Regardless of how you feel about Sarah Palin, are the following things correct to do?

[IDrinkaRum]

Sarah Palin's social security number has been leaked to the public (on the internet) apparently. Who did this? Why would this happen shortly after she was tapped to be McCain's VP?

Also, Sarah Palin has 5 children. There are "feminists" and other females & males who say she should step down as VP contender because she has 5 children who need her to be home and be a mother to them. (As we know, one daughter is pregnant - that's Palin's fault because she wasn't home to give the girl love, she was busy being Governor of Alaska & she does have one son who is going to Iraq).

But how does having 5 children preclude her from being either VP or President? I say it's a good thing 'cos she knows how to run a large household. :p

Also, how is this any different from Nancy Pelosi who also has 5 children (all grown now) and she does have grand-children? Also, when she was in the House of Representatives, representing her state far away from home, her children weren't adults. Does this mean Nancy Pelosi should never have been made Speaker of the House (which incidentally, is considered by some to be the 2nd most important job in the United States Government)? And should she never have run for the House of Representatives while raising 5 chidren?

[Sylvia727]

Hmm...so what these people are saying, no vice president in the history of the US has had minor children while in office, right? :rolleyes: So she's a mother. Big deal. Lots of women are mothers. And off the top of my head, I would guess that the majority of our previous vice presidents were parents, too. Saying that Palin can't be a good mother and a good vp at the same time is no different than saying Jane Q Citizen can't be a good lawyer and a good mother at the same time, or that John Doe doesn't need paternity leave. It's just the same sexist bullshit in a bright, shiny package.

I was hoping to see some dignity in this election, but everyone's so hyped up about skin color and sex hormones. Is it really so unusual of me to want to focus on their plans and likely effectiveness?

[Greenday]

I didn't know anyone was saying she should run for VP because she was a mom. I thought it was more on her being so anal about abstinence only and one of her kids getting pregnant that was what everyone made a fuss about her being a mom.

[IDrinkaRum]

I was listening to Chris Core (as I want the GOP/Conservative take on Palin's nomination as VP for McCain) this morning & there were several calls (all from the Northern Virginia/Maryland/Washington DC area) in which the callers were like, "See how bad of a Mom she is! Her daughter is pregnant" to "How can she run for political office??? She's a mother. All mother's should stay at home and take care of their kids."

It was disgusting. These people identified themselves as "Liberal Democrats". If they were so Liberal, they wouldn't care if she had kids or no kids. Anyone can run for political office.

I don't know enough about Sarah Palin to make an informed decision (aside from her wanting to legislate what a woman does with her body ... though I can say she is qualified to talk about stuff like that as she is a woman). But I think it's disgusting that people are clouding the issues about her personal life in the foreground and not her stand on all things politic.

And Sylvia727 - elections are not for important issues. Both parties (Democrat & Republican) just set out to demolish the other side and tell you not to vote for the other candidate because they're "bad, evil, stinky, don't eat cream cheese and lox on their bagels, they are convinced the sky is purple and tangerine, etc.)

ETA: Sarah Palin is a bad mother because she's got 5 kids and wants to work in politics!!!! (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=5710888&page=1)

There are women out there that are blogging saying she's a bad mother for working & taking care of her kids. Who in their right mind believes this sh!%??? Just because a woman has kids does that mean she can't work at all? Then why are there working mothers out there? And why aren't men asked about their kids and held to the same standards? Men, shockingly, do help with children in their homes (there are even "house husbands" instead of "house wives"). The fact that Conservative Christians and Liberals are questioning her ability because she's a mother who has chosen to work (gasp!), she's a bad person.

[IDrinkaRum]

Liberals scared of a woman strong enough to raise 5 kids & run for Veep? (http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/08/31/palin-bad-mother-bad-woman/)

This woman doesn't agree with Sarah Palin's politics but stands up for working mother of 5 (http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2008/08/dont-dis-sarah.html)

Barefoot and in the kitchen is the new feminism? (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/ed_schultz_sarah_palin_is_a_bad_mother/)

[Sylvia727]

And Sylvia727 - elections are not for important issues. Both parties (Democrat & Republican) just set out to demolish the other side ...

I knew that, I just hoped the American public might have gotten fed up enough with all our problems to focus on the solutions. But between the hype over skin color, the mudslinging over personal finances, the cracks about age, and the sexism against both Clinton and Palin, I can see that not much has changed.

I thought it was more on her being so anal about abstinence only and one of her kids getting pregnant that was what everyone made a fuss about her being a mom.

The classier detractors are pointing to how she runs her household as an example of how she might run the country. The trashier folks are complaining that she can't be in the kitchen and the oval office at the same time.

[DesignFox]

As a staunch advocate of giving women choices, I find it hilarious that a conservative, crazy, abstinance only, anti-choicer has a pregnant teenage daughter. Hehe.

That said....
I DO have concerns with what I'm reading on her politics. Not the fact that she's a mother of 5. Women CAN have careers AND be mothers if they so choose. I'd say I'm surprised at the amount of flack she is getting, but I'm not.

I went to a women's college, and the stuff that came out of the mouths of my fellow classmates during my women's studies classes was appallingly ignorant.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Also, how is this any different from Nancy Pelosi who also has 5 children (all grown now) and she does have grand-children? Also, when she was in the House of Representatives, representing her state far away from home, her children weren't adults. Does this mean Nancy Pelosi should never have been made Speaker of the House (which incidentally, is considered by some to be the 2nd most important job in the United States Government)? And should she never have run for the House of Representatives while raising 5 chidren?

Palin is notable not because she's a woman. Not because she's a mother, and not because of the X number of kids she has.

She's getting flak because of her blatant hypocrisy in supporting abstinence-only ed and denying the rights of birth control and abortion while her own family obviously has not done so well with the abstinence-only gig (re: the teen daughter, who I would lay odds never even had any choice in the matter).

