?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
02 September 2008 @ 12:53 pm
Writer's Block: Sarah Palin?  
Is Sarah Palin a shrewd choice for the Republican Party, or is she a liability?


When it comes out that she isn't the mother of her youngest child but that her oldest daughter is and she has been covering it up, I think she'll be a liability given they are the most conservative of the two parties.
 
 
 
gbstevegbsteve on September 2nd, 2008 12:03 pm (UTC)
But that will that be an issue for floating voters? Maybe they'll think she's got more liberal views than they first thought.
Melrobot_mel on September 2nd, 2008 12:12 pm (UTC)
It does sound rather fishy, but it is FAR more likely for a 40+ year old woman to have a downs baby than a 16 year old girl.
gbstevegbsteve on September 2nd, 2008 12:19 pm (UTC)
Aside from the issue of calling your daughter Bristol, the bigger crime is forcing them to marry.
crookedmonkeycrookedmonkey on September 2nd, 2008 12:32 pm (UTC)
but is she the mother? I read that it was a rumour, and possible, but they deny it, and her daughter is 4 months pregnant, which is some quick turnaround time. And the baby has Down's syndrome which is much more likely in older mothers...
Angus Abransonangusabranson on September 2nd, 2008 02:39 pm (UTC)
There's been some convincing arguements backed up with photos and vids during the alledged pregnancy and the fact that her daughter was withdrawn from school during part of her mothers 'pregnanacy' because she (Bristol) had some unspecified illness.

The fact that Bristol has just been declared 'pragnant' of curse will mean that the fact that she couldn't have given birth to her young brother will of course make the whole thing mute and deflect the attention away as the rumours were getting pretty strong at the weekend.

Of course that is if Bristol IS really pregnant. My cynical money is that within the next couple of months Bristol will have a 'miscarriage' and no baby will ever be born. Thus making the whole subject completely taboo for anyone to look into or talk about and saving her mother the embarassment and criminal investigation over the falisfying of birth certifactes, etc of her youngest child (which happens to be her grandchild).
heliograph on September 2nd, 2008 03:49 pm (UTC)
"My cynical money is that within the next couple of months Bristol will have a 'miscarriage' and no baby will ever be born."

If she loses the baby when she's between four and six months pregnant, that's not a miscarriage, and it would be very, very, very rare (barring gruesome accident).
Angus Abransonangusabranson on September 2nd, 2008 04:32 pm (UTC)
Ok, then something rare will occur and she'll loose the 'baby'.
heliograph on September 2nd, 2008 05:49 pm (UTC)
The problem with your theory is that losing a fetus that late is really, really traumatic, and usually requires medical attention. It isn't something they could fake up at home.

And usually with these things you don't bother creating a paper trail (faking birth certificates, etc). You just tell people. The kind of conspiracy you're talking about would require a lot of people to cooperate.

From a scandal point of view, I'm not sure how her having a fake baby now is better than her mother covering for her before... not that I believe either of those. Too complicated.
Mark13mark13 on September 2nd, 2008 12:42 pm (UTC)
For some reason, I keep reading her name as 'Sarah Connor, who I think would make an excellent choice for Veep (especially for when our machine overlords make their move).
jonnynexusjonnynexus on September 2nd, 2008 01:22 pm (UTC)
You might find the "Sarah Palin Pregnancy Decision Map" interesting...

http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/4628/sarahpalinla4.png
heliograph on September 2nd, 2008 04:02 pm (UTC)
She's actually just what McCain needed: someone to shore up his conservative credentials, especially with the pro-life and evangelical crowd. The fact that she 1) decided to go ahead and have a Downs baby and 2) her daughter is having a baby too will really resonate with them: she's practicing what she's preaching.

Her record of what she's done in her short time as governor will do her credit, too. She's done a great deal more than Romney did in his four years as the governor of Massachusetts.

Remember the goal here: he isn't trying to get die hard Dems to switch. He's trying to energize his base and attract swing voters. The attacks from the left on her baby, daughter, and baby's daughter will not go over well with swing voters, which is why Obama said they should leave the kids alone.