Update: McCain's VP not in Constitution party. Husband was.

[Axis Kast]

Kast, blog posts are not considered usable here. They haven't been before, and you are not special.

The blog was not the original source of the information. It was merely a convenient presentation bringing it all together.

And don't get on me about being "special," Nitram. You're the one with the high and mighty pony prance. I have to say I have no sympathy, however, as you try (and fail) to wipe egg off your face for having apparently failed to read what was posted.

Further, your accusals really mean precisely shit. You keep on whining about this 'habit' you see and can only substantiate with illogical rebuttals. Really, 'innocent until proven guilty' was your retort, and that's enough for you to prove you're a looney tune.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is inherently logical. How can you string someone up for a crime when you haven't the proof that they are the responsible party?

You suggested that Sarah Palin is an AIP "plant" trying to destroy the integrity of the Union by infiltrating the Republican Party and, at final step, the White House. It is now your responsibility, if you wish to be taken at all seriously, to provide evidence. Or just admit that you were jerking off and spilled a little bit on the Internet.

So, her husband is a member of a group that wants to remove one of the fifty states and she does promo videos for them. Yep, you're right: no chance in hell she actually supports secession -something her party's first president fought a vicious war to stop.

Her husband is a member of a Party that doesn't have a totalistic commitment to independence. As mentioned, the AIP is structured such that one can actually regard it as a gadfly party. Not all of its membership advocates independence.

And, entirely aside from that, did you watch the video? Looks to me like a clear attempt to encourage AIP members to look favorably on her party as the vehicle to carry forward certain non-objectionable elements of the general AIP platform. And, of course, a courtesy nod to a group of people who represent a significant (hence important) constituency in her state. They aren't hurting anyone, and as much as I find Alaskan independence reprehensible, Palin promised them nothing but the chance to gather and discuss, which she is bound to do, Constitutionally. Being polite isn't a mortal sin. In fact, it isn't a sin at all. If she was doing anything, it was encouraging AIP members to vote Republican.

[SirNitram]

Kast, blog posts are not considered usable here. They haven't been before, and you are not special.

The blog was not the original source of the information. It was merely a convenient presentation bringing it all together.

Because you're too stupid to make several links in a blog post? Sorry, not flying, try again. Anyone whose not comatose knows that blog posts are not acceptable here, and frankly, I agree with the Senate's feeling this place needs cleaning up. That means more insistance on proper sources, not your wishes.

And don't get on me about being "special," Nitram. You're the one with the high and mighty pony prance. I have to say I have no sympathy, however, as you try (and fail) to wipe egg off your face for having apparently failed to read what was posted.

I'm sorry, is there anything here besides a silly attempt to say 'I'm rubber and you are glue!'?

Further, your accusals really mean precisely shit. You keep on whining about this 'habit' you see and can only substantiate with illogical rebuttals. Really, 'innocent until proven guilty' was your retort, and that's enough for you to prove you're a looney tune.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is inherently logical. How can you string someone up for a crime when you haven't the proof that they are the responsible party?

It's illogical to expect me to throw out a statement unless and until a proper source contradicts it. Since I do not consider McCain's claims credible(It's called pattern recignition), I waited until the retraction. So sorry I have standards.

You suggested that Sarah Palin is an AIP "plant" trying to destroy the integrity of the Union by infiltrating the Republican Party and, at final step, the White House. It is now your responsibility, if you wish to be taken at all seriously, to provide evidence. Or just admit that you were jerking off and spilled a little bit on the Internet.

It is now your responsibility to prove I was doing anything more than mocking McCain's methods, because frankly, why should anything the man says be considered true? He thinks less group healthcare plans means less pre-existing condition rejections, which is patently bullshit.

So, her husband is a member of a group that wants to remove one of the fifty states and she does promo videos for them. Yep, you're right: no chance in hell she actually supports secession -something her party's first president fought a vicious war to stop.

