ABC's Sawyer did not challenge McCain spokesman's claim that "Democratic-leaning blogs" dictated timing of Palin pregnancy disclosure
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Good Morning America's Diane Sawyer did not challenge an assertion by McCain campaign senior adviser Nicolle Wallace that the "fervor with which the Democratic-leaning blogs and a few in the mainstream media pursued" questions about Gov. Sarah Palin's pregnancy " forced the Palin family ... maybe ahead of a schedule that worked best for the family, to make this news yesterday about their daughter." But contrary to Wallace's claim, according to The New York Times, the McCain campaign released the information about Palin's daughter's pregnancy on Labor Day because that was when the media were focused on Hurricane Gustav and because "the nation was busy with family and social activities."
During a discussion about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol's pregnancy on the September 2 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, co-host Diane Sawyer failed to challenge an assertion by Nicolle Wallace, a senior adviser to Sen. John McCain, that "the fervor with which the Democratic-leaning blogs and a few in the mainstream media pursued this, I think forced the Palin family, in an effort to knock down what were really lewd and outrageously false rumors, forced them maybe -- maybe ahead of a schedule that worked best for the family, to make this news yesterday about their daughter." Sawyer did not note that contrary to Wallace's statement that "Democratic-leaning blogs" "forced" the family to disclose Bristol's pregnancy "maybe ahead of a schedule that worked best" for them, according to The New York Times, the McCain campaign released the information about the pregnancy, along with other unflattering information about the Palin family, on Labor Day because that was when the media were focused on Hurricane Gustav and also because "the nation was busy with family and social activities." The Times quoted Tucker Eskew, a senior adviser to Palin, saying of the release of information about Palin on Labor Day: "We are going to flush the toilet."
From the Times' September 2 article:
Mr. McCain's campaign, which has shown itself adept at handling the news media, tried to influence coverage of the disclosure by releasing it as Hurricane Gustav was slamming into the Gulf Coast. (The Palin news was not mentioned on the "CBS Evening News" until 15 minutes into the newscast). It was also by every appearance tucked into a series of problematic tidbits released about Ms. Palin's past, including news that her husband, Todd, was arrested for driving while impaired in 1986.
"We are going to flush the toilet," said Tucker Eskew, who is a senior adviser to Ms. Palin, describing the campaign's plans for Labor Day, when much of the nation was busy with family and social activities.
From the September 2 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
SAWYER: As we know, everybody wants to protect the privacy of a family, but there are real campaign issues that have arisen. Let me ask you about the first one. Exactly when did Senator McCain learn about this pregnancy?
WALLACE: Well, you know, I think in the vetting process, there are all sorts of rather excruciating intrusions into the personal lives of any politician that subjects themselves to that, so, the normal vetting process was under way, and obviously, this was disclosed by Governor Palin and her family. The thing that forced our hand in it is very unfortunate, is that the fervor with which the Democratic-leaning blogs and a few in the mainstream media pursued this, I think forced the Palin family, in an effort to knock down what were really lewd and outrageously false rumors, forced them maybe -- maybe ahead of a schedule that worked best for the family, to make this news yesterday about their daughter.
SAWYER: But let me go back and try to ask you again: When did Senator McCain learn about it?
WALLACE: Sure.
SAWYER: Did he discuss it with her in that phone call that they had on the Sunday, or in the meeting that they had last week?
WALLACE: You know, we're going to let some things stay private, and I don't happen to know the minute, hour, and day that they talked about Governor Palin's daughter being pregnant. But, you know, there --
SAWYER: But -- but they did talk about it?
WALLACE: -- certainly wasn't -- it was certainly known, and it didn't give Senator McCain any pause.
She's been one-upped already by Rush Limbaugh, who tried to say that specifically the Obama campaign was behind it all.
And while we're on the subject of Palin's family being subject to political scrutiny, the people whining now are the same ones who had no problem ripping apart Michelle Obama.