You know if this had been a Democrat, the Repubs would be screaming to high heaven about how lacking in morals the candidate was, so on and so on. But instead they're all "ooh, aren't those Family Values so cyuuuute!" (I loathe that phrase with the fire of a thousand suns...) because of course they're trying to spin it to their advantage - they're counting on women being dumb enough to look at Palin and go "hey, she has a vagina like me too, she must be automatically qualified!" (Not a chance in hell, especially with her dominionist leanings)

Palin does not and should not get a free pass from justified criticism, especially since her policies that she would inflict on the nation are so bloody extremist.

As for the social sec. # flap, I'm cynical enough to think that it was done by a *Republican/dominionist* in an attempt to blame it on Dems and garner more sympathy for their candidate ("See! You're all picking on me 'cuz I'm female and a mom!" (Notice how they had no such sympathy for Hillary Clinton, also female and a mom, of course)). Though I would not rule out far-left extremist action either.

[AFPheonix]

I suspect she has enough failings to pick apart from her tenure as Governor to bother with worrying about whether her children are sexually active or not. She'll hardly be the first mom who has a career and children to juggle, and she'll not be the last. Fortunately she's probably wealthy enough to get decent child care, unlike a lot of other moms in her position.

[IDrinkaRum]

AFPhoenix - Her husband has left his job and is now in charge of the children. And where I live, it's common for children to be put in daycare/have nannies around. As a stay-at-home Mom, I'm the odd man out.

[AdminAssistant]

She's getting flak because of her blatant hypocrisy in supporting abstinence-only ed and denying the rights of birth control and abortion while her own family obviously has not done so well with the abstinence-only gig (re: the teen daughter, who I would lay odds never even had any choice in the matter).

You know if this had been a Democrat, the Repubs would be screaming to high heaven about how lacking in morals the candidate was, so on and so on. But instead they're all "ooh, aren't those Family Values so cyuuuute!"

I KNOW. I just keep thinking, a teenage pregnancy/shotgun wedding = family values. A blowjob from an intern = impeachable offense. I love how some conservatives think that only they can make mistakes. That said, I really don't think that the daughter's pregnancy should reflect too much on the mother. Teenagers are notoriously stupid.

As a woman, I have a big big big BIG problem with another person, much less another WOMAN, telling me that if I get raped, that I have to have the baby. That's my problem with Governor Palin. That and her woeful lack of any experience and the fact that Senator McCain is flippin' old. I don't think she has any qualifications to lead our country. At all. She also has this wonderful tendency to just fire people who she doesn't get along with.

I really hope the press backs of the mother/pregnancy train, and instead focuses on any of the many other things they can bash Palin with.

[Sylvia727]

I KNOW. I just keep thinking, a teenage pregnancy/shotgun wedding = family values. A blowjob from an intern = impeachable offense. I love how some conservatives think that only they can make mistakes.

Since when is it anyone's business whose daughter got pregnant at what age? If I had gotten pregnant at 17, I wouldn't have thought it a mistake. I would have been happy. Who's to say that Bristol doesn't feel the same way? And that Sarah's excited about being a grandma? A conservative can support a teenager in her pregnancy and condemn the president lying under oath without any hypocrisy.

I really hope the press backs of the mother/pregnancy train, and instead focuses on any of the many other things they can bash Palin with.

Hear, hear.

[Flyndaran]

... A conservative can support a teenager in her pregnancy and condemn the president lying under oath without any hypocrisy.
...
I hate how the GOP loves to bring out that lie every now and then. Clinton did not lie under oath. They asked him if he IS having an affair with Lewinsky.
At the time he wasn't. Weasely answer to an inappropriate question, yes, but not purgery.
Par for the course for politicians, but not illegal in any way.
Your "enemy" didn't commite any crimes whatsoever.
Get over it already.

I don't really care that a uterine clown car's daughter started pez dispensing babies underage.
She has SO FREAKIN' MANY grotesque flaws to focus on, that I really hate this stupid distraction.

[Sylvia727]

Your "enemy" didn't commite any crimes whatsoever. Get over it already.

The question was about values. Why someone wouldn't care about the potential vp's daughter being pregnant but would care about Clinton doing what he did. Bill Clinton is not my enemy; in fact, I never stated my position on the issue one way or another. As for whether or not he lied, the statement "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," is very clear, no matter how a politician can twist the semantics of it.

My position was and is that the Clinton situation is very different from the Palin situation. The president of the United States having oral sex with an intern, and then lying about it, is not even similiar to the potential veep's daughter getting pregnant at 17. I will concede that the lie was in a press statement, and that I don't actually know what was said under oath.

I don't really care that a uterine clown car's daughter started pez dispensing babies underage.

Uterine clown car = having five children. Pez dispensing babies = one pregnancy. Is that correct? I'm reading a lot of hostility against women in this statement, or maybe just against people who don't fit the traditional family structure. If you really don't care, then why use such aggressive words to describe their family? You come across as very bitter and hateful towards large families and teenage mothers, and as the child of a "uterine clown car" I take particular offense.

[Flyndaran]

...
Uterine clown car = having five children. Pez dispensing babies = one pregnancy. Is that correct? I'm reading a lot of hostility against women in this statement, or maybe just against people who don't fit the traditional family structure. If you really don't care, then why use such aggressive words to describe their family? You come across as very bitter and hateful towards large families and teenage mothers, and as the child of a "uterine clown car" I take particular offense.

Take offense all you want it won't change the fact that teenage parents, and women that spew out far more children than they can possibly care for in the attention department let alone financial means that their selfishness and need for immediate gratification hurts them, thier children, and the world in general.

I don't hate teenage parents, (it takes two to conceive). I just feel that their egregious mistakes shouldn't be forgotten or glossed over as it doesn't just screw up their lives, but that of innocent children.

[Sylvia727]

I don't hate teenage parents, (it takes two to conceive). I just feel that their egregious mistakes shouldn't be forgotten or glossed over as it doesn't just screw up their lives, but that of innocent children.

Who are you to call Bristol's choice a mistake? She chose to get pregnant, and she chose to have the baby. Sarah Palin is hardly going to disown her grandchild, so the baby will be well cared for. Whose life is "screwed up"? How do you know that they don't like it this way?