Her husband is a member of a Party that doesn't have a totalistic commitment to independence. As mentioned, the AIP is structured such that one can actually regard it as a gadfly party. Not all of its membership advocates independence.

Indeed. It's also the Constitution Party, which is literally theocratic.

And, entirely aside from that, did you watch the video? Looks to me like a clear attempt to encourage AIP members to look favorably on her party as the vehicle to carry forward certain non-objectionable elements of the general AIP platform. And, of course, a courtesy nod to a group of people who represent a significant (hence important) constituency in her state. They aren't hurting anyone, and as much as I find Alaskan independence reprehensible, Palin promised them nothing but the chance to gather and discuss, which she is bound to do, Constitutionally. Being polite isn't a mortal sin. In fact, it isn't a sin at all. If she was doing anything, it was encouraging AIP members to vote Republican.

I don't care so much about her video, it's more the influence of her spouse. And frankly, that this whole mess is even around. It's yet another sign McCain is a reckless moron, just like you: Instead of thinking, knowing what you're talking about, and moving forward, a snap judgement and then whining.

Take your whining elsewhere, kiddo.

[Glocksman]

Not all blogs are created equal.
There are blogs that go to great lengths to provide their original sources and are careful to separate opinion from fact in their posts.

Michelle Malkin's Hot Air isn't one of those blogs.
In fact, both her main site and Hot Air spin faster than an industrial grade Maytag.
Though I confess I like seeing Malkin in her cheerleader outfit.

[SirNitram]

Not all blogs are created equal.
There are blogs that go to great lengths to provide their original sources and are careful to separate opinion from fact in their posts.

Michelle Malkin's Hot Air isn't one of those blogs.
In fact, both her main site and Hot Air spin faster than an industrial grade Maytag.
Though I confess I like seeing Malkin in her cheerleader outfit.

The spastic psychodrama queen in a cheerleader outfit is 'shopped, isn't it?

And yes, some blogs are now credible to the point of being used as sources by the main news outlets. That being said, I'm going to enforce the rule for almost all cases. A form of redundancy, because I'd prefer not to see the psychodrama of 'THIS BLOG SUCKS AND IS TINFOIL HATTER!' leaked into this forum.

[Glocksman]

Nah, there's even video of her bouncing around on a trampoline wearing it.
Our Lady of Perpetual Outrage is quite fetching in a short skirt and pom poms.

As far as using blogs goes, unless I'm posting the opinion of the blogger as a point of discussion, I'd rather use the blogger's sources instead of the blog post itself.

[Axis Kast]

Because you're too stupid to make several links in a blog post? Sorry, not flying, try again. Anyone whose not comatose knows that blog posts are not acceptable here, and frankly, I agree with the Senate's feeling this place needs cleaning up. That means more insistance on proper sources, not your wishes.

In other words, you’re searching for an intellectual dishonest method of covering your own ass. You chose not to read the Blog, thus shaming yourself, and now must reference some kind of hard and fast “rule” that encourages you to discard any potential source of information that isn’t mainstream, or involves a two-step process to get to the original information. I understand completely.

I'm sorry, is there anything here besides a silly attempt to say 'I'm rubber and you are glue!'?

No. It’s a successful move to draw attention to the fact that you throw regular parades in your own honor.

It's illogical to expect me to throw out a statement unless and until a proper source contradicts it. Since I do not consider McCain's claims credible(It's called pattern recignition), I waited until the retraction. So sorry I have standards.

… and this is the biggest Red Herring I’ve seen all day.

The question of proof at issue here is whether or not it is sound judgment to label Palin a special “planet” of the AIP designed to help Alaska achieve independence from the White House, not whether you were correct to be suspicious of Mother Jones, knowing nothing about that source.

It is now your responsibility to prove I was doing anything more than mocking McCain's methods, because frankly, why should anything the man says be considered true? He thinks less group healthcare plans means less pre-existing condition rejections, which is patently bullshit.

Because you have now reached a level of insanity, most clearly.