What does he mean? The Obama campaign, as way to crush the myth of conservative family values in a genius stroke of foresight and strategic maneuvering, impregnated the unwed minor 5 months before Palin was picked?
No - Limbaugh was trying to say that the Obama campaign was behind the introduction of the story to the mainstream media.
And that was before he began dedicating the rest of his program to describing Sarah Palin in explicit detailAnd so many of the things he's used to describe her has little to do with things that matter in a vice president.
"She makes Obama look like a little man-child"
"She wears a skirt, she has great ankles" (I am NOT making that up)
"She is the woman that epitomizes feminism in America" (prior to saying the following)
"Feminism is not about women, feminism is about liberalism"
"Unlike Hillary, her career is self-made"
"She is more than Hillary ever was (or will be)"
"She kills a moose and makes moose stew for dinner!"
And he even tried to say that the Down's Syndrome child was part of the reason she received the VP slot.
Now, WHAT do any of the above statements have to do with the qualifications of a Vice President?
Maybe I should take comfort in the fact that he would be asking that question if she were a Democrat.
Having said that, Palin is no feminist. She would make rape victims carry babies to term regardless of the well-being of the woman, she favors the rights of rapists over the rights of women to feel secure in their own bodies.
Limbaugh is wrong, wrong, wrong. Palin is a sicko extremist and no feminist champion.
Wish I could remember who I was responding to. Was it you Nerzog?
Grampy John's cynical pick
Of a dame or a broad like this chick
Will be seen as a ploy
The result? To annoy
Most Vaginal Americans, quick
"She wears a skirt, she has great ankles" (I am NOT making that up)
"She is the woman that epitomizes feminism in America" (prior to saying the following)
"Feminism is not about women, feminism is about liberalism"
"Unlike Hillary, her career is self-made"
"She is more than Hillary ever was (or will be)"
"She kills a moose and makes moose stew for dinner!"
And he even tried to say that the Down's Syndrome child was part of the reason she received the VP slot.
------------------------------
She apparently is also a disinterested mother, uninvolved with the life of her teenage daughter because she has been too busy posing for Vogue and being a political opportunist.
Anyone else wondered why it was necessary for Palin to drag her daughter into this to establish her own maternity, when there were better ways--like birth certficates?
Instead, the MSM is wringing their hands over this in guilt, rather than asking the obvious question: why did Palin do it this way, when she didn't have to? It is such an indirect piece of evidence to use for a rebuttal to these rumors, too.
Remember, she's the one who outed her daughter, nobody else.
Rush probably thinks Obama is the father, too.
What's going on 'Wuss? It seems you're not really supporting this pick.
If they've lost you, I'm afraid they've lost most of America.
So much for party unity.
The Right Wing Double Standard and the Right Wing Spin Machine is where the core of my problem lies with. If the phrase IOKYAR applies, why can't IOKYAD as well?
Because the double standard dictates that if the Democrat does the same thing as the Republican, it is OK, even a positive thing for the Republican, and a major moral flaw for the Democrat.
IOKIYAR, but IAMMFIYAD.
The fact that Sawyer and GMA are spending so much air time on this is not evidence of "conservative misinformation" but even more proof of a deep and pervasive liberal media bias!
Tell me again please, which liberal MSM member it was who was responsible for nominating Palin without a proper vetting? Please tell me also, which media member it was that accepted McCain's nomination on her behalf with the full knowledge of what vetting/let alone a national media spotlight might uncover?
McCain is simply reaping the benefit of this first, well thought out "presidential" decision. The golden rule for a VP nominee is always: "Do no harm." I think McCain's campaign staff should get Sarah into a tank for a photo op as their next smart play.
Shoes-
I think media bias is when Michelle Obama is painted as an 'angry' black woman, when she hasn't done anything in the past to support that description.
The media reporting on Palin's pregnant 17-year-old isn't bias. She actually has a pregnant 17-year-old.
