HomeReviewsInterviewsStoreABlogsOn Writing

What Do You Guys Think of Sarah Palin?

Sunday, September 14, 2008
Posted in: American Politics

I like her. I do. Policies not withstanding, (because as of yet, I have no idea where she stands on most issues) I think she’s articulate, she has that likeability factor, she’s more interesting than Old man McCain, and also, she wore fab red shoes with a formal black suit. What more could you ask for in a VP candidate?

Surely this ticket should be Palin/McCain, not the other way round? *g*

Her selection was a masterstroke, so major props to the person who decided to shake up the party.

I think Obama should have selected Hillary as his VP, but I understand possibly, why he didn’t.

What do you guys think?

215 Comments »

  • Probably a nice person but her politics are a joke.

    http://community.adn.com/adn/node/130090

    She promotes the whole “abstinence only” sex education program but personally she and her daughter are fine examples of how it is an absolute failure.

    http://irregulartimes.com/eagle-forum-2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html

    On abortion she strongly opposes a woman’s right to choose.

    She is dead set against same sex couples receiving spousal benefits. Probably has a fit about any of them gay type people actually marrying.

    And now she is already back tracking on answers she gave in these surveys from her State Gov race. Just another politician.

    ReplyReply


  • Nora Roberts
    September 14
    12:20 pm

    She terrifies me. Deeply. Pro-life even in cases of rape and incest. Proponent of ‘abstinence only’. Pray Away The Gay church. Creationist. Inquiries into book banning. Let’s hunt wolves from helicopters and take polar bears off the endangered list. More off-shore drilling. Much smoke about abuse of power. And more.

    She is the anti-Hillary, and not someone I want a heartbeat away from the presidency.

    ReplyReply

  • She scares me as well. Stands on the exact opposite side of the issues that I do, and goes beyond as well. But for those that agree with her position on the issues, I don’t see how they couldn’t like her.

    ReplyReply

  • I can’t agree with much of her politics but she is articulate. I do think Obama should have chosen Hillary.

    ReplyReply

  • I disagree vehemently with her politics, and DO NOT want her anywhere near the presidency for a variety of reasons.

    Having said that, I had a conversation last week with a group of other women more or less my age (25-38), and was suprised to hear how many people were impressed by her…once they removed her personal politics from the picture. They hadn’t realized how much they were looking for (and feeling the lack of) a woman in the political sphere who is feminine, who doesn’t supress her interest in family, children, clothing, makeup, etc., in order to work with and compete with the boys club that is American politics. And I have to wonder if there aren’t a lot of American women who feel the same way. And if they were on the fence about who to vote for, then Palin’s presence on the ticket probably did just what McCain wanted it to: sway voters not because of the policy but because of the gender issue.

    ReplyReply

  • I can only say “ditto” to what Teddy and Nora said.

    ReplyReply


  • Sparky
    September 14
    1:01 pm

    Her stances are repellent where they are not outright terrifying. From making women pay for their own rape kits, to being extremely anti-choice to her stance on abstinence only education, to her strong homophobis, she is frightening. Add in her terrible stance on the environment, disbelief of Climate Change, shredding of important services like help for teen mothers and special education for differently abled children (and the irony of this when she has a pregnant teen daughter and a downs syndrome child is enough to choke on) yet was utterly unable to balance a budget. She has the guts to tell utter bald faced lies during the campaign (like the “bridge to nowhere” which she SUPPORTED, not condemned). She tried to get the local library to ban books. She pursues vendettas and is willing to use her political clout to punish opponents.

    The list is endless

    All in all I worry at the idea of this woman coming near the VP position. And I’m deeply afraid that people may vote for her because she is a woman or because she is “impressive” without realising just how awful her policies are

    ReplyReply

  • Extreme right-wing, religious nut job. In short, a female Bush.

    ReplyReply


  • Ann M.
    September 14
    1:23 pm

    Interesting background about Sarah Palin –
    http://www.womenagainstsarahpalin.org/

    She’s not someone I would vote for but I see she has energized the women in the Republican party. I’m glad for them but not for me.

    ReplyReply

  • The Republicans chose her hoping to sway the Hilary-supporters to their side (Hilary has ovaries, Palin has ovaries, therefore they must be the same!)…and it appears to be working. I’m scared.

    ReplyReply

  • She’s absolutely horrifying for all of the reasons outlined above. Possibly the most anti-woman candidate possible. As for her so-called charisma? Being able to read a teleprompter does not make you a savant. After being shielded from the media for weeks, her first interview shows her to be clueless. Not to mention her outright repetitive lying. Against the Bridge to Nowhere? Well, actually she was all for it until it became politically un-cool. Against earmarks? Actually, under her governance, Alaska raked in the largest amount of pork last year both in total dollars and in dollars per person. Facts are pesky things tho and apparently she has no problem with lying in front of thousands of people over and over. Says something about the kind of moral character she has.

    The upshot though? I volunteered for my first time at the local Obama office (and will continue to do so until the election) and I can confirm that a LOT of people who came in to canvass, volunteer, phonebank did so because they realize how critical this election is. And for many of them this was the first time they’d participated in any way and was because of their horror over this joke of a candidate. So she is energizing the base. Obama’s base.

    ReplyReply


  • Dorothy Mantooth
    September 14
    2:12 pm

    I like her, actually. I don’t agree with some of her politics, but I also think some people (and I don’t mean anyone here, okay?) are panicking about how much influence she’s actually going to have (how much environmental legislation was Gore actually able to pass in the eight years he was VP? That would be none, if I’m not mistaken). I find her stance on abortion troubling, for example, but I seriously, seriously doubt abortion will ever be made illegal in all cases all over the country, so this doesn’t bother me as much. We’ve had an anti-abortion President for eight years and abortion is still around, and you can talk about the Supreme Court choices all you like but I still don’t think abortion will ever be made completely illegal all over the country.

    And as for abstinence-only sex ed in schools, I frankly agree with her, and disagree with those who claim her daughter got pregnant because she didn’t teach her about birth control (as if they know for a fact Palin didn’t teach her daughter about it, when from everything we know about her it seems likely she did). Palin has said she believes parents should be the one teaching about birth control. I find the idea that in this day and age, if the schools aren’t teaching BC teenagers have no access to that info, rather naive. I also think nobody’s giving her credit for the unbridled support she’s giving her pregnant teenager; she’s proud of her, she talks about her, she brings her on stage with the rest of the family instead of trying to hide her away.

    I may not agree with all of her views, (and I don’t, so please don’t start calling me names) but at least she puts her money where her mouth is when it comes to them.

    As for the rape-kit thing…I can only assume there were some severe budget restrictions in place at the time, but that doesn’t excuse it. I agree wholeheartedly that’s immensely troubling and wrong, and I can’t believe there was no other way to fund them. But again, I don’t know what the budget was or how many rapes took place in the area or how that came about, so while I find it repellent I’m reluctant to fully denounce her for it until I know all the facts.

    Oh, and btw Sparky, she did not cut funding for disabled children; she increased it:

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

    ReplyReply

  • There’s charisma there. But I wonder if she’s the best the Republican party can offer for women.

    ReplyReply

  • She horrifies me. Her stances on womens rights, environmental protection, the military, and her foreign “experience” would be laughed out of convention if McCain weren’t such an eager student at Karl Rove’s side.

    I’ve never been activist in my political views, trusting that Americans as a group should be able to judge the facts as they are presented to them and make their own decisions from them. But for the first time this year I’m doing more, encouraging friends to vote, instigating political discussions with family and friends, even going so far as to ask the Obama campaign for signs and stickers. Which hasn’t made me very popular in my Republican neighborhood. But the future of the country is more important than whether my neighbors look down their noses at my signs for the next few months.

    My daughter deserves a better example than this. So does my son – and at 14, he just attended his first Young Democrats meeting.

    ReplyReply

  • Nora took the words out of my mouth. Palin is a frightening woman with some even more frightening beliefs and policies that she is eager, by her own words, to share with the rest of this country.

    No, the VP doesn’t have much power really. But when the president will pushing 80 years old by the end of his term that “heartbeat away from the presidency” takes on a new meaning.

    I like McCain, on a personal level he’s from my home state, he makes me feel very patriotic with the whole POW thing, I like him on a personal level. But he’s not what we need as a president. Obama isn’t perfect either, but he’s closer.

    ReplyReply


  • Janean
    September 14
    3:19 pm

    I am horrified by her as well, and terrified that people will elect McCain simply because his VP pick is a woman without researching her enough to see just what a terrible choice she actually is. She’s no different, and could be even worse than the administration we have right now.

    And even though it’s been pointed out she would just be VP, we need to remember that McCain is in his 70s and would be the oldest man inaugurated as president. He has also already survived bouts with cancer. It’s not really a huge stretch to worry that the high stress levels associated with running the country might run his health into the ground fairly quickly, which would leave us with Palin as our president.

    I really am terrified.

    -Janean

    ReplyReply

  • On a personal level she strikes me a smug and plastic. When she talks, she reminds me of the Vancome Lady from Mad-TV.

    On a political level, she’s Phyllis Schlafly, Mark II.
    I call her Serena Joy or Sharia Plan. Both are accurate.

    She is anti-woman, anti-family (as long as it doesn’t resemble HERS), anti-gay and attends an anti-Semetic church (it has ties to Jews For Jesus, as well as having several “Completed Jew” Synagogues as fronts)

    She is the culmination of 20 years of Christian Dominionist political activity. She flat-out said in the TV interview she would bne willing to go to war with Russia (Gog) and let Israel nuke Iran (Magog). Either of those will, by her theology, force God to end the world.

    Do some reading. This is not a woman who should be in charge of a Girl Scout Cookie sale, let alone VP to a sickly old man who is physically incapable of typing his own e-mail or tying his shoes.

    ReplyReply


  • Sam
    September 14
    4:28 pm

    I dislike her also. For all the reasons above. I am afraid of the ‘teacher led prayer in schools’ and ‘intelligent design’ stances too.

    My DH also said ‘but she won’t have that much power’. How do you know? You have that crystal ball that says McCain will live? I tend to believe politicians won’t really outlaw abortion, simply because then their mistresses would have to be sent to other countries to get theirs.

    But, one never knows and if we vote in someone willing to take our rights away…it will be our own damn fault.

    Sam

    ReplyReply

  • Terrified by the mere possibility that, should McCain be elected President, she could very well have to step on the president’s shoes.

    Her beliefs scare me to death.

    ReplyReply

  • I’m terrified as well.

    The experience argument is made over and over, but for me, it’s the lack of understanding of what her role as VP — and very possibly the president — is what scares the crap out of me. She seems smart and ambitious, which I like, but from the little I’ve seen of her, I don’t feel she has a grasp on much of anything outside the state of Alaska. I don’t want a hockey mom as VP or President; I want someone who understands why the value of the dollar is shit right now and has a real grasp of the flow of the economy (domestic and international), why it’s hypocritical to say “we made a choice to have our babies” when she doesn’t believe there is a choice to make, why she shouldn’t casually talk about going to war with Russia, who might have an opinion about the state of the Middle East that doesn’t include the words “God’s plan”, and that drilling is barely going to make a difference … and any difference it does make won’t be seen for at least a decade.

    She’s probably a great governor for the state of Alaska; I don’t want her as VP or President.

    ReplyReply


  • Jenns
    September 14
    4:46 pm

    She scares me, too. Teddy and Nora said it, and said it very well.
    The idea of having anyone that extreme so close to the White House has actually kept me up at night.

    ReplyReply

  • I don’t agree with all of Palin’s politics, but she strikes me as having a lot closer overall values to the average American than anyone else on this political stage. She didn’t throw aside one spouse to “marry up” like the perception for McCain grants, nor has she married into a beer empire. As opposed to Clinton she is a lifelong native of the state in which she ran for political office. Unlike Obama, Palin doesn’t nurture friendships among people who have literally stepped on the American flag.
    http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/05/05/obamas-radical-friends/

    Nor has she been guilty of plagiarism like Joe Biden.
    http://www.famousplagiarists.com/politics.htm#biden

    Palin is an average gal who loves her family and works hard, and yea, has her idiosyncrasies just like everyone else. At least she’s a person I wouldn’t be embarrassed to have as my next-door neighbor. And I can’t remember the last time we had somebody like that in office at the White House.

    ReplyReply

  • And I’m also really disturbed that the McCain campaign has pretty much locked her away. I want to make an informed decision — I read the candidate platforms and analysis as much as I can — but I also want to see how they react when it isn’t completely scripted. I want to feel that she has an understanding of the policies she’s promoting. But, in two weeks, one interview with Gibson and stump speeches that recycle the same lines? No. Just … no.

    ReplyReply


  • Lori
    September 14
    4:56 pm

    Wow are we all on the same page here?

    Choosing her seemed like a brilliant stroke from McCain to appease us Hillary supporters but damn, that woman is terrifying. Absolutely everything I believe in she doesn’t, and as a Jewish, liberal, single Mom who once worked in an abortion clinic, I pray Palin never sets foot in the White House.

    She’s the greatest political nightmare in years. And I feel so sorry for her family: knowing her daughter was underage and pregnant and choosing to put her in the spotlight in such a way screams parental cruelty to me. She should have done better for her own child and not made her the poster child for screwed up teens.

    ReplyReply

  • They hadn’t realized how much they were looking for (and feeling the lack of) a woman in the political sphere who is feminine, who doesn’t supress her interest in family, children, clothing, makeup, etc.,

    This perception is absolutely baffling to me.

    She’s not a family person at all and she sure as hell isn’t feminine. If she were she would not have decided to have a kid at 44 while in a very demanding and time consuming job. She would not have decided to run for VP with a good expectation of becoming President, if she cared one whit about her family and her handicapped child. She’s abusing all her children for political gain, by prostituting them on the political stage and now she’s forcing a guy to marry her daughter who has no interest in her or the kid they made. Yeah, she’s a family person all right…

    I’ve not been able to suffer through a complete speech of hers and I’m really surprised people say she’s a good speaker because the bits and pieces I’ve seen were full of errors and made her look like an idiot, and a smug one at that. And if I hate anything it’s smug politicians convinced of their own infallibility.

    But what I wanted to say most was that I used to think that the current guy was the anti-christ, but now I know it’s her.

    She’s a traitor to women, a proponent of all the politics that would never have allowed her to get to where she is, if her party could have enforced them.

    I don’t get to vote, so I hope all of you who are allowed will make sure that she won’t make it anywhere near the White House.

    I admire strong career women, but I do not want a female barracuda, who cares for nobody but her own power quest anywhere near the power this country has in the world.

    ReplyReply

  • I think she’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. If the same words were coming out of a less attractive person’s mouth there would be an uproar. If a man with as little experience had been chosen by McCain the Republican party would have been torn asunder. I’m reading and watching. As responsible media is picking its way through the fact or fiction surrounding her I have this to offer. If it looks (and sounds) too good to be true…it is.

    IMO, Sarah Palin is NOT representative of most women in the U.S. I can’t believe that. I won’t believe that. I don’t believe that.

    ReplyReply

  • Sarah Palin scares the hell out of me. Her ultraconservative political stances, her rigid religious views, her abysmal knowledge of both American History and modern American government (Didn’t know what the Bush doctorine was? Oh, well, she gets a pass. Because it’s not like the Bush Doctorine is super important, or the entire rationale for a war or anything, right?).

    Her inclusion on the ticket seems like a blatantly hypocritical ploy, especially coming on the heels of McCain’s refusal to vote for the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The McCain camp’s faux umbrage about lipstickgate is a slap in the face to every woman who has suffered real discrimination.

    , As for the rape-kit thing…I can only assume there were some severe budget restrictions in place at the time, but that doesn’t excuse it…But again, I don’t know what the budget was or how many rapes took place in the area or how that came about, so while I find it repellent I’m reluctant to fully denounce her for it until I know all the facts.

    At more than twice the national average, Alaska has the highest rate of incest and rape in the United States. As an elected official, Sarah Palin would have been well aware of this fact. Doing anything that might make it harder for victims of rape and incest to report such crimes is morally reprehensible.

    ReplyReply


  • Kay Webb Harrison
    September 14
    5:41 pm

    I watched Obama’s Democratic Convention speech. The next week, I watched Palin’s Republican Convention speech. According to her, the Democrats at their convention did not offer any programs to achieve energy independence; I heard Obama do so. According to her, the Democrats will “raise your taxes;” maybe hers and the other mega-earners in the Republican ranks, but I heard Obama outline plans to decrease taxes for 95% of US workers. Now, either Palin (and whoever wrote her speech) was mistaken, or she (they) were outright lying. I don’t want anyone else elected to high government office who is incompetent or dishonest.

    I agree with Nora and Teddy. Palin is scarily attractive to many. I watched the interview with C. Gibson; Palin is almost as good a POLITICIAN as Bill Clinton.

    There is an excellent article in today’s Parade Magazine by Doris Kearns Goodwin. She analyzes the presidencies of Lincoln and FDR, two of our best, and synthesizes ten characteristics we should look for in candidates McCain and Obama. Guess which one exemplifies most of them!

    The race is between Obama and McCain. Palin is a distraction that we won’t have to worry about if we elect Obama. When I was young, I thought that most of my fellow citizens agreed with me. As Virginia voted over and over for Republican candidates, I realized the error of my thinking. We who do want CHANGE must actively work for it.

    Kay

    ReplyReply


  • Dorothy Mantooth
    September 14
    6:01 pm

    She’s not a family person at all and she sure as hell isn’t feminine. If she were she would not have decided to have a kid at 44 while in a very demanding and time consuming job. She would not have decided to run for VP with a good expectation of becoming President, if she cared one whit about her family and her handicapped child. She’s abusing all her children for political gain, by prostituting them on the political stage and now she’s forcing a guy to marry her daughter who has no interest in her or the kid they made. Yeah, she’s a family person all right…

    So, what are you saying here? That a woman with a handicapped child (if Down’s Syndrome is really a “handicap”) have no right to work at demanding jobs? That they shouldn’t have careers at all? That it’s impossible for them to be good mothers if they also work? That women with families shouldn’t be ambitious?

    So, when men bring their wives and children onstage at conventions, are they also “prostituting” their families? Did Barack “prostitute” Michelle and their daughters? (And for the record, I really like him as well and am totally undecided as far as voting this year, so please don’t accuse me of being some right-wing crazy.)

    Are you sure her daughter’s fiance has no interest or feeling for the girl and the coming baby? You’ve spoken to him about it? Yes, shame on her for expecting the young man who impregnated her daughter to step up and take responsibility for the child he made with her. Shame on her for wanting her daughter to have the security of having the father of her child there for her and the baby. That’s a terribly anti-family view to take on things; instead we should allow young men to impregnate young women hither thither and yon, and run off scot-free.

    ReplyReply

  • She supports the hunting of wolves in remote wilderness from helicopters. That might seem like a small issue but to me it isn’t. It is a kind of gratuitous, cruel hunting outside of any notion of “fair case”. I think fairness is a core value that a leader needs to have, that and very broadly based empathy.

    That said I tend to stay away from blog where politics are often discussed.

    ReplyReply


  • Christine
    September 14
    6:49 pm

    So, what are you saying here? That a woman with a handicapped child (if Down’s Syndrome is really a “handicap”) have no right to work at demanding jobs? That they shouldn’t have careers at all? That it’s impossible for them to be good mothers if they also work? That women with families shouldn’t be ambitious?

    Never commented on Karen’s posts before, but I feel the need to at the moment. I also happen to think that Palin is “prostituting” her family.