By claiming that Republicans are pathological liars, you have established a precedent whereby the obvious can be questioned and the most preposterous fantasies indulged in . . . all because you have “a history of misrepresentation” or “a history of incompetence” – which then is taken to be more valuable in terms of allowing us to assess the usefulness of an idea, or even the veracity of things, independent of the actual situation. Leaps of logic like, “It isn’t silly to seriously consider Palin an agent of the AIP, since John McCain says she is fully a Republican, and John McCain is known to claim things about his health care plan that my mathematics prove are false!” In case nobody ever told you how it works, Palin’s agency needs to be evaluated on its own terms, not through McCain’s mouth.

Indeed. It's also the Constitution Party, which is literally theocratic.

Why don’t you talk about what her husband espouses, rather than the statements of a certain segment of a party he belongs to?

It’s a major failing you have, Nitram, to focus on the groups which people identify with, or the people they associate with, rather than their own opinions. It remains a great mystery to me how, say, Palin can be called out and shouted down for her husband’s party while Obama is not somehow made ineligible in your mind due to his church membership.

I don't care so much about her video, it's more the influence of her spouse. And frankly, that this whole mess is even around. It's yet another sign McCain is a reckless moron, just like you: Instead of thinking, knowing what you're talking about, and moving forward, a snap judgement and then whining.

Explain to me how her spouse influences her more than Obama’s friend, the Reverend White.

And I don’t see what makes McCain reckless. He chose a woman whose daughter had a child out of wedlock, and at a young age. That may show poor political acumen, but it says nothing about his (or her) ability to tackle big political issues. Just like Clinton’s infidelity said nothing about his quality as Commander-in-Chief. Her husband’s affiliation with the AIP is regrettable, but not damning.

Take your whining elsewhere, kiddo.

I find it interesting that an individual without intellectual achievement can call me “kiddo.” Like I said, that’s some pony show.

[SirNitram]

Wow. That's just precious. Claiming McCain is a liar is, according to you, 'By claiming that Republicans are pathological liars,'. How'd you get that? Your decoder ring?

This statement sums up your entire little hissy fit here. 'Regular parades in my honor'? Where'd that come from? You claim I'm making up a rule I've enforced for a nice, long while.. Hell, search the HOS, you'll see Shep having a hissy-fit over the fact some story on one of his favorite blogs got flushed because of this rule!

Reverend White? Never heard of him. Reverend Wright, the man who Obama denounced loudly and clearly? That's enough. Has Palin denounced the AIP? Nope. She made a promotional video for them. And if you seriously think an occasional pastor at an old church is more influential than your spouse, it's pretty clear you've got no idea what you're talking about.

I'm done, Kast. You've turned this into just another frothing rant that bears almost no connection to reality(Where's those parades again?), and you've got nothing but the sad complaint I didn't take Malkin, of all the discredited bozos on the web, seriously.

[Axis Kast]

Wow. That's just precious. Claiming McCain is a liar is, according to you, 'By claiming that Republicans are pathological liars,'. How'd you get that? Your decoder ring?

You paint with a wide brush, Nitram. Your prior behavior on the thread about the Republican "war room" proved it, and that's what I was referring to. You have a documented tendency to conflate single individuals with whole groups. In fact, you did it in this thread -- by linking Palin's husband to certain members of the AIP, rather than being able to discuss his personal views. And by insisting that Palin is culpable for somebody else's politics.

This statement sums up your entire little hissy fit here. 'Regular parades in my honor'? Where'd that come from? You claim I'm making up a rule I've enforced for a nice, long while.. Hell, search the HOS, you'll see Shep having a hissy-fit over the fact some story on one of his favorite blogs got flushed because of this rule!

Funny I've never heard of that rule. But it does seem especially strange given how much information people obtained from blogs when South Ossetia was invaded). The big matter that I'm contending, though, is that it didn't take a brain surgeon to follow the links, even if one disputed that it should have been posted.