Meanwhile, I'll kick back and laugh my ass off as the Republicans will, and they will, try and spin this as some kind of noble struggle that this young girl will fight to bring an innocent baby into the world.
They will cynically make this all about the baby in an effort to distract form the fact that Palin's daughter is an unwed pregnant minor.
Tell me more about those conservative values, boy.
Speaking of those conservative values...
"We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."
Her DECISION? She had a CHOICE???
But, of course, Bristol had no choice. But I wonder if they were proud of Bristol's decision to have unprotected, premarital sex?
This is all tongue-in-cheek, of course, but I do believe that Karl Rove has an inordinate influence on the upper levels of our government. I also believe that Dick Cheney has made more critical government decisions than George Bush.
Nerzog, what is Rove saying about the VP pick of Palin? I haven't seen him lately. Last time I saw him he was practically begging McCain to choose Romney.
And the Obama campaign seems to be content on letting the GOP narrative take hold and play defense. God, it's such a stupid proven loser of a strategy to not get out in front of this.
If Obama doesn't show us some fire in the belly and hit back we will have a McCain-Palin White House.
If Obama doesn't show us some fire in the belly and hit back we will have a McCain-Palin White House.
Roundhouse, I may be wrong but I think Obama's like me, waiting.
MSM seems to have found blood in McCain's pick and they, along with the McCain folks, are finally vetting Palin. Her nomination has started to smell really, really bad. I get the feeling that this woman is going to blow up in McCain's face. There seems to be more than enough dirt in Alaska to hang Palin and if not, there's always the story of troopergate and if you add in how badly McCain's wants to suppress the October report and you have SCORE!
Palin may have the brain of a Dan Quayle but she's cocky and I think THAT will cause the press to not let her past die. She's going to drop like a house of cards. I'm betting that we'll have either a severely damaged GOP VP or a brand new GOP VP, with Palin leaving for family reasons.
On a serious note, I heard an Obama ad since that post about fire in the belly. I can't find a link, but it has a much tougher tone and I think it is a step in the right direction.
Here's the ad and I apologize that you have to cut and paste the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xukbiS8q9s
I have noticed that there is not one single picture of palin, pregnant, on the internet. However there are plenty of her, a month away from giving birth and she does not look 3 months pregnant, let alone 8 months pregnant.
There are also pictures of the teen that look very pregnant, when she should not have looked pregnant at all, and in fact if what they are saying is true, then she was indeed not pregnant at that time.
Very strange, indeed.
Oh well.
Shoes, you are lying through your...everything!
GOP-Disney-ABC is a right wing corporatist conservaive Republican Party controlled network, AND Diane Sawyer is also a right wing conservative Repuiblican hate hag! BOTH Sawyer and GOP-Disney-ABC want Liar McCain-Liar Palin to get elected!
Sawyer's giving Wallace that pro-GOP pass on her lies/unfounded charges is proof of CONSEVATIVE MEDIA BIAS! The lying right's "liberal media bias" is now, always has been, and always wil be, the lying right wing's biggest lie.
Maybe this is exactly what Karl Rove had in mind when he picked Whatshername for Grampy. He knew that all these odd little details about the Troglodyte Queen would come out. I won't be surprised if she withdraws in tears, and the Republicans use it to beat Democrats over the head.
And where's the outrage over not picking Romney (or Huckabee)? The right was up in arms that Obama didn't pick Hillary.
Relegated to the orphaned bytes of bad taste, I imagine. I have this feeling your preceding comment will soon be joining mine in the same place.
I can understand. And I certainly don't want to add to the frustration of the moderators here. Lesson learned.
"I'm pretty sure McCain went against Rove with this pick. I think it was suppose to be Romney." - Governor
And your "pretty sure" is good for what, precisely?
But then, does it really matter? If the pick is McCain's, that certainly sheds a light on his ability to make presidential decisions. If the pick is Rove's, that certainly sheds a light on McCain's ability to make presidential decisions.