    She could have asked that the public leave her family alone, especially since she has a pregnant daughter who could very well be used as a poster child for teen pregnancy. I don’t know if she forced her ideas on her daughter and made her keep the baby. I also don’t know if she pressured her daughter’s boyfriend into marriage. So I won’t comment on those. She shouldn’t even have accepted the nomination when she knew that it would bring her family into the limelight. Palin is basically thinking of her own career and putting that above her family. That doesn’t make her a family person.

    And the issue with her child that has Down Syndrome: she could also have opted to keep that information private. Instead she chose to broadcast that fact in order to strengthen her pro-life position. That right there is “prostitution”. She’s not very young in the first place (her oldest child is 19!) and the chances of getting many birth disorders (such as Down Syndrome) increase the older the mother gets. If she wanted a baby at her age, she and her husband could have adopted one (since she’s so against abortion).

    ReplyReply


  • joanne
    September 14
    6:49 pm

    Anyone watch SNL last night? Best line of the night was from Amy Poehler referring to Tina Fey’s Palin. “Ask this one about dinosaurs.”

    As the mother of 2 daughters, the thought of that woman setting foot in the White House is frightening. Choice? Nope. Creationism? Yup. Bush Doctrine? Huh? Homosexuality? Can be changed through prayer. Iraq War? A mission from God. Animals? Shooting them for fun. Please don’t tell me that she has to get in an airplane to shoot and kill wolves to feed her family. Russia/Georgia? US troops. Education? I think 5 different colleges – don’t know if it’s true, but I’ve heard that none had entrance requirements – to get a BA in Communications. Rape victim? Not only should you pay for your forensic kit, but you should also be forced to carry the rapist’s baby to term and deliver it. “Bridge to Nowhere?” Supports it until it becomes a national embarrassment, then keeps the $ for it anyway and lies about it at the RNC convention and on the stump. Openness? Sorry! No questions from the press. Had to be goaded into talking to ABC. Next interview? Sean Hannity, her biggest cheerleader. Other than that, refuses all questions or requests for interviews from anyone in either broadcast or print media. Leadership? Cronyism and vendettas.

    Sorry, but this lady has no place on the ticket for the most important job in the country. The possession of female reproductive organs does not make one automatically fit to hold high national office. She is definitely no Hillary Clinton.
    From the NY Times:
    http://tinyurl.com/6jnjjb

    ReplyReply


  • Jenns
    September 14
    7:00 pm

    *Applauding Joanne*

    ReplyReply

  • So, what are you saying here? That a woman with a handicapped child (if Down’s Syndrome is really a “handicap”) have no right to work at demanding jobs? That they shouldn’t have careers at all? That it’s impossible for them to be good mothers if they also work? That women with families shouldn’t be ambitious?

    What I believe it that having kids is a gift and an incredible responsibility and it requires sacrifices, and these sacrifices shouldn’t be on the part of the children who had no choice about whether or not they were born!

    And, sue me, I do believe that women in high power jobs such as Governor or President should think long and hard whether it’s fair to their potential offspring to produce them. Nannies are all good and fine, but NOTHING is as important as personal attention by the parents.

    And yeah, maybe Mr. Palin is Mr. Mom in this scenario, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that. What I have seen is Palin’s cynical version of pregnant virgin Mary aka Bristol holding baby Trigg for the photo ops.

    As for the male candidates putting their children on stage, last time I looked none of them were swinging a 5 month old infant around like a high five sign; a kid who should long before have been allowed to sleep, a kid who needs constant attention and intervention, especially this early in his life, so any health issues related to lowered muscle tone brought on by his condition might be mitigated.

    I’m flabbergasted that you would doubt that Downs is a physically devastating birth defect with severely lowered life expectancy and a life full of challenges for parents as well as child.

    While it might not be a popular position, I do believe kids deserve the full attention of at least one parent, or the parents ought not to have said kids and that applies to any potential parents. I see daily what happens when kids do not have parental guidance and love and it ain’t pretty.

    I’m all for a woman VP or President. I firmly believe it can be done (plenty of evidence in other countries), but it must be done responsibly and that means not splitting one’s attention between two diametrically opposed goals.

    That baby deserves better and the country does, too.

    ReplyReply


  • Dorothy Mantooth
    September 14
    7:51 pm

    I don’t doubt that Downs is a birth defect; I was questioning your use of the term “handicapped”.

    As for the rest…I have nothing more to say. The idea that a 44-year-old woman has done something shameful in getting pregnant (how do we know the baby was planned? My youngest child wasn’t), that her pregnant daughter and Down’s Syndrome baby are mistakes of which she should be embarrassed, and thus should hide away in a cellar somewhere, are both deeply repellant to me. (Not to mention the idea that a candidate for Vice-President could somehow “opt to keep private” information about their family strikes me as incredibly naive.)

    But clearly nobody’s changing anybody’s minds here, so there’s no point in discussing it further.

    ReplyReply


  • Christine
    September 14
    8:04 pm

    the idea that a candidate for Vice-President could somehow “opt to keep private” information about their family strikes me as incredibly naive

    To clarify: Nothing is going to stay private when you accept such a nomination, but how about Palin try and NOT actively push her family into the limelight?

    that her pregnant daughter and Down’s Syndrome baby are mistakes of which she should be embarrassed, and thus should hide away in a cellar somewhere, are both deeply repellant to me

    No one (least of all me) is implying that they be hidden away in a cellar somewhere. The statement is incredibly offensive. What I mentioned was that maybe she should have some consideration for her family (who would be pushed into the limelight and come under scathing public criticism) instead of just selfishly (in my eyes) furthering her career. I’m just questioning the things people say about Palin being a “family person”. In no way am I implying that her family should be locked away.

    ReplyReply

  • It feels very skeevy to me to talk about her family. Honestly, if her husband is the primary caretaker or if they’ve got three nannies, I pretty much don’t care. Just as I don’t care about any of the candidate’s families or how they raise them. I don’t care if they have a billion affairs or if they’ve gotten divorced. I don’t care if they dress up in pleather and ask a monkey to slap their ass in the Oval Office — as long as they know what they’re doing when they’re wearing their suits.

    The *only* time it matters to me is when a candidate (in this case Palin) makes a political point out of her decisions — her choices — and then tells us that she doesn’t think we should be able to make the same choices.

    ReplyReply


  • rae
    September 14
    8:54 pm

    She scares me. It scares me how the media and America seems to fall for a pretty face. What the hell happens if McCain dies in office? You have to wonder what he is hiding in those medical records he’s not releasing. We’ll have yet another US President who has never been outside the US with an itchy trigger finger going off half-cocked making the world a much less safe place. You need to have some understanding of foreign affairs, and how different countries & cultures will view things you say and more importantly don’t say. You can’t pick this up in a five month cramming session. This wouldn’t be such an issue if the US didn’t have their troops stationed in something like 132 countries around the world.
    Like all good politicians she seems to feel the need to stretch the truth: http://tiny.cc/klGrg
    Then there’s her questionable ethics e.g.
    http://tiny.cc/LRnga
    http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/gullible-at-best.html
    http://tiny.cc/fXJuh

    Not to mention the fact she doesn’t seem to have done that great a job as mayor going from zero debt to $22m.
    http://tiny.cc/J0ac3

    Attended five colleges in six years – why?
    http://tiny.cc/AQrDI

    I haven’t even touched all the Alaskan independence party stuff and the rumors that her husband is being copied into official emails and she & her staff are not using ‘work’ email account but instead personal accounts to send emails.

    Is she really the best female candidate the GOP could come up with? Its a slap in the face for all those women in the party who have worked tirelessly for decades. It is an extremely cynical attempt by the Republicans to attract the female vote and sadly it appears to be working.

    ReplyReply


  • anu
    September 14
    9:14 pm

    The idea that Palin is suspect because she had the audacity to have 5 children and run for office is ridiculous. I give not two shits how individuals and families makes private decisions. That’s the territory of social conservatives, who think they have a right to legislate private behavior.

    I’m not surprised by her stances on abortion, creationism and homosexuality because I expected that McCain would have to choose a social conservatives to shore up his base.

    My concerns about Palin are thus: She joined on a “reform/change” theme. Yet media stories are coming out that she was most emphatically FOR the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it, that she had no problem taking earmarks as a state politician and in fact hired a lobbyist to snag funds as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. And she is STILL using that “Thanks, but no thanks” line in her speeches. WTF?

    When the federal govn’t announced a takeover of Fannie/Freddie, she called the move “big” and “expensive,” which is more a standard Republican talking point over any federal expenditure than a nuanced understanding of WHY nearly all economists, McCain and Obama approved the decision. In her interview with Charles Gibson, she talked about war with Russia, about some vague “efficiences” that will be found in the federal budget. McCain called her an energy “expert” but to Gibson, she only touted that she could see Russia from her window! She offered nothing substantive on current concerns: How should we handle the sliding economy? Home mortgage crises? What about bailouts of industries? What about torture of suspected terrorists? I didn’t hear anything but platitudes.

    I see no evidence that we should believe the narrative the McCain campaign is peddling. But what worries me is that the public DOES believe it. People don’t seem to that she doesn’t know the issues, that the McCain campaign has shielded her from vetting, that she’s been shielded in general by accusations of sexism–some of which are warranted, certainly, most of which are definitely not. Nobody seems to care. Irony or ironies, conservatives, the best peddlers of victimology I’ve ever seen, are hyping how Mean and Sexist the media is. This wins the uncritical support and sympathy of a range of people, conservatives and independents alike.

    Because she’s a moose-hunting, mortgage-having, Walmart mom. Well, I shop at Walmart and so does my mom–neither of us has any business in political office.

    It just depresses me. As much as I had qualms about Hillary, I never doubted that she was a series politician who’d done her homework, thought about national and international issues, staked out positions that had were nuanced, had been challenged and had evolved. Now the woman who may actually make history and become the VP, who claims to take up Hilary’s fight–this woman may be selected because of a two-month cram issues on the issues and because she’s “one of us”. We made the same mistake in 2000, in 2004. The fact that this latest incarnation has vagina doesn’t make it any easier to swallow. What in holy hell should make us proud of this?

    ReplyReply


  • Mireya
    September 14
    9:37 pm

    All I am going to say is that she scares the Hell out of me. I am going to leave it at that.

    ReplyReply


  • sallahdog
    September 14
    9:56 pm

    I tend to vote all over the map. I try to look at individuals rather than party. I would have voted for the John McCain who was running a few years ago. He wasn’t a knee jerk conservative. He was for campaign finance reform, and while more conservative that me on many social issues, he wasn’t a complete cretin about it.

    Then he realized that to get full support of his own party he was going to have to kiss the ass of the far right and become a George Bush clone… He then picked a candidate that the ONLY reason people find her relateable is because she has a uterus. Which amazes me. If she was a man spouting her beliefs and political opinions she would be Pat Buchanan (and he never has gotten far with female voters)…

    Respect Palin… sure… but I can’t in good concience vote for the ticket with her on it…

    By the way, I also tend to believe that Obama has had to kiss the ass of the far left in his party, and that bothers me just about as much (except that the far left can never quit arguing enough to get a damn thing done, so they are fairly toothless)….

    Obama and Clinton let their egos get in the way of being a truly unstoppable ticket, playing an unwinnable game of oneupsmanship, I hope this doesn’t squander the best chance in a long time of a “change” candidate being elected president…

    ReplyReply

  • I’m not American but I’m certainly up on American Politics and as many have said she is a very scary woman and a very slick political animal. I hope the American people can see through the ploy of the Republican party in putting her on the ticket.

    ReplyReply

  • If the following interview clip doesn’t scare people, I don’t know what will:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU

    And, even worse, the woman still believes Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

    Palin is not someone who should be a heartbeat away from the big, red button.

    ReplyReply

  • She’s definitely a candidate for change.
    She’d potentially set women’s rights here back about 50 years.

    Her family is not an issue.
    How personable she is isn’t an issue.
    The issue is that she doesn’t believe in a woman’s right to choose, even in cases of incest or rape. And yes, her opinion on such matters DOES count, since the coming administration may potentially choose 3-4 new Supreme Court justices. Ask anyone who still remembers the days of dark alleys and coathangers just how scary that is.

    She doesn’t have a grasp of the issues. Anyone who has to be kept away from interviews and “schooled” in current events and foreign affairs is simply not ready to assume the second most important position in this country’s government–especially when her running mate is 72 years old and has had three bouts with cancer.

    She’s lied about virtually every so-called ‘accomplishment’ she’s claiming, from the “bridge to nowhere” (lovely metaphor) to selling a jet on Ebay, to visiting the war zone in Iraq.

    And the one interview she’s granted was enough to inspire even MORE fear. She hints that we might consider sending troops into Georgia (what kind of maniac would even CONSIDER such a thing), tossed the word “terrorist” around like it was free candy (a ploy used to inspire fear which has gotten very old)…
    And says she knows something about Russia because it can be seen from parts of Alaska??

    Well, from where I live, on a clear day we can see the Canadian shore. Doesn’t mean I know dick about Canada–except that it might be very appealing if this woman should happen to get anywhere near such an office.

    ReplyReply

  • She has lied repeatedly about her accomplishments, she has abused her power in office to pursue personal vendettas, she literally has NO notion of how to run an ethical government, and she believes in banning abortion even in the case of rape or incest. She is a liar, a misogynist, and bring-on-the-apocalypse freak.

    On that issue of the rape kits, the policy was implemented on her watch, with her knowledge and approval. The town had enough money for them; this was just misogyny and fuckheadedness made official policy. The frickin’ STATE of Alaska had to pass a law outlawing the policy because of one town — Wasilla, Sarah Palin’s town.

    She is an appalling choice, on all counts. Any shred of respect I ever had for McCain is GONE.

    Think things couldn’t get any worse than a Bush presidency? That’s what we’ll have if these guys win. We will be BEGGING for Dubya to come back.

    ReplyReply

  • Palin’s a classic “double high” authoritarian type, just like DeLay, Gingrich and Cheney. The neocons love them, because they’re absolutely ruthless, dictatorial and self-absorbed to the point of narcissism. Watching Palin exploit her pregnant teenage daughter for the sake of her own career brought that home quite profoundly.

    She’s a horror show in high heels. I don’t want her anywhere near the White House.

    ReplyReply

  • I have steered clear of political arguments, but I just can’t bite my damn tongue any longer.

    As for the rest…I have nothing more to say. The idea that a 44-year-old woman has done something shameful in getting pregnant (how do we know the baby was planned? My youngest child wasn’t), that her pregnant daughter and Down’s Syndrome baby are mistakes of which she should be embarrassed, and thus should hide away in a cellar somewhere, are both deeply repellant to me.

    For starters, tell me why Palin hid her own pregnancy? Was she ashamed?

    I’ve also had problems with many of her ideals. Here’s one:
    How can a person (not just Palin) advocate pro-life and want to shitcan gun control? Save the babies, but you can kill anyone else. Isn’t that like…contradictory?

    Two: I have an extensive background in private living, private industry, and with the federal govt–top-level management handling millions of dollars, coordinating tasks with all branches of the military, I love fishing (can skin a catfish or gut a swordfish), raised kids as a single mom (they graduated from college), rated 93% at shooting a gun, traveled abroad annually meeting dignitaries and conversing with small-town peoples, etc, etc, etc.
    Do these qualities make me a viable VP candidate? They should, shouldn’t they? Less worked for Palin. Actually, I’m thinking I have the better background. Would I consider running if asked. I think I have more sense.

    Frankly, this Palin fiasco is an embarrassment to the women of this country. Taking it a step further, I RESENT any party that believes the American people are just plain stupid and all will ecstatically follow their lead. I’ve always believed the Good Ole Boys (GOB, but to many, GOP) have worked hard at dividing this country into two units. Rich and poor. Masters and slaves, which is no different than when England lived this way. So now that institution has decided we need a queen–who knows little or nothing about the workings of our country or any foreign affairs (she looks good, though), who will not have a say so in said country’s future unless the proposed top dog drops(God help us all), who said party will groom to their needs–be seen and not heard like the good little lady should to keep those “other” bats in their places (TOO LATE, we got mouths and guts), and so on, and so on.

    Are Americans truly stupid? I don’t think so. The novelty of Palin will wear off. And, I believe the people of this country will take pride in themselves when deciding on their vote.

    ReplyReply

  • I had the same reaction, Delta. It’s like she’s running for QUEEN, not as a public servant who makes good, informed decisions. Her interview with Charles Gibson blew my mind, and I can’t believe there’s anyone who could seriously defend her as a reasonable choice for president** after that.

    **I say president, because it’s pretty damn obvious she’d end up taking over for McCain. He is far too frail to be able to take that level of stress for long. Just look at how much GWB has aged since 2000 — he looks 20 years older!

    ReplyReply

  • Her politics scare me in a Margaret Atwood The Handmaid’s Tale sort of way.

    ReplyReply

  • Let’s just say that Palin swung my vote…the other way. I’ve always admired John McCain, but I’ve felt the same way about Joe Biden. So I’m voting by vice-presidents this year. Palin TERRIFIES me.

    ReplyReply


  • allie
    September 15
    2:07 am

    I have not posted on this site before even thought I do visit regularly. I hope I do mean to offend anyone but I thought I would offer a different viewpoint to the conversation since it appears about 99% of the posters are liberals. I am an independent agnostic, pro choice woman who absolutely loves Gov. Palin. I could dispute every point everyone else has made so far, but I am sure you have hear them all and already dismissed them just as I have heard your side and found them lacking. I spent all day today watching CNN and MSNBC who had programs on Gov. Palin, and I have to admit it strengthened my resolve to vote for her and make me absolutely sure that she would be a wonderful VP. She is not perfect, but then again neither is the other candidates. As a Chicagoan, I just wish all those media people would swarm on Chicago and look into Obama’s background. He is a product of the very powerful and corrupt Chicago machine, and believe me that is something to be very, very scared about. This man has spent 3 of his 4 years as the senator of Illinois running for President and has done absolutely nothing for my state. Change You Can Believe In, I think not. In my opinion, Gov. Palin’s accomplishments are very impressive. As a woman executive that has hit that glass ceiling many times in my professional life, I am very happy to see her as a candidate for VP. She is a very feminine woman who has been a successful mayor and govenor and did it without the feminist movement behind her, and I think that is what scares them. Today’s woman do not need them. If you don’t follow their political agenda then they turn their backs on you, which means they don’t represent a large precentage of women in the US. I can respect that liberals don’t like her politics and would not dream of voting for her; however, I feel that as women I cannot stand by while she is being demonized for being a mother running for political office. In the ABC interview, she said it perfectly “I will do it the same as all other governors do it, the only difference is they are men…” Yes, I support Gov. Palin and am very proud of it.

    ReplyReply


  • allie
    September 15
    2:18 am

    In my post above I meant to say “I do not mean to offend anyone”. Also, wanted to respond to poster above to say that I thought she did really good in the Gibson interview. Her responses were no different than Obama’s on Nato, after much discussion it has been been proven that the Bush Doctrine could be several options and her asking for clarification was the correct thing to do. Also, the praying to God was taking out of context. The political experts have basically said that her answers were typical of the other candidates and she said nothing that would hurt her. Unfortunatey, the media reported it quite differently from when Obama said basically the same thing she did about Nato. Gov. Palin wants to go to War with Russia but Obama was being presidential. Sexist, in my opinion.

    ReplyReply


  • Michelle
    September 15
    2:19 am

    She makes my skin crawl. Obviously people are buying into her lies, I am very afraid McCain/Palin will win. As others have said out of the frying pan into the fire.

    ReplyReply

  • I would question that bit about her having been a “successful” mayor and governor. Leaving your tiny town way over its head in debt that was all created on your watch doesn’t sound like a successful mayor to me. The cronyism and ethics violations as governor don’t sound much like success, either.