Reverend White? Never heard of him. Reverend Wright, the man who Obama denounced loudly and clearly? That's enough. Has Palin denounced the AIP? Nope. She made a promotional video for them. And if you seriously think an occasional pastor at an old church is more influential than your spouse, it's pretty clear you've got no idea what you're talking about.

Wright was more than "an occasional pastor" in Obama's life. The man was his close friend, even a mentor.

As for Elfdart's "promotional video," it ran more like a swoop for votes from a party with certain issue cross-over.

I'm done, Kast. You've turned this into just another frothing rant that bears almost no connection to reality(Where's those parades again?), and you've got nothing but the sad complaint I didn't take Malkin, of all the discredited bozos on the web, seriously.

Running away again, huh? Concession accepted. After you couldn't even address the real issue at stake: whether or not it was intellectually valid to label Palin an AIP "plant."

[SirNitram]

Your ignorance of rules, lies about my statements, and hilarity-inducing bullshit nonwithstanding, two things must be addressed.

Since a pastor is apparently a super-duper important person in any person's life...

the Boston Herald and Newsweek have both identified Wasilla Bible Church as the Alaska Governor's most recent church. And it was at that Bible Church where a recent guest described a Palestinian attack on Israeli citizens as part of God's judgment coming to pass on Earth -- an analysis likely troubling both to Jews, as well as to mainstream foreign policy analysts.

Care to reconsider, while you realize all the churches she's been attending are Assemblies Of God?

As for..

Running away again, huh?

[Glocksman]

As for Elfdart's "promotional video," it ran more like a swoop for votes from a party with certain issue cross-over.

Again, the AIP supports secession and/or theocracy.
Would you be as comfortable with it if we were discussing the Democratic Governor of New York making a video like that for a CPUSA convention?

The larger point is that things that play well on a local level can be fucking nutcase central on a national stage, and the AIP is just that, a bunch of nutcases circle jerking to dreams of Alaskan 'independence' and a lunatic libertarian economic model.

A responsible politician with national aspirations would put as much distance between the AIP and themselves as possible.

Palin didn't.
That's either a sign of gross stupidity on her part, or (more likely) that she had no plans to go 'national' and the McCain campaign simply didn't vet her properly.

[Axis Kast]

Again, the AIP supports secession and/or theocracy.

The AIP's platform does not advocate secession; certain members of the AIP do. Certain factions, even.

Would you be as comfortable with it if we were discussing the Democratic Governor of New York making a video like that for a CPUSA convention?

The video doesn't strike me as troublesome at all. She's extending welcome to a group discussing its views. They aren't hurting anybody. And, to top it all off, she's seemingly trying to siphon their base.

That's either a sign of gross stupidity on her part, or (more likely) that she had no plans to go 'national' and the McCain campaign simply didn't vet her properly.

Of course. Because any time the unexpected occurs, it's bad vetting, not chance or circumstance, that is to blame.

Since a pastor is apparently a super-duper important person in any person's life...

My point is that it is dangerous to judge somebody's politics according to their personal connections, which sometimes are not decent indicators of where they stand on issues. If you forgive Obama, who has publicly, but not privately, forsaken Wright, then the Palins present no issue whatsoever.

As for..

Everyone can see, you realize, that you never actually tried to debate the relevant issue, but instead hopped around just like the idiot in black and red. The guy in white? That's me, pal.

[Glocksman]

Of course. Because any time the unexpected occurs, it's bad vetting, not chance or circumstance, that is to blame.

Uh..dude.
If a bunch of unwashed bloggers at dKos managed to uncover it, why shouldn't the McCain campaign be considered to have failed at vetting her?

The fact that they didn't launch a pre-emptive counter narrative the instant it hit the 'net and the fact that the McCain people have sent a squad of lawyers to Alaska after she was chosen tells me he didn't do a good job.

The AIP's platform does not advocate secession; certain members of the AIP do. Certain factions, even.

