Exactly how did you come to the conclusion that McCain's camp did not vet Palin?

ya think?

El V,

From the NYT story today quoting Republican office-holders in Juneau and Wasilla saying that no one there has been contacted by the McCain campaign. These folks also said that McCain staffers showed up in Alaska the day before Palin was announced, and that none of them had any idea that she was going to be picked.

Maybe McCain consulted Nancy Reagan's astrologer.

Exactly how did you come to the conclusion that McCain's camp did not vet Palin?

LOL!

AND WHO VETTED OBAMA?

Who vetted Reverend Wright?

Who vetted his friendship with William Ayers?

Who vetted his relationship with Rezko

Ohh, right I forgot, a bunch of far left liberals decided he gives great speech.
----------------------------
Everyone should now see that Liberals don't REALLY believe in womens choice, they believe in the left wing liberal political agenda. They believe in abortion, period.

They don't celebrate Palins' CHOICE to have her baby. In fact liberals are calling Trig "developmentally challenged" or 'genetically damaged', etc.

They don't celebrate her daughters CHOICE to have her child. In fact the left seems pretty pissed off at both of them for not having abortions.

Did anyone ask Obama how he's going to be President with two young children? Sexism rearing its ugly head again. The left says, That's different, why everyone knows Barack has a penis and is therefore ready to be President. But what if Michelle decided to go back to work and dropped the little ones off at the oval office?

The left doesn't really believe in TRUE feminism in their hearts, they believe in pushing left-wing political feminists agendas in order to gain power.

That's why Obama can call women sweetie, pay them less and claim he supports their agenda.

Just wait until there is a genetic test for homosexuality...will the Andrew Sullivans of the world want those genetically damaged children to be aborted?

Afterall, if homosexuality is genetic, then it's by definition an abnormal gene. So the left will celebrate everyones choice to abort those babies.

The left is getting dangerously close to Margaret Sanger territory, if not the Nuremburg race laws....

I'm perpetually amazed by the deep devotion that folks like Anonymous and El Viajero have to the Holy Mother. After all, she is perfect in Mind, Body, and Essence.

But the rest of us don't have the celebrity luxury of building the Seven Shrines in Seven Houses to Her. We need someone who understands our problems and isn't involved in cult-like devotion to the Holy Mistress.

McCain and his supporters will have to do a bit more than tithe, grovel at Her Imminence, and damn the infidel to win us over.

You can keep your mouth shut and have folks think you're an idiot, or you can open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Thanks for that, Anonymous.

Who vetted Obama? It's called an election. He's not a puppet of the party, like we're used to on the GOP side. You see, he went head to head with all of the other candidates, and this group of folks called "the people" selected him.

Vetting is required when a person is selected, as opposed to an election or say the regularly season of a professional sports league. Got it?

And he was selected by a "bunch of far left liberals." Yeah, crazies like Susan Eisenhower and all those other lunatics. Can't remember the last time I saw Susie without a bong in her hand. Par-tay!

WRT El V's comment: Did you ask that with a straight face? Or are you yet another Dem mole pretending to be a GOP'er to make all the conservatives look stupid?

Check out:
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/3767/palin-involved-in-ousting-scandals-from-the-start

""But John McCain is a 30-year congressional veteran who's been in the public eye for decades now. We know John McCain. We don't know Sarah Palin.""

Yes, its true, the 'beltway' major media that cover Washington DC and New York and Hollywood DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE REST OF THE COUNTRY. But that's not our fault Ezra, that's the lamestream medias fault.

Just because they spend all their time inside their beltway mindset and keep interviewing each other, that's not the rest of the countries fault.

Some of these talking heads have gone so far as to say she can't be Vice President because she hasn't been on Meet The Press. How beltway centric can you get??

maybe if the lamestream media got out into the heartland more they wouldn't be such idiots when they say stupid stuff like that.

Most Americans couldn't tell you who Barack Obama was two years ago, most still don't know who Joe Biden is; most don't watch the weekend talking head shows, they have real lives to lead.

Get over yourselves...

Did they vet her? You decide.

“They didn’t speak to anyone in the Legislature, they didn’t speak to anyone in the business community,” said Lyda Green, the State Senate president, who lives in Wasilla, where Ms. Palin served as mayor.
Representative Gail Phillips, a Republican and former speaker of the State House, said the widespread surprise in Alaska when Ms. Palin was named to the ticket made her wonder how intensively the McCain campaign had vetted her.
“I started calling around and asking, and I have not been able to find one person that was called,” Ms. Phillips said. “I called 30 to 40 people, political leaders, business leaders, community leaders. Not one of them had heard. Alaska is a very small community, we know people all over, but I haven’t found anybody who was asked anything.”

