Was Palin properly vetted? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 11:15:52 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Was Palin properly vetted? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Well?  Broken up by Presidential support, since party affiliation doesn't really matter for this poll
#1
Yes (McCain)
 
#2
Yes (Obama)
 
#3
Yes (Other)
 
#4
No (McCain)
 
#5
No (Obama)
 
#6
No (Other)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 35

Author Topic: Was Palin properly vetted?  (Read 2483 times)
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,719


« on: September 03, 2008, 01:29:14 AM »
« edited: September 03, 2008, 01:33:37 AM by cinyc »

Ambinder:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was not subjected to a lengthy in-person background interview with the head of Sen. John McCain's vice presidential vetting team until last Wednesday in Arizona, the day before McCain asked her to be his running mate, and she did not disclose the fact that her 17-year-old daughter was pregnant until that meeting,
two knowledgeable McCain officials acknowledged Tuesday.

Define "lengthy".  Define "in-person".  (Telephone interviews aren't good enough?  Why not?  This search is supposed to be done in at least partial secrecy.)  And who are these "knowledgeable McCain officials"?  Why are they remaining anonymous?

Assuming the sources are actually in the know and don't have axes to grind, all this proves is John McCain full well knew about Bristol's pregnancy.  And he chose Governor Palin anyway.  Which is what they've said all along.

Sorry.  Despite what the breathless MSM that itself hadn't properly vetted Palin's alleged AIP membership and other "scandals" before running with them says, Palin was properly vetted.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,719


« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2008, 01:36:50 AM »


I'm not arguing for trusting the veracity of anonymous sources indiscriminately...but that question is rhetorical, right?

Yes and no.  I hate anonymous sources.  I don't know whether they're releasing information because they're authorized to do so on a non-attribution basis, aren't but think it's in the candidate's best interest, or have a huge axe to grind because they were not insiders in the process and feel slighted.  That's why I greatly discount anything I read from an anonymous source.   I don't know enough to know what to know.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,719


« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2008, 01:49:21 AM »

Perhaps the McCain camp knew this stuff, but they clearly didn't prepare everyone for it. Seems like a good two days went by before there was a response on the AIP thing, clearly Palin's McCain campaign spokesperson did not know about the pregnancy until late Saturday or Sunday, they had clearly done little if any preparation on Levi, it seems it was Friday that Palin's lawyer on the troopergate thing kicked into high gear.

Maybe they knew a lot of it, but they knew it at the last minute, and in a few cases some key staffers knew it after they needed to.

Part and parcel with trying to maintain secrecy is that you keep the circle of those in the know tight.  The major trade-off for that is that those who aren't in the know but need to speak for you need time to digest what they need to know.

I still think much, if not all, of Monday's bad news about Palin was deliberately leaked because it was a Labor Day when a hurricane was hitting New Orleans.  The only thing most folks are talking about anyway is Bristol's pregnancy.  Palin should put that to rest tomorrow.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 15 queries.