The faction that includes the founder of the party.
Who, by the way, hated the USA so much that he refused to be buried in Alaska as long as it was part of the United States.
He's interred in British Columbia as a result of that hatred.

Face it, any association with whackjobs such as the AIP or Constitution Party is the kiss of death for any politician who wants to compete on the national stage.

And rightfully so.

[SirNitram]

Kast, screaming I 'throw parades in my own honor' and insisting you never heard of a rule I've been enforcing for months does not make you the guy in white. Throwing a screaming tantrum and then yelling 'Running away?', makes you the guy who, in that scene, did in fact yell, 'Running away, eh? YOU YELLOW BASTARD!'.

Are you going to fucking bring anything here, besides insisting I take Malkin seriously enough to bother reading, when I've already made it clear blogs haven't been considered credible sources here for a while? Or are you going to keep frothing around, declaring victory, and masturbating furiously in some wild fantasy where you're not looking like a looney tune?

[Alyrium Denryle]

The AIP's platform does not advocate secession; certain members of the AIP do. Certain factions, even.

Even if that is the case, they are affiliated with the Constitution Party, which is explicitly theocratic

The video doesn't strike me as troublesome at all. She's extending welcome to a group discussing its views. They aren't hurting anybody. And, to top it all off, she's seemingly trying to siphon their base.

Because she needs their theocrat votes. The alternative of course is that she actively supports a lot of their theocratic... oh wait...SHE DOES!

Of course. Because any time the unexpected occurs, it's bad vetting, not chance or circumstance, that is to blame.

Or it is deliberate. The AIP is the third largest party in alaska. She couldnt not know what they are.

[Axis Kast]

If a bunch of unwashed bloggers at dKos managed to uncover it, why shouldn't the McCain campaign be considered to have failed at vetting her?

Scandal hits everyone. Obama and Wright, for example. It was luck that Clinton didn't run with those attack ads stressing the point.

The fact that they didn't launch a pre-emptive counter narrative the instant it hit the 'net and the fact that the McCain people have sent a squad of lawyers to Alaska after she was chosen tells me he didn't do a good job.

It's quite plausible that nobody figured the AIP issues would become a major issue. Not everyone regards them as anything more than an unusual aspect of localized politics.

Kast, screaming I 'throw parades in my own honor' and insisting you never heard of a rule I've been enforcing for months does not make you the guy in white. Throwing a screaming tantrum and then yelling 'Running away?', makes you the guy who, in that scene, did in fact yell, 'Running away, eh? YOU YELLOW BASTARD!'.

Are you going to fucking bring anything here, besides insisting I take Malkin seriously enough to bother reading, when I've already made it clear blogs haven't been considered credible sources here for a while? Or are you going to keep frothing around, declaring victory, and masturbating furiously in some wild fantasy where you're not looking like a looney tune?

Nitram. Sarah Palin. Secret agent. White House subversion. Alaskan independence. End game.

[SirNitram]

Nitram. Sarah Palin. Secret agent. White House subversion. Alaskan independence. End game.

And just after I admonish you for not bringing anything and just declaring victory, you again declare victory despite the fact it's pretty clear I was openly mocking McCain, and consider him a liar(Not a pathological one, and not the whole GOP. Though you will lie anyway.)

You know, this really was smart, Kast. While the Senate is firebreathing over improving the standards of N&P, you post a link to a massively biased blog of someone so unhinged O'Reilly booted her, then throw a temper tantrum about not being able to use blogs as sources, and insist your strawmen be taken seriously.

Really, very smart. You'll get the kind of reform I like through: Less of your grade of 'YOU'RE A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!!!!!' bullshit.

[Illuminatus Primus]

How droll, you resort to the fearmongering "you'd better watch out" crap already? The biggest problem with N&P is people trying to be Mike on his behalf.

[Axis Kast]

And just after I admonish you for not bringing anything and just declaring victory, you again declare victory despite the fact it's pretty clear I was openly mocking McCain, and consider him a liar(Not a pathological one, and not the whole GOP. Though you will lie anyway.)