Exactly how did you come to the conclusion that McCain's camp did not vet Palin?
Because he did not pick a Gun-banning plagiarizer who took five student deferments in the Vietnam War and will tell why he is so much better/smarter than you are.
And Biden was "vetted" by three Democrat insiders.

Anonymous, please, we didn't mean to offend the Holy Mother. We're just not sold on her before joining the cult.

"I'm still trying to get over the fact that John McCain didn't vet Sarah Palin."

I understand that Ezra is just picking up marching orders that are coming down from on high and trying to be "helpful", but he's helping to set up a situation where the Democrats get Palin'd.

I think Chicago has utterly lost their minds. We'll see soon enough if I'm correct.

They're betting the ranch that Palin can't rally the median voter, and there are better bets available to the Dems this year.

Exactly how did you come to the conclusion that McCain's camp did not vet Palin?

Because today they dispatched 18 people to Alaska to check into the things they should have checked into last week.

I dunno. Seems pretty clear to me McCain didn't serious vet Palin. I think he's too cynical a politician to have chosen her, if he had completely vetted her.

She's a woman. She's attractive. She's a right-winger. The base will (does) love her. Vetting done.

I don't think he seriously vetted her. Still, I'm not sure that's going to mean she ends up being a bad choice. The base really likes her, and most of the attacks on her aren't going to dissuade the base--and if the base shows up en masse to vote on election day (a very unusual effect for a VP nom, but could happen) then McCain stands a good chance of becoming president.

Thus far, for the folks who would be voting for Palin/McCain, she's been reasonably non-stick. However, it'll take more time to see if that's really the case. Ronald Reagan proved to be permanently coated in teflon, as far as the electorate was concerned. Palin might be. Might not be. Only time will tell.

But I doubt McCain seriously vetted Palin. She hit the right points regarding identity politics--woman, outsider, conservative, Christian, hard-right, gun-toting, etc--and it was done.

So let me get this straight. If tomorrow, we find out that Barack Obamas child has a learning disability, the left would be wondering why he hasn't dropped out to take care of his child.

I understand that Ezra is just picking up marching orders that are coming down from on high and trying to be "helpful", but he's helping to set up a situation where the Democrats get Palin'd.

I have no idea what this could possibly mean.

But to turn another politician's name into a verb: Petey, do you remember the other day when you expressed hope that Palin would get Eagletoned? This is what Eagletoning looks like in real time.

What in McCain's character would make you think he vetted Palin? All the painstaking time spent becoming fluent with the economy so that he has a consistent position on fundamental monetary policy? Or maybe all the time he memorizes his own campaign proposals so that he won't contradict his web site?

McCain is just incredibly lazy.

"But to turn another politician's name into a verb: Petey, do you remember the other day when you expressed hope that Palin would get Eagletoned? This is what Eagletoning looks like in real time."

I don't think so.

Being Eagletoned doesn't consist of us aiming a random barrage of artillery fire at the target. Instead, being Eagletoned consists of the oppo guys finding a smoking gun in the target's paperwork.

What we're doing now is elevating Palin into the pivotal battle of the campaign, and as stated, we could pick far more favorable battles.

I'd do hope Palin gets Eagletoned. But what we're doing now is something quite different, and it strikes me as a major strategic mistake.

The left is simply admitting that barack can't be President.

Imagine if one of his daughters got pregnant while he's President?

Imagine if one of his daughters is diagnosed with a developmental disease?

The left will all be clamoring for him to resign and take care of his children and his family.

Ohh wait, the left only demands that of proffessional W-O-M-E-N.

In Baracks case, why Michelle is there do to the WOMENS work.

What utter sexists.

It's difficult proving a negative, isn't it?

It was a dumb statement for Ezra to make.

Being Eagletoned doesn't consist of us aiming a random barrage of artillery fire at the target. Instead, being Eagletoned consists of the oppo guys finding a smoking gun in the target's paperwork.

"Seantor, you've served the state of Delaware for the past 30 years. In your opinion, has inclusion within the United States been a good thing for your state, and would you advocate that it stay within the union in the future?

"Governor, same question."

It's difficult proving a negative, isn't it?

Where did that come from? There is no such law, rule, postulate, or even general guidance about proving a negative.

It's not a mathematical rule: I can easily prove that 2 + 2 is not 4.

It's not a rule of logic. If I'm wrong here, show me.

It's not a rule of prosecutorial evidence. If I can prove I was at dinner with friends at 7:00 last night, I can prove the negative that I was not in the library with the candlestick holder when Colonel Mustard was killed.

I don't get this misconception. It's like the mangled metaphor about the 600 pound gorilla. Or maybe the one about Mikey dying from washing down Pop Rocks with a Coke.

So Sarah Palins daughter is pregnant, therefore she shouldn't be vice President.

Well as far as I can tell, her daughtER is healthy, cared for, loved, she has a good roof over her head and plenty of food in her stomach. She has a fiance and is engaged, she has healthcare and has all her needs met.

