home

Talk About A Hail Mary . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 07:45:12 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via TPM, the Times of London reports:

In an election campaign notable for its surprises, Sarah Palin, the Republican vice- presidential candidate, may be about to spring a new one -- the wedding of her pregnant teenage daughter to her ice-hockey-playing fiancé before the November 4 election.

Inside John McCain's campaign the expectation is growing that there will be a popularity boosting pre-election wedding in Alaska between Bristol Palin, 17, and Levi Johnston, 18, her schoolmate and father of her baby. "It would be fantastic," said a McCain insider. "You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week."

The strange thing is it very well may be McCain's best bet.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Why The Deal Makes Sense | The Polls - 9/28 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Talk About A Hail Mary . . . | 90 comments (90 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Hah! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 07:55:58 AM EST
    Best bet?  It would be another disaster for McCain.  He has little hope in this election, but whatever hope he does have rests mostly on the idea of the word "Palin" not escaping his lips, nor anyone else's, for the duration.  He should campaign with a cardboard cut out of Ronald Reagan -- may he can convince people he's on the ticket.

    McCain may think he can save his campaign by focusing on the wonderfulness of teenage pregnancy instead of economics or foreign affairs, but I don't think the country will be with him.  No Palin, none of the time is what he wants.

    Is McCain going to attend the wedding?  How about Todd Palin's former business partner?  What's life going to be like in a Republican America for two teenage high-school dropout parents?

    This is not a good thing for McCain.

    PS. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 07:57:43 AM EST
    I think this would really be called a Hail Brittany, wouldn't it?

    No, Ms. Spears married first (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Fabian on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:11:07 AM EST
    conceived after.

    This is properly called a "shotgun wedding" meant to save the young lady's honor.  Strike that.  It's meant to save face for the young lady's family.

    's load of bollocks if you ask me.

    Parent

    Darn it! (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:14:15 AM EST
    I meant to call it a "hail Bristol" pass.  Silly me.  No offense meant to Ms. Spears who, in my opinion, would actually make a better Vice Presidential candidate than the one the Republicans are currently offering.

    Parent
    You were probably thinking (none / 0) (#13)
    by scribe on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:29:48 AM EST
    of Britney's sister, Jamie Lynn, who was something like 16 when she gave birth.

    She was supposed to get married to the putative father, her teenaged boyfriend, but that seems to have not come to pass for reasons which remain cloudy.  There were rumors -never fully confirmed - back when her teen pregnancy was first announced that the boyfriend was taking the rap for getting her that way, and being paid handsomely too, so as to cover for someone much older whose fault it really was.  You can look it up.

    Then, a week or two ago, someone decided it would be a good idea to snap pictures of the still-underage Jamie Lynn breastfeeding her baby and put them on the net, which the feds seem to have interpreted as the manufacture and distribution of kiddie pron.  No, I'm not kidding.  

    Parent

    No, my problem. . . (none / 0) (#25)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:33:56 AM EST
    was that I thought Bristol's name was Brittany, or Britney, or something.  I didn't mean to malign the Spears family by comparing them to the Palins.

    Parent
    This is truly sad. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by indy in sc on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:11:43 AM EST
    Not that the young Palin will get married--that's her decision--that her mother would allow her to be used in this way.  They say by all means protect her and her privacy...because we want to be the ones to exploit her--ridiculous.

    So who'll bring the shotgun? Cheney? (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:18:37 AM EST
    I think this would be just a huge mistake.  Not that I'd mind them making another huge mistake, but still.

    How old are Biden's grandchildren? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:59:19 AM EST
    Time for one of them to step up and take one for the team.

    SNARK.

    I think they're dreaming (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ChrisO on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:40:15 AM EST
    This isn't a White House wedding. It would create a media frenzy, sure, but I hardly think it would shut down the race for a week. We're going through the worst fiscal crisis since the Great Depression, and it hasn't "shut down" the campaign. And yes, I think many people would see it for the stunt that it is.

    To be fair to the Palin's for a minute (as much as that pains me) I really don't think it's unusual for pregnant brides to get married as soon as possible. Who wants a wedding when they're 8 months pregnant?

    and what does it say about how (none / 0) (#80)
    by JoeA on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 03:44:11 PM EST
    well they think they are doing in the campaign . . . that they would view shutting down the whole campaign for a week as a good thing?