    I’ve run up against a glass ceiling a few times, myself, and I fought back by working harder, networking, and playing it smart. It’s a strategy that has worked extremely well for me, but I also know that I’ve been very lucky. Many other women still struggle to be paid fairly. Even if I considered Palin a fellow traveler in this regard (which I don’t), that in itself would not be enough to make me vote for her. She’s woefully under-qualified and, worse, doesn’t even seek to BECOME qualified. If someone came to me tomorrow and said, “You’re so smart that we want to put you in charge of NASA,” I’d have the sense to turn them down, and that’s what she should have done. Maybe if she studies really hard for half a decade she can try again.

    You seem to be impressed with Palin, allie, but did you know that McCain refused to support legislation that would’ve helped women get equal pay for equal work? I blogged about it earlier today, as a matter of fact, before I saw Karen’s post, and I was appalled that he seemed to think it all comes down to a lack of education and training. Discrimination on the basis of gender, race, age, sexual orientation, disability, and even weight is a FACT. I don’t know of any reasonable person who denies this. And yet McCain seems to think we women just aren’t well-trained and educated enough to merit better pay.

    I used to like McCain, and I deplored the awful character assassination that was done to him in 2000. He seemed like an honorable man and an independent thinker.

    But this year he has sold out to the Falwells and Dobsons of the world, and I don’t know if there’s any coming back from that.

    ReplyReply


  • Cat Grant
    September 15
    2:31 am

    Anyone who helps McCain and Palin win by casting their votes for them will get what they deserve. Unfortunately, so will the rest of us.

    ReplyReply


  • allie
    September 15
    2:41 am

    Lynne,80% of Alaskans approve of her and that makes her the most popular govenor in the US and that is IMO very successful. Also, in regards to equal pay, McCain walks the walk while Obama talks the talk. A recent survey was taken to look at what Senators Obama and McCain pay their Senate staffers. Using the public information compiled on the Web site of the non-partisan group Legistorm, Murdock concludes that, on average, women in McCain’s office are paid more than the men in McCain’s office — $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. Men in Obama’s office make more than women do; female employees make 83 cents for every dollar made by male employees. Only one of Obama’s five best-paid Senate staffers is a woman. Of McCain’s five best-paid Senate staffers, three are women. Of Obama’s top 20 salaried Senate staffers, seven are women. Of McCain’s top 20 salaried Senate staffers, 13 are women.

    Cat, I believe that anyone who votes for Obama will get what they deserve but unfortunately so will the rest of us.

    I think we just have to agree that we disagree.

    ReplyReply

  • Ehhh, I think Murdock was a bit selective in his interpretation of LegiStorm’s data. In fact, LegiStorm has posted a disclaimer.

    I suppose popularity is one measure of success, but it’s by no means the most important one for me.

    A McCain-Palin win means I’m moving to Canada a lot sooner than planned. :-)

    ReplyReply


  • Throwmearope
    September 15
    3:03 am

    Allie, the woman gave a $2000 bribe to every man jack in Alaska, so, of course they like her. Bush only gave us a few hundred in bribes (and trust neither of the bribes worked with me).

    As somebody who grew up with women a lot, a lot like Palin, she is absolutely terrifying. And McCain acts as if melanoma’s all around his brain (to misquote Cole Porter) and he may die at any moment.

    I know America loves a stupid president, but there ought to a lower limit beyond which a person cannot run.

    ReplyReply


  • allie
    September 15
    3:08 am

    Lynne, according to the latest polls, for the first time McCain just pulled ahead of Obama in electoral votes. The next several weeks will be very interesting.

    ReplyReply

  • allie, you are pro choice, yet you are willing to vote for a ticket in which:

    a) it’s quite possible–if not outright probable–that the elected president may die in office and his VP choice would have to step in.

    b) a ticket which is likely to appoint anywhere between one and three Justices (given ages of current Justices)

    c) a ticket that believes “choice” is a sin, and therefore shouldn’t be legal in the US.

    What are the chances, you think, that your children would have the opportunity to choose, if another Republican president is elected?

    ReplyReply


  • anu
    September 15
    3:16 am

    Man, women are always the hardest on fellow women. It is curious to me that we have such visceral reactions to Palin, and earlier, to Hillary. I disagree fundamentally with Palin’s political beliefs but I see no more reason to be horrified by her than by any other pick that McCain would’ve made. He was always gonna pick a social conservative, he had no choice. What gets me is the “reformer” tag. She’s not a reformer but a politician willing to bring home the pork same as any other. Except some vague idea of “efficiencies”, she’s offered no substantive ideas about how to “reform” government. She’s a formidable politician, a brilliant VP pick from a political POV, but she doesn’t live up to the reformist hype. As someone who’s skeptical whether Obama’s deservs of the love heaped on him during the primaries, it seems to me that’s exactly what Palin-demonium has been for the Right. She’s a Rorhrshach test for those hungering for something other than Obama and McCain.

    Sexist, in my opinion.

    Why? Politicians regular decry each other over things on which they actually agree. For instance, McCain dropped an ad recently criticizing Obama for not supporting the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS), when in July, McCain vowed the same thing.

    I believe that Palin has faced quite a bit of sexism, but it seems to me that most of the legitimate sexism is drowned out by the Right’s near cynically reflexive use of the accusation. McCain campaign has used it to stifle many questions and disagreements and criticisms. It’s a highly ironic situation since it’s because of the Feminist Movement that the term “sexist” even has any power. Palin’s years on the basketball team? Yeah, that was Title IX. Her VP selection? Feminist Geraldine Ferraro beat her to that one 20 years ago. That her daughter was allowed the “choice” (Palin’s word in a press release) to keep her baby? That would be Roe which is, right or wrong, one of the defining accomplishments of the Feminist Movement. Sarah Palin herself is part of an organization named “Feminists for Life.”

    I don’t believe this nonsense that Palin sets women back, that she does or doesn’t speak for all women. She doesn’t. She couldn’t. Women have lots of different viewpoints. But the idea that she doesn’t benefit, both fairly and, since her VP nomination, quite unfairly, from what feminists before her have done? Absolutely wrong.

    Btw, there was an “Alaska Women Reject Palin Rally” in Anchorage today. If the attendance numbers, 1400, prove accurate, it will add another viewpoint to this interesting election. According to this blogpost whirring through the Web, it would be the largest political rally in Alaska history. http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/alaska-women-reject-palin-rally-is-huge

    ReplyReply


  • allie
    September 15
    3:17 am

    Throwmearope, is that why Obama is getting votes – taking money from the wealthy and redistributing it to the poor? He says he will give 95% of Americans a tax break, but 40% of Americans don’t pay taxes. Bribes, maybe?

    Interesting, how so many people can look at a person or issue and have a completely different take on it. Liberals think the rest of us just don’t get it (I know – we are stupid too) and conservatives and some middle of the road people like me think the liberals are just out of touch with America. I respect your opinions – just don’t agree with them. As I said before, we just have to agree that to disagree.

    ReplyReply

  • anu, in a board I visit regularly there is at least one (I believe it could be two, but the other one hasn’t been around lately) residents of Alaska, and one of them was wondering, just last night, at the lack of reporting on the protests during Palin’s “triumphal” return.

    I would have preferred Hillary as presidential candidate, myself, but between Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin, the former would be–IMneverHO–the lesser evil–by FAR

    ReplyReply

  • I’m not so sure about those polls. One of the polls conducted in Georgia is highly suspect because a) they had an unusually small sample size, b) they completely omitted Libertarian Bob Barr, who’s from here and quite popular, and c) the company doing the poll is run by Gingrich people who routinely write foaming-at-the mouth OpEds against Democrats. I’ve been keeping an eye on the local papers to see if they’ve picked up on that poll, and the silence has been deafening thus far. People who live here KNOW who these pollsters are and don’t trust them.

    It’s going to be an interesting election, for sure, particularly with the predicted bloodbath tomorrow in the financial markets. People like Phil Gramm have a lot to answer for. Massive deregulation and hokey financial shell games have wrecked the economy.

    ReplyReply


  • allie
    September 15
    3:26 am

    Azteclady, I am not a one issue voter. I look at the big picture and knowing what I know about Obama, prefer the other side. we have had more Republican presidents than Democrats and the right to choose has not changed. I’m just not worried about that one. Even if Roe v wade was overturned, the states would correct it. I just don’t see that ever happening.

    Anu, I agree that Gov. Palin does not represent all women just the same as Gloria Steinhem does not represent all of us. However, I applaud her for her accomplishments and YES being elected as a govenor is an accomplishment IMO.

    ReplyReply


  • anu
    September 15
    3:33 am

    Anu, I agree that Gov. Palin does not represent all women just the same as Gloria Steinhem does not represent all of us. However, I applaud her for her accomplishments and YES being elected as a govenor is an accomplishment IMO.

    Huh? I didn’t say that Steinhem represents all women. I didn’t dispute that being governor is an accomplishment.

    I think you may be responding to another post.

    Also, I can respect Palin’s accomplishments without rewarding her with national office. It seems that you’ve chosen McCain/Palin based on what they promise for the future. Please give others the courtesy of the opposing viewpoint based on the same information.

    ReplyReply


  • allie
    September 15
    3:40 am

    Lynne, I agee with you about the various polls. People don’t always tell the truth when polled. I just saw a program on CNN where people said they did not feel comfortable saying they were not voting for someone that is black/a woman/too old. Since all 4 candidates falls into one of those categories, the polls are probably way off. We will just have to wait until Nov!

    ReplyReply


  • joanne
    September 15
    3:41 am

    Although Palin’s popularityin Alaska is exceptional, there are actually several politicians who’ve had 80% approval ratings at one time or another. The first President Bush did during the first Gulf War. The current president had an approval rating between 80% & 95% in September of 2001. Mark Warner had an 80% approval rating at the end of his term as the Democratic governor of the predominantly Republican state or Virginia. Governor Jodi Rell of Connecticut also had an 80% rating.

    Ms Palin’s 80% rating dropped to 64% after “Troopergate.” Still good, but not 80%. Her ratings have been up and down. They have not been 80% throughout her governorship, which has been less than 2 years.

    ReplyReply


  • allie
    September 15
    3:46 am

    Anu said: Huh? I didn’t say that Steinhem represents all women. I didn’t dispute that being governor is an accomplishment. I think you may be responding to another post.

    Allie said: Sorry if I misunderstood your statement. I was only attempting to explain my reasons not distort yoru words. Sorry

    Anu said: Also, I can respect Palin’s accomplishments without rewarding her with national office. It seems that you’ve chosen McCain/Palin based on what they promise for the future. Please give others the courtesy of the opposing viewpoint based on the same information.

    Allie said: I’m did not mean to imply that you did not respect her accomplishments. Actually I was attempting to say that you can respect what she has accomplished by getting into office and not approve of her politics or want to vote her into VP office. I definately did not mean to imply that your viepoint was not inportant. I was only expressing mine.

    ReplyReply


  • allie
    September 15
    3:53 am

    I did not mean to hijack this topic. When reading everyone’s opinions I thought I would explain why I supported Gov. Palin. I realize the divide between liberals and conservatives (and an independent supporter of Gov. Palin like me) is great, but I thought that I would try to explain why some people support her. Even though our opinions are set and none of us are going to change our minds, it is good to have a healthy respectful debate. I certainly did not mean to offend anyone. I hope I have done that respectifully. Best of luck!

    ReplyReply

  • By opposing abortion even in the case of incest or rape, Palin is out of step with the vast majority of Americans. Lots of people are against abortion as a casual method of birth control but don’t have a problem with it if the patient is a twelve-year-old who was raped.

    If Roe v. Wade were overturned, a woman living in Georgia would probably have to drive all the way to New York or Illinois to get an abortion. Either that or get it done illegally — and, in all likelihood, unsafely — for huge amounts of money. That’s why it can’t be left to the states to decide, IMO.

    I am terrified at the prospect of a person with beliefs like Palin’s picking Supreme Court justices. She says now that it would be left up to the states, which is bad enough, but just how long do we think it would be before she managed to get abortion outlawed altogether?

    FWIW, I personally think abortion is an awful thing to have to do, but the right of a woman to make decisions about her body, in private with her doctor, should not be subject to government interference.

    Like you, Allie, I’m not a one-issue voter, either, but a person’s stance on abortion rights is, for me, a bellwether of how they would govern. She scares me to death. I’d prefer eight more years of Bush to a Palin presidency.

    ReplyReply

  • You haven’t offended me, Allie. :-) I always welcome a good debate. I don’t think you’ve offended anyone here, but of course I can’t speak for anyone other than myself.

    And Karen DID ask, didn’t she? :-)

    ReplyReply


  • anu
    September 15
    4:05 am

    No worries Allie. I think we got our wires crossed is all.

    Azteclady, I hope the numbers from the blogpost are accurate. Huffington Post picked up the post and I’ve seen it pop up on other sites. Hopefully the story will got national. It’s only in this last week, as the McCain/Palin have parroted their lies in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, that the media has begun really scrutinizing Palin as an administrator of state. Hopefully, these stories will continue to increasing substance. My worry though is that people are so distracted by Palin’s appeal that they won’t see the empress has no clothes on (oh, but is that sexist?).

    ReplyReply


  • joanne
    September 15
    4:14 am

    Last time I checked, Gloria Steinem was not running for any political office, so why do her views hold any importance to this election?

    Do you also agree with Palin’s views on abstinence only sex education? I’m not talking about including abstinence education in a larger curriculum, it’s the ONLY part I’d like to know if you agree with. How about creationism? Do you believe that it should be taught in public schools? What about cronyism & using public office to settle personal scores? You seem to be basing your confidence in Palin on the fact that she isn’t Obama. Would any Republican do, then? Would you vote for John McCain regardless of who his running mate was just because you don’t approve of Barack Obama?

    I’m not a “one-issue” voter, either. There are plenty of issues that I question about Palin. Perhaps my biggest question about her is why no one can ask her questions. The other 3 candidates have been open to the press, at least until recently when McCain started hiding, too. And please don’t start with the “media elite” mumbo-jumbo. Although they swear up and down that they’re not, FoxNews is part of the media. Until she can come to my house and answer my questions, the only option I, or any of us has, is to listen to the answers she gives reporters. Since she flatly refuses to speak to the press, I have to assume that she is either hiding something or completely unprepared. What is she so afraid of? I’m sorry, but if a candidate is too cowardly to speak openly to the American people, they’re too cowardly for the White House IMO.

    ReplyReply

  • And please don’t start with the “media elite” mumbo-jumbo.

    Actually, most televised media have been treating her with kid gloves. Some CNN commentators excused Palin’s ignorance on foreign policy and the like by saying the average American does not grasp things like the Big Stick Bush Doctrine. In rebuttal, I have to say the average American is not running to be the second most important person on this planet.

    Also, I find it amusing that during Palin’s acceptance speech, she said she was going to shatter the highest and hardest glass ceiling by becoming VPOTUS. Nice. Hilary and, I would assume, most women would believe the highest and hardest glass ceiling would be POTUS.

    ReplyReply


  • allie
    September 15
    5:14 am

    JOANNE SAID: Last time I checked, Gloria Steinem was not running for any political office, so why do her views hold any importance to this election? GINNY SAID: Her views hold no importance to this election; however, I would have liked to hear her say that regardless of political viewpoints, sexism towards women will not be tolerated. It is my belief that if you don’t hold with the liberal feminist ideals, then your on your on in regards to sexism, and IMO, that’s just not right.

    JOANNE SAID: Do you also agree with Palin’s views on abstinence only sex education? I’m not talking about including abstinence education in a larger curriculum, it’s the ONLY part I’d like to know if you agree with. GINNY SAID: From what I have read that is her personal opinion and that in 2006 she supported contraception also. I would have to say that I believe that teens should abstain but you can’t impose your beliefts on others. From what I have read and heard she has not imposed her beliefs on others.

    JOANNE, How about creationism? Do you believe that it should be taught in public schools? GINNY SAID: I am an agnostic and yes I believe it’s OK to teach it in school as long as it’s taught as how some people believe along with evoluton. I heard her say this is what she believes also. When did it become bad to believe in God? Religion is a part of our history and I believe there is a place to teach it in school as long as it’s taught that way and not preached.

    JOANNE SAID: What about cronyism & using public office to settle personal scores? GINNY SAID: She made many enemies when she went against her own party so I am sure there are people who want to get their revenge. All politicans put in their own people when they get into office. Nothing unusual there. As far as the brother in law, we need to wait for the review board to make their decision. Based upon what I know, I would not want a state trooper who threatened to kill people working as a trooper either.

    JOANNE SAID: You seem to be basing your confidence in Palin on the fact that she isn’t Obama. Would any Republican do, then? Would you vote for John McCain regardless of who his running mate was just because you don’t approve of Barack Obama? GINNY SAID: No, I think Gov. Palin make a lot of changes when she became govenor that were good. I won’t list them all because I’m sure you will see it entirely differently and we are not going to change our views in that regard, but I do believe in her. No, any Republican would not do. I have only voted Republican once before in my life. Yes, I was going to vote for McCain before he picked his running mate and I preferred Romney.

    JOANNE SAID: I’m not a “one-issue” voter, either. There are plenty of issues that I question about Palin. Perhaps my biggest question about her is why no one can ask her questions. The other 3 candidates have been open to the press, at least until recently when McCain started hiding, too. And please don’t start with the “media elite” mumbo-jumbo. Although they swear up and down that they’re not, FoxNews is part of the media. Until she can come to my house and answer my questions, the only option I, or any of us has, is to listen to the answers she gives reporters. Since she flatly refuses to speak to the press, I have to assume that she is either hiding something or completely unprepared. What is she so afraid of? I’m sorry, but if a candidate is too cowardly to speak openly to the American people, they’re too cowardly for the White House IMO. GINNY SAID: I read that she’s going to town hall meetings with McCain next week. I have no doubt she will hold her own with any questions asked of her. McCain wants to have town hall meetings with Obama but he refused again and again. What is he afraid of? Perhaps that he’ll have another Saddleback showing? When she met with Gibson there were no questions off the table. That lady on the View, insinuated that Michelle Obama had a list of off topic questions. That could be considered cowardly. I don’t see how anyone who stood up to her own party as a whistleblower could be called a coward. She was vilifed by the far left liberal bloggers for a week, and yes, by the MSM so if she wants to take a week off, then that’s OK to me. Biden did not speak to the press right away either.

    ReplyReply

  • Actually, most televised media have been treating her with kid gloves. Some CNN commentators excused Palin’s ignorance on foreign policy and the like by saying the average American does not grasp things like the Big Stick Bush Doctrine. In rebuttal, I have to say the average American is not running to be the second most important person on this planet.

    I admit it. I wasn’t familiar with the Bush Doctrine until recently. However, HAD I been asked to run with a candidate and HAD I (stupidly) accepted, my statement to Charlie regarding the B-DOC would certainly show pride and integrity and not stuttering bewilderment. I would’ve stared thoughtfully at the man and said something to the effect of:

    For me, only two documents in this country are vastly important to me and all Americans, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights, both of which I intend to uphold. Any other document, doctrine or policy, would be subject to scrutiny, revision, acceptance, and, yes, possibly dismissal. On the other hand, we’re not here to discuss prior views or policies, Charlie, we’re here to…blah, blah, blah, keeping the focus on me and my accomplishments or outlook.

    Candidates should be on their toes, well versed and prepared to answer the unexpected. I guess we’ve let those simple qualities fall by the wayside the last 8 years.

    ReplyReply

  • Umm, who is Ginny?

    ReplyReply


  • allie
    September 15
    5:24 am

    Ann Bruce, I could not disagree with you more about the MSN’s handling of Gov. Palin. For example, one newpaper had a heading that said Palin wants to go to war with Russia when her viewpoint was very similar to Obama’s regarding the NATO question.