She seems to be doing fine...

But wait, Barack Obamas own brother lives in destitution, he makes 12 dollars a year and lives in a bathroom sized shack that doesn't even have a bathroom.
He has no healthcare, and scraps by on rotted food scraps.

SHOULDN'T BARACK RESIGN IN ORDER TO TAKE CARE OF HIS FAMILY LIBERAL?

They seem to be far worse off then Governor Palins daughter.

It was a dumb statement for Ezra to make.

Standing by that one, huh? Have fun on the ocean floor.

Seriously, while I've always admired the Republicans' fierce message discipline, you have to admit that the "never concede error" rhetorical approach has created some problems for you guys over the past decade.

Speaking of learning disabilities, Anonymous: need a quick refresher in possessives and plural forms?

Looks like contractions aren't your strong suit, either.

I'll save subject-verb agreement for next week.

Now, how's that macaroni necklace coming along?

Pat,

Your lame-ass impersonation of a conservative isn't fooling anyone. It's obvious you're a Dem mole trying to make the folks here think that all conservatives (small c or otherwise) are morons. It's not working.

Anonymous, I know the Holy Mother doesn't like to be criticized that much, but is it truly the best thing to lash out in anger and desperation against those who haven't yet accepted her Love?

Petey, regarding "Chicago": can you point to anything at all the Obama campaign has done to fan these flames? They're just sitting back, letting it play out, popcorn in hand. They keep their hands clean while the GOP implodes anyway.

You're all missing something. The reason that Palin wasn't vetted is because the base wasn't happy with McCain's thoroughly vetted choices -- namely Lieberman and Ridge.

This isn't some incident of supreme carelessness arising sua sponte out of McCain's independent character. It's a situation that was created because time was running out and there wasn't anybody left to choose from. The base had rejected them all.

Everyone's focusing on the wrong character flaw -- impetuousness -- and ignoring the real character flaw -- craven supplication to the base.

Some maverick.

There are a billion reasons why Palin is unqualified that have nothing to do with her daughter or the birth of her son.

Her support of Alaskan separatists, her support for book banning in local libraries, her outright lying about the bridge to nowhere. I mean, you're talking about someone who was in charge of Ted Stevens' 527 group! That's not reform we can believe in.

Let's not forget her belief that the founding fathers put the phrase "under god" in the pledge. ridiculous.

It's a situation that was created because time was running out and there wasn't anybody left to choose from.

*cough*Eagleton!*cough*

When the Gores’ son was arrested for pot, did we have a big national conversation about where the Gores went wrong, in allowing a son to go down that road?

Did Andrew Sullivan suggest maybe the pot was Als and the kid was just talking the fall....

When the Edwards son was killed, did we have a long national conversation about why parents would allow young teenagers drive alone....
Did DailyKos suggest maybe John Edwards was really bhind the wheel and killed his own child....

Of course not, their Democrats

Hey Anonymous, want to actually address the points by both Ezra and the commenters, rather than addressing non sequitur arguments that no one is making in order to try to paint us as terrible people? Thanks!

When the Gores’ son was arrested for pot, did we have a big national conversation about where the Gores went wrong, in allowing a son to go down that road?

Straight up? I would LOVE to have this conversation. If a politician advocates anti-drug policies and their child is caught with drugs, we should talk about it--not the family structure, but the policies themselves.

Likewise, when a politician emphasizes abstinence-only education, and her daughter gets knocked up, we should talk about it--not because she's a bad mother, but because HER POLICIES AREN'T WORKING.

"Petey, regarding "Chicago": can you point to anything at all the Obama campaign has done to fan these flames?"

While Babygate doesn't have Chicago's explicit fingerpirints on it, it's worth noting that it's so destructive that it almost seems like a false flag operation.

But as to an example of what you seek, here ya' go.

Utter insanity.

-----

"Everyone's focusing on the wrong character flaw -- impetuousness -- and ignoring the real character flaw -- craven supplication to the base."

The correct play right now is to ignore Palin.

But in two weeks when the glow fades, Sean indeed identifies the correct way to hit her/them.

For those not clear about what the vetting process is about, it goes like this: you investigate the background of a potential pick. You see if there are any "showstoppers." Then, you look at any other problems the pick might have and come up with responses to expected attacks on the candidate's background. Then, with the knowledge of the pick's background in mind, go to a reporter and give the reporter "exclusive" access to the candidate's story, releasing their background to the reporter who will write about the known problems with the campaign's spin on them already built-in as part of the narrative.

That way, none of the revelations are a "surprise," and any attacks on episode's of a candidate's past have a pre-written response from the campaign and its surrogates. Outside of the "experience" issue (which was something that would have come up after just a cursory look at Palin's public biography) it's clear that no one was prepared to deal with all of the stuff in Palin's background.