    Parent
    Hypocrites (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by john horse on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:41:11 AM EST
    This is so wrong.

    Here is Palin's press announcement about her daughter's pregnancy about a month ago.

    We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates."

    Now compare that statement to this recent statement from the McCain campaign.

    "It would be fantastic," said a McCain insider. "You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week."

    So about a month ago the McCain campaign was asking the media to keep away and respect the privacy of Palin's daughter.  Now they want to use the same media to exploit these kids.  Now they plan to do what they were complaining about only a month ago.

    This is so wrong.  
    As Leonard Cohen wrote:

    You who build these altars now
    to sacrifice these children,
    you must not do it anymore.

    Bristol and Levi have been sacrificed by McCain/Palin on the altar of their political ambition.

     

    Can you imagine if it (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:46:40 AM EST
    was Chelsea Clinton who was pregnant?

    Or anyone related to the Obama family?

    The absolute hypocrisy of the right wing is showing through loud and clear.

    Yes, can you _imagine_. . . (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:49:50 AM EST
    if Obama were to show up at the convention with a pregnant, unmarried, teenage daughter?  What would all those dear old ladies at the Republican Convention be saying then.

    Political hypocrisy is a terrible thing -- too bad it's not much less rampant on the left than on the right.

    Parent

    I wish I could agree (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 05:10:24 PM EST
    but nope.....this is simply a Rightwingnut Disfunctional Family living its way of life.  The children have little sexual education other than what they all learn on the playground and in the streets.  The parents can't bring themselves to talk about sex because then the kids will be doing it.....and then this happens and a nice wedding takes place as the families push for this goal in order to seal the deal and make people "responsible".  Doesn't matter that the odds are strongly against these kids or that Ms. Palin's daughter will never know and understand what it is like to care for herself before she has to care for someone else.  Doesn't matter that these situations leave little room for growing up and self discovery outside of preforming your duties 24/7.  This is what you get chasing the apple in the backseat of the Garden of Eden.  I'm still a sucker though for a gorgeous wedding like most people, even though it is likely the participants will be miserable after the champagne ceases to bubble.  I'm so glad I didn't have to try and figure out who I was while changing a diaper and I thank the generation of women who went before me and made that sort of life possible for me.  Thanks moms and grandmas.......you crazy bra burning wenches!

    Parent
    But remember (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Steve M on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:47:35 AM EST
    we all must respect her privacy!!!

    I read the entire article and this is nothing but (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Angel on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:25:52 AM EST
    speculation and innuendo.  No facts to support an upcoming wedding, no facts to support that any wedding is because the mother of the daughter wants it, no evidence that any such wedding is being pushed onto the children.  Yet here we go with comments assuming that there is an impending wedding and that the children are being forced to marry before Nov 4th in an attempt to gain some traction for the campaign.  And here we go again trashing this family by calling them rednecks and white trash.  This behavior, besides being childish and unbecoming of adults, is not in the best interest of Democrats, or the country for that matter.  Comments like this have only galvanized the Republican base, turned a lot of people to McCain/Palin from sympathy, and turned off a lot of voters altogether.  I can remember a time when Democrats touted themselves as being about issues, not personalities.  If Obama loses in November, just look back to what has been going on the past couple of months for the answer to his defeat.  

    Sher, why the 2 rating? I would think you would (none / 0) (#94)
    by Angel on Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 08:08:29 AM EST
    agree with this position.  I don't understand your ratings.  

    Parent
    Yuk (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by sneezy on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:18:29 PM EST
    Why do people think it is okay to call others "white trash" and to use redneck as a disparaging term?  To me, it's as insulting as the N word.  Break it down - "white" refers to the person's race, and "trash" means the person is unworthy of respect.  I get so tired of people insulting other groups on the basis of things the other people can't control or at least don't have the wherewithal to change - race, economic status, culture.  If Dems disparage the Palins in the insulting terms I've read on this blog, then you can bet there is going to be backlash.  We need to stick to the issues.

    On the other hand, I'm troubled any time a young couple is forced into marriage because of pregnancy.  It does seem that the promise of marriage between Bristol and Levi is being held out for political purposes, even if they did plan to marry anyway.  Jetting the daddy to the convention for public display reinforced that belief.  