    I understand that we are all coming at this from a different direction and will never agree on this.

    ReplyReply


  • allie
    September 15
    5:26 am

    Lynn, that’s my real name. I always use my mother’s name as a screen name. I don’t usually respond to so many posts and being tired forgot to use my screen name.

    ReplyReply

  • Allie, please note that I said “televised media.”

    ReplyReply

  • And I also had the word “most” in front of “televised media.”

    ReplyReply

  • Delta, your evasion skills have me in awe. ;) Please don’t turn Republican.

    ReplyReply


  • allie
    September 15
    5:52 am

    Well,debating a whole passel of liberals has tired me out. I do appreciate the courtesy you have shown me in allowing me to express my viewpoints. You can take comfort with the fact that the electoral votes for Illinois has gone to the Democratic party since 1942 so my vote for McCain/Palin is moot.

    ReplyReply


  • Sara Dennis
    September 15
    6:02 am

    I’m with a lot of others when I say that Palin terrifies me. Seriously terrifies me. I don’t deny that she’s charismatic. I don’t deny that she appeals to some who are disenfranchised with government as it stands. However, I can’t get past her stances on things like the environment, abortion, education, etc.

    And, while I think it would be nice if her family got left out of the political arena, if anyone, including Palin herself, thought that was going to happen from the moment she agreed to accept the nomination, they are enormous fools. So I also agree with those who say that she’s exploiting her family to win sympathy. She did not have to trot her daughter and daughter’s fiance out in front of the cameras. She did not have to have her son passed around so her husband and Mrs. McCain could have pictures taken holding “poor” little Trig.

    As regards Palin’s point that Bristol “chose” to keep the baby/marry Levi, here’s my thought: This is a woman who opposes abortion for *ANY* reason, including incest and rape. No, I have not spoken to Bristol directly, obviously, but I find it *beyond* difficult to believe that Bristol had a choice at all. Unless she intended to torpedo her mother’s career by publicly acting in ways counter to her mother’s loudly and proudly stated points of view, there was only one “choice” to make.

    ReplyReply

  • Delta, your evasion skills have me in awe. Please don’t turn Republican.

    Not a chance in hell of that happening. Thanks for the compliment. :)

    The GOB and I have totally different ideas as to our country’s direction and what’s best for Americans, but I’m not entirely favorable of the Dems in every aspect. These are difficult times for us all. I just hope people keep their eyes and ears open, weigh the pros and cons, make a conscientious decision when casting their votes for the people leading the U.S. and not just vote by party lines. The latter is a problem in itself. Always has been. Likely, always will be.

    ReplyReply

  • I’m with you, Sara. I feel like Trig, in particular, is being used as a prop, and it really breaks my heart. I’m not saying that I believe he should be hidden away. My little brother had more serious and visible birth defects than Trig’s, and we were never, ever ashamed of him. He went everywhere we went. But I think my parents would’ve drawn the line at having him at a loud, crowded convention hall for hours on end. The noise would’ve upset him way too much.

    ReplyReply

  • Delta – Totally understandable. Personally, I’m a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. And I’m Roman Catholic to boot, which is hard to say because I’m pro-choice and support gay rights. During the Canadian elections, voting is not always clear-cut for me.

    These are difficult times for us all. I just hope people keep their eyes and ears open, weigh the pros and cons, make a conscientious decision when casting their votes for the people leading the U.S. and not just vote by party lines.

    The rest of the free world hopes so, too.

    ReplyReply


  • joanne
    September 15
    12:48 pm

    I read that she’s going to town hall meetings with McCain next week. I have no doubt she will hold her own with any questions asked of her.

    No doubt with a hand-picked, Republican audience. About as non-partisan as her interview with GOP shill Hannity.

    That lady on the View, insinuated that Michelle Obama had a list of off topic questions. That could be considered cowardly.

    Michelle Obama is not running for high office either. Her husband is. When have you read anything about him refusing to answer questions on any subject? When are we going to hear from or about Todd Palin, since you brought up Michelle Obama? Why isn’t he talking to the press, either? He’s not ready, just like his wife? First Gloria Steinem & now Michelle Obama? Maybe we should stick to the candidates.

    I don’t see how anyone who stood up to her own party as a whistleblower could be called a coward. She was vilifed by the far left liberal bloggers for a week, and yes, by the MSM so if she wants to take a week off, then that’s OK to me. Biden did not speak to the press right away either.

    And you think conservative bloggers have been soft on the Democrats? Are you serious? How many times do we have to read about “secret Muslim” Obama and his “terrorist ties?” The blogosphere is not established mainstream media. FoxNews, however, (since it’s part of the largest media conglomeration in the world) is. So, I suggest you discount anything you hear that came out of DailyKos. That is, of course, unless you think we should all pay attention to WorldNetDaily. Conservatives have just as many hard right-wing blogs spewing hateful drivel. Using them as examples of media attacks on Palin is truly lame. She’s been treated with kid gloves from the get-go. The election is coming very soon. How long do you think we should wait until she’s nice & comfy? Until after the election? And nobody has any trouble getting Joe Biden to talk. Getting him to shut up is the hard part.

    ReplyReply

  • The Rape Kit story, with links to primary sources.

    Sorry, no budget crisis here. The town is pulling in millions of dollars in federal earmarks–something Palin has claimed to be against, yet hired a lobbyist to acquire–and they decide to make rape victims pay for their own evidence workups. The state had to make a law prohibiting this!

    I will never vote Republican until they get out of bed with people who think people like my daughter and me need to die, whether for being queer or being pagan doesn’t matter.

    ReplyReply


  • allie
    September 15
    1:43 pm

    Joanne, when I pointed out Michelle Obama I was attempting to show how people look at issues from a different standpoint. When we like someone we don’t look to hard at the issue but if we don’t like them that we blow it out of porportion.

    If you can’t stand Gov. Palin your going to see everything she does as bad. IMO she was demonized by the left bloggers and the MSM. Bottom line, we are never going to agree on this.

    ReplyReply


  • Nora Roberts
    September 15
    1:47 pm

    I have to say it’s disingenuous to say it doesn’t matter all that much about a VP candidate’s world views, or ideologies or platforms. It HAS to matter as they are a breath away from the presidency. It must matter.

    If the McCain/Palin platform, their policies, their beliefs reflect yours or what you want for the country, then they should get your vote. I would disagree with you, but I wouldn’t argue with your right to vote for the candidates who best suit you.

    If it doesn’t reflect yours or what you want, they shouldn’t get your vote.

    ReplyReply

  • I think it’s entirely fair to take a look at ALL the candidates’ views on the issues. If Ms. Palin wants to be the leader of the free world, she needs to put on her big girl panties and talk to the media, not just those guaranteed to give her a pass. Being assured of “deference” beforehand — which is something her own campaign said to the media, repeatedly — is more in line with someone trying out for queen than a person who is going to be paid a salary by we, the people.

    It’s not demonizing someone to simply seek FACTS about them and make those facts public. I’m strongly against “bearing false witness” about anyone. In this case, the facts are frightening enough without anybody needing to make stuff up.

    ReplyReply

  • I despise everything she stands for. Quite frankly, it’s depressing to think an election could be swayed simply because the vice presidential candidate is female — and a hypocritical one, at that.

    What’s truly frightening is the possibility she could become president, given McCain’s age. OMG . . .

    ReplyReply


  • Nora Roberts
    September 15
    2:02 pm

    In many ways, all the candidates have been demonized by extremists on each side. I don’t see that as a valid example or argument. I’ve read astounding and vicious untruths about all of them.

    It isn’t demonizing Palin to state facts, or repeat her own words, her own record–nor to question McCain’s judgment in making this choice.

    ReplyReply

  • I think she’s scary beyond belief. After eight years of a president who doesn’t believe in global warming we have a very narrow window of time to try to repair some of the damage. Another administration of the Bush mentality and the planet is doomed. Don’t get me started on her views of abortion and abstinence only education. All the studies have shown that not only is abstinence only ineffective, it actually encourages teens to NOT use birth control when they do have sex. That’s just damned irresponsible to my mind. She wants to teach Creationism in schools. That’s just fine and dandy, except that it’s NOT SCIENCE.

    Frankly, it’s like they put lipstick and a hair piece on Pat Buchanan. The woman is literally terrifying to me and everything I believe in.

    ReplyReply

  • allie, you made a comment earlier about this group being clearly liberal. You’re wrong. I’m a conservative. I’m a registered Indepedent and have been since age 18. I’ve voted Democrat and Republican and even a few times for people that were not party affiliated.

    I’m not crazy about Obama, but I think he has potential to be a great president, I really do. I think McCain could do great things…but not with Palin behind him, particularly at his age. I have always admired Joe Biden and if you notice, not a lot of people are attacking him because there isn’t much to attack. I think Obama needs to bring Mr. Biden out a bit more.

    But don’t assume that all conservatives love McCain/Palin because some of us don’t. And don’t assume that just because you are an Independent voter that you have more insight than someone who is party-affiliated. WE don’t. We’re just voters, like everyone else.

    ReplyReply

  • Amen, Julie Leto. I’m a Green, and I’ve voted for Democrats, Republicans, and everything in between. If Obama had no chance here in Georgia (personally, I think he’s gonna win it), I’d be voting for the Libertarian. Bob Barr’s political philosophies have come a long, long way since he was in Congress.

    Roslyn, I’d prefer even Pat Buchanan to Sarah Palin. He at least is honest.

    ReplyReply

  • Well, you’ve got a point there Lynne. Say what you will about Pat he is a straight shooter. That, more than anything probably made him unelectable. (Praise Goddess!)

    I am a liberal, but more than once I’ve voted for Republicans. I really liked the governor of my former state even though he was a Republican. Fortunately, he really WAS a fiscal conservative and I voted for him on those grounds. These new Republicans aren’t conservative at all, after all, the first thing a conservative does is CONSERVE. These people spend money like there’s no tomorrow. I guess they’re so busy waiting to be raptured that maybe they don’t believe in a tomorrow, I have no idea, but I do know I don’t want to leave a bankrupt country for the next generation.

    I actually liked the McCain who ran back in 2000. I loathe the one now who has gotten in bed with the religious right just like every other Republican running for national office. I don’t want another president who is beholden to those hate-filled nutjobs, and especially I don’t want that president in control of the SCOTUS. I don’t want a president who blithely comments that he wouldn’t mind being in Iraq for a hundred years and sings songs like ‘Bomb Iran.’ That’s not a joke, especially when you’re a freaking senator.

    ReplyReply

  • Some of you might find this blog interesting:

    (Hope I inserted the link correctly.)

    ReplyReply


  • I woke to a startling re-revelation this morning. ;)

    I still feel very strongly about my previous comments on voting. However, whether we are liberals, conservatives or independents, the popular vote does not govern the final presidential results, be the win by landslide or narrow margin. As we’ve seen every election year, the electoral college determines–chooses–which candidate will become prez. And, at the moment, I couldn’t say who all those people are, where they’re from, or how/why they were *put* into those positions.

    Shame on me for not always listening in school.

    ReplyReply


  • allie
    September 15
    6:59 pm

    JULIE SAID:Posted: , you made a comment earlier about this group being clearly liberal. You’re wrong. I’m a conservative. I’m a registered Indepedent and have been since age 18. I’ve voted Democrat and Republican and even a few times for people that were not party affiliated. ALLIE SAID: The majority of the people that I have been corresponding with appeared to be liberals, or so it seems. I don’t mean any disrespect to anyone as I don’t dislike liberals. We all have the right to express our views and that is why we have elections. Everyone should be heard.

    JULIE: I’m not crazy about Obama, but I think he has potential to be a great president, I really do. I think McCain could do great things…but not with Palin behind him, particularly at his age. I have always admired Joe Biden and if you notice, not a lot of people are attacking him because there isn’t much to attack. I think Obama needs to bring Mr. Biden out a bit more. ALLIE: Actually there is a lot to say about Senator Biden, like his plegarism and many many gaffs, however, right now the hot topic is Gov. Palin. The media will eventually tire of Palin as they did with Obama. He was the media darling for the last couple of years – just ask Hillary.

    JULIE: But don’t assume that all conservatives love McCain/Palin because some of us don’t. And don’t assume that just because you are an Independent voter that you have more insight than someone who is party-affiliated. WE don’t. We’re just voters, like everyone else. ALLIE: I do not assume that all conservatives are for McCain/Palin as I know that is not the case and I absolutely was not speaking for all independent voters. I was just trying to explain why I, an independent voter, was rooting for them. Trust me, I know that it’s the independents that will determine this election and they have not yet made up their minds. I never meant to come across in that way.

    ReplyReply


  • joanne
    September 15
    7:09 pm

    allie, you made a comment earlier about this group being clearly liberal. You’re wrong. I’m a conservative. I’m a registered Indepedent and have been since age 18. I’ve voted Democrat and Republican and even a few times for people that were not party affiliated.

    I’m not crazy about Obama, but I think he has potential to be a great president, I really do. I think McCain could do great things…but not with Palin behind him, particularly at his age. I have always admired Joe Biden and if you notice, not a lot of people are attacking him because there isn’t much to attack. I think Obama needs to bring Mr. Biden out a bit more.

    But don’t assume that all conservatives love McCain/Palin because some of us don’t. And don’t assume that just because you are an Independent voter that you have more insight than someone who is party-affiliated. WE don’t. We’re just voters, like everyone else.

    I couldn’t have said it better myself. I, too, am an Independent and have voted for both Republicans and Democrats many times over the past 30 years. I actually have always thought that Obama was a weak candidate. I was a Hillary girl. I don’t think Obama is as good a candidate as Clinton would’ve been, but my candidate lost and I have to look at who’s left standing. Had McCain run the campaign he ran in 2000 in 2008, he’s have probably gotten my vote. But, unfortunately, McCain sold his integrity to the hard-right wing of his party and lost my respect. His adding Palin only cements that impression for me. Unfortunately, I think that the Obama campaign has been anemic of late, and a lot of their problems at the polls are their own doing. Unfortunately, we’ll all have to pay the consequences.

    GINNY SAID: I am an agnostic and yes I believe it’s OK to teach it in school as long as it’s taught as how some people believe along with evoluton.

    Wow! Just…………….wow! Then I suppose it should be fine to teach Tantrism in sex education class. At least Tantrism has something to do with sex. Creationism has absolutely nothing to do with science. Zero. Zip. Nada.

    Anyone who wants their child taught creationism in science class should send their child to a private religious school. My daughter goes to a Catholic college. We know that theology is a required course and are fine with it. She went to public schools until grade 12. Religion was not, thank God, taught there.

    ReplyReply


  • Anon76
    September 15
    7:14 pm

    Palin scares the living crap out of me.

    And I had a huge personal revelation the other day: I didn’t want Hillary as Prez because of her politics. However, I never thought on her as a “woman” candidate. The fact she had ovaries made not one iota of difference to me.

    But Palin? I personally look on her with a whole different light. I’m trying to figure out why, but I believe it may be because she has such an “anti-woman” agenda. Like she is from this time warp or something.

    She espouses being the epitome of American womanhood, strong, career minded, family minded…yet, to me again, she seems like she is talking out both sides of her mouth. Do as I say, not as I do. Which is normal in politics, of course, but everything she has said that actually moved me, well, they turned out to be falsehoods, or sugar-coated way more than Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes.

    And while the current administration has really stepped over the bounds when it comes to mixing religion with politics, I think Palin would take that way farther if given the chance. As an American, I can’t tolerate that.

    ReplyReply


  • PalinsScary
    September 15
    7:34 pm

    Palin scares me. From all the stuff I’ve read about her she seems to have a curious grip on ethics and a very tenuous grip on the truth.

    Take her claim that Alaska produces 20% of the U.S. domestic supply of energy
    http://tiny.cc/iaWKo

    Is she really the best candidate the the republicans could come up with? Someone who got her degree by going to six schools in five years? Someone who took over as two Mayor and took the town from zero debt to $22m? Someone who thinks its ok to charge rape victims for the testing kits? Someone who has never actually been outside of the US if you don’t count Canada and her government sponsored trips to visit troops. Someone who’s been claiming expenses for their kids and sleeping in their own home? Someone who has used their office to pursue vendettas (allegedly)? Is she really the best candidate?

    ReplyReply


  • Anonomoose
    September 15
    7:57 pm

    Allie or Ginny or whatever it’s calling itself is a ‘concern troll’, peeps. Don’t waste your energy responding to it. The way it introduced itself was all too revealing. A textbook CT if I ever saw one.

    ReplyReply


  • Dee
    September 15
    8:21 pm

    The very thought that this woman could possibly become president makes my blood run cold. I was completely on the fence about this election, wasn’t even gonna vote (first time ever), until her announcement.

    From everything I’ve read so far about what she has done in Alaska, she completely abuses her power. She has obviously considered book banning since she put questions of that type to that librarian.

    And her pro-life stance is very extreme, to include education. It makes me wonder if she is also one of the pro-lifers that is against birth control and voluntary sterilization.

    This woman makes Bush look like a powder-puff. As women, we should all be concerned about her.

    ReplyReply


  • allie
    September 15
    8:25 pm

    Anonomoose, Allie or Ginny or whatever it’s calling itself is a ‘concern troll’, peeps. Don’t waste your energy responding to it. The way it introduced itself was all too revealing. A textbook CT if I ever saw one.

    I’m sorry I have no idea how to respond to this and have no idea what a “textbook CT” is. What is a concern troll? Is your real name Anonomoose? I visit the site every day but never posted before. I did not realize that only regular posters were suppose to respond. I only wanted to offer my opinion as it differs considerably from others. I like to discuss politics in a civil manner and won’t continue to engage in this conversation if it goes down another path. I’ll continue to visit the site for book discussions, but I think it’s time I leave this conversation. I do want to thank the people that did listen to my views with courtesy.

    ReplyReply


  • L
    September 15
    8:47 pm

    I like Palin. I was lukewarm about McCain, and when I first heard Palin was chosen I thought, “Who is she? What is McCain doing?” When I saw her speech, I understood why he chose her. I was impressed with her speech, I like her. I think it was a risky and bold move on McCain’s part to choose her. I am more energized about McCain now than before.

    I was going to vote for him anyways as I’d choose any candidate over Obama, but before I was voting against Obama. Now I can say that isn’t the case anymore. While I don’t agree with a lot of what the Democratic party stands for, I honestly think Hilary would have been a better choice for the Dem party to choose for their candidate than Obama. I think she’s better qualified and knows where she stands on issues, unlike Obama.

    ReplyReply


  • Robin
    September 15
    9:04 pm

    What scares me most is that people see her as an “average woman.” There is nothing average about her approach to power and government, unless elevating your friends and decimating your enemies is the rule of the day. Or if consistently distorting your own record while you’re campaigning on a truth-telling ticket is average. Or if willfully misrepresenting your political opponents is what we all want living next door. Frankly, I’ve seen nothing, either, suggesting she’s a “nice person,” although since that’s not on my voting criteria list, I will let that one go as an unknown at this point. But I’ll definitely protest the model of true womanhood characterization.

    One (not so brief) comment about the abortion issue. McCain has said explicitly he wants Roe overturned. What a lot of people don’t consider in their presidential voting choice is that the president is responsible for appointing federal justices (with a lifetime tenure) and nominating Supreme Court justices (and the two most recently confirmed high court justices have had a very profound effect on the Court).

    Further, the right to abortion as some like to think of it (and McCain casts the issue in those terms specifically) is actually a broader right — the right to reproductive privacy, and even more broadly the right to privacy — and is part of a series of cases beginning most notably with Griswold v. Connecticut in which the right to contraception was validated by the court.