Your favorite tactic is to bring nothing and declare victory.

It was most certainly not "pretty clear" that you were joking about Palin being a quiet supporter of AIP who planned to leverage that if victorious in the election.

You clearly have a very negative view of the whole GOP. You also have a very negative view of the whole AIP. Like I said, you paint with a wide brush, and I've been making an effort to expose the folly of doing that. It isn't my fault if you can't understand what's going on here when I point out that you would cry "foul!" if somebody claimed we could know a lot about Obama's politics by referencing Wright.

You know, this really was smart, Kast. While the Senate is firebreathing over improving the standards of N&P, you post a link to a massively biased blog of someone so unhinged O'Reilly booted her, then throw a temper tantrum about not being able to use blogs as sources, and insist your strawmen be taken seriously.

I posted a link to a blog that had information on the subject, linking to the relevant sources. The source of that information is irrelevant; the quality of the editorials elsewhere on the blog is irrelevant. The quality of that information is relevant.

And my point is not that I demand that my blog post by read by all; it's that there is intellectual dishonestly involved in dismissing it out of hand once you click and see the links to credible sources.

[SirNitram]

How droll, you resort to the fearmongering "you'd better watch out" crap already? The biggest problem with N&P is people trying to be Mike on his behalf.

How is it fearmongering to expect some basic standards on this forum?

Oh, right, it isn't, it's just a cheap way for you to fire off a quick attack so you can feel big and righteous. Go join Kast frothing about how I throw parades for myself.

[Illuminatus Primus]

How droll, you resort to the fearmongering "you'd better watch out" crap already? The biggest problem with N&P is people trying to be Mike on his behalf.

How is it fearmongering to expect some basic standards on this forum?

Oh, right, it isn't, it's just a cheap way for you to fire off a quick attack so you can feel big and righteous. Go join Kast frothing about how I throw parades for myself.

I don't think Kast did a good job debating his point. I do think you overstate the significance of Palin and her problems from a realistic standpoint of political strategy this season. Did McCain make a mistake? Yeah probably, and it reflects poorly on his "Ready from Day One" rhetoric, considering it illuminates embarrassing deficits in political and managerial acumen. And quite frankly, if your object is to establish Palin is likely to lobby for or implement specific policies which are really extreme - such as Alaskan sovereigntism - as a result of her associations (in some cases to the second degree), I think you've done a shitty job. Some pissant website of some Constitutional Party offshoot does not seem to establish much but political statements about the Second Amendment and that Palin and lot of Alaskans are unsurprisingly, redneck simpletons. However, if the entire point of this thread is to bitch about the ideologically unclean, I am weary of it. And as long as we're talking about the Senate and reform, there's talk of how long-winded whining and axe-grinding in N&P has displaced meaningful debates about realistic policy solutions or realistic political strategy. SD.Net denizens are very skeptical of religion and broadly sympathetic to social democratic ethics and programs; they regard religious and conservative people and organizations as brainwashed redneck fanatics. What I want to know is how many times are we going to get worked up and shit our pants over it, and get on to some real enlightening debates this forum hasn't seen the likes of in quite some time.

[SirNitram]

Primus, I will make this clear: I think these issues are, remarkably, important. If there's ties to the Theocratic Constitution Party, I think that needs out in the open. As it becomes more obvious McCain didn't exercise proper caution in selecting a running mate, and instead grabbed someone based on a fifteen minute interview and began vetting after the fact, that's an issue as well; how much caution is he going to have on issues of real importance? I also think it, in general, puts on display alot of the self-destructive qualities of the GOP. Now, you can post about how you think it's terribly unreasonable to be socially left and skeptical of theocratic religious influence, how that won't affect things, fine, but then again, this board is not a party mouthpiece. It is not an election HQ. It is not going to organize and push a campaign.