Take offense all you want it won't change the fact that teenage parents, and women that spew out far more children than they can possibly care for in the attention department let alone financial means that their selfishness and need for immediate gratification hurts them, thier children, and the world in general.

You're saying that Sarah Palin can not care for her five children in the attention or financial departments. Well, financially, she's set, not only as the governor of a state but also as an overnight celebrity. Which leaves the attention department. Her husband is a stay-at-home dad, but that's not good enough? Should she go back to baking cookies and serving teas? There is absolutely no evidence that Ms. Palin and her husband do not love each and every one of their children, and to condemn them for having "too many" is arrogant and malicious.

"Women that spew out far more children than they can possibly care for." My mother loves all five of her children very deeply. My aunt emotionally neglects her only child. Without knowing each individual family, you can't possibly pass any sort of rational judgement on them. For you to say that my mother "couldn't possibly care for" me is nothing short of hateful.

I think you owe Sarah and Todd Palin, my mother, and every other parent of a large family an apology for your hasty judgement. Say what you want about Sarah Palin's politics, but when you condemn her for a lifestyle choice many others share, you cross a line.

[Rapscallion]

Who are you to call Bristol's choice a mistake? She chose to get pregnant, and she chose to have the baby.

I'm completely non-partisan in the debate, but I'm curious as to whether or not she actually was able to make that choice, or were her mother's preferences in anti-abortion the deciding factor?

Rapscallion

[DesignFox]

Who are you to call Bristol's choice a mistake? She chose to get pregnant, and she chose to have the baby.


Well, I'm not sure if she chose to get pregnant, but she obviously chose to have sex... :p

It's debatable whether or not her mother is the one forcing her to keep the baby, but for better or worse, her family is obviously dealing with it. That's fine in my book.

The politics on the other hand...well...I'm scared witless for our country. This election round isn't giving us very good choices...:(

[Sylvia727]

I'm sure her mother's opinions were a factor, both in the formation of her views and in her perception of how the different options would play out. But she wasn't forced into anything. Coerced? It's possible. I assume Bristol knew she had choices, but either way she did have them.

[AdminAssistant]

Well, I'm not sure if she chose to get pregnant, but she obviously chose to have sex... :p

I wouldn't even say that, since I wasn't in the room when it happened. Date rape is woefully common amongst teenagers - even (or especially) those in relationships.

I really hate this situation for the daughter. She's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. Either way, she's become a pawn for her mother, John McCain, and the media to play with.

[Giggle Goose]

Who are you to call Bristol's choice a mistake? She chose to get pregnant, and she chose to have the baby.

CHOSE to get pregnant? Maybe this gal is different, but I know damn well when I was 17; having a baby was the LAST thing on my mind. I had to get a date to prom first! :p

Joking aside, I find it hard to believe that Bristol WANTS to be in this situation. But she's dealing with it the best she can; and I just hope she can deliver a healthy baby given all the stress she's under.

[IDrinkaRum]

I just have to wonder (and this is my own brain thinking things), would we be having this discussion about her daughter's pregnancy and how the daughter is being forced to keep her baby, if this scenario happened:

Teen daughter of a Veep candidate gets pregnant. Said Veep candidate is widely known for being pro-life, pro-choice, wanting to remove all restrictions for abortion. Then daughter makes announcement and says that she's keeping the baby. Why? Because she thinks abortion is the most evil of all evils and she can't believe her parents ever told her (in private of course) that she has to abort her baby and that her & her boyfriend are getting married, etc.

[Sylvia727]

We'd have the same argument, but everyone would switch sides in the debate. :p

[AFPheonix]

I just have to wonder (and this is my own brain thinking things), would we be having this discussion about her daughter's pregnancy and how the daughter is being forced to keep her baby, if this scenario happened:

Teen daughter of a Veep candidate gets pregnant. Said Veep candidate is widely known for being pro-life, pro-choice, wanting to remove all restrictions for abortion. Then daughter makes announcement and says that she's keeping the baby. Why? Because she thinks abortion is the most evil of all evils and she can't believe her parents ever told her (in private of course) that she has to abort her baby and that her & her boyfriend are getting married, etc.

Wanting abortion to be available for those who wish it does not mean that advocates think that all unmarried or young women or women in bad situations must abort.

[IDrinkaRum]

Yes, but we're talking about a teenaged girl who is pregnant, has decided to keep the baby, marry the baby's daddy, and we're saying it's because her mother's making her (or at least she's "brainwashed" by her mother to think abortion is bad). But what I'm asking is would this be an issue of Bristol Palin was the daughter of a pro-abortion candidate and Bristol still extolled the evils of abortion and wanted to keep her baby?

[AdminAssistant]

What many people are saying is that Palin opposes sex education (beyond abstinence only) in schools and...her very own daughter is pregnant. In her family, there is a living example of how abstinence only education does. not. work. And, frankly, I'm sick of conservatives talking about how fantastic it is. How it makes Palin "human".

Now - what if it were a daughter of a pro-choice candidate who ended up having an abortion? She would be crucified on FoxNews as a murderer.

[Boozy]

But what I'm asking is would this be an issue of Bristol Palin was the daughter of a pro-abortion candidate and Bristol still extolled the evils of abortion and wanted to keep her baby?

No one is really "pro-abortion", but I wont harp on that because I realize that you meant to say "pro-choice".

There have been tons of congressional and senatorial candidates in the past whose children have come out and said they disagree with their parents views. It doesnt have much of an effect on the campaign unless the opposing party makes it an issue. We dont live in a society where teenagers opinions are taken seriously.

(Side note: Does anyone know why every time I hit my apostrophe key Firefox brings up "Quickfind" across the bottom? I cant punctuate properly...)

[Flyndaran]

The sins of the father should not be visited upon the child.

I have no right to claim what my father did or thought as my own for good or ill, and niether should anyone else.

[Slytovhand]

Similar to Rap's thoughts, I'm wondering how the father is actually feeling about this whole situation.. is he be 'forced' or coerced in any way? Is he being paid off? Is he happy as Larry and really excited?

