Good post DJ.

I'll add that McCain hired Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr. to conduct the vetting process months before the choice was made. Culvahouse is an old hand at this game and a very well known figure in Washington legal and political circles.

McCain met Palin at a governor's conference months before the primaries were over and was impressed by her reform policies. As DJ mentioned, she went after members of her own party....now who does that sound like? Maybe John McCain?

Good job DJ. Palin is bait and MSM and Lib nutcases have taken the hook and run with it. If McCain has any chance at all, it will because of Palin.

The vetting shouldn't really concern anyone except the Republican Party. If it's satisfied that's all that matters.

She was McCain's choice, approved by the Republican Party, and that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Soooo....we shouldn't consider as voters whether or not McCain has the requisite judgment to be president using the manner in which he chose Palin as an example?

JFO's poor reading comprehension rears its head yet again. The media should not pretend that the vetting of Sarah Palin was in any way less thorough or valid than the vetting of Joe Biden, JFO.

Your boy's looking more and more moose-like, but that's just too bad for you.

Congratulations, liberals/media/Democrats.

You have accomplished what I didn't think was possible: You turned me, and millions more like me, into John McCain VOTERS.

Your disgusting, asinine, repulsive and offensive slanders, lies and slurs against Sarah Palin have turned me from being resigned to the strong possibility of Obama winning to someone who wants to shove your crap down your Keith Olberman-infested throats with a landslide for McCain.

When McCain announced Palin as his running mate, I thought, "Good choice. Now it's a race."

But after your repulsive treatment of Palin and her daughter and phony angst over "having" to report it, I want McCain-Palin to win and win BIG.

Your smug elitism and treating of a highly accomplished solidly blue collar woman as worse than trailer trash has angered me far more than the Bush-hatred ever has. Your BLAMING HER for the smears, lies, rumors and disgusting media and blog crap is just so over the top that I want her and McCain to win so bad that you'll be left breathless and sobbing for your mamas.

Sarah Palin could be my mother. She could be my wife. She could be my mother-in-law. In other words, she could be any one of the smart, accomplished and fabulous women in my life. When you smear, slur and slander Sarah Palin, you're doing so against women just like them.

Sarah Palin has accomplished more as a public servant than Barack Obama ever has. He talks about hope and change, but Palin really IS change: a veep candidate who comes from a solidly middle America background (figuratively speaking, not geographically) and who loves the things we love.

Does that mean she's the greatest thing ever, like the hoards of Obama supporters who cry at his speeches think--or Mr. Barack "We're-the-ones-we've-been-waiting-for" Obama?

Hardly. And I still have some problems with McCain. On MOST things, McCain is right. On some, he's very wrong--just like W. But if tapping Palin as his running mate is any indication of what kind of presidential decisions he'll make, I can very easily live with him as prez.

So take your hope and change and shove it where the sun don't shine, jerks.

You have made me and millions more like me madder than you can possibly imagine.

Bt gd frbd sh shld b r prsdnt.

nd spr s th l r nthng bt wngnt.

JFO, I must say that you truly, inspiringly even reflect and amplify all that America has come to expect from the party of Michael Moore and Nancy Pelosi.

hhhh DJ f nl prch wht s snctmnsl prch.

Bt nlk thnk r bth gnrnt nd dshnst, Whnvr chllngd rrl f vr rspnd wth nthng thr thn snctmns r f sprrt.

n tr cs t hnd rflxvl rspndd t m cmmnt whch ws bvsl n rspns t th n bv t. nd thgh n m dsgr wth m pnt, t ws, n fct, pnt. Thn whn shwn t b wrng, whch s rglr ccrrnc hr, fll bck n th trp jst wrt.

n m mnd tht mks bth gnrnt nd dshnst.

psss, f crs mnt prctc.

Re post #7 by JFO:

"But god forbid she should be our president."

In case you haven't been following it, she will be on the ticket for VICE-President. Get it?

"And spare us the lie you are anything but a wingnut."

Pot .. Kettle .. JFO.

JFO - I'm HARDLY a wingnut, and you don't know me from Adam. The only applicable reply to your sophmoric claim is "I know you are, but what am I?"

Bye-by, JFO.