As for enlightening debates, I seriously doubt we'll see any until after the election. The stream of news lately has clogged up with actual scandals of judgement and policy, not to mention two wars and other such things of import. But equally, I suspect alot of in-depth discussions and debates after the election about where the loser screwed up, what the policies we've heard about will cause, and so forth.

So, really, I don't see what your point is. If this was an organized effort to get someone elected, yes, we're focusing on stuff the populace won't give a shit about. I generally expect all of SDN to be on a higher level of brain activity than the majority, however, even those like Kast who I mock openly.

If you want a debate, post some stuff and try and get one started. The answer is not to barge into a thread and immediately make accusations at me. It reflects poorly on you. As for my own reputation, it will probably take a hit for merely engaging in this after it became a sideshow of personal attacks instead of just demanding evidence and logical backing, and then walking away. But I don't see a reason to start backing off my policy of letting the record, for all it's good and ill, be the measure I'm judged on.

[Axis Kast]

If there's ties to the Theocratic Constitution Party, I think that needs out in the open.

There isn't anything objectionable about being concerned to detail a candidate's various political allegiances.

You should also be well aware that Palin has many times avoided taking steps that would be considered to violate the constitutional rights accorded to same-sex couples, despite her own personal opinion and advocacy on the subject.

In your question for this elusive truth, however, you forget, as Illuminatus Primus mentioned, that Governor Palin's linkages to the AIP are principally second-hand. The "welcoming" video? It doesn't alarm me. Like I said, it's one of those stinky babies all politicians get around to kissing. Palin even managed to send the message in a manner that undercut the AIP a bit.

As it becomes more obvious McCain didn't exercise proper caution in selecting a running mate, and instead grabbed someone based on a fifteen minute interview and began vetting after the fact, that's an issue as well; how much caution is he going to have on issues of real importance?

It still stuns me that you can say this, but also assert that Obama may be given a pass because he disavowed his associations with the Reverend Wright. The Democratic candidate sat in that man's pews for twenty years and chose not to walk away until it, too, blew up on him. If we're being relativists -- and we have to be when the choice is between two people -- then Obama's oversight is certainly no better than McCain's. If I'm not going to blast Obama for this, why would I blast McCain?

Indeed, it seems worse to me to think Wright wouldn't become a major problem than to write off Palin's husband's membership in a party that's popular in their home state.

[Anguirus]

If you forgive Obama, who has publicly, but not privately, forsaken Wright

Source? Seemed to me they had quite a falling out. Obama tried to smooth it over but Wright wouldn't shut up.

Anyway, I'm much less worried about "angry black preacher man" than fundie crazies, because fundie crazies wield more political power. I'm not personally afraid Palin is going to become president and let Alaska secede, but her church is an excellent indicator that she's a fundie wingnut, and moreover appears proud of it.

[Patrick Degan]

It still stuns me that you can say this, but also assert that Obama may be given a pass because he disavowed his associations with the Reverend Wright. The Democratic candidate sat in that man's pews for twenty years and chose not to walk away until it, too, blew up on him. If we're being relativists -- and we have to be when the choice is between two people -- then Obama's oversight is certainly no better than McCain's. If I'm not going to blast Obama for this, why would I blast McCain?

Then to sustain your argument here, I suppose you can demonstrate where Obama's philosophy, voting record, and policies over the years have been consistent with Jeremy Wright's ideology. That should be a simple enough task for you.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You should also be well aware that Palin has many times avoided taking steps that would be considered to violate the constitutional rights accorded to same-sex couples, despite her own personal opinion and advocacy on the subject.

Her state supreme court ordered her to grant benefits to same sex couples

She did everything to stop that short of saying "The court has made its decision, let them enforce it"

She vetoed one piece of legislation that specifically targeted us for discrimination, a law that would never have passed constitutional muster even with the hyper conservative national supreme court, and would have cost more money than the budget of her home town of Wasilla to defend.

She isnt the worst canidate out there (the worst one would have signed the discrimination into law and then fought it in the courts) but to say she isnt bad for us, when she will have a hand in appointing judges, is a mistake.