That's quite the cross-examination, DarkMass, sounds like you're enjoying USA Network's Law & Order Marathon. Here, it's a bit late but this should make my about post more official:
http://www.rashidrealty.com/graphics/290_large_image.jpg
Nerzog, I was JUST about to post that and you beat me too it, ha! Had this been Obama with a unwed, pregnant teenage daughter, the Right Wing Slime -- especially Fox's Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity -- would've used this as another example of the "breakdown" of the Black Family, and how liberal policies create such reckless behavior among teenagers.
It's funny that when the tables are turned, they use reason and empathy to rationalize how teeangers like Palin's daugther can make mistakes and we shouldn't be hard on her; we wouldn't hear this sort of thing had it been one of Obama's daugthers, I can assure you on that. Republican hypocrisy at it's best!
I don't think Diane Sawyer did something wrong here.
There can be more than one reason for making an announcement on a certain day.
"R4TWH"
Surely it must take you less time to type that whole thing out than it does me to deduce what the acronym stands for. And I've got government experience, for cryin' out loud!!!
Add up all the others (I doubt I'm the only one), and you've got hours and hours of deciphering time that would FAR outweigh your typing time.
I'm just sayin'...
There can be more than one reason for making an announcement on a certain day.
Sorry Eric, but when you're the GOP and you preach "abstinence only" there's only ONE reason for making ANY announcement about pregnancy on any day, political maneuvering!
The fact of the matter is that this is a problem. Palin preaches abstinence-only education, but it doesn't even work in her own house. Since it seems likely that she herself engaged in premarital intercourse, she should know that anyway. And why would you accept the offer if you knew your pregnant daughter was going to be put in the spotlight?
Why would McCain not cancel the whole thing once he found this out anyway? Obviously it's going to be a news story. I know it looks like he's not the one who made the choice, but he could have picked someone else to appease the religious right. Did he not see the potential problem at hand, or did he just not do anything about it?
Either he has no brains, or he has no balls. Which is it?
This was their best choice? I don't believe it. This looks like a Karl Rove distraction, to me.
Last night Larry King asked Michele Bachman if Palin was the most qualified candidate for VP. She said (with her incredibly annoying fake smile) "This IS who McCain picked, and...". He asked again, and she dodged again. She just did not want to answer that question. On the same topic, James Carville smacked her down something awful, going into just how awful of a choice she is.
These people are spinning in circles trying to make this decision look even remotely sane. If a Democrat did something like this you'd hear the word "judgment" three times in every sentence that came out of a conservative's mouth.
If Reagan can oppose gun control after being shot by an obvious lunatic who bought a gun in a pawn shop, I'm sure Palin can stand by her position. It's what the Gipper would have done, after all.
The question I'd like her to answer is:WHY did your daughter have sex? Did Palin forget to write "don't do it" on her daughter's wall calendar one day, or what? Otherwise, Bristol must be some sort of anomaly, where moral messages from authority figures don't trump powerful sexual instincts like they do for your average teenager.
Is Bristol getting help for this problem? Or will Sarah take the blame?
If Reagan can oppose gun control after being shot by an obvious lunatic who bought a gun in a pawn shop...
Carzy as it sounds... You've got to admit that it's a principled stand. To believe something strongly even when it works against you... Hell if more Republican's thought like that, at least at pertains to the constitution and the seperation of powers, I'd probably be voting for them. You've got to give props to someone who doesn't abandom their principals because of political of personal incovenience. (Like say... taking a bullet in the chest.) And you certainly won't see that kind of political courage from John McCain.
quote-s Bristol getting help for this problem? Or will Sarah take the blame?
In my own household, i have learned kids do stupid things behind your back that could affect their entire lives. We are awaiting the birth of my grandson any minute now and we are making this a blessedx event for the child. there is more stupid things they ave done that would certainly squash my will to serve in public office.
Either he has no brains, or he has no balls. Which is it?
