FlipperPA Peregrine

The fad I really enjoyed was when Republicans would get caught cheating on their wives... or being gay. The solution? Go into rehab for alcohol treatment! Because it is better to be a drunk than gay, right?

__________________
Peregrine Salon: Flip & Jenn's thang.

Cocoanut Koala

I am so far behind in this, and when I reply to one of Cristiano's posts, it turns out to be too long, and I look back, more posts are up.

Suffice it to say, I've begun to understand y'all's position ever since Briar's post, the one that I replied "I suppose" to.

But I still don't agree with these broad brush paintings, or these moral pronouncements on everything Sarah Palin supposedly thinks.

Moving right along, my first point was Colette's.

My second point: Shouldn't there be some kind of statute of limitations on these things?

This affair (whether it was consummated or not) happened in 1996.

Similarly, we've got Obama's adventures in cocaine and other drugs that happened when he was in high school and college, which would be somewhere in the late seventies and early eighties.

Just what behaviors disqualify a person for office and/or make them people of bad character, and how far back do we get to go to find them?

coco

__________________

Phant Nabob

Personally I do not give two dead rats asses about the 'morality', perceived or otherwise of the candidates. I want someone who is smart and will be an effective administrator. If Obama or McCain have a private harem hidden away somewhere more power to 'em. History has shown us, over and over again that the most brilliant among us are often more than a bit divergent when it comes to such things.

Sooz Pascale

Interesting how every is taking sides on this already and none of us know if these allagations are true or false. If true, they are the nails in the coffin of the McCain -Palin campaign. If false, this will be one of the BIGGEST libel suits ever.

If I were Palin and innocent of these charges, I would SO nail the Enquirer to the cross in a manner that would make Jesus Christ's ordeal look like a day at the park. For their sake, they had better have some REAL and very, very solid evidence.

Sooz

__________________
Nothing sickens me more than the closed door of a library - Barbara Tuchman

Cocoanut Koala

Well, I haven't gone to get the National Enquirer yet, in part because there is this huge gas shortage here. I'm worried about my husband being able to get to work (and my daughter, from her school), and don't feel like I can make any trips that aren't strictly necessary.

(I was going to get it when I went to leave some things off at Goodwill, but now I've decided I don't really have to go to Goodwill, either.)

But I don't think it could be a libel suit against Enquirer, if what they have done is interview others and report what THEY said. The person would have to try to sue the others who said whatever it was they said.

But I think the article is going to read pretty much the way I put it earlier: That she probably had this infatuation with someone that various people knew about; that she has denied it was a consummated affair; and that someone is saying it was an actual affair, while others are saying it wasn't. But I don't think the National Enquirer could be sued, partly because of the ambiguity of the word "affair," and partly because they are only reporting the words of others.

That's my guess, anyway. Maybe there will be some other reason we need to go out, and I can pick it up then.

coco

P.S. Or hey! Some of you people with gasoline go buy it, and tell us what it says!

Sooz Pascale

I haven't read the article but what I've read ABOUT the article, including the quoted statement about her "affair" are, in my opinion EXTREMELY vague and wishy washy. I believe that if the Enquirer ACTUALLY had something, they would publish it. For sure, if there was something concrete there the national media would be JUMPING all over it. For now, until I see otherwise, I am highly skeptical.

Coco, what you're talking about is called the "neutral reportage privilege." This is a very interesting and quite murky area of the law in that some states recognize it and others don't. Even in some of the states that do recognize it, it applies differently whether or not the plaintiff, in this case it would be Palin, is a public figure or private figure. She is clearly a public figure. California law recognizes it for private figures, but is, for now, silent on whether or not it applies to public figures. Some states even make a distinction as to whether the person making the original statement is a public figure or a private figure.


And, of course, the public figure/private figure dichotomy is important in deciding whether or not she has only to proove negligence or actual malice in publishing false statements. This is a no brainer in the Palin case, because she is most clearly a public figure. However, IF the statments are false and do not fall under a neutral reportage privilege, prooving malice should be so easy that a brand new lawyer with wet ink on his or her bar card should prevail on that issue.