Is it an irrelevant thought? No - cos if he is being forced into a situation because of politics, then what does it say about those politicians??

But otherwise, I pretty much agree with the OP... what's really relevant, and what's hype?

Naive as I am, I'd like to think it doesn't really matter what her views on things are, as long as she carries out the will of the people - not the will of her ego.


Slyt

[AFPheonix]

No one is really "pro-abortion", but I wont harp on that because I realize that you meant to say "pro-choice".

There have been tons of congressional and senatorial candidates in the past whose children have come out and said they disagree with their parents views. It doesnt have much of an effect on the campaign unless the opposing party makes it an issue. We dont live in a society where teenagers opinions are taken seriously.


Thank you. A true pro-choice candidate would let their child do exactly that, make the choice to keep or not to keep the pregnancy in whatever matter they see fit. They would give their kids the tools to know how to have sex safely, not just limit their knowledge to "don't do it".

[Rapscallion]

What amuses me, in the wee hours before an extra early shift at work, is that I've just realised that the young man who was undoubtedly whispering sweet nothings is (likely) being forced to accept the results of his actions. Gives me an amusing tingle.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

What amuses me, in the wee hours before an extra early shift at work, is that I've just realised that the young man who was undoubtedly whispering sweet nothings is (likely) being forced to accept the results of his actions. Gives me an amusing tingle.

Rapscallion

Forced? As much as I despise the possible VP, that's a pretty serious accusation. Also, I have no idea why intimidation would make you tingle.

[Greenday]

Forced? As much as I despise the possible VP, that's a pretty serious accusation. Also, I have no idea why intimidation would make you tingle.

Getting a VP-candidate's daughter knocked up in an election year, you really don't have any other choices other than to "be positive" about it.

[blas87]

I have NO problem with a woman striving for VP.

I have NO problem with working moms.

I have NO problem with one day having a female president.

I have a problem with the fact that all of these McCain ads are throwing mud at Obama for being "inexperienced" and "not ready to lead".

Yes, and 2 years as governor of Alaska qualifies her as "ready" and "experienced". Granted, she'd only be VP, but VP has to be ready to take over if the president gets killed or dies, and we all know McCain is getting up there and isn't 40 anymore........

That's my problem.

[AdminAssistant]

What amuses me, in the wee hours before an extra early shift at work, is that I've just realised that the young man who was undoubtedly whispering sweet nothings is (likely) being forced to accept the results of his actions. Gives me an amusing tingle.

Rapscallion

Me too, Raps.

If nothing else, perhaps it can be a lesson to all the other teenage boys pressuring their girlfriends into the bedroom. I feel for both him and the daughter, but neither are blameless.

[Rapscallion]

Forced? As much as I despise the possible VP, that's a pretty serious accusation. Also, I have no idea why intimidation would make you tingle.

More than one sort of forcing, my good person. See, if he did back out of admitting his responsibility, the news of exactly who he was would leak (probably unintentionally), and he would be hounded by the merciless packs of the press. He's in a situation where he has to do what's right, and as AdminAssistant says it's a warning for others to damn well use contraception, or to keep it in their own pants for a bit longer. Might encourage a few teenage girls in the lesson that holding an aspirin between their knees is the only way a pill can guarantee no pregnancy (I have to thank RecoveringKinkoid for that one).

Fact is, there's a good example of what to do right, and a salutory lesson in what to avoid doing unless you're prepared to accept the consequences. It's far better than someone skipping out on his child and 'babymommy'.

Rapscallion

[SuperB]

There's a lot going around about Sarah Palin, some even from Obama's camp as at least two of his registered user's blogs have been deleted for spreading falsehoods.

As for her beliefs and how they impact/are impacting her kids, when she said "I would choose life" w/regard to the question about rape and abortion she simply stated it as her choice. She never said she would force any of her kids into a specific decision but those desperate to make her look bad never report on that angle. That her daughter is having the baby and marrying the father is also not proof that any of it is forced. Until there is proof, definite accusations should not be spoken of as fact. And lets face it, Roe VS Wade is in no danger of being overturned regardless of who takes office.

As for her experience, she has the same amount of foreign affairs experience as Obama. 0%. Obama only has two years of experience on her as a Jr. Senator and he's the Presidential candidate.

In my opinion, she's being ripped into simply because she is extremely likable, personable and appears to be strong willed. McCain isn't Bush but the fear that he will 'stay the course' is so strong that those against the Bush administration, regardless of party, are not happy that she seems to have rejuvenated the Republican party and they definitely don't want that.

Just my .02

[Greenday]

In my opinion, she's being ripped into simply because she is extremely likable, personable and appears to be strong willed. McCain isn't Bush but the fear that he will 'stay the course' is so strong that those against the Bush administration, regardless of party, are not happy that she seems to have rejuvenated the Republican party and they definitely don't want that.

Well, first off, I think people have good reason to not be happy if the Republican party is rejuvenated if they don't want to see another 4 years of a Bush-like presidency.

Also, I think a lot of people just have problems with her ethics (or lack of) and her extremist views.

[AdminAssistant]

And lets face it, Roe VS Wade is in no danger of being overturned regardless of who takes office.

Well, that depends on if McCain/Palin gets to chose any Justices.

As for her experience, she has the same amount of foreign affairs experience as Obama. 0%. Obama only has two years of experience on her as a Jr. Senator and he's the Presidential candidate.

So, being a United States Senator means you don't have ANY foreign policy experience or exposure? In a time of diplomatic crisis, I'd rather have someone who will take the time to think things through, make an intelligent plan, and attempt some diplomacy - rather than someone who will march in with heavy artillery and a KILL 'EM ALL!! attitude. Not to mention the fact that Obama has a seasoned foreign policy expert by his side.

And, should the President be, erm, relieved of duty - then you have Palin or Biden. Which of those two is better qualified to lead?

In my opinion, she's being ripped into simply because she is extremely likable, personable and appears to be strong willed.

