WORST. CRYBABIES. EVER. The VAST majority of questions the media has asked are COMPLETELY relevant.

[Brotherjohn]

Yes, the internet HAS been abuzz with rumors about Sarah Palin's and her daughter's pregnancies. But such rumor-mongering is nothing new. It's simply gone public now with the internet.

Yes, there have been a few stories in the media on Bristol's pregnancy. But Palin herself announced that to the world. Most of the news stories on it have simply been reporting the situation, based on HER announcement. There have been some editorials, but those are arguably relevant from a perspective of what the situation says about Palin herself re her postions on family issues, abortion, etc. In addition, the McCain/Palin ticket has milked it for all it's worth to solidify their base (one could argue it's one of the reasons they picked Palin).

But the VAST majority of the stories (and what the Republicans are REALLY upset about) have been about issues DIRECTLY RELEVANT to her governing experience, her political background, and her record.

- She is currently under state ethics investigation
- She left her town deep in debt as mayor
- She was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it
- She is married to a recent (and longtime) member of a party advocating secession from the U.S.
- She has attended and spoken to that party's convention on different occassions
- She has stated she advocates teaching of creationism in public schools
- She is a global warming skeptic
- She has reportedly pursued getting books banned at her local library as mayor
- She fired the librarian at that library, allegedly for lack of support (she was re-instated later)
- She fired the local sheriff, also allegedly for lack of support

THESE ARE ISSUES. This is HER RECORD.

What her record reveals is a worrisome history of abuse of power, facts that contradict her claims as a reformer and a champion of ethics, facts that demonstrate fiscal irresponsibility and bungling, hard-core social conservative positions far from mainstream America, and connections with a secessionist group. And this bears repeating: she is currently... CURRENTLY... under state ethics investigation (and now, breaking her pledge to co-operate completely, is refusing to testify).

I mean, COME ON! The media are being "mean"?

SERIOUSLY?!?

This doesn't even touch on HER pastor. He thinks terrorist attacks on Israel are God's retribution against them for not believing in Christ as the Messiah. Shades of Rev. Wright anyone? If we can spend a month showing clips of Rev. Wright on the national news channels night... after night... after night... then why not do the same with HER pastor? They could even throw in video of some pretty strong anti-American statements made by the the Alaskan Independence Party, at the same convention to which Sarah Palin spoke. If the media did so, then THAT would be "playing fair". But I don't think the McCain campaign really want the media to play fair.

It all boils down to this: If you pick a V.P. candidate that no one knows, with no experience on the national level (and very little experience on the state level), you do so at great political peril. That McCain did not realize this reveals much about his judgment and penchant for risk-taking.

They should have fully expected the media to try to find out as much about that person as they can in the short time before the election. It's their JOB. Despite what the McCain campaign would like us to believe, being vetted "by the people of Alaska" is not sufficient. Sarah Palin is not running for Vice President of Alaska. She is running for Vice President of the United States.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

WORST. CRYBABIES. EVER.

[wvbygod]

1. It would help to get the facts right first

Where did you get your list of "THESE ARE ISSUES. This is HER RECORD."?

How do you plan to document these...
- She is married to a recent (and longtime) member of a party advocating secession from the U.S.
- She has attended and spoken to that party's convention on different occassions
- She has reportedly pursued getting books banned at her local library as mayor
- She fired the local sheriff, also allegedly for lack of support

Making homegrown statements as facts can only make it harder to exhibit her real faults.

There are links that debunk some of the items in your list. Do you have any that back them up?

[Brotherjohn]

2. You want links to my FACTS? Here goes...

BTW, if you read here much, you've seen multiple posts providing many links to the facts I cite.

Specifically, you asked how I planned to document these:

1 - She is married to a recent (and longtime) member of a party advocating secession from the U.S.
2 - She has attended and spoken to that party's convention on different occassions
3 - She has reportedly pursued getting books banned at her local library as mayor
4 - She fired the local sheriff, also allegedly for lack of support

1 & 2) http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-aip3-2008sep03,0,6399468.story
3 & 4) http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html

There are many, many more links on these two issues.

There is also video of her speaking to the AIP convention online (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI). If you want to get into a debate about my characterization of AIP as a "secessionist" party, I'm sorry, I certainly don't have time for that.

Well, okay, there's this:

Their stated goal is a vote that would allow Alaska to secede and become "a separate and Independent Nation" (yes, 3 other choices are stated). They also consider Alaska's statehood to be "invalid" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Independence_Party). There are also many Youtube videos from their conventions (Youtube'em). Among other things, their vice chairman defines U.S. Troops while they were a territory as "occupation troops". He describes the UN recommendations for such votes as including "3 of the 4" items on their list of options that should be provided... hmmmn, I wonder if the fourth is their option to become "a separate and Independent Nation"? If I had time, I'd try to verify that.
(EDIT: After some searching, I cannot find a place in the U.N. Charter that mentions specific voting options to be given to "non self-governing territories". There may be an amendmnet, I don't know. Regardless, debating their justification for the possibility of secession is irrelevant. They are a self-described secessionist and separatist organization; see below).

They have attended both the First and Second Secessionist Conventions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#State_secession) and are listed in the Registry of North American Separatist Organizations (http://middleburyinstitute.org/registrynorthamericanseparatists.html).