EVEN if the Enquirer is protected under the neutral reportage privilege, were I Palin AND were I innocent of the aallegations I would STILL sue both the Enquirer AND whomever made the statements to the Enquirer in order to prove my innocence to the 10% of the country that retains an open mind about it.

Sooz

Stormy Weeks

One of my friends used to work for the Enquirer, and that's how they usually do it. They are actually right a lot of the time though. They just don't have all the documentation upfront.

They use tactics like for example: Pay off some celebrity's undocumented foreign worker for info. Then, when they need more info or to "protect" their source, make the undocumented worker feel like they are going to get sent back to where they came from. So, it's kind of like blackmail in a sense, yes.

Siobhan OFlynn

You know you love us.

__________________

Forrest Streeter

Interesting. The Enquirer is on some sort of roll after holding on to the Edwards stuff for years.

Of course it matters. Palin holds up a false image of morality that she may very well not practice herself. She's a horrible basement gene-splice of Gladys Kravits and Tracy Flick, something really embarrassing really needs to happen to her.

Cocoanut Koala

And as I said before, they ALL hold up a false sense of morality. That is, the ones who have affairs do. The ones who don't have affairs hold up the same morality, except that they don't stray from it.

And even when they do stray, as I said before, I don't consider it "false" at all. A person can have high morals about fidelity and still not be able to resist temptation. Or, in the case of Bill Clinton, not be able to resist it numerous times. I'm sure he doesn't look at his dalliances as morally proper. I've no doubt Kennedy devoted a fair amount of his confession time to his.

Then there are cultural considerations. Even today, it is considered more immoral for women to have affairs than men. In some cultures, it is expected that women should be faithful, but their husbands, not so much. A woman who has an affair in such cultures is considered immoral, while the husband isn't.

(And in some cultures, it's acceptable for both men and women to have affairs, as long as they do it quietly and don't let it interfere with the family.)

You can sit here and tell me all day long that it's much better for Kennedy or Clinton to have an affair (I don't include Edwards, because we have the added onus of a wife with cancer there) than it is for, say, Sarah Palin to have an affair.

You can sit here and tell me all day long that only Sarah Palin ever presented a sense of morality, and I will argue it with you all day long. Because we all ASSUME fidelity on the part of our leaders, and you know it. Because they all go to church, they are married, and they all bought into - and attempt to represent - the same morals. They trot out their families, and we all approve.

It's probably because of her religion that you think she is supposedly holding up higher moral standards than others, but she is not. The same moral goes for all of them, regardless of their religion: We expect our family men and women to be faithful to their spouses.

So you have the one behavior: Infidelity. (And this is assuming she even had an affair.) And yet, many of you seem to think it isn't as egregious for others. Why? Because their religions are different? I think pretty much all religions expect fidelity in marriage.

Or because they aren't conservative? Or because they aren't women? Or because she was a mother of four? Just why?

I know this is a stupid argument, by the way. I figure it sort of revolves around something like, "She thinks she's such a goody two-shoes." But I think there is worse at work here, having to do with religion, or which political side she's on, and/or the fact that she's female, not to mention a mother.

Stupid argument or not, I would like it if people would examine this a bit more, and figure out why it's so much more disgusting for her to have an affair (if she did) than for others. Exactly why you think somehow her morals are different from those others.

coco

Lo Jacobs

Look, the point is that Sarah Palin is quite fond of legislating morality, and that's why it's so amusing. The others -- less so.

I also wanted to add that I do not think it is worse if a woman has an affair than a man. You won't meet someone more feminist than me.

__________________
MY STORE//MY BLOG//FLICKR//EMAIL

Asher Bertrand

I wish you'd examine why you assume any perceived attack on someone you identify with, in whole or in part, is an attack on yourself.

Palin's whole shtick is god and guns and mom and apple pie. That's all she's got. And if this story is true, it's built on a lie.

