Anonymous wrote:The same pot-stirring poster, I bet. . . .

You don't stir it, you smoke it!

Anonymous wrote:
. . . I don't think they're going to get along, and I think that tension will hurt the Republican campaign . . .okay, I'm hoping that. What do you think? Is this relationship doomed to failure?

Shouldn't the question How will John McCain get along with Sarah Palin and how will Cindy McCain get along with Todd Palin?

BTW, someone on Charlie Rose's show (it might have been Senator Hatch) said McCain sees himself in Sarah Palin. My filthy mind chuckled a bit about that. No disrespect intended toward anyone involved except the dirty old man writing this.

Anonymous wrote:You guys understand that traditionally it's the job of a governor to seek earmarks, or federal funding for state projects, right? The standard use of the term more typically relates to an elected official such as a senator seeking federal appropriations in a bill within his or her house of the legislature. Since governors are not voting on legislation that contains funding for their states, the taint of earmarks typically doesn't apply to them, the Post story notwithstanding. Palin seeking federal funds for Alaska as governor is different than, say, Robert Byrd seeking and voting on millions of dollars in earmarks for West Virginia.

Obviously Byrd disagrees about why West Virginians elected him, but I'll stipulate whatever you want about Palin and Byrd. How about addressing my actual question: Was McCain ignorant of her record or lying about it?

Anonymous wrote:I heart you!

Proper grammar would have me state "anyway" instead of "anyways".

I am a published writer and I never make spelling or grammatical mistakes in my published work. What I scrawl on a message board is another matter.

I just found it pathetic that the poster had to resort to the difference between "anyway" and "anyways" to try to dismiss my argument. Pathetic and very very ironic.

I agree and will go a step further. We have a policy on our neighborhood message board (at least some of us) that all typos are ascribed to gremlins in cyberspace. If adhered to, this policy saves time, since grammar and spelling are not the real subject, saves you from embarrassing someone who deserves respect even if deficient at literary skills (we have some police on our board who try hard to keep the nbhd up to date, and insulting them would be a crime), or lecturing someone who knows damn well how to write, but is either careless or facetious.

As an old teacher, my natural tendency is to jump in and write corrections, but I really try to control my impulses. In fact, I'm obviously being pedantic right now, and I apologize for that. Nevertheless, I suggest everyone pause before turning English teacher, and ask "Does this really contribute to the discourse, or does it just make me feel good to look smart?"

Okay, we can't agree on the family stuff, or even whether it should be discussed. How about the Paul Kane article on the Post's front page today showing that the picture of Palin as McCain's soul mate in fighting earmarks is total malarkey. Can we agree that that is evidence that McCain is either an incompetent vetter or a major liar?

Disregarding any value judgments on the family questions, she could, with absolute honesty, say that at a time when extremely important issues are at stake, her candidacy has drawn attention away from them. It would be for the country's good, not just her family's, if she were to withdraw and let McCain make another choice before the convention is forced to vote on her nomination.

Anonymous wrote:I assume it's a word play. Juno is a movie about a teenage pregnancy, and as you said Juneau is the capital of Alaska.

Ah, the absent-mindedness of us old folks. I saw and enjoyed Juno not long ago, and even saw its star Ellen Page in the DVD Smart People over the week-end. But the Juno of the Roman mythology I read as a kid was still what popped into my head. Thanks for straightening me out.

On a serious note, I think it's a fairly common fact about the brain as it ages, that recent memories do not pop to mind as easily as older ones. I don't think it disqualifies McCain that it appears to happen to him at times (Czechoslovakia, for example), but it's something he has to compensate for if he gets elected. Biden too, perhaps.

But if they did not, we'd probably be flaming them for being as insensitive as the were in 2005. It's a tightrope walk for them.

Anonymous wrote:So... does anyone else just keep thinking... Juno!

You mean Jupiter's wife Juno? Or Alaska's capital Juneau? And what about it?

Not trying to be snide -- I just wonder what you mean.

Please help me on this.

I confess that I think the tale of the flight back from Texas to Alaska, past a batch of good hospitals with facilities to handle preemies with special needs, to get to her little hometown hospital, is easier to believe if Trig was Bristol's baby. Even though it now means believing that Bristol and her boyfriend managed a replay very soon after the birth, I'm still not sure. It truly would not make me think any the less of either Sarah or Bristol Palin, but I think I would understand the candidate better if I knew the truth, even as I admit that her private life should be none of my business.

Being in this situation makes me empathize a bit more with those who can't quite give up the feeling that there is something Muslim about Obama. (I don't believe that, but, being a non-believer, it would not make much difference to me, anyway, whether he calls God Jesus, Allah, or Adonai).

My point, in both cases, is that I would distinguish between those who are trying to figure out the truth, whether for the reasons (I think) I did or even just for the fun of gossip, and those who know the rumors are likely to be false, but purposely spread them for political effect, either as straightforward mudslingers, or as Jeff's reverse mudslingers.

Given my twisted sense of humor, let me add that I am being serious here, and trying to get some enlightenment, as well as to get those who are attacking each other to apply a bit of charity in evaluating other people's motives.

Rich wrote:It is to Palin's credit that she accepts human frailty (as well as contraception!)

Given recent postings that I had not seen when I wrote that, the parenthetical remark may be an error.

The beauty of it all is at the end of the Reuters article. The McCain campaign is blaming the spread of the rumor on liberal bloggers spreading lies and slinging mud, and the campaign is connecting it to Obama by noting that some of the blogs have his name in the title. It's as good a turnabout as the "race card": "How dare you lie about this poor girl's virtue. She couldn't have been pregnant then because she's pregnant now."

Aside from the absurdity of the using pregnancy to defend the honor of a girl suspected of pregnancy, this overlooks the fact that most of us never thought about it in terms of sinful behavior. Immorality for us is starting wars, not having sex! We may have succumbed to over-active curiosity, but it wasn't lies or mud-slinging.

It is to Palin's credit that she accepts human frailty (as well as contraception!)

My (grown) son shocked me a few years ago by telling me he thought GHWB was the worst president ever. I said he did not compare to GWB. Major father-son friction! Fortunately, our President solved my family problem by convincing my son that I was right.

Okay, so that's not the kind of divided household you meant. I just threw it in for laughs ... at least a chuckle, maybe?

Anonymous wrote:

Speaking of religion, here's an interesting sidelight:

When asked, at Saddleback, about the Supreme Court, McCain said there are four Justices he would not have appointed. They happen to be the four who are not Catholic (two Protestants and two Jews). Yet, in his first appointment, he chose an Evangelical Protestant. Much truer to McCain's promise was Obama, who, in spite of the fact that the one Justice he would not have appointed was a Catholic, chose a Catholic for his first appointment.

You just can't trust nobody when it comes to religion!

And the relevance of Biden's religion (as well as that of the various justices referenced) is precisely what??? I don't believe either
McCain or Obama endorsed a religious test for office during the Saddleback debate.

How nice to see that prejudice against Catholics alive and kicking in this day and age.

I guess it was naive of me not to add a smiley. I know my attempts at humor don't always make people laugh, but usually they at least get a moan that shows me people knew I was trying to be funny. I sometimes forget how much is lost in internet communication.

And just to set the record straight, I have nothing against Catholics. I went nuts electioneering for one four years ago. And I admire the Church's stands on capital punishment and Iraq. That's serious, by the way. But it would be ironic if I misinterpreted your statement and you were being ironic!

Anonymous wrote:Cindy McCain's father was an entirely self-made man who didn't even have a high school diploma. He built his business from the ground up. One would think we would all admire that, just as we admire Obama for being an entirely self-made man.

We admire that. But I thought the guy we are talking about is the one who grew up in a family of admirals and got rich by divorcing his ailing wife and marrying an heiress twenty years younger. Another case of "misdirection". Akin to McCain answering Jay Leno's question about his houses by harking back to his home in Viet Nam.

Yes, I know Dems do it too. It's par for our discourse these days.