I don't think she's likable or personable. She's a bulldog in a snappy suit. Her views are so extremist and foreign to me that...I can't even begin to comprehend it. She attempted book bans when she was the mayor of Podunkville. Multiple times. She has fired numerous people for rather suspicious reasons and chalked it up to 'cleaning house'. She believes in stripping women of their basic rights and yet calls herself a 'feminist'. Her values and ideals are suspiciously close to that of George W. Bush. And that's NOT a change I can believe in. That's not change at all.

[SuperB]

The banned books list has been debunked for a while now. Several books on
that list weren't even published when she was Mayor. Not one book was banned and all the hype is over a single question she asked the librarian.

As for firings, who is office doesn't fill positions with those of the same wavelength? That, my friends, is politics as usual regardless of office or partisanship.

Extreme views:
She's pro-life. I have a hard time with that being consider an "extreme view", I call it being responsible for one's actions. When asked about rape, she simply said she would choose life. I don't recall seeing any other quote on that subject and find most of what's being claimed based on it quite a stretch.

She prays. Any religious person prays and most of the time it's that issues you have no control over be "God's will" one way or another. That's not unusual in any way and not indicative of any of the bogus claims that she think war is "sent from god".

I would like to see less blinders in this election, personally regarding all the dirt digging and smear campaigns going on from both sides. I'm no fan of Obama but even I have corrected quite a few of the false emails friends and family have forwarded my way about him. (sworn in on the Koran - False. Refusing to salute the Flag - False, etc.) And neither candidate have yet to truly explained their idea's of "change" to my satisfaction.

http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors/

[Greenday]

Extreme views:
She's pro-life. I have a hard time with that being consider an "extreme view", I call it being responsible for one's actions. When asked about rape, she simply said she would choose life. I don't recall seeing any other quote on that subject and find most of what's being claimed based on it quite a stretch.

I consider the pro-life stance to be extremist. Pro-choice allows people to make their own decisions, whether you agree with them or not.

[SuperB]

We will definitely have to agree to disagree there since I believe life begins in the womb.

[Flyndaran]

We will definitely have to agree to disagree there since I believe life begins in the womb.

Then you would be wrong. Life began almost four billion years ago and hasn't stopped since.

Sperm and eggs were alive long before they merged.

What you probably meant was that a person's existance as a person begins in the womb. Which no one is arguing as third term infants are classified as people by nearly everyone in the world.

Your difference of opinion lies in the fact that you equate a single celled organism, a zygote, to have equal or more rights as the woman gestating it.

I would think that my girlfriend's life should be at least as valuable as something with more complexity than an ant.

[SuperB]

Then you would be wrong. Life began almost four billion years ago and hasn't stopped since.

Sperm and eggs were alive long before they merged.

What you probably meant was that a person's existance as a person begins in the womb. Which no one is arguing as third term infants are classified as people by nearly everyone in the world.

Your difference of opinion lies in the fact that you equate a single celled organism, a zygote, to have equal or more rights as the woman gestating it.

I would think that my girlfriend's life should be at least as valuable as something with more complexity than an ant.

You make a lot of assumptions based on a few words. (what else do I mean?)
Once implanted, the zygote is the beginning of a person. Read the Sarah Palin and the media thread for a more detailed idea of where I stand but more than being pro-life I am pro-responsibility.
This is where I stand and have no problem agreeing to disagree with anyone. I entered this thread to point out the rumors on Palin aren't all true, not debate the ethics of abortion. That conversation will lead nowhere. It won't change my mind or experience and I've no desire to change anyone else's mind. I will however point out that it's a stretch to equate Palin's personal decision with a declaration of fact that she wants the same for others.

As I said, I would like to see less blinders in this election, personally regarding all the dirt digging and smear campaigns going on from both sides. I'm no fan of Obama but even I have corrected quite a few of the false emails friends and family have forwarded my way about him. (sworn in on the Koran - False. Refusing to salute the Flag - False, etc.) And neither candidate have yet to truly explained their idea's of "change" to my satisfaction.

[jayel]

I'm bothered by the fact that everyone uses Sarah Palin's child with Down Syndrome and Bristol's pregnancy as 'proof' of how extreme her views on abortion are. People act as if these are situations where any normal person with common sense would have chosen abortion. :rolleyes:

So if you choose to have a child with Down's Syndrome you are obviously not in your right mind? Becase obviously if a baby is 'defective' you should get rid of it? Or could it possibly be that they wanted and loved the child regardless? Is that considered the 'wrong' choice in this day and age?

So the seventeen year old is having a baby. That means she was forced to have it by her mother? She couldn't have WANTED to keep it? I know plenty of middle class young girls who have gotten pregnant and chose to keep the baby. They weren't forced, so why does everyone assume Bristol is being forced to have the child and doesn't want it?

A huge point I want to make: If Bristol wanted an abortion, could she not have had one? Secretly, behind mom's back? She's seventeen after all. She probably could have done it and no one would have ever known.

[Greenday]

A huge point I want to make: If Bristol wanted an abortion, could she not have had one? Secretly, behind mom's back? She's seventeen after all. She probably could have done it and no one would have ever known.

Once the media found out she was pregnant, no, she could basically not get one. It would have destroyed her mother's conservative backing.

[jayel]

Of course she couldn't get one once the media knew about the pregnancy- at least not without hurting her mother's image. My point was that the media would never even have had to know, if Bristol herself didn't tell anyone. If she'd really wanted an abortion, she could have done it discreetly, with her privacy protected.

[the_std]

Their town is a small town and, even with the law requiring doctors to keep everything confidential, someone might have seen her go into the clinic, someone might have heard her discuss it... Privacy can be a lot more difficult once one is affiliated with a political figure.

[jayel]

Not denying that it may have been a challenge, but where there's a will there's a way. I wouldn't recognize my governor's kids if they came knocking on my front door with Vote for Jindal Posters, and I live near the capital.

[anriana]

Several states have laws that make it illegal for minors to get abortions without their parents' permission. Perhaps Alaska is one of those.