    Between Dems using insulting terminology against this pregnant teenage couple, and the Repubs appearing to celebrate the kids making a tough situation worse, I find this very disheartening.  Instead of focusing on the nation being flushed down the toilet, we're spending all this time on a pair of pregnant kids.  In particular, the Repubs disgust me with their exploitation of these kids, but I would beseech my fellow Dems to not look like total a**holes and hypocrites by employing the same racist/elitist attacks that we would decry if the other side used them.

    Back to lurking.

    I actually agree, but. . . (none / 0) (#90)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 06:49:08 PM EST
    as someone who can never seem to pass up a cheap and obvious joke I have to say that I could definitely use a little assistance from the Palin family themselves to help keep me on the straight and narrow.

    They don't have to make it so easy, do they?

    Parent

    So, to be clear: (3.00 / 4) (#1)
    by scribe on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 07:52:22 AM EST
    In order to have a chance at winning the election, the party of bluebloods will now become the party of rednecks and white trash.

    Mencken was right.

    But what it speaks to is how (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:45:13 AM EST
    easily people can be manipulated.

    The Clinton haters of the DC elite, the Broders and others, resented Bill's "white trash" background.  The fact that Bill rose above his circumstances to become a Rhodes Scholar was not admired (that whole any one can be the president was a myth fed to the masses but never believed by the elites).

    And while some insist it was Bill's behavior that caused the problem (showing their ignorance of history), the fact is that despite W's AWOL status, drinking and drug problems, average grades and frat boy persona, the press protected him because he was of the right pedigree.  

    Now suddenly the rethugs want to play "we love us some poor less educated, down home folks FOR REAL (since we all know W was a fake and Palin is the real thing).  This is nonsense.   And we all know it.

    Obama and Biden's roots are as working class as Palin's and people need to be reminded of those facts.  And this spin of republicans being for the poor people has to be show to be the lie it has always been.

    Parent

    I don't think that the impression (none / 0) (#36)
    by tootired on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:54:11 AM EST
    left with voters is that Republicans are for "poor people". I think that voters know that they aren't. I think that the reaction from the Democrats to the Palins has shown voters that Democrats aren't for poor people either and that taking cheap shots at them has become sport. I think turnout for this election may be lower than expected.

    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:27:01 AM EST
    My dislike of the Palin family has nothing to do with their economic status.  It has everything to do with their sanctimonious hypocrisy.  Most of my friends feel the same way.  People like the Palins, the religious right types, are the ones constantly pointing their fingers in condemnation of others.

    These are the people that see the unwed mothers in the ghetto as the welfare queens, and question their morality, but praise Palin for "doing the right thing" with her daughter?
    I live in the same town as "New Life  Church" where good Christians condemned the gay community from the pulpit...you remember Ted Haggard, shaking his finger in the faces of kids at the Jesus camps about the evils of homosexuality while he was getting some on the side from a male prostitute.

    It's the hypocrisy.  The Palins may not be rich hypocrites but they are still hypocrites.

    Parent

    Well, I don't blame the kids (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 03:28:46 PM EST
    they are kids...and their values, whatever they are, have some root in their upbringing. Haven't paid much attention to them other than the fact that much of the right is praising Palin for standing by her pregnant daughter...whatever that means.
    I guarantee you if it were Chelsea Clinton pregnant out of wedlock, or any one in Obama's family, the words immoral, slut, or welfare queens would be thrown around.

     

    Parent

    being poor and being 'white-trash' (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by of1000Kings on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 05:15:33 PM EST
    don't have to be related...

    just because you're poor that doesn't mean you need to stop going to the library and stop making yourself a better, well-rounded person...

    I think that's the misconception some are having here...

    Parent

    Anecdote: A female friend told (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:46:27 AM EST
    me she watched the debate and doesn't know for whom to vote, although she has always voted D in the past. She is actively supporting the anti-gay marriage ballot proposition here.  Last night she bought a book on Sarah Palin, saying she didn't "know anything about her."  

    Parent
    You have friends (none / 0) (#60)
    by Faust on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:13:51 AM EST
    that actively support anti-gay initiatives?

    Parent
    I call her my "baseball" friend, (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:22:26 AM EST
    as we have tickets together.  She is Morman.  I sd., do you have any gay friends?  She sd. yes and told me about a couple who have been together for many years and are quite active in a charity she spends a great deal of time on.  She has no objection to domestic partnerships.  I sd., do you object to civil ceremony?  She does.  I think the Morman church must be urging voting for the proposition.  