__________________

Cristiano

Coco,

You are stuck on this idea that it is somehow worse for her and her alone, when that is not the case. It has nothing to do with her being a woman, either. As i said, John Edwards is a prime example of it not being a double standard - he is liberal and male and a giant flipping hypocrite. In the case of Sarah Palin, it is just part of the picture of her that has emerged. I don't know why there is this rush to claim any criticism of Sarah Palin for whatever reason is off limits, or that is about her being female and singled out. Yeah, the stuff about her daughter is off limits (though her views about abstinence only teaching and abortion are completely fair game). You seem to self-identify with her, thus any attack on her seems to be an attack on you, or at least people like you. Yet, YOU are not running for VP - she is. It's a huge difference.

It is also not because she is religious, though she is the type of religious person who makes my skin crawl (the ones who try to push their views on others and control them). At the end of the day, it is because she is wildly out of her league to be in such a high powered position, and that is a wreckless and very dangerous thing. The McCain camp even knows that, it is why they are keeping her away from the press in an unprecedented way, and why some of her loudest initial supporters have changed their minds. It was a politically cynical, pandering act to try to appeal more to the arch-conversative religious right, and to females. It wasn't about choosing the best candidate or right person for the job. That is why so many people are adamant about "whatever it takes" to get rid of her. I sincerely hope she steps down.

__________________
"At least he died doing what he loved most - blogging on the Huffington Post" - 30 Rock

* slu stuff *

RandoymRandt

The point is still that it matters, and whoever said one affair/person/religion/moral standard/sex/background is worse or better than the other was just stating a subjective viewpoint that is, as we know, out of the realms of logical negotiation (opinions usually are).

This thread has done one thing, which is to continue to prove it matters, and the ongoing arguing that it *shouldn't be* important is like trying to put out fire with gasonline. If it shouldn't be such a big deal why make it one then?

Here, new story on why Palin is unqualified to be VP, something else to chew on: Fareed Zakaria: Palin Is Ready? Please. | Newsweek Voices - Fareed Zakaria | Newsweek.com (has nice transcripts in it)

__________________
~I believe in love and being released from the tyranny of sim lines.~

Ann Launay

It is? I don't know anyone who feels that way.

__________________

Cocoanut Koala

I like God, I like guns, I like mom and I like apple pie! In fact, I'm all about those things! (Well, except I own no guns.)

But that is not her whole shtick. See, that's the sort of thing I mean. You think that is the entirety of her, and you judge her that way. It seems to be OTHERS' idea of her. Never mind her job.

I'm all about those things, too. Does it mean that - just because you may not like those things - that it is all I'm about?

Is that how I would get written off?

Because I am those things (and a Southerner, to boot, God help us!), it has to be all I am? My career wouldn't count?

I could have an affair, but it would NOT be built on a lie. Just because I'm religious and a mom and all that ghastly stuff, doesn't mean I would also be a hypocrite if I had an affair.

It would mean - just as it means for everybody else - that I had made done something I believed was wrong.

coco

Asher Bertrand

Yes, it is. That's the way she was presented to us. "She's a mother of 5!!!!" That's what we were supposed to be sold on.

Coco - I don't want this to come of sounding bad, but it might. It seems to me that you do a lot of empathizing, which is really cool. You look for ways that you can connect with whoever is being talked about. That's a good thing. But sometimes, it seems to me, you over-identify with someone and a critique of that person becomes somehow a critique of you. And that's not the case here.

People who don't like Palin don't like her ... well, for a number of reasons. First, she appears uniquely unqualified and unready. That's the worst of it. But then, a lot of us suspect this Mother of the Year shtick, and it is a shtick, is bunk.

And all this has NOTHING, NOTHING to do with you.

Io Zeno

Coco, this isn't about you, really.

Unless.... you are Palin's alt.

zOMG.

KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!

Cocoanut Koala

Because of the religion part, I guess.

And because people are saying it about her, and not about Clinton or any of the others.

And because I've heard that before on these forums: If a less religious person or a non-religious person does a "sin", it's okay - but if a more religious person does a "sin" it means that person is an immoral hypocrite. I hate that.

And because we already went through this ginormous round here on the forums about how it wasn't okay for her to hold an important position because she has five kids, but that is perfectly okay for a man, or for a woman who isn't of her religion or political persuasion.

I do believe you. You, in particular, have reached out to me here (especially with your mention of John Edwards), and I believe you to be sincere about that, and I believe you are an honorable and fair man.