[Amethyst Hunter]

it's a stretch to equate Palin's personal decision with a declaration of fact that she wants the same for others.

Yet people immediately assume things like when Obama says "I will talk to the leaders of hostile foreign nations to work on a peaceful solution to our problems" it automatically means that he'll hand America over, lock, stock and barrel to said hostilities. Why is this okay, but distrusting Palin's motives isn't?

The biggest difference between Obama and someone like McCain/Palin is that Obama has from my observations proven himself trustworthy (for a politician, of course) and capable of leading a large body of people. Palin hasn't. She seems to find her ignorance amusing (witness her semi-giggly question "what exactly is it that the VP does?"); while I'm sure a lot of us ourselves don't know every nut and bolt of running a government, most of us are more in tune with things than she appears and willful ignorance is the last thing we need at this point. (Obama doesn't strike me as ignorant at all; he's known for his pragmatism and what he isn't fully up to speed on, he either finds out for himself or hires on people who are well-versed in their field - one reason why I think he picked the very-seasoned-in-foreign-deals Joe Biden as VP. So it's obvious he's willing to defer to people who are more skilled than he is, or at least take their recommendations seriously as he forms his policy views, despite whatever gaps - age, etc. - may exist. That to me is someone I could trust to make sensible decisions regarding serious matters) Everything I've read about her, every time I've seen her, she strikes me as one of those two-faced backstabbing types of women. I've known some like that - they'd put on their biggest sweetie smile and bare their teeth at you in a 'barracuda' grin and pretend to be your best friend in public - until you did or said something they didn't like, and then they were all over you like starving piranhas. This isn't friggin' high school or some PTA queen-bee-manship and that kind of crap doesn't belong in government; this is our country and, looking from a worldwide perspective, very likely our world as one given nations' abilities of communication/travel.

McCain has sucked up shamelessly to the Bush camp (the very ones who helped put us into the squeezes we're facing now) and shows no indication that he's willing to work for global peace - unless, of course, you think that browbeating everybody you don't like into submission is a good way to get them to obey/like you. War should always, always be a very last resort, not the first one. In our zeal to protect this country, we've actually created *more* enemies than we would have if we'd just held our tongues, stepped back and taken a deep calming breath and gone "okay, this is what we have to work with, now what kind of optimal solutions can we come up with?"

Regarding someone else's earlier comment about "pro-life being extremist", as a pro-choicer, I'd like to clarify that. There is pro-life that is actually pro-life, and then there is 'pro-life' that is anything but. It is possible to be both pro-choice and pro-life at the same time: you yourself might not agree with or choose abortion, but you respect and don't impede the rights of someone else to make that decision for herself. That, to me, is truly pro-life and I'm cool with that.

Where 'pro-life' becomes extremist is when this view is forced onto people who don't want it - and that's what we've seen in recent years what with the violence/vandalism on women's clinics, attacks on Roe v. Wade and the attempts by pharmacists to deny women their birth control prescriptions on garbage grounds (aka the so-called "conscience" clause, which to date has NOT been used on any other medication except birth control - suspicious, no?), and sneaky would-be laws worded so as to threaten not just abortion but contraception, among other things. The sensible pro-life people (your average American, who tends not to affiliate with the publicized anti-choice groups), while they may not support abortion, usually don't deny the need for birth control either, and many of them would support abortion in cases of rape/incest. That definitely sets them apart from the bunches who try to pass unnecessarily restrictive/total blanket bans on abortion and attack birth control access.

I'm no fan of Obama but even I have corrected quite a few of the false emails friends and family have forwarded my way about him. (sworn in on the Koran - False. Refusing to salute the Flag - False, etc.) And neither candidate have yet to truly explained their idea's of "change" to my satisfaction.

As an Obama supporter, I thank you for countering the "Evil Muslim" rumors. :)

As far as Obama's idea of 'change' goes, I think I'll make a separate post later on why I believe he'd be a decent (if not better) President. Stay tuned...

[jayel]

Several states have laws that make it illegal for minors to get abortions without their parents' permission. Perhaps Alaska is one of those.

Nope. It took me less than 60 seconds to learn that in Alaska, girls 17 and up do not need parents permission to have an abortion. Bristol could have learned this herself quite quickly if she was interested.

Please don't forget my other point, that Sarah Palin and her family are not extremists or without common sense just because they have made the decisions they've made. There's nothing wrong with having/ keeping a baby with Down's, or one who wasn't planned.

[Pedersen]

Per this page (http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title18/Chapter16/Section020.htm), Alaska requires the parent to be notified (and consent) in the case of a pre age of majority daughter seeking an abortion, or for said daughter to go through a court to get that same consent.

I do not know if the age of majority is 17 (or younger) in Alaska. If it is 18, then Bristol would have had to file a court case to get that consent without getting her parents involved. In fact, until October 18, 2008, she would have to file that case.

I will also admit that I may have misunderstood the law. One part troubles me, in particular: "A person may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion upon a minor who is known to the person to be ... under 17 years of age". Does this mean that an unmarried 17 year old can get an abortion? It sounds that way to me, but I am not certain.

Bristol finds herself in a bad spot if she wanted/wants an abortion. Due to her position in life, she is effectively unable to get one. Furthermore, she is effectively unable to give the child up for adoption do to her position.

It is very unlikely that she had the time to come to grips with this decision before it hit the local media, at the least. Further research shows that the official statement is that Bristol is 5 months pregnant. That would mean she had ample time before her mom became the VP nominee to have gotten an abortion. In fact, she would have had ample time before her mom could even have been discussing being a VP nominee. So, remove the national media attention from the equation of whether or not that would have influenced Bristol's decision to have an abortion.

Even still, it's unlikely she had time to come to grips with this before the local media found out. If she is like most teenage girls, she would have gone into a panic, and tried talking to people she felt she could trust, possibly even the baby's father. This news would have spread fairly quickly, though, and been able to reach the local news outlets within days, at most. If you doubt that, think about small towns, think about scandals, and then think about what juicy gossip this would be for a small town.