The problem for the left is that McCain's choice of Palin as his running mate has:

1. Taken away from what Obama planned as his spotlight moment, throwing the initiative to McCain coming off the Democratic convention and in advance of the Republican convention, at just the time that non-activist voters start paying attention;
2. Strengthened John McCain's weak position with two of the three wings of the Republican Party base1;
3. Given many disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters reason to vote for McCain rather than for Obama;
4. Increased his fundraising potential;
5. Chosen to groom a potential future president that the Democrats would have a harder time fighting than they would, say, a Pawlenty or Romney;
6. Raised interest in the Republican convention, again just when voters are starting to pay attention;
7. Thrown the media and the Obama campaign into quick-reaction mode, where the obviousness of the media's in-the-tank performance for Obama is clear to many independents who otherwise wouldn't notice the more subtle manipulation that the media tends to engage in.

In other words, the reasons the Democrats are upset is because Sarah Palin is a terrible pick for them. For the Republicans, her choice is fantastically good for the same reason that it is terrible for the Democrats. For the rest of us (those who, by virtue of not being partisan Democrats must automatically be wingnuts), its meaning is primarily at the margins. I am more likely to vote for McCain-Palin than for any combination other than McCain-Thompson, and it appears that there are a lot of people making the calculation that McCain-Palin is better than Obama-Biden. Of course the Democrats are terrified: they are scared, and justly so.

1The Rockefeller Republicans (socially liberal pro-business Hamiltonians) were already with McCain; the Reagan Republicans (socially conservative Jacksonians) and the libertarians (small government conservatives) were not very happy with McCain.

I think it is high time to start reviewing the 1st amendment.

I think there needs to be a law in place that states that all news corrections must be done in the same place in the paper from whence the original falsehood resided. Front page above the fold, using the as much space as the orignal story or as much as is needed to fully explain the error, whichever is more. Or on TV, it must be on the same program, and recieve as much time and from the original person reporting.

Liability needs to be placed on stories that have been found to be false. The degree of liability should be based on how much effort the original story had put into it to try and find the truth. Such as a story that was deliberatly thwarted by the entity that was the topic of the story would have near to zero liability if the person doing the story worked hard enough to get to the truth. While a story with obvious bias on part of the reporter trying to find any kind of dirt with no sources or proof would have total liability.

I understand that this gets into a really murky area, but the way the media is working now is completely out of the bounds of what free speech is intended to foster. The most read, most viewed media outlets are basically allowed to run completely slander with the worst case scenario being that they have to run a story on page zzzz9999 saying they made an error. Likely only a tiny fraction of a % of the original readers will ever see or hear of the correction and continue to hold that the original fictitious story is true.

"Joe Biden should be as worried as a moose in season."

Do you mean "in season" in the hunter's sense, or in the biological sense?

Either way, Rance, it works.

these are awesome
http://shop.cafepress.com/design/29869962

Big Mac and the Cuda!

When it comes to vetting;

http://www.omm.com/arthurbculvahousejr/

Tell me this guy is going to miss something, please.

If you ask the same folks who are saying Palin isnt qualified to be President the following:

was Bush 41 qualified to be President
is Bush 43 qualified to be President
Was Reagen qualified to be President
Is McCain qualifeid to be President.

if asked I am sure that most would say no to all of the above. The only thing is 3 of the 4 have already proven they are qualified and have served in the office for anywhere from 4-8 years.

It doesnt matter if she was vetted or not. it doesnt matter if the press or the left does a colonoscomy looking for stuff. if doesnt matter if she was governor of california, texas and new york simultaneousy for 40 years while she raised 25 kids, coached 2 super bowl winners, won 8 world series, and founded a company that in 2 years went from a garage to taking over Microsoft, Shell oil, and AT&T.

They would still find fault with her and not vote for her Because of who she is.

The same reason they aren't voting for her now.

I said it before and I will add something. I hope the left keeps disparaging McCain on his age and cancer. Now also slamming an accomplished leader like Palen. You liberals are doing MORE for us then McCains campaign team. Thanks. ww

retired military

It all started with Big Al Gore losing. The Libernuts haven't gotten over it and never will. Which is how Big Al has been able to peddle his Global Warming stuff for roughly 100 million in his pocket while living exactly as he pleases.

I keep telling them (conservative and liberal) don't fall in love with a politician, they will break your heart and pick your pocket. Or, if they are like Clinton, LBJ, JFK and a host of others, they will Clintonize any female they can, unless they are Barney Frank. *grin*

Ths s nt l

t tks mr ntrvws t gt jb t Wlmrt thn t ds t b McCns VP. McCn hrd hr bsd n n mtng nd phn phn cll.

Actually, yes Dave, that was a lie.