    Parent
    The LDS church (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 02:28:15 PM EST
    is actively sending members door knocking to lobby for the anti-gay marriage initiative here in California...The Mormon Church has officially opposed gay marriage and supported the initiative....There was an article (somewhere) that most of the money to support the anti-gay initiative is coming from Mormons.

    Your friend sounds as if she votes for Democrats because of their help for the poor, etc.  Palin's position on abortion and her having a special needs baby will be hard pulls on her.  

    But the Mormon church is putting a lot of pressure on its members to door knock and contribute financially to the anti-gay marriage initiative....

    There are so very few active Mormons who vote for Democrats--maybe 15% (it is worse than the Evangelical vote.)  The model here is Kmiec (who is Catholic) supporting Obama--because of help for the poor and personal Christian belief.....coupled with bad Republican economic policies and mismanagement of the government....

    Parent

    I always thought that churches (none / 0) (#85)
    by of1000Kings on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 05:18:24 PM EST
    were not supposed to sway politically...

    If a Church is going to get tax benefits of any kind then talking about anything political should be CRIMINAL, considering it intertwines church and state...

    Parent

    As I understand the rule (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 06:39:52 PM EST
    it's okay to advocate issues but not for or against a candidate.....

    And, a number of churches plan to set up a test case on the prohibition against endorsing canddidates by expressly endorsing McCain....The whole thing has been coordinated by a religiously backed interest group.....

    Parent

    a religiously-backed interest group (none / 0) (#89)
    by of1000Kings on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 06:43:20 PM EST
    that should be an oxymoron, but unfortunately it's a real thing...

    Parent
    But think of. . . (3.66 / 3) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 07:57:02 AM EST
    all the money we could save if we could get rid of the Vice Presidential mansion in favor of a couple of surplus FEMA trailers.

    Parent
    it's been moving that way since (none / 0) (#23)
    by sancho on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:31:10 AM EST
    lbj and mlk, as i am sure you know. and, for what it is worth, some of my "white trash" relatives vote the way they do just to spite "so-called educated liberals" who call them "white trash."

    i cant believe the wedding idea would help them. i think many potential republican voters would see it as exploitative. those poor kids.  

    Parent

    its a good idea (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by sancho on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 03:57:30 PM EST
    my refusal to repeat the liberal epithets of denigration that scribe enjoys using is a key reason, i think, why i can sometimes persaude one or two of them to vote dem--happily, they generally hate mccain and dont want to vote for him either this time around.

    Parent
    McCain will definitely do something desperate (none / 0) (#5)
    by barryluda on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:04:38 AM EST
    to try to revive his campaign.  I would be very happy if this is his plan. Unfortunately, I'm thinking it'll be something more along the lines of Rovian, race baiting, dishonest smear tactics.

    He's running out. . . (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:08:34 AM EST
    of desperate options also.  What's he going to do?  Marry Brittany Palin himself?

    Parent
    eeeewwwwwww (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:57:03 AM EST
    and whisk her way to a fundie compound someplace? That would really be a maverick move!

    Parent
    the bag of tricks (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Nasarius on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:20:51 AM EST
    isn't anywhere near empty. I'm still waiting for, say, the 527 ad about Donnie McClurkin to really drive the wedge between jaded lefties and the increasingly-centrist Obama.

    There's mounds of dirt from the primary that never gained a lot of traction with the press, and is just waiting to be flung. On the other hand, the economic meltdown would likely make a lot of the usual tactics seem absurdly petty.

    Parent

    Think it's a good idea? (none / 0) (#11)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:22:05 AM EST
    Look at the comments in this thread and imagine what the late night talk show hosts will sound like!

    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:28:09 AM EST
    That is part of the reason why I think it would be a good idea - folks will go overboard - make the redneck jokes and paint Democrats as a bunch of elitists jerks.

    IT would be Palinpaloooza to the max - and that is why I think it probably is McCain's best bet.

    "Democrats and their Hollywood Friends Make Fun of Marriage!!!"

    It might work for McCain. Certainly the issues will not.

    Don't get me wrong - I am as much of a coastal elite as anybody, Godless and amoral - but I know what hurts Dems politically.