    That decision was made in 1965, and it was extended to unmarried people in, ready for this, 1972. Yes, 1972. The right for unmarried people to have access to birth control is less than forty years old. So for those of you who are pro-choice and are convinced that abortion will never be completely illegal in the US, I implore you to read the case law in this area, to read some of the legal commentary around the significance of these rights, not only for women, but as they impact other areas of privacy (right to die, right to same sex sex, etc.), as well.

    McCain likes to talk about this issue as one of states rights v. federal law, and I know that sounds oh, so appealing to many people, social liberals included. But that’s a very narrow view and one that obscures some extremely important issues related to autonomy and the right to privacy, a right that has been read into the Constitution rather than being expressed explicitly in the Bill of Rights. Because of that, it is a right that has been articulated through cases like Griswold and Roe and Casey and others, and many are very, very concerned about what will happen to that right if McCain is elected.

    ReplyReply


  • Robin
    September 15
    9:05 pm

    Argh, I always forget that when I use a lot of links that my comment ends up in moderation.

    ReplyReply


  • katieM
    September 15
    9:43 pm

    Palin is “Handmaid’s Tale” scary! That was without a doubt the most terrifying book I ever read. I am so afraid that she and McCain will take the office whether they win the electoral college or not. I find nothing about her appealing. She comes across as smug and self-righteous. Nearly every word that comes out of her mouth is suspect, if not a blatant lie.

    There are many men and women in the Republican Party who would have been a better choice. I watched Meet the Press yesterday morning and saw a piece with Kay Bailey Hutchinson. I’d never seen her before and she impressed me as a far better choice than Palin. Experienced, knowledgeable, well spoken and with obvious leadership qualities. But wait…. she’s not a cute spring chicken. She’s got some years on her. Palin’s obviously unqualified for the job. Each time she opens her mouth with out a script or prompts she makes a fool of herself. Honestly what person in their right mind would say since Russia could be seen from an island in the Bering Straights, she is an expert on foreign policy?

    ReplyReply

  • Don’t y’all think it’s time to say what we really mean? :-D

    ReplyReply

  • Yeah, K.Z. especially since if they win there’s a good chance that we won’t be able to voice our opinions at all any more, unless we are uncritical, that is. Silencing her detractors seems to be her specialty.

    I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees the obvious ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ parallels. I’ve been saying this for years. The first 2 years I lived here everything was fine and then the terror started… funny how that coincided with the 2000 election.

    ReplyReply


  • Karen Scott On Hols
    September 15
    11:46 pm

    Wow, I totally forgot that this post was scheduled. I also didn’t realise so many of you guys were liberals. *g*

    Whilst she probably puts the fear of god into most democrats, I honestly believe she’s the most exciting thing that’s happened to the republicans for a while. Let’s face it, it’s been proven time and time again, that voters like an injection of fresh blood.

    Since we’ve been in the US, she’s been the main topic of conversation, everywhere.

    I have since learned a little more about where she stands on issues such as the abortion question, guns etc. I must admit, the fact that she hunts would have put me off her, had I been a voter.

    I watched her interview with Charlie Gibson, and although Democrats will hate her, I think republicans who were wavering will love her, and the excitement she brings to their party.

    By the way, how dirty are the ad wars between the two parties? Lies, lies, and damned lies, seem to be the order of this campaign.

    ReplyReply


  • Sara Dennis
    September 16
    12:21 am

    I’m not sure why her interviews are winning people over, honestly. That’s not me being snarky (okay, it is a little because she repulses me so badly) but she’s not saying anything. She’s not answering questions. She’s vomiting the same thing that every other Republican says, and with less style. If she’s not doing that, she’s evading answers all together.

    The times when she *does* step away from her coaching, she sounds and looks like she’s been caught off guard and is completely unprepared. Don’t get me get started on the many Palin stupidities about Russia.

    So I really don’t get WHY she’s winning people over.

    ReplyReply


  • katieM
    September 16
    12:29 am

    So I really don’t get WHY she’s winning people over.

    Because she’s a pretty, young woman, and a lot of people overlook a lot of faults because of it.

    ReplyReply


  • joanne
    September 16
    12:35 am

    By the way, how dirty are the ad wars between the two parties? Lies, lies, and damned lies, seem to be the order of this campaign.

    You can check out the claims on the “Truth-O-Meter.”
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/all/

    ReplyReply

  • Funny, didn’t we just talk about whether we would rather have brains or beauty in another post?

    Palin is an obvious example of how beauty blinds the masses to lack of brains!

    ReplyReply


  • joanne
    September 16
    12:38 am

    So I really don’t get WHY she’s winning people over.

    Because she’s a pretty, young woman.

    Yes, youth and beauty are just what we’re looking for as credentials for POTUS.

    ReplyReply


  • Lori
    September 16
    12:42 am

    I don’t agree with all of Palin’s politics, but she strikes me as having a lot closer overall values to the average American than anyone else on this political stage.

    I think that as this blog has garnered as a slice of the “average” American, we can come to the conclusion that this likely is not the case. Many have said (admitted? LOL) they are conservative, and others are even out there endorsing Pat Buchanan over Palin. Frankly, Palin scares the shit out of me. As a Jew, as a woman, as an American.

    I find it amazing (and this isn’t just limited to Palin, although she is so vocal about it) that so many can actively campaign for one amendment (2nd) while so actively being a proponent against another (1st – book censorship, abstinence only, creationism only) and so against women’s rights. The bill of rights seems to be a ‘pick and choose’ entity with the conservative right-wing now.

    I think what is so interesting is that those who are against abortion claim that pro-choice folks are anti-life. I don’t think there’s a soul out there who believes in abortion as a form of birth control. I know I don’t. What I do believe in, is a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy that is not her best option, so that unwanted children (and I don’t see too many right-wingers adopting all those crack babies, I might add) are not left in the massively underfunded, underserved foster care system. Or that children who have no opportunity at life are not forced to be born and suffer until their death.

    Additionally, she says that having this child was her daughter’s decision. But I wonder what ‘choices’ she was presented with? Have the baby and keep it? Or have the baby and give it up. I guarantee that she was not presented with abortion as an option, right or wrong.

    I should also say that although I am a registered democrat, I vote with the issues. I have been known to vote for a republican candidate if they align more closely with me on the issues than the democratic candidate. So this, for me, is not simply a matter of keeping the party faith. It’s a matter of saving the future of our country and our children. Yes, I believe it’s as important as that.

    I think Shannon Stacey said it perfectly on her blog the other day… Voting for someone simply because she is a woman is just as bad as not voting for someone simply because she is a woman.

    ReplyReply

  • Count me as another Independent (though I was a Republican until about 8 years ago.) Also agnostic. Also fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

    I am so terrified of a Palin presidency that I’ve been doing something I never do: bringing politics into my friendships. Just ask Julie.

    The life expectancy of the American male is about 75 years so the chance that we would be saying President Palin within the next 4 years is pretty darn good.

    This woman stands for everything I stand against. Every single thing. And I’m offended at the perception that because she has a pair of ovaries, we little women should just fall into line and pull that big R lever.

    I do not want someone “just like me” running this country. I want someone a whole lot smarter, someone who can bring the U.S. back from the brink of economic disaster. Our economy is in the toilet and all I can think is that someone who so readily tosses around the idea that we could invade Russia obviously has no clue that we couldn’t freaking afford to right now.(Aside from the whole political morass!)

    Our economy is being surpassed so quickly that I don’t think it will be long before the American dollar is no longer the financial standard of the world. Financially, I am a whole lot worse off than I was 8 years ago, with a dollar that’s worth less and buys less of products that cost much more. Cutting taxes on the top 5% of earners in this country isn’t going to do a darn thing for me. (Unless they all use that money to buy more books… )

    But equally as important–I want a president who recognizes that we no longer live in 1915 when “grand isolationism” was the ideal American way of living. We are part of a global community now, the old ways are OVER. We cannot survive alone in the new world order. We need allies who will have our back when the potential show-down with Iran arrives. Being mavericks who go it alone might have been possible after 9/11, but now, with our financial situation and our decimated military, it just is *not.*

    The president of the United States should have a broad world view, should want to enrich partnerships and renew alliances. Should rebuild the image of America as “the good guys” which has been simply shattered in the past several years (which breaks my heart.) There’s a reason Obama is the preferred candidate for the rest of the world and it’s not because he’s an elitist snob, it’s because he “gets” how important our nation’s standing in the world is…and how far it has fallen.

    I want a president who understands that.

    At the very least, I want a president who had a damn passport before 2007.

    I have not one thing to say about Sarah Palin’s family, I don’t give a darn about whether she spends enough time with her kids, or that her teenage daughter got pregnant. Been there, done that, I’m no hypocrite.

    It is her complete lack of the right education, world view, and legitimate experience to run this country that have me upset. Followed closely by her untenable (to me) views on religion, global warming, creationism, abortion, fiscal responsibility, international relations.

    Allie, I sincerely applaud you for coming on here and saying what you believe. I know it’s hard to face a crowd who believes so differently. But I gotta ask–can you seriously not see that having “some states” lose abortion rights is a huge step backward for women? It is a big deal. Poor women from Louisiana should not have to figure out how they’re going to pay to drive to a “blue” state to have an abortion. The parents of a 14 year old gang raped on her way home from a school in Alabama shoulldn’t have to scrimp and save to sneak her to another state to get her help her if she ends up pregnant.

    Your other point about being okay with the teaching creationism in school stuns me too. That violates the very premise of this country. Back when the Constitution was written, a lot of people in the U.S. were Christian, and the founding fathers (many of them deists who genuinely distrusted the clergy) saw the potential for great harm with mixing religion into government. Public schools in this country are a government establishment. Constitutionally, creationism has absolutely no business in public schools. Furthermore, this is no longer a nation made up of 99% Christians. There are any number of other religions represented. Why should their tax dollars go to pay to fund schools teaching religious concepts that are contrary to the beliefs they are trying to teach in their homes?

    Finally, I find the hypocrisy of choosing her to begin with astounding. Two weeks before the Democratic Convention, Karl Rove got on Meet The Press and talked about how Obama would almost certainly pick a VP candidate who would NOT be in the best interest of the country, he would just be the best political choice to get him a swing state. Example, the Governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine, who he called “far too inexperienced” who had no major accomplishments, who’d only been governor of a relatively small state for 4 years, who was just a former mayor of Richmond, which isn’t really a big city.

    Obama picked Biden, a man who didn’t help him much politically (how many electoral votes does Delaware have?) It wasn’t the political choice, he did it because Biden was a good balance to himself. Filling in gaps in Obama’s experience.

    McCain picked…Palin.

    Who put politics before country here? And how quickly did Rove start singing a completely different tune about what a fantastic choice she is?

    Like I said…utter hypocrisy.

    Again, Allie, I admire you for sticking to your beliefs. I understand those beliefs—as a former lifelong Republican, I really do. So please don’t think this very long winded response is coming from some liberal who just doesn’t “get” Red America. I do. And I still am terrified of a McCain/Palin win.

    ReplyReply

  • The Huffington Post has more on the origins of Wasilla’s policy on forcing rape victims to pay for rape kits. We may never know Palin’s and Comilla’s true rationale for it, but preventing people from obtaining “morning after” pills would explain things pretty well.

    And after all, Palin has said repeatedly, on the record, that she’d force her own daughter to carry a rapist’s child to term if her daughter were raped. I just can’t get over how extreme a position that is. “I choose life,” she says. Wow.

    Those are excellent links, Robin.

    ReplyReply


  • Sara Dennis
    September 16
    12:57 am

    Hopefully deleting one of the double posts.

    ReplyReply


  • Sara Dennis
    September 16
    1:02 am

    Because she’s a pretty, young woman, and a lot of people overlook a lot of faults because of it.

    There I go again, stupidly assuming that people who might vote for Palin have brains and are concerned with issues other than how young or pretty someone is. [/sarcasm] (edited to put the fake!tag back in)

    What I meant was, I don’t understand how people are being swayed to think Palin’s stance on issues matches theirs when she’s not saying what her stance is. It’s great (or not so great) to look at her past record, but I would assume that if people are going to vote for a ticket with her on it, they’d want to know what her plans for the future are, given the likelihood that she’d have to step into the POTUS position.

    I just don’t get it. It scares me almost as much as the woman herself.

    ReplyReply


  • Dee
    September 16
    1:05 am

    I never post over here, but I lurk almost daily reading. I’m not a writer either by the way, so please bear with me if I make some mistakes with English 101 rules.

    I want to expand on what both Lori and Robin said about “a woman’s right to choose” as it pertains to birth control. Robin mentioned Griswold v. Connecticut. Very critical piece of legislation.

    I personally know a lot of women who are anti-abortion BUT, they also believe a women’s access to contraception should remain legal.

    There is a movement within the “pro-life” community–for clarification I will call it “anti-birth control”– that believes (and is pushing for) making The Pill, IUDs, The Implant, etc, illegal. There are even pharmacies now that refuse to carry ANY contraception, including condoms.

    The question as to whether or not Palin is THIS extreme is still being debated but my gut feeling is she is. She belongs to Feminists for Life. I offer a link to a blog where someone else did some research into that organization’s stance on birth control. I agree with the blogger, it is alarming.

    Palin+Feminists for Life = NO birth control?

    ReplyReply


  • Cat Grant
    September 16
    1:22 am

    I was a lifelong Democrat until 2004, when I resigned the party in disgust after Kerry let that stolen election pass without challenging it.

    I’m fervently hoping that the pollsters are as off the mark now as they were during the spring primaries. Obama needs to win by a decisive margin, or the Republicans will steal it again. But they probably will anyway, seeing as all the voting-machine companies are owned by Republicans. That’s one reason why I always vote by absentee ballot.

    Is it too much to ask that we elect someone with the ability to think critically? Someone who’s decisive, yet can keep a cool head in a crisis? McCain’s bad temper has been on record for years. I can see him dropping dead of a stroke in the middle of a major crisis, and then we’ll be saddled with the idiot Alaskan beauty queen, who probably can’t even pick out Iraq or Russia on a map.

    After eight years of Bush, I cannot believe there are still people out there willing to cast their vote for someone because they’re “relatable” or because they’re someone they’d like to have a beer with. I’d love to have a beer with Sarah Palin too, if only so I could bash in her empty skull with the keg.

    ReplyReply

  • Not 4 weeks ago, Bush introduced new regulations that are so broad that they would indeed categorize the pill and other contraceptives as abortion and would make it illegal for hospitals to refuse to hire doctors/nurses/pharmacists who will not dispense any contraceptives among other things.

    There is no doubt in my mind that McCain/Palin would further that misogynistic stance. Think chained to the stove, barefoot and pregnant is liberal hysterics? I don’t think so.

    For what it’s worth, in Germany I *always* voted conservative, which just shows you how ‘conservative’ is not the same the globe over.

    ReplyReply


  • sallahdog
    September 16
    4:02 am

    the thing that makes me the nuttiest about so called pro life candidates, is that they are to a one, FOR the death penalty… Hey if you think all life is precious, at least be consistent…

    I hold very conservative personal beliefs, deeply rooted in my own religious faith… I draw the line at forcing others to live my personal truths though…

    ReplyReply


  • Lori
    September 16
    5:16 am

    Oh, I forgot to mention one other thing… For those of you who have mentioned that the VP is not all that powerful, and doesn’t really make any decisions… Dick Cheney, anyone?

    Just sayin’

    ReplyReply


  • Robin
    September 16
    5:54 am

    For what it’s worth, in Germany I *always* voted conservative, which just shows you how ‘conservative’ is not the same the globe over.

    I still remember when the Republicans were the party of the “republic” — when they advocated small government and personal liberty. I sincerely believe that a lot of people still think of that when they call themselves Republican. But now, I think the folks who are what we would call socially progressive but fiscally conservative are mainstream Democrats, even though they don’t necessarily associate that way formally.

    ReplyReply


  • EC Sheedy
    September 16
    8:40 am

    Wow, this has been one interesting blog! I’ve learned more about Ms. Palin in this last hour of reading than I have since she walked on that stage at the Republican convention just days ago.

    My reaction then was: Who? What? And I felt a big DUH form in my brain. I really thought I was missing something, that this beautiful woman would set me straight, blow me away with her brains, experience, and impressive knowledge of world affairs. I waited for that to happen; open-minded, I was. A woman, said I. Very cool, I opined. And, I thought, very clever of Mr. McCain.

    I’m Canadian, so I have no vote–except up here where our own election is its usual snooze fest–but if I did live due south, after reading the above, I now know who I wouldn’t vote for.

    ReplyReply


  • Falin
    September 16
    9:34 am

    Someone said further up the thread they don’t get why people would vote for her. I think this is part of the reason.
    This is your nation on white privilege

    White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.”

    ReplyReply


  • joanne
    September 16
    12:28 pm

    I really hate it when people blame racism whenever people don’t support Barack Obama. I support him. I’m white. But I didn’t support him in the primaries. That doesn’t make me, or anyone else who didn’t – or won’t – vote for him, a racist. Hillary Clinton’s “18,000,000 cracks” are not 18,000,000 racists. Will some people refuse to vote for him because he’s black? Of course. Plenty of people will vote for him because he is, too.

    ReplyReply


  • Nora Roberts
    September 16
    1:34 pm

    I feel my personal rights and freedoms at risk with a continuation of the faith-based tenor of government. And I fear for the personal rights and freedoms of the next generations if there is not a shift back to the clear separation of church and state.

    I do not want–and have the right (so far) not to want someone else’s religion and sense of ‘morality’ pushed onto me by my government.

    Women’s reproductive rights are under attack, and will continue to be attacked under a McCain/Palin administration.

    Those who honestly believe she will have no influence haven’t been paying attention to Dick Cheney.

    I believe my environment is under attack, and will continue to be attacked and exploited under a McCain/Palin administration.

    I believe the economy, which was sound when Bush took office, is in the toilet, and will only get worse under a McCain/Palin ticket.

    I believe if the current administration had not blocked the broadcast of returning coffins, body bags, wounded from the war, the American people would demand an end to it, much as they did in Viet Nam.

    But now, the divide is so great if you’re against the war, you’re called unpatriotic. If you’re pro-choice, you’re advocating murder of innocents. If you’re concerned about the environment, you’re a tree-hugger. The list goes on.

    The divide itself is, and should be, a serious concern.

    ReplyReply


  • Falin
    September 16
    1:44 pm

    Who’s blaming racism? I personally don’t think it is as simple as racism why people love Palin despite all her numerous faults and lack of experience but are quick to criticize Obama. It is more insideous – subtle than that.

    ReplyReply


  • sallahdog
    September 16
    2:39 pm

    But now, the divide is so great if you’re against the war, you’re called unpatriotic. If you’re pro-choice, you’re advocating murder of innocents. If you’re concerned about the environment, you’re a tree-hugger. The list goes on.

    I agree Nora, and as a Christian, I get tired of being told that I must vote for a Palin (or Bush) because they are good christians… I get really tired of explaining that if Jesus were to walk amongst us today, he would probably be called a bleeding heart liberal… The Republicans do NOT have a lock on the Christian vote, (at least not mine in this particular case). I am personally opposed to abortion (for myself)but its not for me to tell a scared 16 year old(or however old)that she must follow my beliefs.

    This country was founded on the idea of religious freedom, I am very cognizant that for my freedom in this regard, I also need to respect others freedoms also..