Both. But did you know he was a POW? ;)
I hadn't heard that! I will now refrain from ever questioning anything he ever does or says from this point forward.
That seems to be the reaction McCain expects, anyway.
Abstinence only education isn't going to be 100% effective, just as teaching comprehensive sex education isn't going to be 100% effective in preventing teen pregnancy.
It means nothing as an isolated example.
I'm in favor of comprehensive sex ed in schools, btw. But guess what, those kids get pregnant too.
But that's the whole point, that there's going to be sex either way. If you raise your kid in a loving environment, take them to church, instill all the values in the world into them, they're still going to have sex. We always hear that parents should be the ones to provide sex education, but even here Bristol didn't listen to her parents. What better scenario could there be for abstinence-only education to work properly? And if it doesn't work for them, why would it work for those in the public school system?
With comprehensive education at least there's a responsible and genuine effort to address the reality of the situation, as you seem to agree. If Bristol was taught that way, there's a much better chance for her to avoid pregnancy or disease. That's really the best you can do.
There's no evidence that Bristol didn't know about birth control.
I would accept the blame against abstinence only education in this case if the girl was age 13 or under, but this is a 17 year old. They know the deal.
No, not really. Read more of these threads and you'll see AA arguing that contraception makes barely any difference at all. That's an abstinence-only position. If that's the sort of thing Palin was taught, then it doesn't matter how old she is, does it?
This leads into another way of expressing my point that I wanted to say, which is the sole purpose of abstinence-only education is to prevent sex, which is moralistic and idealistic. Part of that is telling kids that protection doesn't work, so that there's no risk of them learning about it on their own and thinking it will allow them to have sex safely.
You're making an if-then argument, which is just speculative.
Again, the chances that she was in full knowledge of birth control options at age 16 or 17 are overwhelmingly in my favor.
The argument that comprehensive sex-ed would have prevented this pregnancy is dubious, at best IMO.
From all I've seen, the message that there's no such thing as "safe sex" is pretty much ingrained into the philosophy. If Bristol thought she was protected and ended up pregnant anyway, then it makes no difference, but that's speculative as well.
The point was that you can't stop teenagers from having sex. Abstinence-only education relies on the idea that you can, which is why I was sarcastically asking who was at fault for the daughter having sex. There are always going to be some kids who are irresponsible no matter what you tell them, but it's a matter of reducing risk.
See thats the point of Sex Education in the first place, it's not really to "prevent" sex, its to educate you ABOUT sex, and what happens when you HAVE sex.
It's to educate you on what diseases are out there, how to prevent them, etc.
Crimminy everyone except republicans realize, sex is gonna happen. Whether its the first time, or playing footsies under bathroom stalls.
But if you are gonna have sex at least let these kids know whats gonna happen to them, the FIRST time, and later when the religious repression causes them to play footsies.
At least he didn't say "Democrat" leaning blogs. What a maverick.
Which rabid constituency wants this person anywhere near "The Button", or even the remote possibility that she might get to nominate a Supreme Court justice? Does the receding phrase "Agents of intolerance" come to mind.....?
Could the most obvious explanation be true.... that she is nothing more than a piece of red meat to placate the Evangelical knuckledraggers? Even if she has to withdraw, the droolers have been sold on Grampy's Troglodyte credentials.
That's interesting. I thought she said that (to her credit) she thought we should have an exit strategy. Why would we need an exit strategy if it's God's will to be in the war? We would be serving a holy purpose, and there's no reason to get out of that.
If she withdraws, he'll still have to put up another religious conservative. Otherwise the obvious implication would be that it was her views that were the problem, and people like Dobson would not be happy with that. Picking a moderate after that withdrawal would be worse than picking a moderate to begin with.
But, it's just a theory. Grampy may really, truly be in charge of his own campaign and really, truly think she is the best qualified.
"Which rabid constituency wants this person anywhere near "The Button", or even the remote possibility that she might get to nominate a Supreme Court justice? Does the receding phrase "Agents of intolerance" come to mind.....?
Could the most obvious explanation be true.... that she is nothing more than a piece of red meat to placate the Evangelical knuckledraggers?"
Nerzog, you just answered your own question.
Going back to your first paragprah, the extreme homophobic theocratic fascist racist sociopathic gun-crazy white supremacist right does want the possibility of either a [shudder, shudder, shuuder] Vice-President Palin influencing the nomination of an extreme right win conservative Supreme Court Justice, or Justices, or a President Palin nominating the same type of extreme right wing conservative Supreme Court Justices, the kind that would overurn Roe vs. Wade, the kind that would reinsate Plessy vs. Fergusen (Palin is also a states' rights' pro-segregation right wing racist, for the record), would reaffirm absolutle corporate power over people and state (Palin is also an extreme corporatist), etc., etc., etc.
"Palin is also a states' rights' pro-segregation right wing racist, for the record"
I love the way you throw out such crap with no evidence, while nobody bothers to challenge your race-baiting victimizing, not to mention the vile hatred name calling in nearly every one of your posts. You are one angry dude....
Tommy, hate hag Palin endorsed Pat Buchanan for president in 1992, and Buchanan said that blacks should be "grateful for slavery". Palin didn't take issue with Pat on that, and if that part of her record hasn' been scrubbed and whitewashed rom the Internet, she has to explain and/or defend that comment.
Second, with her extreme right wing conservative views, the Buchanan endorsement being an element of them, the right wing supports overturning Brown vs. Board/reinstating Plessy v. Fergusen, and it's clear that Palin is just as much of a segregationist as Trent Lott and Jeff Sessions.
Tommy, I wasn't talking about Buchanan's 2000 presidential run, I was talking about his 1992 run, which Palin DID endorse Buchanan.
CNN Contributor and Chicago's black talk radio station host WVON-AM 1690's Roland S. Martin http://www.rolandsmartin.com, http://www.wvon.com, pointed out this fact yesterday on his , and Martin is NOT retracting it. If Wexler said 2000, or 1996, he's either 4 years off, or 8 years off.
Interesting, that there may be a bait & switch with Palin. I went to the movies yesterday (the "Cinema" to us elitists, "pitcher show" for you gun-clingers) and saw a trailer for a Bill Maher film, I think it's called Religulous.
I hadn't heard of it, but I'm not expecting rave reviews from the GOP media, based on the preview. They will talk about it.
I cannot stand those right-wing predators.
http://msa4.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/mccain-doesnt-help-vets-and-doesnt-vet-help/
The Times quoted Tucker Eskew, a senior adviser to Palin, saying of the release of information about Palin on Labor Day: "We are going to flush the toilet."
The entire McCain-Palin ticket should suffer a similar fate. And it will come November 4th.
Are there a few contradictions here? Exactly who is using the children?
Huffington Post, Rachel D'0ro Sept. 2, 2008:
[.....].....Levi Johnston's mother said her 18-year-old son left Alaska on Tuesday morning to join the Palin family at the convention where Sen. John McCain will officially receive the Republican nomination for president. The boy's mother, Sherry Johnston, said there had been no pressure put on her son to marry 17-year-old Bristol Palin and the two teens had made plans to wed before it was known she was pregnant.
"This is just a bonus," Johnston said.
The young man's presence could set off a media frenzy around the young couple as photographers and cameramen scramble for pictures of the two teenagers. On Monday, Palin and her husband, Todd, said their 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, planned to have the baby and wed a young man identified only as Levi. The family asked the media to respect the young couple's privacy as has been the tradition with children of candidates.
Sarah Palin is scheduled to address the convention Wednesday night and traditionally her family would join her at the conclusion of her speech.
Sherry Johnston said she was worried about her son dealing with all the attention. She said it was difficult enough for teenagers to deal with any pregnancy, having the entire nation watching made it worse.".......[....]