    Parent

    I don't think it will have that effect (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:51:13 AM EST
    not enough anyway to help McCain

    Two predictions:

    1. This is not going to happen
    2. If it did, McCain would lose all 50 states

    I come from the deep South. I know lots of Republican "values" voters. I am related to a few. This kind of stunt will not get them out to the polls - whether or not those voters think "Democrats are elitists jerks" for making any kind of joke about this. If you think this might work because of that, you clearly are out of touch with rural Southern voters. I can't speak for their cousins outside the South, but I'll bet they are not a whole lot different. Their reaction will not be to rush to the polls to vote for McCain.

    If McCain's people are truly thinking along these lines, they've been out in the Arizona desert looking for the divine cactus... or out in Southern cow pastures, hoping the stems turn the right shade when broken.

     

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:25:30 AM EST
    Why take the chance? Here's my suggestion to our Dems who have megaphones - congratulate young Bristol and Levi on their upcoming nuptials and say nothing else. Nothing.

    Parent
    You really don't get it (none / 0) (#50)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:52:58 AM EST
    It would be more smarter to concentrate on the issues that matter, because that is what people care about. To that extent you are correct.  

    To the extent you think it would be "taking a chance" you are insulting rural Southern voters.  "Palinpaloooza"  as you call it, would not play well with those GOP voters. You really don't know them or understand them.


    Parent

    And I have to stop doing to things at once (none / 0) (#51)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:53:41 AM EST
    It would be smarter, not more smarter. More coffee!

    Parent
    Say what? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:11:03 AM EST
    I say concentrate on the issues, and I do not get it - you say concentrate on issues.

    WTF?

    As for who understand GOP voters vis a vis Palin. you must be kidding me.

    Your lack of understanding of the fact that she has great appeal in those segments is truly astounding.

    Pssst, I group in the rural South. I know of what I speak. SO do not pull your I grew up in Alabama BS.

    Parent

    You are conflating two different things (none / 0) (#66)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:09:33 PM EST
    Palin's appeal as a social conservative and some sort of appeal that Bristol's marriage might have as a celebration of adoption not abortion as best I can tell.

    Moreover, I said to the extent you are saying concentrate on the issues that matter, I agree with you. To the extent you are saying these voters are a Jerry Springer TV show audience, I disagree with you and I think you insult the intelligence of those voters. They are not rubes.

    If that is not what you were saying, you expressed yourself badly, because that is what it sounds like to me.  

    You may have grown up in the rural South, but you have been away far too long from your roots if you think a "shotgun marriage" is something those voters will celebrate.

    (Psst, I grew up in Mississippi, went to college in Alabama and practiced law for over a decade in Georgia before moving to Florida. Try to get my history right, if you are going to throw it in my face.)

    Parent

    Ah, the unsinkable Molly Bloom. (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:14:33 PM EST
    I would think voters who are pro-life and religious (irrespective of the region of the U.S. of the voter) would approve of the teenage mother keeping the child and approve of the couple's decision to marry.  

    Parent
    There is a difference in approving (none / 0) (#69)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:28:15 PM EST
    the decision to marry and keep the child and celebrating a shot gun marriage. These voters are not a Jerry Springer audience. I doubt they will approve turning it into some sort of Princess Diana marriage celebration. They will not turn to their sons and daughters and say this is a role model I want you to follow.

    You will note I originally said

    I can't speak for their cousins outside the South, but I'll bet they are not a whole lot different.

    Unless the McCain campaign is seriously tripping, they are not about to do this. It is the last thing they want. And if the McCain campaign truly thinks their values voters base is a Jerry Springer audience, then Obama and his official surrogates need only concentrate on the issues that matter.

    Parent

    Rural south? (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 02:40:00 PM EST
    You mean a field next to where the Gators practice (not that it did any good preventing their Trojan-like performance yesterday.)

    I think that saying nothing or congratulations is obviously the only thing Dems should say.....  Tina Fey may never have the time to go back to 30 Rock at this rate......

    But, to Molly's point yes even Southern Baptists yes will tend to see through yes gimmicks that yes tend to assume caricatures of conservative voters.  

     

    Parent

    "Democrats....Make Fun of Marriage" (none / 0) (#17)
    by Finis Terrae on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:52:13 AM EST
    bingo.

    Who knows, maybe the wedding will bring the whole civil union vs marriage debate to the forefront all over again.

    It seems to have scored points for the GOP in the past, who knows, maybe it will work again.

    Parent

    Could happen that way (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:02:27 AM EST
    I'd advise limiting the redneck jokes to this thread, and the Obama's sending the happy couple a nice gift.