    ReplyReply


  • Robin
    September 16
    5:44 pm

    Regarding the notion of religious freedom and America’s founders and founding documents, the reality is that there was no religious consensus among our so-called Founding Fathers, nor was there any agreement on the role religion should play in society and/or government. Time Magazine had a fascinating cover story on this issue, but I can’t find it online; however, I did find this piece, which is pretty good, too, at least as an introduction to the issue. The Treaty of Tripoli, from the late 18th century, explicitly states that “the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,” and it was ratified in 1797.

    ReplyReply


  • Mireya
    September 16
    7:33 pm

    Nora said: >>The divide itself is, and should be, a serious concern.<<

    Amen. I’ve been saying that to my husband since Bush’s first term in office.

    ReplyReply


  • katieM
    September 16
    8:48 pm

    I get really tired of explaining that if Jesus were to walk amongst us today, he would probably be called a bleeding heart liberal

    No, if Jesus walked among us today he’d be called a terrorist. Remember the temple and the money changers? He’d tear up jack and set us straight about the so-called “Christians” running the government. He’d be Public Enemy Number One, wanted more than even Osama bin Laden. Not because he would kill thousands of innocents, but because he would speak the truth and show how today’s modern religions are used to intimidate and destroy, not uplift and spread joy.

    ReplyReply

  • Very interesting site, Robin, and not surprising in relation to a lot of what I’ve read. One of my favorite quotes of Jefferson’s about the Virginia Act of Religious Freedom:

    “Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”

    A man open to the rights of people of every religion, obviously. Or the right to recognize no religion at all.

    Wish more people today were the same.

    ReplyReply


  • Dee
    September 17
    12:18 am

    I found an L.A. Times article that makes me breathe a little easier about the whole issue on birth control. It doesn’t make me like her any better than I already did (which ain’t much). But at least I feel better about that one thing.

    ReplyReply


  • sallahdog
    September 17
    3:01 am

    Robin, for the most part, the first settlers (namely the pilgrims) came here for the freedom to practice their religion. This was long before the founding fathers decided we needed to break away from Britain.. this continent didn’t just spring up a couple hundred years ago.

    I know that there were many other types of settlers, those who came more for economic (or as one of my relatives, came after getting kicked out of Britain because he was a very bad boy)..

    ReplyReply


  • sallahdog
    September 17
    3:08 am

    No, if Jesus walked among us today he’d be called a terrorist. Remember the temple and the money changers?

    yes, he also advocated giving up your wealth to those who had nothing, so he would also be called a communist by some…

    I try really hard to seperate my personal beliefs from what is best for the country at large… In my own family we have Pagans, Christians, Charismatic Christians, a few Buddists. We for the most part, just agree to disagree and don’t discuss religion..or politics…Or social issues…

    It pretty much leaves food, which is why we all struggle with our weight.. lol…

    ReplyReply


  • Robin
    September 17
    5:03 am

    I know that there were many other types of settlers, those who came more for economic (or as one of my relatives, came after getting kicked out of Britain because he was a very bad boy)..

    It’s true that the Pilgrims were separatists, while the Puritans (both were Calvinists) were not. There were also Catholics and Quakers, and others, as well as those whose settlement was economic and/or secular.

    The history of settlement in what eventually became the British and then American colonies is incredibly complex and dynamic, in part because of the interactions with the indigenous nations (the Iroquois Confederacy basically ran the joint until the end of the French and Indian Wars and the reduction of Canada in 1763), but also with the French and the Spanish.

    Colonial America is my primary area of academic specialization, so I could talk about this for hours upon hours, but I won’t, lol. I will say, though, that the political evolution of those who eventually threw their lot in with the revolutionaries (away from theocracy among other things) is significant in part because of the religious diversity in the colonies and the often horrific violence catalyzed by those differences. Whatever the state of the continent, in some ways the nation sprung up as a deliberate, even artificial, political act. And it’s the political entity of the US that is at stake in our electoral process.

    As a separate but related comment, one of my favorite books on the Continental Congress is Charles A. Beard’s An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. It’s a really fascinating exploration of an aspect of the founding that had been largely ignored, and Beard’s study is still eminently readable, IMO, almost a hundred years after its publication. I recommend it to anyone interested in the process by which the Constitution was created and then ratified.

    Also, since we’re been on the women’s rights issues, pregnancy and abortion are also fascinating topics to explore as they played out in Colonial America, similarly challenging many assumptions about attitudes toward reproductive choice (abortion through herbs was not uncommon within the first trimester) and the rationale for prohibiting abortion in the 19th century (rise of male medical profession and marginalization of female midwifery).

    For the most part, I think we have a terrible national understanding of those who settled the Eastern part of what is now the US, and every time someone refers to a sexually repressed person as a “puritan,” I have to put my head down and take a deep breath, lol. At any given time, up to 30% of young women were pregnant before marriage, which hardly reflects a society of folks who hated sex. And if you’ve ever read Anne Bradstreet’s poetry, some of it is pretty erotic, reflecting that common intermingling of religious and sexual rapture. Then there were all those couples who lives far enough from a magistrate that living together was a perfectly acceptable solution. Yeah, the Puritans had a lot of whacky stuff going on (child sexual abuse was a problem because families often sent their teen and pre-teen kids to work with other families), but hatred of sex or even asexuality is largely a retroactive projection.

    ReplyReply


  • sallahdog
    September 17
    1:45 pm

    There is always the public face (the puritans hating sex) and the private face. I think often what is most squashed by the powers that be, is often what is the most sought after in private..

    LOL.. As much as my mother tries to say it wasn’t so, people were having sex out of wedlock in the 50s too…

    ReplyReply

  • Dorothy Mantooth wrote:

    We’ve had an anti-abortion President for eight years and abortion is still around, and you can talk about the Supreme Court choices all you like but I still don’t think abortion will ever be made completely illegal all over the country.

    You’re right, a Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade won’t make abortion illegal everywhere. In California, for example, I believe it’s a right explicitly guaranteed by the state constitution.

    Notwithstanding, if you happen to live in Kansas, you will almost certainly not have the right to a safe, legal abortion. And if you are a woman in need of an abortion, you’ll have to choose between traveling out of state (a huge expense many can’t afford) and having an illegal, possibly septic back-alley abortion. Anyone who thinks this is OKAY because hey, it’s still legal SOMEWHERE, needs a serious reality check.

    ReplyReply

  • Angela Sparrow wrote:

    On a personal level she strikes me as smug and plastic.

    Wow, thank you. I was trying to come up with an explanation for why she gets up my nose so much (because I can usually put aside people’s political views and assess them as PEOPLE, not just based on my agreement/disagreement with their policy stances), and this really nails it.

    I’ll have to admit, it surprises me that so many people find her admirable because she’s “articulate.” She was a newscaster, for heaven’s sake. Of course she’s good at reading words other people write for her.

    ReplyReply

  • She is the anti-Hillary, and not someone I want a heartbeat away from the presidency.

    WROD!

    (and hat’s off to Leslie Kelly)

    I watched Meet the Press yesterday morning and saw a piece with Kay Bailey Hutchinson. I’d never seen her before and she impressed me as a far better choice than Palin.

    Katie….I chatted w/my co-worker about this same thing! She says Kay Bailey is primed to run for Gov of Tx!

    ReplyReply

  • Tuscan Capo wrote:

    Palin is an average gal who loves her family and works hard, and yea, has her idiosyncrasies just like everyone else. At least she’s a person I wouldn’t be embarrassed to have as my next-door neighbor. And I can’t remember the last time we had somebody like that in office at the White House.

    And here I thought the reason W. got elected was largely because more people wanted to “have a beer with him” than Gore or Kerry. People perceived him as a “regular guy.”

    And we see how well THAT worked.

    ReplyReply

  • allie wrote:

    He says he will give 95% of Americans a tax break, but 40% of Americans don’t pay taxes. Bribes, maybe?

    I don’t know where you got the 40% figure for Americans who don’t pay taxes, but I don’t believe it’s remotely accurate. In 2007, a little over 67.5% of federal tax returns showed the filer either paid or owed taxes.

    Moreover, pretty much EVERYONE pays some state/local sales taxes, state and federal gas taxes, etc. Everyone with earned income (legally earned, at any rate) pays FICA tax. So NO American pays NO tax, even in they fail to file a federal tax return (and any federal income tax break would neither benefit nor punish non-filers).

    And those regressive taxes like FICA and gas taxes are why we have the Earned Income Tax Credit. It’s not a bribe, as you so charmingly call it. It’s ensuring that people with families at the bottom end of the wage scale don’t pay more in tax than they can reasonably afford. If the EITC did not exist, those people WOULD be paying tax in excess of their ability. And given the recent inflation hitting the economy, I’d say expanding the EITC is an exceedingly excellent idea. Especially if balanced by raising taxes for the folks at the other end of the scale who can much more easily afford it.

    ReplyReply


  • Anonymous
    September 17
    7:05 pm

    She reminds me of the serpent that tricked Eve into falling. Am I calling her the devil? If the horns and tail fit…

    Not to sound like a religious nut job but she seriously has an anti-christist feel to her. Just looking into her eyes when she talks makes my skin crawl. And did you see the way she kept calling Charles Gibson, “Charlie”? *shudders*

    If I had a choice between her as VP and 4 more years of Bush, I’d take W in a heartbeat.

    ReplyReply

  • She cut rape kits from the city budget, but she spent $50,000 to remodel her office and $24,000+ on the mayor-mobile. Nice sense of priorities there.

    This is a fiscal conservative? I think not.

    ReplyReply


  • Ebony
    September 18
    12:47 am

    Palin is a joke. McCain didn’t know she had all the skeletons she has in her closet. Was it a wise decision on his part–on the surface it looked that way, but once you start pulling back the layers, it doesn’t seem like it. If she’s not guilty of firing someone because they wouldn’t fire her brother, then why are they trying to cover it up. Hmmm. Sounds like some guilt somewhere. The only thing Palin has in common with Hillary is that she’s a woman; other than that, there’s no comparision. Palin says the same speech everywhere she goes–sorry but being a soccer mom doesn’t hit any soft chords with me. She would not make a good VP. As far as Obama picking Hillary as his running mate, I don’t think he should have. Hillary wants to be the #1 person so why should she settle for being #2. There rolls would have clashed and Biden is a better fit for Obama.

    ReplyReply


  • Ebony
    September 18
    12:47 am

    Correction…brother should be “BROTHER-IN-LAW”

    ReplyReply


  • Ebony
    September 18
    4:17 am

    Are you sure her daughter’s fiance has no interest or feeling for the girl and the coming baby?

    Well before his myspace page went private–he actually said he didn’t want any kids.

    Allie, interesting you say that about Obama. I know several people who live in Chicago or other parts of Illinois and their views are opposite of yours. So its just a matter of interpretation.

    ReplyReply


  • Bev(BB)
    September 18
    5:23 pm

    For an interesting look at Palin from 9-10-2008 and this by someone from the left:

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/index.html

    It’s four Internet pages of very enlightening observations hitting most of the points a lot of you seem to be stuck on. Strange thing is that the writer also seems to understand what Palin’s appeal truly is to the those “middle Americans” that everyone tends to dismiss so easily. Notice I didn’t say middle ground voters or Hillary supporters. I said Middle Americans, regardless of party allegiance or non-allegiance.

    Because if any of you think or believe for one moment that what Palin stands for or what you “think” she stands for is solely what her appeal is, then you are sadly mistaken. You honestly do not get it. You are stuck in your own oft repeated rhetoric. Open your eyes for once and actually learn about the other side instead of accepting stereotypes because they’re the easy way.

    You’re romance readers, for god’s sake. You should know better.

    ReplyReply


  • Robin
    September 18
    6:33 pm

    It always amuses me when Paglia launches into her assaults on liberal feminism and tries to represent herself as the great liberator of “real women” everywhere. That she’s now using Palin to forward that agenda is nothing short of fascinating, although not unexpected. But I would pay some serious money to watch her and Palin debate Paglia’s insistence that pornography is inherently feminist.

    ReplyReply


  • Bev(BB)
    September 18
    7:16 pm

    You know, I feel sorry for you, Robin, if that’s the only thing you got out of what I said. Or the article.

    Which only proves my point, I guess. Sigh.

    Whatever.

    ReplyReply


  • Ebony
    September 18
    8:03 pm

    Bev,

    I can’t speak for others, but I’m sure most of us have read various articles about Palin and watched the one interview with Gibson, as well as saw clips from her tenure as mayor or govenor of Alaska before we made our decisions on where she stands compared to where we stand on issues.

    I am middle America and she does not appeal to me in any sense. The only thing we have in common is that we’re both females. For some being a female might be enough, but for those of us who can think for ourselves and are not blinded by propoganda, being female is not enough to make us vote for a party ticket.

    ReplyReply


  • Robin
    September 18
    8:32 pm

    You know, I feel sorry for you, Robin, if that’s the only thing you got out of what I said. Or the article.

    Because I refuse to pull in my tail at the scold you and Paglia are delivering? Because I refuse to accept Paglia’s *interpretation* of Palin’s “muscular feminism”? Because I know way too much about Paglia to read her comments without filtering them through the work of hers that I’ve read? Because I believe that the “Middle American” is itself an artificial construction that elides a diversity of beliefs and values?

    Paglia may speak to you, her argument may appeal to you, you may believe she’s right. But like everyone else here, including you, she’s merely offering an opinion, and an ideologically loaded one at that. She may not be willing to cop to the fact that her own views are as ideologically weighted as those with whom she disagrees (and perhaps this makes her more attuned to Palin, whose public statements suggest a similar double standard about ideology), but it doesn’t mean she’s telling THE truth. And it doesn’t mean that her concept of the “Middle American” is universally accurate outside *her* own experience and belief system. Or that it doesn’t serve her own professional and political purposes, as well.

    And I still want to see the Palin – Paglia Great Porn Debate.

    ReplyReply

  • You’re romance readers, for god’s sake. You should know better.

    What does this mean? I think I get the other stuff, but I don’t get why being a romance reader makes a difference here.

    ReplyReply


  • Nora Roberts
    September 18
    9:17 pm

    ~You’re romance readers, for god’s sake. You should know better.~

    I don’t get this either.

    I live, and have lived for three decades, outside of a small, rural town. It’s East Coast, but still very small, very rural town, which is often scooped up in the ‘middle America’ category.

    I can’t understand Palin’s appeal. I don’t get the ‘oh, she’s just like me!’ viewpoint. Because no, she’s really not–and besides, I don’t want someone just like me in the VP office. I want someone smarter, braver, more informed, more diplomatic, more a whole bunch of things.

    I don’t get the ‘she’s a straight-shooter’ viewpoint. Because no, she’s really not, and has been proven not to shoot straight.

    I sure don’t get the ‘it’s hightime we had a woman in The White House at all costs’ because my God, that’s so self-defeating and short-sighted.

    If you subscribe to her views, her ideologies, her positions on choice, sex education, church and state, believe she is the best qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, can handle foreign affairs, can skillfully take the rudder of the country if it becomes necessary, then she’s the one for you. THAT I get, whether I agree or not.

    ReplyReply


  • Robin
    September 18
    9:41 pm

    I can’t understand Palin’s appeal. I don’t get the ‘oh, she’s just like me!’ viewpoint. Because no, she’s really not–and besides, I don’t want someone just like me in the VP office. I want someone smarter, braver, more informed, more diplomatic, more a whole bunch of things.

    The crux of Paglia’s argument about Palin is that she’s a woman who reflects America’s pioneer past — a “can-do, no excuses” kind of gal (let’s ignore how many of America’s pioneer women suffered from clinical depression and/or committed suicide), that she’s an antidote to those “whiny” liberal feminists like Gloria Steinem, who are always trying to blame patriarchy for women’s subjugation (something Paglia stumps over and over and over and over throughout her work).

    IF this is Palin’s appeal, it’s just as much the appeal of the illusory as the “folksy” approach she criticizes Obama for. And IF it’s Palin’s appeal, it’s as historically accurate as Palin’s claim that “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance was “good enough for the Founding Fathers” (the pledge is only 100 years old and the phrase “Under God” only 50 ).

    I tend to lean toward Slavoj Zizek’s assertion that the mantra of “relax, we’ll take care of everything and won’t bother you with the pesky little details” explains the appeal of W and Co., especially when combined with my own belief about how the “republic” aspect of the term Republican is still such a powerful myth (i.e. people feel as if they’re engaged but someone else is doing the dirty work). And I certainly think there is a rich, rich mine to dig through the myriad theories about the relationship between morality and blue collar values. But I still think Paglia’s off the mark, in part because she’s got her own axe to grind with the Left (she’s a self-described libertarian), which she’s wielding feverishly in that article, IMO. Personally, I think she’s really adept at using the Right’s technique of making things seem morally black and white and ideologically neutral.

    ReplyReply


  • Bev(BB)
    September 18
    10:00 pm

    Okay, I’m going to give this a try and ask a few questions.

    Did I say anything about her being “just like me”?

    Did I say anything about her religious beliefs being similar to mine?

    Did I mention any opinons on abortion as being important to me?

    Did I even say anything about supporting her because she was a woman or supporting her at all?

    See, that’s the problem with much of these discussions. All a lot of what many of you are basing your assumptions regarding her appeal to the conservative base upon is false and ya’ll don’t even realize it. Does she hold some of those beliefs?

    Probably.

    They are her right.

    But is that the main reason why she’s so popular with the base or such a threat to the other side?

    No.

    Those things are not the priority issues on the minds of most Americans at the moment. Nor have they been for awhile. Many of us are more worried about whether or not we can put food on the table and gas in the car, thank you very much. That she’s female and conservative icon is simply icing on the cake.

    And I’m a moderate.

    As for the romance reader comment, I’m simply amazed that female readers and authors who’ve complained online for years about being stereotyped by the media could so quickly stereotype another woman running for Vice President. It’s fine to say that these claims are based on “fact” but in truth most of them are based on active stereotypes that are so entrenched that there is no changing them even though they are dead wrong. Such tolerance I’m seeing all through romanceland.

    I, too, have links to disprove most of the claims. I’m just not sure it’s worth wasting them on already closed minds.

    ReplyReply

  • I don’t see where people are stereotyping. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that all the posters who are afraid of Palin are wrong about the facts they profess to know about her, and all the stuff you have links to are right.

    How does citing specific examples of why Palin is not for them (right or wrong) stereotype her? That’s what I am confused about.

    And I am not sure what “tolerance” has to do with this. What do you mean by that?

    As for the appeal to the conservative evangelical base, I don’t know that it is stereotyping to say that having a conservative evangelical candidate appeals to them.

    In any event, I am confused about what you are saying and would like a little help here.

    ReplyReply

  • I’m not seeing the stereotypes, either. If we simply repeat facts that are a matter of public record about a person, we are not smearing or stereotyping her. The facts about Palin are negative and alarming enough without any need of embellishment.

    And Paglia as a leftist? Good lord. I don’t know anyone who seriously says that — other than Paglia herself, of course, and those on the far right for whom she is a useful tool.

    ReplyReply

  • self-described libertarian

    Why do people people start throwing libertarian (I’m Politically Uber Intellectual and Your Are Not) labels when they are in essence justifying voting for Extreme Religious Conservatives that for the most part are Republican?

    Does not promoting an anti-abortion candidate by definition preclude you being a libertarian?

    I always figured they were against the Government taking away personal choices?

    Must be getting old.

    ReplyReply


  • Bev(BB)
    September 18
    10:57 pm

    Ladies, you’re all very smart and intelligent women and if you can’t recognize stereotyping at this point when you see it, don’t expect me to find it for you.

    And, no, that’s not a cop-out. It’s exasperation. The list just from this thread of comments would be so long I’d be here all day and I suspect many of you still wouldn’t admit they exist. So, no thank you. I’m not falling for that one.