"Everyone's focusing on the wrong character flaw -- impetuousness -- and ignoring the real character flaw -- craven supplication to the base."

Disagree. Painting McCain as beholden to the right-wing base, even though it is accurate, requires swimming upstream against the dominant media narrative to cast McCain in a negative light. Which is fine, but I suspect that it is far too late for that kind of thing. If they wanted to go this way they should have been hammering away at it since June.

Painting McCain as impetuous, however, goes with the grain of the media narrative to cast McCain in a bad light. Convincing people that McCain is a slave to the far right will be very difficult because it totally contradicts the image of him they have in their head. Convincing them he is a dangerous, reckless hothead jibes very well with what they (think they) know about him.

I think you have to swim upstream in September.

Swim downstream I mean. Or whichever way is the easiest. Damn it you know what I mean.

There's a carelessness to this decision, a willingness to go with his gut and ignore the potential consequences

Gosh, that reminds me of someone. Hm, now who is it? Careless, reckless, going with the gut, ignoring potential consequences...hmmm....

Someone needs to make a website cataloging all of Petey's posts through the years, or maybe a "Best of Petey" blog. Highlights would include the 2002-2008 Edwards man love posts, the "trust fund scumbag" episode, and his assertion that he's going to vote for Nader in 2008.

So I've bought an anti-Palin google ad that's more brutal than anything I expected myself to write.

Tell me what you think. :)

What does not vetting his VP pick say? It says he doesn't respect the office of President. He doesn't legitimately respect Palin, since he's just using her as a cheap grab for the "vagina vote," and he doesn't respect the American people enough to realize that they're not amused.

"It's difficult proving a negative, isn't it?"

Not really, not when there's ample evidence to support that negative.

"It was a dumb statement for Ezra to make."

No, your remark was dumb, because it was directly contradicted by all of the available evidence - failure to contact Palin's neighbors, business associates, political friends, political enemies, even the newspaper archives on the town where she was the mayor. Not to mention the fact that the McCain campaign just now sent a team of 18 people to Alaska to actually do the vetting he should have done *before* he picked her. Not to mention the additional information that's come out about her support for "the bridge to nowhere," her support for, and lobbying for, earmarks in general, her troopergate problem, and the various other issues that have come to light that the McCain campaign has been manifestly unprepared to deal with. When you've "vetted" someone, you're ready to deal with these issues. McCain clearly is not.

"I think Chicago has utterly lost their minds. We'll see soon enough if I'm correct."

You've been wrong for months; why should we assume you'll be correct now?

What we're talking about is McCain, judgment, lack thereof. What are you talking about?

Now, I was a pretty big fan of the '05-'07 Petey commentary. But the don't go after Palin now stuff seems completely wrong. There are better and worse ways to do it, sure. But most of the ways I've seen people do it are strictly superior to not doing it at all.

Right now it's overshadowing the GOP convention and making it really hard for the Republicans to go on offense. Obama's playing it right, staying high-minded about not attacking families, while everybody else makes the attacks that they're positioned to make. (I'm positioned to write 'have a rapist's baby' google ads, so that's my deal.)

I realize a lot of people were initially touting this pick as some kind of brilliant trick play.

But sometimes what looks like a fumblerooski is just a fumble.

The problem is, most Americans are unaware that vetting a VP nominee is even necessary. They don't understand there's a process, and conventions involved, with known players and unknown players.

It's like me hearing a bunch of football players' names and not knowing one from the other; I would have no idea why a coach's decision to draft a particular player might be a boneheaded decision.

That's how they perceive this. A bunch of names that mean nothing to them; so he picked one over the other?

Our job is to make sure they know Mccain's a terrible coach and would be an awful president.

I was a pretty big fan of the '05-'07 Petey commentary.

"Classic" Petey.

"Right now (Palinmania is) overshadowing the GOP convention and making it really hard for the Republicans to go on offense."

Entirely correct.

However, it's also undermining the long-term foundations of Obama's campaign, and it's creating a very real short-term opportunity for McCain's campaign to slingshot.

It's a tactic that isn't in the service of strategy.

If the Lakers leave Rajon Rando unguarded, it's bad strategy for the Celtics to respond by having Rondo take 25 FGA's.

"and his assertion that he's going to vote for Nader in 2008."

I defy you to find such an assertion.

I definitely toyed with Nader before the convention. Given that Obama is the most conservative Democratic nominee since Jimmy Carter, I think I was correct. Given that Nader had very nice things to say about Edwards and mildly nice things to say about Clinton, I think I was correct.

But I never asserted that I was going to vote for Nader. I'd vote for a stuffed ferret if it ran on the Democratic line. I'm a partisan, and I'll vote for Obama, even if he's a post-partisan.