would become apparent.

Those of us with all our billions of brain cells working at full capacity understand it clearly.

You forgot to throw in a couple of "morons".

"As our dear departed friend Solon (God rest his soul) would say "Anyone with two functioning brain cells" would see from the CNN/UPI stories that Palin opposes same sex marriage."

And anyone with two functioning brain cells can see that there's a difference between "same-sex marriage" and "benefits for same-sex couples".  The fact that she opposes same-sex marriage doesn't negate the concept that she supports benefits for same-sex couples.  Therefore, it's misleading to cite that veto without explaining the circumstances.

Well said Tommy, it appears MMFA does not like the idea that Palin actually did the right thing and vetoed a bill that would have banned the state from providing benefits to same-sex partners of employees. How dare a Republican woman do that, not allowed.

She was bound by law to veto the legislation. She even said at the time that she disagreed with the veto, but had no choice.

Well said Tommy, it appears MMFA does not like the idea that Palin actually did the right thing and vetoed a bill that would have banned the state from providing benefits to same-sex partners of employees. How dare a Republican woman do that, not allowed.

Bingo, bob.

Only a blind partisan would fail to give credit to an elected representative of the government taking action against their own personal convictions...in order to follow the law.

In this case, an action that benefitted the homosexual community...as Brock's republican brethren recognized.

Why only elected representatives, Wesley?. I'm only a private citizen, but I'll give you my word that I haven't violated the Constitution today. Where's my party?

You keep trying to read these bizarre motives into perfectly understandable items.  Nobody's criticizing her for following the law, it just doesn't mean that she supports gay rights in any way.  She had another motive for vetoing the bill besides her personal opinion, and that information makes a difference in perception.

I suppose it is possible that the Log Cabin Republicans are happy with her because she vetoed the law for constitutional reasons despite her personal feelings, but we don't know that from the reporting.  MMFA may have overstated by saying that the article "falsely suggested" that she supported benefits for gay couples, but CNN and UPI certainly did not eliminate that interpretation from their stories.  CNN under-reported the story by omitting Palin's personal beliefs on the issue.

But don't worry, once the POW and the Moose Mom enter the White House, any homosexual marriages will be annulled and in the name of promoting and protecting the family...

 

 

I don't know - I'm unsure whether or not I should anticipate or dread November...

Leave me out of this. I will not go into any private place with this woman.

This, cribbed from a friend:

Dude, the GOP could nominate Squeaky Fromme, and they'd back her, if only because of her strong Family background. Now there's a pun worthy of the Republican party (also known for their jaundiced, senile sense of humor).



Remember Dan Quayle? They don't. He never happened. And 'potatoe' is also spelled with an e on the end in Alaska.



Now: at what point are people going to start mentioning that the Alaska babe was a staunch advocate of "abstinance only" sex ed? And that her kid got knocked up; so much for abstinance. In my book, that's a huge turd in the bed, politically, but again this is America we are talking about. It seems the more ugly, hypocritical, flawed, tasteless, mean, ignorant, hateful and stupid a person is, the more endearing they are to the body politic in the USA.



The electorate continues to be certain that a great candidate is one every bit as bottom-feeding as they are. The idea of a candidate appealing to a higher standard (and possibly raising the calibre of the citizenry in the process) and NOT wallowing proudly in the same swamp as some twobit sustanence hunter makes American queasy. It's what will do in Obama. He's just not a big enough loser, nor hypocritical enough to be president.



One day, the GOP will abandon all pretense and will run a mentally retarded man for president on the slogan "HE'LL SCREW STUFF UP REAL GOOD" and it will be a landslide.

I think part of what is going on here is that Karl Rove and his Acolytes are trying to establish themselves as the ultimate Republican King Makers. By electing Grampy, whom the conservatives hated just 6 months ago, and a VP that is by all appearances a theocrat, they will have proved themselves able to operate outside the boundaries of rational thought. They almost proved it by electing Puddinhead George twice, but this will be even more impressive, given the mess they've created over the past 8 years. In the new world that they are fabricating, the identity of the candidate is secondary. They could elect a ham sandwich if it had a U.S. Birth Certificate.

But the ham sandwich would get eaten alive in one sitting.

But the ham sandwich would get eaten alive in one sitting.

Not if Joe LIEberman was there - he's Orthodox.

It would be a good test to see if Obama's really a secret Muslim.

USP whips out his trusty "Islam-o-meter" and if it reads positive we can open a spray can of Terr-b-gone'.

You just have irrational hatred of the ham sandwich.

The fact that these "Log Cabin Republicans" support the Church Lady reveals that they are not serious individuals.

Maybe the next internet rumor is that she goes "both ways"?

She must have Camp appeal.  Maybe she's the next Liza.

wait for tonight, if she breaks out with "over the rainbow"? dead give away.