    If you truly want to be honest with yourself, read back through them and ask yourself if we weren’t talking about Palin but another romance reader what you’d think about some of them as comments on another individual’s life, even one running for a public office.

    People talk about the fact that she could be a heartbeat away from the Presidency but fail to remember that Obama is only a vote away. Her life has been disected and totally put under the microscope in a couple of weeks but in a year and half where has been the in-depth scrutiny of every detail Obama?

    His own memoirs?

    And if you say FoxNews dug out the dirt, I’m going to look at you all like you’re crazy because I just know that’s where you go to get the real truth. Where has the media you trust dug deep on Obama? Have they been willing to find some warts with the shine?

    What was the saying, if it looks too good . . .

    ReplyReply


  • Bev(BB)
    September 18
    11:03 pm

    And Paglia as a leftist? Good lord. I don’t know anyone who seriously says that — other than Paglia herself, of course, and those on the far right for whom she is a useful tool.

    Well, as to that, I have no idea what she is because I’d never even heard of her before I read that article. What she was saying had a ring of truth to it to me, though, so I took her at her word as to what she was. Simple as that. Make it it what you will.

    ReplyReply

  • I guess I do find it a cop out Bev BB because I don’t see the stereotypes to which you are referring. And, I don’t see the equivalency between measuring someone for being the Vice President of the most powerful country in the world and measuring the, um, efficacy of a romance reader.

    I really, really don’t see the comparison.

    ReplyReply


  • Bev(BB)
    September 18
    11:21 pm

    There are more but I saved these links originallly because I liked them the best and yes a couple of them are from truly conservative sources, deal with it, they give good info:

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/beck.palin/index.html?eref=rss_politics

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122058255216602625.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

    http://elendil.schenkenfelder.com/blojsom/blog/elendil/2008/09/03/More-Thoughts-On-Sarah-Palin

    ReplyReply


  • Bev(BB)
    September 18
    11:33 pm

    I guess I do find it a cop out Bev BB because I don’t see the stereotypes to which you are referring. And, I don’t see the equivalency between measuring someone for being the Vice President of the most powerful country in the world and measuring the, um, efficacy of a romance reader.

    I really, really don’t see the comparison.

    So, Jane, personal insults and remarks about a person’s life choices are okay just because they’re in politics? I’m not talking about policy decisions here, people. I’m talking about assumptions made about her personal life and beliefs. Descriptions of her as a person based solely on what people assume they know about her religious and other beliefs. Those are stereotypes, plain and simple. You can get all legal eagle if you want to but you know doggone good and well there have been extensive discussions of just this topic about how romance readers are characterized in the past regarding their reading choices.

    Palin has already done interviews where she’s made it clear that her personal beliefs aren’t equated to what she does in policy matters, yet no one hears that. I wonder if that’s because she’s conservative or a woman?

    I haven’t figured that one out yet.

    ReplyReply


  • Robin
    September 18
    11:39 pm

    Fox News as the purveyor of truth? Obama hasn’t been scrutinized? Anyone who dislikes Palin as a candidate is simply spouting stereotypes? Okay, Bev, now I think you’re just joshing us.

    ReplyReply

  • So you believe that her personal beliefs should not be questioned in determining how she will govern and that to question those personal beliefs is stereotypical of . . . something? Sexism? wrongful attacks against conservatism?

    My understanding is that her policy beliefs include abolishing Roe v. Wade, teaching abstinence only education, teaching creationism which I belief are consistent with her personal beliefs. Perhaps you have links, as you suggest, that contradict that?

    ReplyReply


  • Bev(BB)
    September 19
    12:08 am

    Obama hasn’t been scrutinized?

    I don’t know. Has he? Point me to a link.

    Anyone who dislikes Palin as a candidate is simply spouting stereotypes?

    Did I actually say that, Robin?

    So you believe that her personal beliefs should not be questioned in determining how she will govern and that to question those personal beliefs is stereotypical of . . . something?

    I don’t believe I said this either, Jane. In fact, I’ve wondered quite often what Obama’s personal and religious beliefs are and still do. Disagreeing with stances on political policies are not the same thing as mocking someone’s personal beliefs and choices. Are you really saying you cannot tell the difference?

    ReplyReply

  • Disagreeing with stances on political policies are not the same thing as mocking someone’s personal beliefs and choices. Are you really saying you cannot tell the difference?

    Apparently so because the greater weight of the above commenters (and since you chastised all of them I assume that everyone who made statements against Palin are included in your scold) spoke about specific policies that Palin supported that frightened them. As women, the greater weight of the commenters said that her policies were what they opposed. As I said before, do you have links that dispute that she wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, teach creationism in the schools and long with abstinence only education. She wants to drill in ANWR. She believes that global warming is not man made. She took office as a mayor with a balanced budget and left it with $22 million in deficit.

    You said you have links, so dispel these myths because the following are some of the policies/methods of governing as to why I oppose Palin:

    Do you have facts about these issues:

    Earmarks. Is it a myth that she has asked for more earmarks per capita than any other elected official?

    Budget. Is it a myth that she redecorated her mayoral office to the tune of $50,000 and bought a SUV for $20,000 from the city coffers?

    Is it a myth that she took on a town with a balanced budget and left it $22 Million in debt with an expensive lawsuit over its hand over ownership of the land upon which the sports complex is built.

    Transparency. Is it a myth that she used Yahoo emails to conduct government business to avoid the FOIA and included her husband, a non elected official, on those same emails she now claims exec privilege?

    Reform. Is it a myth that she refuses to give any opinion on whether she endorses Ted Stevens?

    Is it a myth that she was Senator Stevens PAC coordinator in 2006?

    Women’s Rights. Is it a myth that she believes abortion is wrong and would want Roe v. Wade to be overturned, causing many states to institute anti abortion laws?

    Is it a myth that she believes only abstinence should be taught? (I.e., why is any teaching of sexual behavior taught in schools if the true defense to responsible sexual behavior is that it is something to be taught at home).

    Patriotism. Is it a myth that her husband was a member of the AIP, an Alaskan secessionist organization? Is it a myth that she spoke at the AIP convention just a year ago?

    Separation of Church v. State: Is it a myth that she wants to teach creationism in schools?

    Science: Is it a myth that she stated that global warming was manmade?

    Is it a myth that she doesn’t want the Polar Bears to be put on the endangered species list?

    ReplyReply

  • But Jane she can see Russia from her house.

    Have you seen those Yahoo emails? Best one was someone harassing her new assistant for using the official email instead of Yahoo for some important legislative matter.

    ReplyReply


  • katieM
    September 19
    2:23 am

    I want to know what Bev(BB) means by stereotypes? The hockeymom stereotype? The hunter stereotype? Exactly what stereotype has she been compared to that she didn’t claim first?

    Her stated stances on abortion, climate change, sex education, war with Russia, her past actions as mayor and governor are the things that greatly concern, even frighten me. These are not stereotypes, they are facts.

    ReplyReply


  • Robin
    September 19
    2:27 am

    I don’t know. Has he? Point me to a link.

    If I leave too many links my post will go into moderation. But all you have to do is go to politico dot com or slate dot com and search Obama’s name. Like the article on Slate that questions “What did Obama Learn in Iraq?,” or the article on Politico that compares both Obama and McCain’s political flip flops.

    He has been grilled regarding his relationship with Tony Rezko, criticized for his relationship with Wright (even outside of Fox), had his marriage scrutinized, as well as his support for Israel and understanding of foreign policy. He’s been criticized for his voting record, even for the type of votes he cast. Some people actually believe he’s Muslim because of all the attention to his own personal religious beliefs. And the race issue has been analyzed to the nth degree. I remember the scrutiny being VERY intense when Obama first burst on the scene, just like it is now with Palin. However, there just don’t seem to be a lot of skeletons in Obama’s closet, because heaven knows Fox and the McCain camp have been digging for them.

    Did I actually say that, Robin?

    Yeah, I think you did: “Open your eyes for once and actually learn about the other side instead of accepting stereotypes because they’re the easy way.” I didn’t see that being directed toward those who embrace Palin.

    ReplyReply


  • anu
    September 19
    2:44 am

    Bev (BB),

    I want to understand your POV. Some posters criticized Palin’s parental choicess; others, me included, criticized those, er, criticisms. So, a wash. Lots of people have said they’re “horrified”, “scared” and “terrified” of Palin as VP, which I think is overblown. But those people also explained that they’re terrified, etc. because of Roe, creationism, religion, inexperience, etc. They gave specific issues over which they disagree with Palin. So where are the stereotypes you’re talking about?

    If you don’t want to give links refuting posters’ arguments, can you please highlight specific language from posts that you think stereotype Palin?

    ReplyReply

  • Obama went on O’Reilly just recently, and it was a very aggressive interview. His record and his policies have been examined and analyzed in minute detail by one of the toughest and most well-funded campaigns in decades — Hillary Clinton’s. Those folks did oppo research non-stop. I’d say Obama has been through an extremely thorough and prolonged vetting period.

    I’ve always been keenly interested in politics, so when Palin was announced as McCain’s running mate, I started spending an average of two hours a day learning everything I could. I have mainly focused on three things: a) public documents on her actions as a government official, b) newspaper accounts of her activities PRIOR to her selection by McCain, and c) video footage of Palin stating her positions on the issues in her own words.

    Yes, of course there are juicy rumors all over the place, and the National Enquirer has been putting out a steady stream of lurid tidbits about the Palins. But I don’t care if she had an affair or if her daughter got pregnant outside of marriage.

    What I do care about is her established record — fact, not rumor — of firing well-regarded, competent public servants and replacing them with cronies who weren’t qualified for the positions.

    I care about her well-established position of opposing abortion even in cases of incest or rape. Fact, not rumor.

    I care about her nastiness in dealing with political opponents. Her behavior on an Alaskan radio show back in January was inexcusable. We here in the romance community know a few things about mean girls, and that’s exactly how she comes off, laughing while the guys make fun of Lyda Green.

    I care about the inflation of her credentials — on energy, foreign policy, the military, the economy. Granted, a lot of the most recent inflation has come from the McCain campaign, but this stuff is ridiculous on its face. I don’t like resume inflaters in my day job, and I darn sure don’t like it in a potential President of the United States. It shows a fundamental lack of integrity.

    I care about her stonewalling of an investigation for which she’d initially promised her support. This secrecy and unwillingness to play fairly is exactly what we’ve experienced for the last 8 years, and we don’t need more of it.

    People who are truly alarmed at the prospect of a Palin presidency don’t need to make stuff up or resort to stereotypes to make their point. Governor Palin has proven these points herself, and it’s all there in the public record for anyone to see. Facts. Not rumors. Not stereotypes.

    ReplyReply


  • Ebony
    September 19
    3:29 am

    As for the romance reader comment, I’m simply amazed that female readers and authors who’ve complained online for years about being stereotyped by the media could so quickly stereotype another woman running for Vice President

    Bev, dear, you sort of lose this argument because the only one who seems to be stereotyping seems to be you. Many have clearly outlined why she wouldn’t be their candidate of choice and it has nothing to do with stereotypes…because if it was just about stereotypes, all women would jump to vote for her—but we’re all smarter than that. We love our country and we love the progress we’ve made as women in this country so we can look beyond the stereotype that she’s a woman like us and look at a person’s character and track record to make an educated and sound decision.

    ReplyReply


  • Dee
    September 19
    4:32 am

    I watched all the speeches on both sides. Politicians, no matter their party, are talkers. I believe little of what comes out of their mouths because history has proven they don’t necessarily walk their talk. I look at what they’ve done in the past. When I research Palin’s record, there is little to find. What is public is not impressive. Listening to Palin’s acceptance speech, I came away with a clear message of “I am the average American woman”.

    Well, I AM an American woman, I’m a mother, an Independent and a veteran. I’m a working professional in the IT / communications industry. I’m also a voter. Palin does NOT represent me.

    IMHO Palin was not chosen for what she could do for our country, she was chosen for what she could do for McCain’s chances of winning this election.

    All political candidates’ lives are under a microscope, it’s the lay of the land. It happens to ALL of them in every election.

    Personally, I don’t care about her daughter being pregnant and unmarried or that she herself has 5 kids. I don’t care about all the dirt flying around about McCain’s first wife. I also didn’t care about Clinton getting blowjobs in the oval office or the fact that Bush used to be a drunk. People are human and no human is perfect.

    But I DO care about what my elected officials are going to do to and for my country. What has come out so far about Palin’s record is appalling.

    She is not qualified to run this country in the best of times. Yet, should something happen to McCain, she will be leading our nation during the worst economic times we have seen in decades. Millions of jobs have been off-shored to China, India, and Manila with more going everyday. Our military is spread out so thin we our killing the ones still alive with exhaustion. The list goes on and on.

    Take a good look at the list below. These are women who ARE qualified to be President. They have degrees in government, law, political science; they have years upon years of experience in government service. Two of these women were on the short list of potential VP candidates that circulated before McCain made his choice. Sarah Palin was also on that short list. She is 44. Of the women I list below, she has the least amount of experience … and she is the youngest. In fact, she was the youngest of all those on the short list … men and women.

    Barack Obama is 47 years old. You can draw your own conclusions about why McCain picked Palin. TO ME, this says he wanted a woman who was under 50. There were clearly people that were much more qualified. But he choose the youngest female.

    Olympia Snowe, Senior Senator from Maine. She is 60.
    – degree in political science.
    – voted one of “America’s Top 10 Senators” by Time Magazine in 2006.
    – 20+ years of experience in government service.

    Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senior Senator from Texas. She is 64.
    – B.A. from University of Texas at Austin in 1962.
    – Juris Doctor from University of Texas School of Law in 1967
    – 30+ years of experience in government service.

    Susan Collins, Senator from Maine. She is 56.
    – B.A. in government from St. Lawrence University.
    – worked for Senator William Cohen from 1975 until 1987
    – chair of the Maine commission on financial regulation from 1987 until 1992.
    – Elected to U.S. Senate in 1996.

    Lisa Murkowski, Senator from Alaska. She is 51.
    – B.A. in economics from Georgetown University in 1980.
    – Juris Doctor from Willamette University College of Law in 1985.
    – She was an attorney in Anchorage, Alaska from 1985 to 1998.
    – Served on the mayor’s task force on the homeless from from 1990 to 1991.
    – 10+ years of experience in government service.

    Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii. She is 55.
    – bachelor’s degree in journalism
    – 20+ years of experience in government service.

    Deborah Pryce, U.S. Rep from Ohio. She is 57.
    – 1973 graduate of The Ohio State University.
    – 1976 graduate from Capital University Law School.
    – From 1978 to 1985 she worked for the city of Columbus, Ohio.
    – served as a judge in the Franklin County Municipal Court from 1985 to 1992.
    – first elected to the U.S. House in November 1992.
    – 20+ years of experience in government service.

    Others on that list were:

    Gov. Tim Pawlenty, 47, of Minnesota.
    Gov. Charlie Crist, 51, of Florida.
    Condoleezza Rice, 53, U.S. Secretary of State since 2005. National Security Adviser from 2001 to 2005.
    Gov. Mike Huckabee, 52, of Arkansas.
    Rudy Giuliani, 63, former Mayor of New York City.
    U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, 52, senior Senator from South Carolina. Supported McCain’s presidential bid in 2000 and in 2008.
    John Kasich, 55, former member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
    U.S. Sen. John Thune, 47, of South Dakota.
    J.C. Watts, 50, of Oklahoma, former member of the U.S. House of Representatives and CNN political contributor.
    Marsha Blackburn, 55, of Tennessee, former member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
    U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, 51, senior Senator from Kansas.
    Gov. Haley Barbour, 60, of Mississippi.

    ReplyReply

  • I don’t believe I said this either, Jane. In fact, I’ve wondered quite often what Obama’s personal and religious beliefs are and still do.

    I’m sorry to join in this conversation so late, but this part of the comment is just ridiculous and insulting to the thus-far intelligent debaters here.

    How can anyone not know Obama’s personal and religious beliefs by now without being a complete hermit and avoiding all news media and the internet and bookstores?

    He’s said (dozens, if not hundreds of times by now) that he’s a CHRISTIAN. For crying out loud, he went to the same church for *twenty years.* They videotape the sermons (as anyone who’s ever been on YouTube knows). I’m sure you could find him on tape if you wanted to or interview some of the thousands of parishoners who went there for years.

    If you ask someone what denomination or religion they are in casual conversation, do you automatically assume they’re lying? Every time? Even if they invite you to their church with them?

    No. It’s just Obama. Because he’s clearly lying!!!!!111!11 Just because. /sarcasm

    Someone from York PA recently told NPR that she just can’t trust Obama:

    Leah Moreland, the woman who said she grew up sheltered from prejudice, plans to vote for McCain. Party loyalty is also part of her decision. But her cultural compass also comes into play. She says her gut tells her not to trust Obama.

    “I look at Obama, and I have a question in my mind,” she says. “Years ago, was he taken into the Muslim faith? And my concern is the only way you are no longer a Muslim is if you are dead, killed. So in my mind, he’s still alive.”

    Although Barack Obama has said repeatedly he is not a Muslim and has never been a Muslim, Moreland is still unconvinced.

    “There is something about him I don’t trust,” she says. “I don’t care how good a speaker he is, I just can’t trust him.”

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94523754

    I keep hearing these kind of comments from people over and over again, and I’m bloody sick of it.

    It’s not true, it’s racist, and the lies need to stop.

    Obama’s written whole BOOKs about his personal beliefs. If you don’t like to read books (!), there are online videos of the convention two weeks ago and his biographical film that played then. Oh, and the thousands of articles debunking all of those horrible and false smear emails that people are still circulating.

    He’s a Christian. Period. You don’t get to decide what religion someone is because of what religion his or her absentee father was. Anyone who says otherwise is full of crap. My parents sure as hell don’t get to tell me I’m an athiest or an agnostic. My ancestors don’t get to tell me I’m a Mormon, or a Catholic, or a Quaker, or a Rogerene, or a Jew, or an Anglican.

    I, and I alone, decide who I am and for what I stand. Every human being deserves the same respect and consideration.

    Personally, it offends me that atheists, Pagans, Wiccans, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Unitarians and Hindus will never have a fair shake at running for president. It offends me that one MUST grow up in a religious Christian family in order to be a ‘patriotic American.’ Prejudice is a hateful, petty spite on which to base one’s vote.

    I’m a Christian, by the way. Many of us are not so close-minded as to distrust someone’s entire life based on one’s birth.

    ReplyReply


  • Nora Roberts
    September 19
    10:13 am

    No, I can’t see how the comments here or the media has sterotyped Palin. I was addressing my own puzzlement with statements I’ve heard about her being ‘just like me’ and so on, that seem to come from some in ‘Middle America’.

    I’ve commented specifically on her politics, platforms and ideologies, her beliefs, and why they oppose mine, and what I want in the person running for the office. So did the majority of others here.

    And right now, this morning, I can add to that her husband’s refusal, her staff’s refusal to obey subpoenas regarding the bipartisan committee formed–before her nomination–to answer questions on a matter to which she promised her cooperation–before her nomination. She now refuses her cooperation.

    If I failed to obey a subpoena, I would be charged with contempt of court, most likely fined and put in jail. I’m waiting to see if Mr. Palin will be.

    ReplyReply


  • Jane
    September 19
    3:10 pm

    WSJ article does not address any of the issues I cited above. It addresses whether evangelicals support women in the worklplace.

    The Elendil article made me laugh when I read this:

    “She makes a mockery of liberal’s penchant for “identity politics”.” because it was Rick Davis who said that this election wouldn’t be about the issues. Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign guy.

    But the Elendil article does not dispute the policies that I’ve asserted Palin holds and with which I disagree.