So, that having been said, it's very likely (not 100%, more like >75%) that Bristol did not get a choice in the matter. And, if she did try to assert that she could/would get an abortion, she likely faced some sort of sanctions from her family.

Now, Levi Johnston, the father? By all accounts, he did not actually propose to Bristol until the RNC (actually, unable to find verification of this, only conjecture that he would then). Add in that on his Myspace page he had written that he did not want kids (link (http://bittenandbound.com/2008/09/02/myspace-levi-johnston-i-dont-want-kids-photos/)). It is extremely easy to believe that Levi Johnston is being pressured into this. Something roughly akin to "Do this, and we won't make your life a living hell."

I'll admit that there's a decent chance that Bristol wants this child, and has wanted it. I'll also admit that there is an equally large chance that Bristol's choice in the matter was effectively removed due to her position. And Levi's choice, as well, was made for him. A choice that should have belonged to both Levi and Bristol has been made into a political statement on both sides.

That, to me, is the real tragedy of what's happened here.

[SuperB]

On Bristol's pregnancy, she was 5 months along by the time her mother made headlines and she was sucked into the media feeding frenzy. By 5 months along you've pretty much made your decision by then so there wouldn't have been any need for her to worry about the media getting hold of an abortion story. And it's been reported that Bristol and her boyfriend had discussed marriage before she became pregnant. I know quite a few people who met at that age and are still together. Their age is no proof that they were forced into anything.


On Obama, I don't see him as particularly trustworthy. I never really did and the recent news confirms it for me, personally. That he received campaign donations from failed Freddie Mac, has advisers on his payroll from Fannie Mae who've hidden income and he violated the 'Logan Act' when he tried to demand a stall on any troop withdrawal while Bush is President while publicly criticizing the Bush administration for not withdrawing any troops (I can only assume Obama went into this wanting any change to be seen as on "his watch"), don't strike me as "trustworthy".


http://www.newsmax.com/smith/obama_lobbyists/2008/09/18/132023.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423701,00.html

His connection (and $800,000 donation) with ACORN (formerly convicted of voter fraud) and his attempt to silence any stations who air severely negative ads about him also do not help him.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/wgnam_again_target_of_obama_ca.html

Yet people immediately assume things like when Obama says "I will talk to the leaders of hostile foreign nations to work on a peaceful solution to our problems" it automatically means that he'll hand America over, lock, stock and barrel to said hostilities. Why is this okay, but distrusting Palin's motives isn't?

Suspecting is fair game but the above links are far more physical, and financial, than 'who spoke at a church Palin left years ago' or a statement of how one personally feels. I feel the same but were I in Palins shoes I certainly wouldn't attempt to reverse Roe V Wade. I don't bring up the Ayers connection because there's too much speculation on it and not enough facts other than the opinion most have that they wouldn't have a friend like that.
There are so many misrepresentations and outright lies about Palin, in an extremely short period of time, by people who are just so desperate to find anything to use against her and most of what's being put out there as "fact" has been debunked just as fast as it can be spun. It's being called "Palin Derangement Syndrome" on the blogs and it's reached the 'hysteria' level now that her own email account has been hacked. Honestly they aren't doing their party any good by it since at this point, those fed up with the vitrol aren't even listening when any of them even tries discussing what they find to be wrong with her. I'm getting to that point too and find myself avoiding my usual blog reads because of it.
Luckily, vacation starts soon. :)

Seriously though, I wish there was a better choice than McCain as well. I do like the idea of Palin and her fresh look on things but this is yet another election year where I'm looking at the least worse choice between two. And this election wins the 'mudslinging' award over any other hands down.

Sorry, didn't mean to be so long winded but I'm sitting here waiting on a call and as I said, vacation starts soon so you won't have to listen to me on this for a while. ;)

[Sylvia727]

Honestly they aren't doing their party any good by it since at this point, those fed up with the vitrol aren't even listening when any of them even tries discussing what they find to be wrong with her.

I'm at that point with both candidates, myself. Still haven't committed to either one, and probably won't for a while, but whatever decision I make will have to be based on what they say their positions are, and convinced I am that they will follow through. I don't like to trust politicians, but this election I think I'll have to because I can't see through the mudslinging to the unbiased analyses.

[Amethyst Hunter]

On Obama, I don't see him as particularly trustworthy. I never really did and the recent news confirms it for me, personally. That he received campaign donations from failed Freddie Mac, has advisers on his payroll from Fannie Mae who've hidden income and he violated the 'Logan Act' when he tried to demand a stall on any troop withdrawal while Bush is President while publicly criticizing the Bush administration for not withdrawing any troops (I can only assume Obama went into this wanting any change to be seen as on "his watch"), don't strike me as "trustworthy".

http://www.newsmax.com/smith/obama_lobbyists/2008/09/18/132023.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423701,00.html

His connection (and $800,000 donation) with ACORN (formerly convicted of voter fraud) and his attempt to silence any stations who air severely negative ads about him also do not help him.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/wgnam_again_target_of_obama_ca.html

I've heard no record of any Obama attempt to stifle free speech. If there was, it'd be trumpeted across the land - the media is nowhere near as liberal as it's accused of being. Likewise, there's been no record of his supposed non-support of our servicepeople - and if there's one group you don't wanna piss off in this country, it's veterans, believe you me. I'm sure if there was something there they'd be calling him on the carpet for it.