    Parent
    I ask you. . . (none / 0) (#28)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:43:55 AM EST
    IT would be Palinpaloooza to the max - and that is why I think it probably is McCain's best bet.

    to look at the facts.  

    Palinapalooza, whether you credit it or the economy (and why choose, is my argument) for McCain's bad numbers certainly has not helped improve his situation.  Every time Palin has been seen in public, except for the first time, the McCain Palin ticket has gone down, not up, in support.

    I seem to be pretty much alone in believing that young Ms. Palin's teenage pregnancy is not actually appealing to anyone -- Republican or Democrat -- and that the "isn't wonderful" talk from delegates at the RNC was just half-believed spin from far right dead-enders.

    If the Palins hold this wedding during the campaign, and if they invite media attention, they will not derive any public sympathy from getting what they asked for.  The very quote you used from the McCain campaign will be heavily reported.  The media will ask why John McCain is running a circus-like campaign of stunts, reminding everyone of his non-suspension suspension, instead of issues.

    There are still certain things Americans want from their Presidential candidates, even if they don't know it.  Obama's calm demeanor and traditional family life will trump McCain's soap opera shotgun wedding.

    Parent

    The facts are (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:21:48 AM EST
    Palinpalooza has been a boon to McCain with his base, a boon to Left blogs and their base and has meant nothing to any persuadable.

    It has been a disastrously stupid political approach by the Left bloggers.

    Plain only matter to the Right base and to Left bloggers. No one else cares.

    The Right did not love McCain - now they love the McCain/Palin ticket. You drove up Palin unfavs among committed Dems. Congratulations. Hell of an achievement.

    If that makes you feel good, then feel good. But you did nothing that helped Obama or Dems politically. You hurt them.

    Parent

    Your answer is internally inconsistent. (none / 0) (#47)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:39:49 AM EST
    Palinpalooza has been a boon to McCain with his base, a boon to Left blogs and their base and has meant nothing to any persuadable.

    It has been a disastrously stupid political approach by the Left bloggers.

    If Palinpalooza has not moved the vote, then it has not been a disastrously stupid political approach, by definition.  If Palinapalooza means nothing to anyone outside the Republican base then whether a Bristol - Levi shotgun wedding reignites it really makes little difference and won't help McCain.  

    So, following your logic, there's no electoral advantage to McCain from featuring the involuntary wedding of Palin's daughter on television for partisan political purposes.

    If you believe -- and I think there's plenty of evidence for this -- that Palin turns off (in the political sense) independents and even non-social conservative Republicans, then I think there's a big downside to turning the Palins into a reality television show.

    Finally, please don't associate me with the actions of left-wing bloggers.  While I believe Palin's suitability for the role of Vice President is a legitimate and effective issue to raise in context of McCain's campaign I do think much of what was originally said about Palin(including here at TalkLeft) was silly and counterproductive.

    Parent

    It HAS moved the vote (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:44:01 AM EST
    The Right Wing vote.

    You clearly are not rational on Palinpalooza.

    Parent

    I will leave it to. . . (none / 0) (#57)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:01:58 AM EST
    the other readers (reader?) to decide who's rationality is in question regarding Palin.

    What's next?  Are you going to suggest that "What LarryInNYC doesn't understand is. . ."

    Parent

    Re: "readers (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:54:26 AM EST
    (reader": funny.

    Parent
    Oops. (none / 0) (#73)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 01:21:46 PM EST
    I realize that could be taking as a comment on the size of the Talk Left readership generally.  What I actually intended to convey was the limited interest I expect there is in my good-natured squabbling with BTD.

    Parent
    Things must look really bad for McCain. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Finis Terrae on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:40:56 AM EST
    "It would be fantastic," said a McCain insider. "You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week."

    Fantastic is right. Yes, lets shut down the race for a week.  

    This is a re-shutdown (none / 0) (#46)
    by dead dancer on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:30:08 AM EST
    Didn't the McCain campaign already try this tactic/strategy once? Returning to DC to save Wall street was an attempt at stopping the race. Look how well that worked.

    A second attempted will just be a second laughable matter.

    Maybe people have turned the corner and see value in honest debates on issues rather than the WWW style of KO punches. Then again, maybe not.