And by the way, I wish to hell I could get out of this house to go GET that National Enquirer, because I don't think it is "part of the picture that has emerged" that "Sarah Palin had an affair."

I think what it probably is is exactly what it was before - that somebody dug up the fact that ten years ago, her husband was out of town a lot, and she started falling for this guy who was his business partner. But before it got out of hand, she told her husband about it, and he broke off his business relationship with the guy.

When my husband went out for gas yesterday, I asked him to get it for me, but he went to Target (to get pet food) and said they didn't have it.

I do not LIKE this innuendo being used to smear her, and being used in conjunction with her religion to do it.

Even religious moms get tempted. Take it from me.

Well, that's all different stuff. I'm not crazy about her religion, either. But I have no desire to argue about whether or not someone is out of their league, or any other of these issues.

I'm here to counter the idea that because she was tempted to have an affair (which is all I feel, at this point, is factual), it makes her worse than others.

Just as I was earlier here to counter the idea that because she has young children, she has no business running for high political office, and that idea alone.

coco

Cristiano

I'm sorry, I have to post this again, I can't get enough of it. I want to marry Gina Gershon

Cocoanut Koala

I appreciate the compliment.

And of course I emphasize with her, and of course I identify with her. She is more like me than anyone else in politics!

I don't mind the critiques of her on any political basis. People can (and do!) talk about all that on a daily basis. All that to me is totally fair game.

I DO mind when it means that the motherhood part or the religious part means they have got to live up to higher standards than everyone else, or that if they don't, they are worse people. Just as I mind if the motherhood part means they aren't supposed to run for office.

The other thing is - as I said before, what do you expect her to do, HIDE her kids? No other politician is expected to.

Obama has two beautiful children, and we LIKE them. We love his wonderful little family. We root for them. And God knows, they have been all over the media, and they are CLEARLY a selling point in his favor. We gobble up all the stories about their family life. (Or at least I do.)

We have always looked at the families of our politicians, and they have all always shown them off. We like it when they have cute kids; the last kid we had in the White House was Carter's, and before that Kennedy's.

Yet I don't see any criticism of them - only of her, for daring to stand up there with her beautiful family.

But mainly, I want to talk about this "Mother of the Year shtick".

What shtick? She has five kids, and she IS a mother. Are people actually mad because she is a mother? Is she supposed to hide this or something?

And it is not bunk. Those are real kids, and she is a real mother.

She is, in fact, combining motherhood and a career, just as I did, just as Nancy Pelosi did with her five kids, just as Hillary Clinton and John Kennedy and everybody else has always done.

That's why I don't like to see her criticized for it, and that's the sort of thing that kept me going so long in that other thread, and why I belabor the point in this thread.

If we're going to start considering number and/or age of children as reasons to disqualify someone from public service - or the fact that the candidate had an infatuation or an affair ten years ago - then we aren't going to have many public servants left.

And if we are going to apply all that only to the candidate we don't like, or only to women, then it obviously isn't valid at all.

coco

Asher Bertrand

It was her marketing when she was introduced to us. "Mother of five, including one with Down's Syndrome." Nothing else was really highlighted - I guess now we know it was because there was nothing there to highlight.

Lianne Marten

Why are we talking about something that may or may not be true, and even if true doesn't matter... when there are so many actual events to show her actual corruption?

The Associated Press: AP Investigation: Palin got zoning aid, gifts

__________________


I hope that whoever you are, you escape this place. I hope that the world turns and that things get better. But what I hope most of all is that you understand what I mean when I tell you that even though I do not know you, even though I may never meet you, laugh with you, cry with you, or kiss you... I love you. With all my heart, I love you.

-Valerie

Siobhan OFlynn

I had enough gas in my Honda to go out and purchase a copy of the National Enquirer! I will report my findings as soon as I get drunk enough to actually read it!

The things I do for you people, I swear to God. You should be writing my name in on your presidential ballots.

Serenity

Dunno... I'm cranky and I cling to my guns and religion...

S

__________________
"I don't care, I'm still free; you can't take the sky from me."