 Of course the most appropriate song would be "Big Spender"

Or Doris Day doing "Que serah serah."

Last count, Log Cabin membership was at five and shrinking.

Palin's working out better for the repubs than I expected.  Attacks on her inexperience obviously are unavailling, as she has about as much as BO.  The dems and their spokesmen in the msm feebly attack her for being a staunch conservative, but that's no loss because that's exactly why she was chosen in the first place.  Thus for the past few days they've disgacefully, and pathetically, resorted to smearing her for being the parent of a pregnant 17 year old. I seriously don't think that's gonna make much headway with voters either. 

Can you provide links to this smearing you speak of?

Oh come on.  You can't turn on the news without the liberal media discussing whether Palin's pregnant daughter "raises questions" about her ability to be VP (although I have no idea how the two are connected) It's pathetic, but at this point it's all the liberal media has to try and smear her with

Nice talking point, but if you think that's the only issue, you aren't paying attention.

Perhaps you have a point.  My girlfriend, being an Obamaniac, gets her campaign "news" from BO's acolytes on msnbc and cnn. So perhaps I need to review other, more objective, sources, to see whether more substantitve criticisms of Palin are being leveled.

you have a girlfriend?!?!?

 

What's his name? :-)

Here's a deal for you..... let's agree that the Media will exercise the same restraint in their reporting on Whatshername that they did reporting on Obama a few months ago.

Will that work for you?

But is she an American citizen? Need to see a birth certificate...sound familiar

How is questioning her "fitness to be VP", for lack of a better term, smearing her? 

Not having any kids...i don't know. however...aren't there issues with women who have just had babies...like aren't there hormones in a whirl? So you can survive that whole getting up in the middle of the night three or four times? Can't some women suffer from depression?

I make light of most stuff but it seems to me that these might be legitimate concerns. I'm in a wheelchair...it's not like it's a good bet to let me race indy cars...and in no way do i try to make light of pregnancy or women in this matter. I'd like to know what you all think.

 I'm in a wheelchair...it's not like it's a good bet to let me race indy cars...(USP)

I'd watch that and I never watch racing!

sure...you'd just watch for the crashes...i know guys like you ;)

I don't know, Steve. While most of us know why she nominated, I don't think there was much of a smear in pointing out the fact that she has a 17 y/o pregnant daughter. She does. Its an unpleasant fact being pointed out by the msm. McCain and the GOP should've known it would be an issue.

Why is it an issue?

You're really not very bright, are you Barney?

Oh, I don't know.... maybe because her party would oppose government programs to help that girl if she were not a governor's daughter...or her party advocates abstinance only sex education...or her party has beaten us over the head with "family values" for 20 years?

Just a guess.

In fact she and her boss opposed them.

>>Palin herself said she opposes funding sexual-education programs in Alaska. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080902/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_mccain_teen_pregnancies

I haven't seen any "smears" outside the blogosphere. I have seen a lot of curiosity about her record and the investigation into her alleged abuse of power. There have also been some questions about the wacko views of her church..... is that off limits all of a sudden?

It's funny to hear Grampy's campaign whining about all this media scrutiny. Did they really think they could drop an unknown in the middle of a Presidential Campaign without creating a circus? Of course they didn't.

Who would have thought that the mcaho Repubs were such sissies when a few questions are asked of them. The whining is deafening. "Cry Me A RIVER" is still the partys' theme song.

Dam Press...trying to find out some FACTS about a person who could be the POTUS in a short period of time. Keep asking MEDIA, I enjoy watching a good tear-jerker..this time the Reepublican Party is the poor soul.

Saying that she has "as much experience as BO" only suggests to me that must smell nice.

I'm sorry. I think that being a State, and then Federal Senator, makes Obama much more qualified than being the mayor of a town of 5ooo people, and then Govenor for 20 months.

How so?

Yes, Obama is much less qualified than Sarah Palin:

Harvard Law Degree < Idaho Journalism degree

Constitutional Law Lecturer < PTA Council Member

State Senator < Mayor of small town in Alaska

U.S. Senator < Governor of smallest U.S. State

U.S Foreign Relations Committee < Alaska is right next to Russia!

that was choice.

Saying that she has "as much experience as BO" only suggests to me that must smell nice.

What did you think I was trying to say?

quote - Alaska attorney general had advised her that it was unconstitutional

Actually it is a little confusing. Did the AG tell gov Palin her veto was unconstitutional or the bill was unconstitutional ?

The AG told her what Karl Rove told the AG ;)

He told her that the bill was unconstitutional.  Apparently "I didn't violate the Constitution...put me in the White House!" is a compelling argument to the right-wingers here.  I guess after eight years of Bush, that's about where you would expect their standards to be.

You nailed it Kyle!

And let's not forget the Log Cabin Republicans' endorsement of the McCain/Palin ticket amounts to nothing short of doublethink, pure and simple.