    Note that I’ve not said that Palin is inexperienced anywhere. I’ve not said she is unready. She does have executive experience but, as the article pointed out, she does not have military experience and her foreign policy experience is based on her proximity to Canada and Russia and her ability to work with Canada to build a pipeline.

    In the CNN article, only one point addresses any of the issues I brought up and that is the abstinence sex ed issue. She does not want condoms to be discussed in sex-ed but does want abstinence to be discussed. That seems consistence with other statements I’ve read that she supports abstinence only sex education. If she wants abstinence taught but not condom use . . . well, I guess we’ll leave it up to the individuals what that really means.

    ReplyReply

  • @Folklore Fanatic

    I swear, after this election all of us writers are going to need new thesauruses.

    First bitch was the new black. Now I understand via LADY de Rothschild that ELITIST is the new uppity (Except for Congressman Moreland who apparently didn’t get the new thesaurus and continued to use the Jim Crow term).

    But most appalling of all is the realization that ‘Muslim’ is the new black. My oh my, what will the racists amongst us come up with next? At the rate we’re going the word ‘black’ will need its own thesaurus.

    I suppose I should look on the bright side. Maybe all those unemployed people could be put to work printing up thesauruses.

    ReplyReply

  • I agree with the commenter who said that Palin was chosen to make McCain look more interesting, rather than her qualifications.

    I must congratulate you ladies on a great discussion so far.

    Carry on!

    ReplyReply

  • “I agree with the commenter who said that Palin was chosen to make McCain look more interesting, rather than her qualifications.”

    Hm Karen…some might say McCain could hold a potato while making appearances and it’d accomplish that much, lol.

    ReplyReply

  • Here’s the thing about the experience/inexperience card– for months, Obama’s lack of it has been harped upon by Republicans and Democrats alike. The rap that his twenty years in public service of some kind (whether as a legislator or “community organizer” ) doesn’t qualify him for the presidency isn’t entirely without merit. The PROBLEM for the Republicans is that, by choosing Palin as McCain’s running mate, they made a mockery of their own criteria for being qualified for the presidency and of their argument against Obama’s credentials.

    Does anyone actually think it’s okay for vice presidential candidate to be underqualified simply because the presidential candidate IS qualified? Because I don’t. Whoever is Vice President, he or she might be called upon to fill the presidency at any time. You can’t count on the luxury of time to “get up to speed” in office. The president could drop dead on his first day in office for all we know, whether that president is McCain or Obama. Whoever is there to step into those shoes should therefore meet the minimum qualifications for the presidency on day one, whatever those qualifications are.

    The Republicans have told us over and over that Obama’s NOT qualified. And when Obama was openly considering Tim Kaine, governor of Virginia, for his vice presidential slot, no less an authority than Karl Rove told us Kaine wasn’t qualified for the job because he’d ONLY been the mayor of the “small town” of Richmond prior to being governor of Virgnia for four years. Really? Blink.

    If the blatant hypocrisy here doesn’t bother you, that’s fine. But don’t whine that Obama’s NOT qualified and then claim you think Palin IS.

    My problem with Palin’s credentials (or lack thereof) isn’t that I think her experience is inherently problematic, but that her record during that period doesn’t impress me. She was an executive of a small town which she ran into debt to the tune of $22 million. As governor of Alaska, she has demonstrated a fundamental inability to craft comprehensive legislative proposals and appears to like to appoint her friends/cronies to high level positions regardless of their qualifications. In the final analysis, she strikes me as a politician with iffy qualifications for the job who also likes to use her position to reward her friends and punish her enemies and who surrounds herself with “yes-men.”

    And that sounds all too familiar for my comfort…

    ReplyReply

  • With regard to the “family” issue, I have to admit that I find Palin’s willingness to accept the vice presidential nomination troubling, not because she has five kids, but because it seems to me she had to throw her 17yo daughter “under a bus” in the process.

    Being a pregnant teenager is hard enough. Being a pregnant teenager and knowing 280 million people are judging you for it–it’s downright cruel, IMO. Bristol didn’t choose to be in the spotlight; her mother chose to put her there. As a parent, that makes me a little ill.

    And I’d feel that way just as strongly if it were Mr. Palin who was running for office.

    ReplyReply

  • Obama’s written whole BOOKs about his personal beliefs.

    But we can’t TRUST what he says about himself. Or what his supporters say about him. Or what the “liberal media” says about him.

    Because they’re all LYING…

    No, the only ones we can trust to tell us the TRUTH are his opponents. The ones who claim he supported “comprehensive sex education for kindergartners” and that he called Ms. Palin “a pig in lipstick.”

    You know, if the WORST things his opponents can come up with to say about him are distortions of the grossest kind, it’s a pretty safe bet there isn’t a whole lot of REAL dirt.

    ReplyReply


  • Robin
    September 19
    6:10 pm

    I do not understand how Glenn Black thinks that by quoting the entirety of that Sarah Palin statement on Iraq that he acquits her of the headline he’s taking issue with. Here’s her entire quote, via Black:

    “Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

    Then he goes on to explain it this way:

    Palin is clearly praying that we’re doing the right thing in Iraq, something sensible for an introspective woman of faith concerned about the lives of our troops to do. She’s not saying that she just received a text message from heaven’s BlackBerry ordering her to launch missiles. Sorry to disappoint you.

    But Black is totally ignoring the very text he quoted, namely that we should be praying that our leaders are sending out soldiers “on a task that is from God” and that the war is “God’s plan.”

    Okay, so let’s look at that a minute. We’re supposed to pray, not simply that “Thy will be done” as in the Lord’s Prayer, but that the *war* is God’s plan, and that it is “a task that is from God.” That is a whole different type of prayer than the one Black also quotes from Obama: “Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will.” In one case, the person is asking for the “wisdom to do what is right” and in the other the person is asking for *us* to pray that the war is “God’s plan.” In the second case, there is a direct connection between the war and the will of God, a faith that the war *is* God’s plan. That is, IMO, a theocratic sentiment — that the war itself is an instrument of God. And why would you pray for that if you didn’t already believe it to be true — else you would not support the war, right? Which Palin clearly does.

    The Elendil article made me laugh when I read this:

    “She makes a mockery of liberal’s penchant for “identity politics”.” because it was Rick Davis who said that this election wouldn’t be about the issues. Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign guy.

    Yeah, because constantly referring to the “liberals” and the “liberal agenda” and casting McCain and Palin as “reformers” and as honest campaigners, and Palin as an “average woman” isn’t a classic strategy of identity politics.

    IMO, two of the biggest lies of the last thirty years are
    1) that the media is liberal
    2) that there is such a thing as ideologically neutral politics

    ReplyReply


  • Robin
    September 19
    6:27 pm

    More on the identity politics issue, check out this questionnaire distributed by the Republican National Committee. Notice the divisive nature of the questions. For example:

    Should we appoint judges who will interpret the law instead of liberal activists who will make new laws from the bench?

    Do you think that forcing every American into a socialized national health care system is the best way to deal with uninsured patients?

    Are you concerned about the vast sums of campaign funds being stockpiled by the Democrats and their liberal allies?

    I grew up in a Republican household and started out as a Republican myself. But over the years I became first disenchanted and then disgusted by this kind of divisive, misrepresentative warping of both what the Republicans USED to stand for and what Democrats now stand for. Because no conservative justices make law from the bench (i.e. commerce clause cases or marriage as only between a man and a woman). And Republicans and their “conservative allies” aren’t “stockpiling” money. And, yeah, Democrats are promoting socialized medicine (let’s bring back the Red Scare while we’re at it). If Republicans are the party of small government, explain the Patriot Act to me, which expanded federal power exponentially. Explain the Federal Marriage Amendment. Explain tying federal dollars to abstinence only education (in which condoms can only be mentioned in context of their failure rates). IMO, at this point in history, the Democratic party is far closer to the Republican party of yore — when the ideal of the republic was actually taken seriously and small government meant no federal moral legislation and minimal federal action to expand corporate power. When it meant a meaningful separation of church and state, and when it prized individual liberty as fundamental to a working democracy. That Republican party no longer exists, IMO, except in so far as its legacy is being carried on by the Democrats.

    ReplyReply

  • You know, if the WORST things his opponents can come up with to say about him are distortions of the grossest kind, it’s a pretty safe bet there isn’t a whole lot of REAL dirt.

    That’s one of the few thoughts that brings me comfort. :)

    IMO, at this point in history, the Democratic party is far closer to the Republican party of yore — when the ideal of the republic was actually taken seriously and small government meant no federal moral legislation and minimal federal action to expand corporate power. When it meant a meaningful separation of church and state, and when it prized individual liberty as fundamental to a working democracy.

    INORITE? I really, really don’t get all the labelling of Obama’s policies as ‘liberal’ or ‘leftist.’ Just because I’m supporting him doesn’t mean I agree with all of his policies. I can name a few off the top of my head: support for the unhelpful offshore drilling, reluctance to implement fair trade practices over free trade failures, advocation for more faith-based community service integration into government programs, support for the FISA wiretapping immunity for the telecom industry, and the terrible original position against a single-payer health care plan.

    Fortunately, he’s adopted Hillary’s slightly better health care initiative, and he’s still pro-environment, pro-choice, anti- idiotic wars, pro-education, and pro-civil liberties. He’s persuasive and intelligent, and he’s willing to listen to opinions other than his own.

    I may not always agree with him, but I think he’s fair and honest about what he thinks, which is why I like him so much more than I did Kerry (I didn’t like Kerry).

    Back to your point: centrists and Republicans ought to be estatic — thanks to Reagan, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush 1 and Clinton, our entire political world has shifted slowly but steadily to the right since the sixties. Can’t we all be content, if not happy, without taking our laws back to the Victorian morality, Jim Crow, Robber-Baron era? Or am I being too optimistic?

    ReplyReply


  • Nora Roberts
    September 19
    8:45 pm

    ~But Black is totally ignoring the very text he quoted, namely that we should be praying that our leaders are sending out soldiers “on a task that is from God” and that the war is “God’s plan.”~

    Yes, yes, yes. This is somthing that troubled me, a lot.

    ReplyReply


  • Dee
    September 19
    9:47 pm

    To expand on some of Robin’s points…

    I grew up in a Republican household and started out as a Republican myself. But over the years I became first disenchanted and then disgusted by this kind of divisive, misrepresentative warping of both what the Republicans USED to stand for and what Democrats now stand for.

    If Republicans are the party of small government, explain the Patriot Act to me, which expanded federal power exponentially. Explain the Federal Marriage Amendment. Explain tying federal dollars to abstinence only education.

    … at this point in history, the Democratic party is far closer to the Republican party of yore — when the ideal of the republic was actually taken seriously and small government meant no federal moral legislation and minimal federal action to expand corporate power. When it meant a meaningful separation of church and state, and when it prized individual liberty as fundamental to a working democracy.

    I too used to consider myself a Republican. But in the 80′s when they started aligning themselves with the Religious Right, what the Republican Party stood for completely changed.

    And thank you for pointing out the Patriot Act and the rest. This is NOT smaller government.

    It seems to me every time I turn around a new amendment to the Constitution is being proposed. That bothers me. Greatly. Think about it for a moment. This is our CONSTITUTION!! You don’t amend the U.S. Constitution for issues that are entrenched in religious ideology! Case in point, look at the 18th Amendment which established Prohibition (later repealed by the 21st amendment). That was pushed for by religious organizations and passed as a direct result of government caving to them. Where is the separation of church and state there?

    Frankly, every time I hear someone spout off the words “liberal”, “conservative”, left-wing, right-wing, my brain shuts down. I just don’t want to hear it, ya know?

    You tell someone you voted for a Democrat and you are automatically labeled a left-wing liberal. Republican? You must be a right-wing conservative.

    And try telling someone you are a Moderate Independent… oy vey! I usually get something to the effect of “you must choose a side!”

    I tell someone I’m Pro-Choice and I’m told I’m a liberal. I tell someone I’m a veteran and a strong supporter of our military, I’m told I’m a conservative.

    I’m sick to death of it!

    Next soapbox… again quoting Robin

    But Black is totally ignoring the very text he quoted, namely that we should be praying that our leaders are sending out soldiers “on a task that is from God” and that the war is “God’s plan.”

    Yes!! Thank you! I can’t believe anyone can’t see this about her statement. Again, separation of church and state? I don’t think so.

    And something else I thought of when I read about this, does anyone else remember how we were VERY careful to point out that our war in Iraq and Afghanistan was not a holy war? She completely blew that away. We have to remember who we are dealing with here. Islamic Fundamentalists are the embodiment of the LACK of separation of church and state. As soon as we bring God into the conversation, they will interpret that as holy war.

    ReplyReply

  • Robin, I discovered Glenn Beck/Black (?) last week, and he is utterly amazing. He continually harps on that he doesn’t care who becomes president, as long as they do a good job, and then proceeds to repeatedly bash Obama and the Democratic party in general. Thus far, he is the biggest damn hypocrite I’ve come across in the Anerican media, and that’s saying a whole lot.

    I got so mad listening to his radio show in the car the other day, I had to tell TTG to turn it off. He’s as right-winged as they come, and he is all about bashing the hell out of the Democrats, whilst complaining about the ‘liberal’ media’s treatment of Palin.

    He nearly stroked out because Charlie Gibson had the temerity to ask Palin if she’d had any doubts with regards to accepting McCain’s offer, but then went on to back up the Republican’s faux outrage over Obama’s Pig/Lipstick comment.

    A complete effing donkey.

    ReplyReply

  • Heh. You think Beck is bad? Sean Hannity is at least as hypocritical, maybe worse. Jon Stewart on The Daily Show got it right when he juxtaposed segments from Palin’s Hannity interview with a sleazy get-rich-quick infomercial.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtSbozdgWAw

    ReplyReply


  • katieM
    September 20
    7:39 pm

    So, Bev(BB) never came back to explain what he/she was talking about, hmm? Must have been a troll.

    ReplyReply

  • Great conversation! For the most part, it has remained really thoughtful and sane. People have brought up so many interesting points, I really have nothing to add. I know lots of disgruntled Hillary supporters, and this cracked me up last week:

    Some Ecards

    I saddens me to know end that for its coming down to who people can identify with most, as an American, Christian, Woman whatever, rather than the issues the US is facing.

    ReplyReply


  • Robin
    September 21
    6:28 pm

    Devon, that card is HYSTERICAL!

    I think the reason people are so drawn to the “identification” issue is because they don’t feel “represented” by their government, and the difference between representation and identification is not always clear to people. We can and most often are politically represented by people we aren’t personally identified with, and when that’s going well, no one thinks about it, IMO. But when it’s not, people gravitate toward the promise of being represented by someone they identify with, even though such a promise is so often an illusion.

    This is not a partisan issue, either; I mean, just think about how Clinton was praised as “the first Black president” and how Carter ran on a humility platform, and on how Michelle Obama’s appearance on The View catalyzed a run on the dress she was wearing. We all do this, to some degree, perhaps because so many people still see politics as something abstract and non-personal, leading us to identify with the *persona* of a politician rather than with the personal importance of our own political views and values. So instead of looking at the way politics are personal, we look at politicians in a personal way, which often leads in unexpected, sometimes undesirable, directions, because the person someone appears when they want to secure our vote is not necessarily consistent with the politics they will practice once in office. And we’re not nearly diligent enough as a society in pinning down those particulars before we vote, IMO.

    ReplyReply

  • No, KatieM, Bev isn’t a troll. She posts frequently on romance blogs and has for a long time.

    The “allie” person, on the other hand, has never posted here or on any other romance blog I visit, at least not that I can recall. It’d be interesting to see if the site traffic reports show that she actually is connecting in from Chicago, as she claimed to be.

    ReplyReply


  • EC
    September 21
    6:58 pm

    And in the end, isn’t all about what to believe and who to believe in a world reeling under the weight of delivered information–and misinformation? The candidate looks good, talks good, says all the right things, but how expedient are their remarks, how ambitious for power are they? What will they say and do to get it? Do they really, really give a damn?

    All we ever have to go on is their record in office and in life–and how skewed can that become once the media grabs it and shakes it?

    I’m not an American, just a northern neighbor currently being battered by our own elections for Prime Minister of Canada, but basically in the same leaky boat.

    Good luck to us all! And may everyone who can walk, crawl, or stumble get themselves to voting booth come election day.

    ReplyReply


  • Dee
    September 23
    5:49 pm

    Did you all see this?

    Palin bans reporters from meetings with leaders

    She seems to really work at avoiding the press. I have to ask myself, why? Is it the campaign handlers keeping her from scrutiny? If so why? If it is her decision? Again, why? I would think with all the rumors and dirt flying around the web about her, she would want opportunities to be viewed in a positive light.

    She’s only given 2 interviews since being selected by McCain.

    I can only come away from this with two possibilities. 1) She and/or her handlers are not certain the opportunities would in fact be positive. or 2) She’s hiding, she doesn’t want the public to get to know her.

    I’ve had enough secretive government. I don’t want more.

    ReplyReply


  • Angela James
    September 24
    3:14 pm

    Anti-Palin rally in Alaska:

    http://users.livejournal.com/_soulstar/138105.html

    ReplyReply

  • Wow, I wonder why the rally wasn’t covered in the mainstream media? You’d think they’d love this kind of dirt.

    ReplyReply

  • The rally was covered by the mainstream media. The Associated Press distributed an article on September 13, and several local papers (including one of mine, though I can’t recall now which one) picked up the story.

    ReplyReply

  • This whole thing just keeps getting more and more surreal. I mean, we still had campaigning and presidential elections in the middle of the Civil War and WWII.

    We’ve known about this crisis on Wall Street for weeks. Why the abrupt suspension of McCain’s campaign and the call for the cancellation of Friday’s debate? It’s hard to believe any serious campaign advisers would’ve even entertained such silly gimmickry, much less gone through with it.

    ReplyReply


  • anu
    September 25
    4:12 am

    I’m beyond disgusted. Between Sarah Palin’s ridiculous non-answers to Couric’s interview and McCain’s blind flailing at the economy the last week, it finally looked like McCain’s shallow, insulting, moralizing campaign would be revealed. But this fucking stunt…unbelievable. If I ever thought I could vote for McCain, *now* I know otherwise. And now I know what a man looks like when he definitively, completely, absolutely puts politics before country. McCain is not presidential material. He is forever a candidate chasing the next news cycle. Palin didn’t piss me off. THIS…playing politics AT THIS LEVEL, WITH OUR LIVES. THIS. If this works…if such overblown grandstanding theatrics in the midst of the most serious economic crisis of our times works…ARGH.

    ReplyReply

  • One would think a more public presence by the people who will be leading our country through these difficult times might give a bit of hope, or inspire some confidence.

    It’s a weird decision.

    ReplyReply


  • Kaylynne
    September 25
    5:05 am

    Palin stereotyped herself. She labeled herself. She put herself and her family out there herself. She said ignorant and frightening things (seen the videos, read the transcripts) herself. She stereotyped herself as ‘having it all’. No one I know wants what she has. The contrived too busy to do my hair thing is a great example of calculated and focused appeal and there are many other examples. Good chance she would be President within 4 and surely 8 years with Senator McCain’s health history.

    ReplyReply


  • Dee
    September 26
    6:15 am

    Is anyone besides me watching the interviews with Katie Couric? Tonight’s segment was almost too painful to watch. She definitely self-destructed. If you haven’t seen it, go over to CBSnews.com. They have the videos and the transcripts. It continues on Monday.

    ReplyReply


  • Kaylynne
    September 26
    6:28 am

    OMGosh Dee! Thank you for the heads up. Yep. She came across as uninformed, way out of her league and too full of prepackaged religious and cultural jargon to learn.

    ReplyReply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment