Yeah, her son vandalizing 50 school buses and joining the Army to avoid a jail term is a much bigger story, I agree.
Some patriot.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Palin may lose some Hockey Moms over this
Palin may lose some Hockey Moms over thisFollow
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Yeah, her son vandalizing 50 school buses and joining the Army to avoid a jail term is a much bigger story, I agree.
Some patriot.
Some patriot.
I love the switch to an utterly unsubstantiated rumor.
Um... So some talk radio folks repeat a rumor they heard. Where'd the rumor come from? No one seems to know...
It's like the Libs can't help themselves. Do they know the meaning of the word "backfire"?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Actually that was meant to be a parody of knox, but... yeah. Hard to parody, he is.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
gbaji wrote:
Mistress DSD wrote:
I dont think she will lose any votes for this incident specifically, but she has been using her Hockey Mom image as part of her campaign. Shes trying to win the undecided women voters with this image. And while it seems inane, this lack of judgement is getting a lot of attention from undecided moms. It's not going to be the straw that broke the camels back, but what it does do is make people stop and look harder, beyond this image she just cracked.
Lot of that is how the story was written, and how it's being repeated in a way to make this seem like a much bigger deal than it is. The kid was in a carseat for the "90 minute drive" to the prison. She didn't put it in one for the "short drive around the facility". I don't know how short short is, but I imagine it was something like a slow drive around a few buildings and took like 4-5 minutes.
For PR reasons, she probably should have taken the time to transfer the carseat to the other vehicle. But it's not so horrible that she didn't. They're not on a public street. They're driving slowly. Heck. I'm not even sure what kind of vehicle they were in while on the "tour". Could have been a small electric cart for all I know. I think that if you look for things to criticize someone over, you'll find them, and this is one of those cases. No matter what she did, she'd have been attacked. If she transfered the carseat, it would have been used as evidence that as a mother of an infant, her ability to perform her duties was impacted. If she had someone else hold the child while she went on the tour, it would have been used to indicate she wasn't being a good mother to the child. And don't get me started on what would have happened if she'd left the kid in her car...
nothing personal, but you're missing the point. And maybe it's harder for people who do not have children to understand, I dont know. What I do know, is that as a mother, and as a woman who knows a lot of mothers, the safety of your child is of the utmost importance. 100% of mothers I have talked to agree a childs safety belt is put on before the car is turned on, and is taken off only when the car is turned off. It doesnt matter how it was written. It doesnt matter if is they were going slow, or in a private area. It was an infant not safely strapped into a car seat while mom did PR work. And that is an image that glares through anything else she may have been hoping to achieve that day for PR reasons. If the vehicle used was unable to conatin a car seat, then Palin should have found someone to take care of her baby while she finished her work.
It's not just politics here, it's common sense, at least to parents. And her bad judgement call as a parent to an infant does make parents stop and look a little closer.
using your own words For PR reasons, this was a nowhere near a good PR image. McCain and Palin are courting the womene who are undecided, courting mothers with family values (oops on that one too)
And I was commenting on the amazing frequency with which every single rumor about Palin and her family, no matter how unsourced and "out there" manages to get repeated as though it's fact.
You could have at least put an "allegedly" in there somewhere... ;)
You could have at least put an "allegedly" in there somewhere... ;)
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
well for one thing, you have to expect insane scrutiny on her right now. Shes a virtual unknown, thrown into a highly sensationlized campaign, and people are trying to find out her character, her policies, her record. All the other peole in the campaign have been known for years now.
As for saying allegedly, why would I when she doesn't deny it:
If it hadn't happened, she would have vehementally denied it, seeing how it can, and has, tarnished her rep 
As for saying allegedly, why would I when she doesn't deny it:
Quote:
A few days later, the governor got a warning from her public safety commissioner that someone had complained that she did not strap Trig into a car seat for the ride.
Palin dismissed the complaint as petty, and the commissioner, whom she appointed, took no formal action. But the incident shows the degree to which family and politics are bound together in Palin's career
Palin dismissed the complaint as petty, and the commissioner, whom she appointed, took no formal action. But the incident shows the degree to which family and politics are bound together in Palin's career
Yeah, we know all about those Republican peoles. =)
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
Mistress DSD wrote:
nothing personal, but you're missing the point. And maybe it's harder for people who do not have children to understand, I dont know. What I do know, is that as a mother, and as a woman who knows a lot of mothers, the safety of your child is of the utmost importance. 100% of mothers I have talked to agree a childs safety belt is put on before the car is turned on, and is taken off only when the car is turned off.
No. I get that point. What I'm saying is that you're reading into the story. What's not said is as important as what is. All that's said is that "Palin held her baby in her arms as the warden drove a short distance around the facility". We don't know the sequence of events, where they were, or what sort of vehicle.
Ok. You've arrived somewhere. You take your child out of the car seat. You're carrying it as you're walking around. You enter a building. You chat. You exit and walk to another building. The person showing you around invites you to get into a vehicle to continue the tour. Let's say it's a 5 minute drive in an electic cart (think like what they drive around in on studio lots). There are no seatbelts, and the vehicles top speed is 10 mph. What do you do? Go back to your car to get the car seat (which can't be strapped in). Hand your child to someone? Or just hop in and hold the child?
I can't say that that's what happened. But neither can you. You're *assuming* a set of circumstances. I've learned long ago that you can't assume anything in a news story. Only what is literally written.
Have you ever been to a theme park like Disneyland with a child young enough to require a car seat? Did you put the child in a carseat while riding the tram (or some other conveyance at the park)? Are you a bad parent for doing so? Can you say for absolute certain that the conditions in this case were any different?
I'm not saying that she didn't get out of her car and immediately into his and there's no excuse for not using a carseat. But I'm not going to assume that was the case either. The article doesn't say.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji, stop posting to see yourself type. Please go back and read my last post and the one before it thoroughly which covered the questions you asked with less than 100 words 
Edited, Sep 8th 2008 4:53pm by DSD
Edited, Sep 8th 2008 4:53pm by DSD
Lol! Fine... ;)
As for saying allegedly, why would I when she doesn't deny it:
I was responding to the post about her son vandalizing schoolbuses. You just happened to post in between them.
If it hadn't happened, she would have vehementally denied it, seeing how it can, and has, tarnished her rep
Ok. But you didn't read what I wrote.
Not denying the factual statements in the story does not mean that she violated any safety rules, regulations, or laws with regard to the situation at hand. We can speculate on that. We can even assume that because someone complained that what she did must have been truly horrific. But that would be us projecting into the news story.
All we know is what's literally written in the story: That the warden drove her a short distance around the facility, that she held her baby in her arms while this happened, that someone complained about it, and that her safety commissioner warned her that someone complained about it but took no official action.
We don't know if the complaint was legitimate. We can say (as you pointed out), that she did ride in some sort of vehicle a short distance while holding her baby, but we can't say whether this was actually unsafe at all, or in violation of any rules or laws. We can only say that someone complained about it. The safety commissioner took no official action. Was that because he just let her slide, or because there wasn't any actual violation? We don't know...
We can guess, but without a whole hell of a lot more detail on the story, I'm going to reserve judgment on her capabilities as a mother here, ok?
Mistress DSD wrote:
As for saying allegedly, why would I when she doesn't deny it:
I was responding to the post about her son vandalizing schoolbuses. You just happened to post in between them.
Quote:
Quote:
A few days later, the governor got a warning from her public safety commissioner that someone had complained that she did not strap Trig into a car seat for the ride.
Palin dismissed the complaint as petty, and the commissioner, whom she appointed, took no formal action. But the incident shows the degree to which family and politics are bound together in Palin's career
Palin dismissed the complaint as petty, and the commissioner, whom she appointed, took no formal action. But the incident shows the degree to which family and politics are bound together in Palin's career
Ok. But you didn't read what I wrote.
Not denying the factual statements in the story does not mean that she violated any safety rules, regulations, or laws with regard to the situation at hand. We can speculate on that. We can even assume that because someone complained that what she did must have been truly horrific. But that would be us projecting into the news story.
All we know is what's literally written in the story: That the warden drove her a short distance around the facility, that she held her baby in her arms while this happened, that someone complained about it, and that her safety commissioner warned her that someone complained about it but took no official action.
We don't know if the complaint was legitimate. We can say (as you pointed out), that she did ride in some sort of vehicle a short distance while holding her baby, but we can't say whether this was actually unsafe at all, or in violation of any rules or laws. We can only say that someone complained about it. The safety commissioner took no official action. Was that because he just let her slide, or because there wasn't any actual violation? We don't know...
We can guess, but without a whole hell of a lot more detail on the story, I'm going to reserve judgment on her capabilities as a mother here, ok?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
1. People are seriously getting bent out of shape for some chick driving around a parking lot without a strap on a kid? Seriously?
2. WTF is an infant doing at a prison? I think that should be the more important question here.
2. WTF is an infant doing at a prison? I think that should be the more important question here.
Jacobsdeception the Sly wrote:
1. People are seriously getting bent out of shape for some chick driving around a parking lot without a strap on a kid? Seriously?
2. WTF is an infant doing at a prison? I think that should be the more important question here.
2. WTF is an infant doing at a prison? I think that should be the more important question here.
It's part of her "Get tough on crime" initiative. Or at least that's how the conservatives should be spinning it... ;)
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
All we know is what's literally written in the story:. . . that she held her baby in her arms while this happened, that someone complained about it
Quote:
We don't know if the complaint was legitimate.
Uhhhhhh. So we know that it happened but we're not sure if it legitimately happened? Or are you trying to say that you're not sure if the complaint was actually valid, someone just sent it in for sh*ts and giggles and then the commissioner told her for sh*ts and giggles? Oh, and then they included it in the news article - also for sh*ts and giggles. Because it's not a valid concern at all.
http://pediatrics.about.com/od/weeklyquestion/a/seat_laws_ask.htm
Gee, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says eight years old or 4'9". Well, that's not the state law, let's check that out!
http://www.iihs.org/laws/ChildRestraint.aspx
3 years and younger. That took about five minutes to find. I'm pretty sure that you usually expect people to do their research before making a point against you, so what's your excuse for not doing the same?
Edited, Sep 9th 2008 12:13am by CBD
Recent Visitors: 170
All times are in CST
Gidono, Anonymous Guests (169)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Palin may lose some Hockey Moms over this
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC