All I can imagine is the baby from that show Dinosaurs saying “not the momma”, but as a retard of course.
American politics are always so much more exciting to read about than ours.
Gordon Brown couldn’t be more boring if he tried.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Bitches Leave View Post Why wouldn’t this be important if true? It would show that Palin is willing and capable of intricate schemes of deception. Not a quality that fits well with a Vice Presidency. |
Well, that and her Troopergate scandal, so at least this shows that she’s got both the deception and the abuse of power thing down cold.
So a deceptive and power-abusing politician that has no problem being a political pawn? The ticket kinda makes a lot of sense, no?
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Daily Kos On Friday, April 18th, 2008, Sarah and her husband Todd were in Dallas, Texas for a Republican Governor’s Convention. They had been in town for three days already, but Sarah had yet to give her keynote speaker address on energy policy. Then early Friday morning at 4:00am, Sarah began leaking amniotic fluid. Instead of checking into a hospital, she instead made a call to her doctor, and delivered the keynote speech. “I was not going to miss that speech,” she says. She rushed so quickly from the podium afterwards that Texas Gov. Rick Perry nervously asked if she was about to deliver the baby then. The oddities only grow from here on, as instead of rushing to a Dallas medical facility that could treat a mother who’s amniotic fluid has been draining for hours on end (made even more crucial due to the fact that this is occurring a full month prematurely), Sarah & Todd instead opted to… Fly all the way back from Texas to Alaska. A dangerous choice, as with each pregnancy (once again, in this case after four previous), a mother’s window of labor to delivery grows shorter and shorter. |
Why would she schedule her fake premature labor to coincide with her keynote speaker address in Dallas? Why not wait for a more convenient time to start pretending to leak amniotic fluid?
Perhaps the daughter was actually leaking fluid, and Palin started her story then, too, to have an excuse for getting away quickly.
Not that I believe the article, what with its apostrophe’s for plural’s and all.
Her daughter went into labor.
If the daughter was going into labor at that time, she’d have to be in a facility amongst people who understood it was to be kept quiet. Therefore the timing of the labor wouldn’t have to match perfectly because no one would know the exact time and date of birth except those already sworn to secrecy. If that were the case, why not just finish the speech, and then start pretending to go into labor so that an emergency departure to meet up with the daughter and medical personnel in Alaska could be implemented? Who was she pretending to leak amniotic fluid in front of at 4 a.m. and why?
There are other diaries on dKos which mention stats on the likelihood of a 40-something year old woman giving birth to a baby with downs. Much more likely than someone in their 20s, for example.
And there are calls to remove these diaries as they’re all speculation. Since that’s what this is, speculation. I can understand since well, this woman has a resume thinner than a sheet of rice paper and the want to discredit (especially when she’s so anti-choice) is rather strong - but this is rather ridiculous.
What makes it an issue for me, however is the fact that she was back on the job no more than 2-3 days AFTER giving birth. Hmmm, for a Republican with so-called family values, that just doesn’t jive well.
So, if she wasn’t covering up her daughter getting knocked up, she was risking the health of her unborn baby for a political speech.
Nice.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by mastronikolas View Post So, if she wasn’t covering up her daughter getting knocked up, she was risking the health of her unborn baby for a political speech. Nice. |
Eggzactleee
Quote:
| What makes it an issue for me, however is the fact that she was back on the job no more than 2-3 days AFTER giving birth. Hmmm, for a Republican with so-called family values, that just doesn’t jive well. |
This is how this really should be approached. 3 days after giving birth to a kid you already knew had Down’s, you’re back at work.
However… pregnant with a baby who you already knew had a birth defect, you’re going to fly from Dallas to Anchorage after your water breaks a month early? Then once you’ve arrived in Alaska’s biggest city, you’re going to drive another hour to some little medical facility way out in the sticks. The less offensive possiblity is that the pregnancy was a hoax to cover for her daughter. The more offensive one ought to be pretty obvious. Hint - it isn’t an abortion if God takes the Down’s baby back himself.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by reggie-wanker View Post The less offensive possiblity is that the pregnancy was a hoax to cover for her daughter. The more offensive one ought to be pretty obvious. Hint - it isn’t an abortion if God takes the Down’s baby back himself. |
That was my exact thought after reading the KOS article, that I hoped it was true that she was covering up for her daughter, because the alternative was far worse. No one would willingly put their child in such risk, for no reason, would they?
And if she was willing to do that to her own child, what the hell is she going to do with the country, if it comes down to her leading it?
Quote:
| Originally Posted by reggie-wanker View Post Hint - it isn’t an abortion if God takes the Down’s baby back himself. |
This is a great point, which I doubt will be made elsewhere.
I hope the husband is the father.
Let’s consider for a moment that the story is true… (which, by the way I don’t buy a bit of it)
Now… Obama is trapped in his experience matters to lead stance and now McCain would have a reason to remove her from the ticket and pick someone with vast swaths of experience after getting a bunch of money from his supporters. All while taking away Obama’s thunder from his acceptance speech.
So… maybe you should have hoped this came up after the convention…
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Snaieke View Post Let’s consider for a moment that the story is true… (which, by the way I don’t buy a bit of it) Now… Obama is trapped in his experience matters to lead stance and now McCain would have a reason to remove her from the ticket and pick someone with vast swaths of experience after getting a bunch of money from his supporters. All while taking away Obama’s thunder from his acceptance speech. So… maybe you should have hoped this came up after the convention… |
Why? McCain either executes the mother (or daughter) of all flip-flops, throwing the MILFy Downs Baby Momma under the bus by effectively admitting during the convention that his VP choice was inadequate, or out of stubbornness he sticks with a Vice Presidential candidate who looks more and more like damaged goods with each passing moment.
In the event that it were true (which I seriously doubt) the damage would be to McCain. It all leads back to judgment and temprament and putting the country first.
Say, for a moment, this story is true - don’t you think this would cast a lot of doubt on McCain’s decision-making abilities? That he chose without having all the facts? Or, if he did know, he was okay with this kind of cover-up?
I don’t think it’ll play well for him, regardless of how it ends.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by myk View Post In the event that it were true (which I seriously doubt) the damage would be to McCain. It all leads back to judgment and temprament and putting the country first. |
But it IS true. Either she wasn’t really pregnant, or she wanted to keep the baby and was amazingly irresponsible as a parent, or that fetus wasn’t supposed to survive the trip back to Alaska. Pick any horrifying option; unless I’m overlooking something it seems like one of these things must be true, and they’re all pretty damning.