Th frst rl n chsng VP s d n hrm. McCn brk rl n b ndrmnng hs xprnc dvntg vr bm.

Another good post DJ.

If he's posting lies, can't you let your readership figure out for themselves whether or not to believe them?

Based on the reaction* of the propaganda wing of the Obama campaign** to Governor Palin, I would have to conclude that she was very well and properly vetted and was the perfect pick.

*i.e., fabricating "scandals" then reporting on them-- outfreakingrageous!

**the "MSM"

Hyper,

That's the policy at KOS & DU (and in the MSM for that matter), but I'm glad it's not the policy here.

DJ,

Why are you trying to censor/silence me. My points are on topic.

What the right wing pundits are saying when they don't think anyone is listening(its not just the left wing media):

Wall Street Journal columnist and former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan and former John McCain adviser, Time columnist, and MSNBC contributor Mike Murphy were caught on tape disparaging John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate.

"It's over," Noonan said.

When Chuck Todd asked her if this was the most qualified woman the Republicans could nominate, Noonan responded, "The most qualified? No. I think they went for this, excuse me, political bullshit about narratives. Every time the Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and that's not what they're good at, they blow it."

Murphy characterized the choices as "cynical" and "gimmicky."

"Palin is doing a heck of a job as VP candidate. Leave her alone."

Remeber what happened to Bush when he said that about Brown. He lost his credibility!

The same can happen to all of the right wing pundits who are jumping to Palins defense.

But you'll still love the left wing media that's fabricating "scandals" out of whole cloth, right Dave? No credability loss there, huh?

(Not that I think that you're right about the right wing pundits loosing any credability, btw.)

The same can happen to all of the right wing pundits who are jumping to Palins defense.

Dave:

Says who? You?
By what authority do you make this assumption?
It is still a free country, yet.

Says who? You? By what authority do you make this assumption? It is still a free country, yet.

Under the authority of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, you know the one that talks about "Freedom of Speech"? Yes it is a free country and I am excercising my freedom.

Maggie,

Your too far to the right to see straight. The general public is not getting taken in by the rights spin on Palin being qualified.

Soon Palin will have to answer questions from the media on national issues. If she blows it and comes off as not knowing anything, then all of you who are supporting her will also look stupid.

But you'll still love the left wing media that's fabricating "scandals" out of whole cloth, right Dave? No credability loss there, huh?

The media, with the exception of some left wing blogs have been very fair in their dealing with Palin.

Palin still has yet to hold a press conference or take questions from the press(with the exception of a softball appearance on FOX). If she is innocent(Trooper Gate) she needs to let the press ask her questions.

Thanks for proving my point, Dave. I knew I could count on you.

That's right Dave.
You exercise your right of
freedom, but would do all you could
to shut down the people in this country
who remember how much freer it used to be.

Also, you have no idea of how stupid
you look/read when you come into someone elses
house and poop on the floor.

Just saying.

http://beltwayblips.com/video/meg_whitman_on_sexism_charges/

McCain's national campaign co-chair doesn't think the media is being sexist towards Palin. People should call the McCain campaign headquarters and ask why they've allowed themselves to buy into this NYT-MSNBC-MSM-Communist Party rhetoric.

I've been listening to the talking heads for the last few minutes. It seems to me, their argument is that THEY didn't get to vet Gov. Palin, not that McCain didn't vet her. They're not saying that outright, but it appears to be their point and it appears to be what has had them all PO'd from the start. From that respect, I guess there really is a scandal here.

They've been left grasping at straws. Still ya gotta give them credit for what "news" they've been able to fabricate in the last five days.

Brian, because when I see poop, I flush it.

Can't speak for your house ...

Dave: "My points are on topic."

No Dave, you posted inflammatory lies. I do not have to let you do that, and I will not. A difference of opinion is allowed, attempts to slime honorable people will get you canned.

If Palin was vetted, why didn't Palin mention she was going to be a Granny when she was first announced? I suppose you can argue privacy, but people would have been awfully curious in about nine months. I say, 'bs.' to being vetted. If you really support 'life', why not mention it in your first speech as a VP candidate. I say McCain's crew never knew until later and now are furiously attacking the press.

"If Palin was vetted, why didn't Palin mention she was going to be a Granny when she was first announced?"

Maybe because her being a GRANNY has absolutely nothing to do with her ability to be VICE PRESIDENT.

Did Biden mention he was a grandfather when he was selected?

What difference does it make if they are going to be granny, are a granny or never will be granny? Answer : it has the same relevance as your though process - NONE.