    Parent

    If this shuts down the race for a week (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:49:01 AM EST
    the USA will be even more of a world laughingstock than we are now.  If there is one news network with a shred of a conscience, or a Democrat with access to a microphone, this better not happen.

    Fox will be all over it (none / 0) (#24)
    by Lahdee on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:33:21 AM EST
    They'll have a field day upholding marriage, touting those family values and lauding the governor's sense of style.
    I'm sure we'll also see a hard hitting account of the view towards Russia while their in town, "I see it," a breathless reporter will intone. Moron America will rejoice.

    Well, I'd rather they try the wedding stunt than (none / 0) (#29)
    by steviez314 on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:44:10 AM EST
    the "Bomb Iran" stunt.

    I wonder if David Shuster. . . (none / 0) (#31)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:46:24 AM EST
    would go on TV to denounce McCain for pimping out Palin's daughter -- which is what he said about Chelsea Clinton's campaigning for her mother.

    The only difference?  If McCain invites the media to cover this young woman's involuntary wedding in order to juice his campaign or distract voters from the issues, Shuster would be a hell of a lot closer to the truth this time.

    I disagree it would (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:48:00 AM EST
    shut down the race. No one cares. Her daughter is not a celebrity and neither is Palin. Bristol is no Bachelorette. Low ratings all around. I doubt the networks would even send big crews there.

    I agree (none / 0) (#44)
    by kaybeel on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:23:23 AM EST
    Even Jenna Bush's wedding generated very little attention.
    I'm pretty suspicious of this article, anyway. I think it's someone's overactive imagination at work.

    Bristol Palin may indeed get married before the election- she is 6 months pregnant after all- but I doubt it will be a media event.

    Parent

    Perhaps the gleeful (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:56:45 AM EST
    remarks weren't really uttered by a McCain affiliate?  Did this originate on Drudge?

    McCain's pick of Palin seemed to pretty much divert attention from the issues for at least a week.  That's what McCain campaign would like to happen.  

    Parent

    McCain Can't Dump Sister Sarah (none / 0) (#37)
    by osage on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:56:31 AM EST
    Unless he replaces Governor Palin with another far right wing religious nutjob, the evangelicals will crucify him for muscling Governor Palin back to Alaska where she'll face bigger problems with Troopergate than she had before Senator McCain named her his runningmate.  However, if he allows Governor Palin to "debate" Senator Biden, voters of every political and sexual persuasion will move toward Obama for fear of Ms. Palin being one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.  If he replaces her with a male, women of all political persuasions will raise the wrath of women scorned.  I hope Senator McCain replaces sister Sarah with brother Lieberman.  He'll have alienated evangelicals, women and undecided voters, while satisfying no one but himself.  Keeping sister Sarah on board means he can at least blame her for his defeat.  But at 72, he has nothing to lose in making another erratic decision.  He might as well go all in since this will be his last hand.

    Well, SNL would have (none / 0) (#38)
    by byteb on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:59:37 AM EST
    a field day, that's for sure...especially after Darrell Hammond's McCain proposing all manner of outrageous stunts during last night's mock 'debate'.

    Stunt-man McCain should reconsider his mate (none / 0) (#39)
    by AdamA on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:02:32 AM EST
    I don't think they'll go this far.  You can Hail Mary from any yard line, but there were many canyons that Evel Knievel wouldn't jump over ...

    Well this is enough to give any mom a (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:06:22 AM EST
    headache!  A wedding that really isn't going to be about the couple, but mostly about mum-in-law getting into the White House.  I doubt we will see the banning of the press concerning this event.  I'm not expecting any Hillary Clintonesque stance where Palin places herself squarely between the press and her daughter in order to preserve and protect "normal" life experiences for her children.

    I'll respect Gov. Palin if she (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:59:32 AM EST
    does as much as possible to give the teenagers the lead and tries to shield them from unwanted media attention. [Of course, I'm not voting for her.]

    Parent
    Although it would be fun to see (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:49:19 AM EST
    Piper Palin as flower girl (probably too old) or jr. bridesmaid waving to her adoring fans.

    Parent
    If it happens anything like that (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 05:00:19 PM EST
    her mother has earned herself a good old fashioned pentacostal spanking in my opinion.

    Parent
    ha (none / 0) (#41)
    by connecticut yankee on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:18:52 AM EST
    Yeah, its a regular Lady Di and Prince Charles affair... This can't be McCain's best play.  He's got something else.
    the only thing that will help him (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:22:51 AM EST
    is Sarah announcing she's got to drop out for personal reasons and putting Romney on the ticket.