I'll agree that the Freddie Mac financial bit is odd, but I don't see where it's highly suspect of anything. Nothing illegal to date has been reported, and Obama himself hasn't been cited for any wrongdoing. Speaking of so-called corruption, remember, his name was brought up during the Tony Rezko trial but there's been no evidence that he had any sort of illegal ties with Rezko; the only thing of note is that his family purchased - legitimately - a piece of property adjoining to Rezko's wife's and the media was prompt to make a mountain out of a molehill.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/01/rezko/

(Around the same time, Rezko was also funding the career of an ambitious young state legislator named Rod Blagojevich, who had been elected to the General Assembly with the help of his ward-boss father-in-law and was aiming for Congress. Over the years, Rezko would donate $117,652 to Blagojevich's campaigns. He was a smart investor in political futures: Blagojevich is now governor. Three of Rezko's associates were appointed to high-ranking positions in Blagojevich's administration. But Rezko's connection to the governor is the source of his current legal troubles: Rezko is going to trial on Feb. 25 on charges he demanded kickbacks from investment firms seeking money from the Illinois Teachers' Retirement Fund. His alleged co-conspirator, who has already pleaded guilty, is Republican fundraiser Stuart Levine. Rezko allegedly used his clout with the Blagojevich administration to help reappoint Levine to the board that controls the fund.)

Rezko was ecumenical in his largesse, doling out hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions. He served as an advisor to now-imprisoned Republican Gov. George Ryan, and co-chaired a reelection fundraiser for President George W. Bush. And, of course, he paid to have his photo taken with Bill and Hillary Clinton. (Chicago receiving lines can be so embarrassing: First lady Rosalynn Carter was once photographed with a precinct captain named John Wayne Gacy.)

During his first year in the Senate, flush with the book advance for "The Audacity of Hope," Obama and his wife decided to trade up from a condo to a bigger, more secure home in Kenwood, a South Side neighborhood of turreted, balconied piles popular with University of Chicago econ professors looking to blow their Nobel Prize loot. They found a $1.65 million house with four fireplaces, a wine cellar and a black wrought-iron fence. The doctor who lived there also owned the vacant lot next door and, although the properties were listed separately, wanted to sell both at the same time. Despite their new income, the Obamas could not have afforded both parcels. The Obamas closed on their house in June 2005. On the same day, Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the vacant lot for $625,000. They later sold a portion of the lot to the Obamas, for $104,500, so the family could expand its yard. The Rezkos then paid $14,000 to build a fence along the property line.

After the Chicago Tribune uncovered the land deal, Obama described Rezko as "a supporter of mine since my first race for state Senate" and a friend with whom he occasionally had lunch or dinner. Obama knew that Rezko was under grand jury investigation, but believed that "as long as I operated in an open, up-front fashion, and all the T's were crossed and I's were dotted, that it wouldn't be an issue."

James L. Merriner, an Illinois political expert who has conducted the only interview with Rezko since his indictment, says Obama has done "nothing illegal. It's just unsavory."

As long as Rezko was only under investigation, Obama was willing to do business with him. But then Rezko committed the fixer's biggest sin: He got indicted and got his name in the papers. After that, the friendship cooled. Obama has donated $157,835 in Rezko-linked contributions to charity and has called the real estate deal "boneheaded."

In short: Was this an error of judgment? Yes. Was it illegal? No. And Obama admits his mistake up front:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

"I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it," Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times.

"With respect to the purchase of my home, I am confident that everything was handled ethically and above board. But I regret that while I tried to pay close attention to the specific requirements of ethical conduct, I misgauged the appearance presented by my purchase of the additional land from Mr. Rezko," Obama said.

"It was simply not good enough that I paid above the appraised value for the strip of land that he sold me. It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor," the senator said. For that reason, I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it. I did however donate campaign contributions from Rezko to charity."

One thing about Illinois politics; they're dirty as hell but once somebody's been sniffed out, believe me, the feds don't waste time in baying for blood. If there had been any real wrongdoing on Obama's part, especially in regards to finances, the feds would've been all over that like piranhas on a bleeding cow and Obama's presidential bid would've gone nowhere. Rezko was basically a bottom-feeder looking for easy opportunity in anyone he came across (he dealt with both Democrats and Republicans, as you can see) and Obama made a simple error of judgment in doing business with him - business that, while not proven illegal, was used by people as "proof" that Obama is supposedly an unsavory character.

Is Obama squeaky-clean? Of course not - he's a human, he's a politician. The difference is that in comparison with other noted ones, his stains are a lot less threatening than the others'. For a politician, I feel reasonably confident about trusting him with the helmship of the Presidency of this country.

As for the Fox (or perhaps I should say Faux) News link, that reads more like an opinion piece than it does anything of substance. FN has a well-known (and deserved) reputation for being little more than a Republican shill piece, so I'm not inclined to trust anything coming from there.

There are so many misrepresentations and outright lies about Palin, in an extremely short period of time, by people who are just so desperate to find anything to use against her and most of what's being put out there as "fact" has been debunked just as fast as it can be spun.

Most of what's been said/is being said about Palin can be backed up by its sources (with the possible exception of DailyKos, but then again, the article that I linked to there was written by a verifiable source independent of Kos, so there you have it). I can't say as I've heard anything truly outrageous about her, and I've been keeping a watch ever since she was announced as VP pick. By contrast, the majority of stuff being spread about Obama has no real basis other than that "ooh, scary new guy who won't do things our way" type of meme (i.e., he's supposedly Muslim and so on).

Nobody I've talked to can give me a valid reason why Obama isn't fit to lead, other than that "He scares me." Well, McCain/Palin scare the shit out of me, but I can list valid reasons why (dominionist support, extremely anti-choice, pro-war). The only person who's come close to giving a semi-valid reason as to why "Obama is scary" is my dad, who explained it as a possible Kennedy scenario all over again (he's in his 60s, so he knows that time; as of right now, he's leaning Obama and he's been an old-school conservative for pretty much most of his life, so that should tell you something right there). But like I told him, that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to turn out that way. History may repeat itself up to a point, but the superficial similarities between Kennedy and Obama are just that, surface bits. They are two very different men from two very different times and backgrounds, and the way I see it, if history does cycle back from time to time, it's because it's giving us a chance to learn from and correct the mistakes of our past. So I see that as a positive aspect.

And this election wins the 'mudslinging' award over any other hands down.

Actually, I'd have to disagree there. I think 2004's was the ugliest one. This one has actually been surprisingly civil, for an election. Of course, it's still a ways to November 4th...

Sorry, didn't mean to be so long winded

There's no such thing as long-winded here. ;) So you're in good company.