    Parent
    Even that doesn't help. (none / 0) (#54)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:58:56 AM EST
    If he could go back in time and erase the Palin nomination McCain would be in less bad shape.

    But getting rid of Palin now (no matter what excuse is used) just makes him look weak.  It's an admission of his incompetence.  Obama's response?  "No do-overs when you're the President, John".  Palin is a no-win situation for McCain at this point.

    Parent

    Hail Mary and Joseph (none / 0) (#45)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:28:23 AM EST
    This is wonderful news.
    The Palin wedding shuts down the race for a week.
    When is the World Series? Maybe we get another week there.
    No cross-scheduling, that's for sure..

    That probably leaves a week or two left...

    How about Bush travels to China...? No, done that...

    Can't think of anything off hand.

    Tampa Bay? Low ratings. (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:00:49 AM EST


    Parent
    Palin is so last month, (none / 0) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 10:58:42 AM EST
    but never-the-less, it will be difficult for our American-Idol-obsessed media not to cover extensively the Bristol/Levi nuptials. The beautiful Alaskan fall  terrain as backdrop will be eclipsed only by the curiosity of it all. After all, there is always the chance of an off-guard interview with an old uncle or nosey neighbor.  An interrelated  piece of the potential for hoopla will be the nature of the impact lingering from the vice presidential debate's outcome.  Looks like McCain is even more of a gambler than Reagan's former Secretary of Education, William Bennett--and probably just as big a loser.

    a wedding provides an excuse (none / 0) (#58)
    by dws3665 on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 11:06:27 AM EST
    for Palin to avoid the media more. "Wedding planning" is a better excuse than "afraid of making more gaffes." Any "moms can't be VP" backlash will be spun as sexism/elitism.

    I don't think it will help in any other way, however.

    I'll wait for the SNL version of the wedding (none / 0) (#70)
    by shoephone on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 12:47:15 PM EST
    It will be funnier, it will be watched by more people, get more media afterwards and ultimately, have more effect in accelarating the downward spiral that the McCain-Palin campaign is already in.

    I'm tired of the flip-flops. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Eyeobserve on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 02:47:59 PM EST
    I am overly disturbed. They need to decide what they want to run in their campaign and make sure they communicate better. If the actually go through with this bit of madness, and it works I will be sorely dissappointed. When the McCain camp is constantly bringing up that her "Teen Pregnancy" is a family matter and the media should in turn leave the family alone. Then why oh why would they want to make it into a spotlighted media event? Surprise, Surprise! The McCain campaign would not be above Politicizing something as extremely personal as a wedding.

    GO FIGURE!

    Reminds one of Nixon's ... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 02:55:06 PM EST
    attempts during Watergate to get the networks to replay Tricia's wedding.

    They didn't.

    AP: McCain suspends campaign (none / 0) (#86)
    by coigue on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 06:02:10 PM EST
    to officiate wedding of post-coital unmarried teens.

    McCain called Senator Obama to request that he too, suspend his compaign - to address the crisis issue of pregnancy out of wedlock.

    I don't believe for a second (none / 0) (#87)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 06:04:05 PM EST
    that the media would view a Bristol wedding as anything other than a sideshow.  

    Obama would be the hero if this happened (none / 0) (#91)
    by MoveThatBus on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 08:30:21 PM EST
    He would, once again, demand that the children of the candidates are OUT OF BOUNDS and the media must stay away.

    I think it would be fabulous for Obama if Palin made this huge mistake and allowed her daughter to marry before her baby is born.

    INSANITY. period. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Roosevelt Fan on Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 09:09:35 PM EST
    Listen to this nonsense about Palin daughter post pregnancy pre-election marriage being the highlight of this entire election season. Our nation's economy is imploding, we're still in Iraq, we desperately need an actual energy POLICY yesterday, "health" (rather, disease) care is in the dumpster... people are losing jobs and homes and HOPE... and yet, we are anticipating a "reality TV" moment causing... what? A JOHN McCAIN PRESIDENCY????

    If that happens, we are truly doomed. It will mean we have adopted the mode of collective insanity as normal and absolutely nothing will make any sense to anyone anymore.

    Talk About A Hail Mary . . . | 90 comments (90 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment