Jump to content

McCain picks woman for VP slot


Recommended Posts

It appears some true conservatives have finally started coming to their senses about McCain's decision:

http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0830hm.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postparti...id=opinionsbox1

and they need to shut up. As much as I hate blind partisan behavior, now is the time for it. We have had the republican leader in the Alaskan senate say "she is not even qualified to be governor, much less vice-president". Her own mother-in-law questioned her qualifications.

There are people on this forum who would argue anybody was a good pick, no matter what sort of baggage they had. Those people should be given rolls of duct tape to put over the mouth of the next Republican or conservative media person to say something bad about Palin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

and they need to shut up. As much as I hate blind partisan behavior, now is the time for it. We have had the republican leader in the Alaskan senate say "she is not even qualified to be governor, much less vice-president". Her own mother-in-law questioned her qualifications.

There are people on this forum who would argue anybody was a good pick, no matter what sort of baggage they had. Those people should be given rolls of duct tape to put over the mouth of the next Republican or conservative media person to say something bad about Palin.

Why is the truth so scary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I don't concede that picking Rice, Ridge or Romney would have doomed the GOP to failure. I don't concede that picking Palin will doom them to failure, either. McCain's one weakness was among evangelicals and I will admit none of the three I named would have been particularly loved by evangelicals, HOWEVER, the arguments in their favor were not insurmountable. Polling before and during the primary showed that southern evangelicals had an unusually high regard for Rudy Giuliani, a man who dumped his wife on TV, is a Catholic, had an extra-marital affair, is estranged from his kids, and who has dubious positions on abortion and gay marriage. Why the love for Rudy? Because he was perceived as being strong on national defense and because he took the threat of terrorism seriously. The GOP could have made a serious play for evangelicals along the lines of national defense and being a steady hand in a troubled world. Evangelicals, when faced with Obama-Biden v. McCain-Ridge... do you think they'd have stayed home on election day? Particularly if some skirmish arises in the world, say tensions between Iran and Israel, between now and November?? With Palin on the ticket, McCain has seriously eroded his "steady hand" argument should an international crisis arise. Sure, everyone will look to see what the top of the ticket says about global events, but the follow up question will continue to gnaw away -- what if this happened while Sarah Palin was in the Oval Office?

McCain's biggest worry is not shoring up evangelicals, it is attracting voters who might consider voting Republican except that they're tired of Bush and everything associated with Bush. The Obama campaign didn't arrive at the "McSame" message by accident.

Palin should solidify McCain's standing among the religious right community, which is an important consideration, but she also gives McCain at least a chance of convincing voters that he's not "McSame", which would have been utterly hopeless had Rice or Ridge been his VP nominee.

If McCain can't convince some portion of those middle-ground voters that he's not McSame, then the election is McOver.

About Jindal v Palin, I would argue Jindal was overlooked primarily because he lacked an XX chromosomal makeup. McCain wants to give voters who want the visual of change a way of getting something fresh without having to vote for Obama. Palin gives some on the margins their own way of making history without voting Dem. The second reason Jindal's was by-passed was his race. I'm not saying McCain is racist, what I'm saying is that McCain opted for a kind of diversity (gender diversity) than that offered by the Dem ticket (racial diversity). Now, as for celebrity... I wouldn't say it's fame or celebrity, what it comes down to between Palin and Jindal is that Jindal is more of a known quantity. The GOP prides itself on rewarding and elevating quality, of being a meritocracy. Jindal has been in the news for years as someone on the rise. People know more about him. He's familiar. He'd have been as a good a pick for electoral reasons and would have been a far superior pick for governing reasons. Palin comes in from left field, giving the appearance that this is a move of desperation and not a serious continuation of the GOP's claims of merit. Just about everyone I know who is a McCain supporter is dumbfounded by her elevation from obscurity.

Oh, sure. I don't question that Jindal was probably overlooked because of optics rather than qualifications. I don't question that the selection of Palin was primarily a matter of optics.

I don't see a lot to support the claim that he'd have been "far superior" for governing reasons. He has a resume that's moderately longer than Palin's, but hardly "far superior".

I think the main point of interest here is the claim that he is a "known quantity" and Palin is "obscure". Why is that? It's because Jindal has been at conventions a few times, and on "Meet the Press" and "F*** the Nation" and so on a few times, and when he is, he is introduced as Rising Star ™ Bobby Jindal, or Bright Young Republican ™ Bobby Jindal. And when your friends see him they think to themselves, "ah, it's Bright Young Republican ™ Bobby Jindal."

However, I tend to suspect that a lot of the reason Jindal would be in these photo-ops in the first place is also a matter of optics. He's Ethnic Republican ™ Bobby Jindal. I can't name more than a handful of governors, and yet Bobby Jindal is one I'd had heard of. Why? Is he just that much more capable than the 40+ that I've never heard of, or is it because he provides optics that the Republicans need? Pardon my cynicism.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
If we Vote out guns we wont be a democracy for long. Next will go your freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to assemble. If you think the only people having guns is the government is a good thing you are clueless.

If "we" vote guns out, we will still be a democracy since "we" are the ones who voted them out. As for what I think about gun ownership, I haven't said in this discussion because it's irrelevant to the comment you made; but I can assure you that I am far from clueless.

Besides I served this country for eight years, do you think I need you to tell me about democracy?

Evidently you do. You seem to think that the constitution being amended to something you don't like is grounds for your becoming a terrorist to your country. That shows a decided lack of understanding of how a democracy works.

I lived and breathed it. Sweated for it. And if you think I would let people like you take away the freedoms that my friends have shed there blood for you are dead wrong.

If you think you have more of a right to determine what our nation's laws are because you served than "people like me" do, you are the one who is dead wrong, and once again show a decided ignorance to how a democracy works. You have no more say than anyone else in our nation has. You have one vote, I have one vote, we all have one vote. And if the majority of the people think the second amendment should be amended, it will be, regardless of your having served.

But for the record, your attitude makes me conclude that you didn't "serve your country," but rather your service was "self-serving." <_<

Timothy McVeigh was a coward who killed women and children because he did not have the ability to really effect change.

Which is what a terrorist is.

No maam, take away guns, democracy in the USofA is dead, and everything every soldier fought for for the last hundred years dies with it. For that, I willingly would fight against the government so that every sacrifice that we who have SERVED does not go to waste. http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html

And for that you would join Timothy McVeigh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
and they need to shut up. As much as I hate blind partisan behavior, now is the time for it. We have had the republican leader in the Alaskan senate say "she is not even qualified to be governor, much less vice-president". Her own mother-in-law questioned her qualifications.

There are people on this forum who would argue anybody was a good pick, no matter what sort of baggage they had. Those people should be given rolls of duct tape to put over the mouth of the next Republican or conservative media person to say something bad about Palin.

I hope your post is sarcasm. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
QUOTE=American Woman: If I were the mother-in-law and the press asked me a direct question, I wouldn't hedge it.

Your honesty knows no bounds. Good for you.

Do you think people should be less than honest when dealing with a nation's well being? Do you think personal feelings trump a nation's well being? Because you left off this part of my quote: This isn't "personal" as I've already said, it involves the well-being of our nation.

You left this part off, too: Furthermore, I don't consider her stating her opinion to be "mouthing off," I consider it to be honestly answering a question.

Since when is answering a direct question truthfully "mouthing off?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If "we" vote guns out, we will still be a democracy since "we" are the ones who voted them out. As for what I think about gun ownership, I haven't said in this discussion because it's irrelevant to the comment you made; but I can assure you that I am far from clueless.

Evidently you do. You seem to think that the constitution being amended to something you don't like is grounds for your becoming a terrorist to your country. That shows a decided lack of understanding of how a democracy works.

If you think you have more of a right to determine what our nation's laws are because you served than "people like me" do, you are the one who is dead wrong, and once again show a decided ignorance to how a democracy works. You have no more say than anyone else in our nation has. You have one vote, I have one vote, we all have one vote. And if the majority of the people think the second amendment should be amended, it will be, regardless of your having served.

But for the record, your attitude makes me conclude that you didn't "serve your country," but rather your service was "self-serving." <_<

Which is what a terrorist is.

And for that you would join Timothy McVeigh.

On topic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080901/pl_nm/...litics_palin_dc

Palin 17 year old daughter to be a mom

In response to AW

My point is you have absolutely no idea on the dedication and service it takes to provide freedom. The founding fathers of the constitution put the second amendment in the constitution not so we could revoke it later but because they came from a time when Government's had no fear of its citizens. There own Journals have spelled out that they always intended citizens to be able to protect themseleves with arms. We have a democracy because of the blood payments that soldiers have made to protect it. Does that mean my vote or opinion means more than yours. No it does not. It does mean is that i have an acute sense of the amount of effort and responsibility which you will never understand that it takes to hold onto that. And I will not sit idle by and watch it destroyed because of the average american such as yourself taking for granite the freedoms we provide for you by standing a post. You spit on the grave of every man or women who has served. Take examples from Latvia, Belarus, Zimbabwe where guns are outlawed. Look at the rise in crime in the UK and Australia.

More examples of disarment gone terrible http://www.michaelkeller.com/news/lethal.pdf

Edited by moderateamericain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On topic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080901/pl_nm/...litics_palin_dc

Palin 17 year old daughter to be a mom

In response to AW

My point is you have absolutely no idea on the dedication and service it takes to provide freedom. The founding fathers of the constitution put the second amendment in the constitution not so we could revoke it later but because they came from a time when Government's had no fear of its citizens. There own Journals have spelled out that they always intended citizens to be able to protect themseleves with arms. We have a democracy because of the blood payments that soldiers have made to protect it. Does that mean my vote or opinion means more than yours. No it does not. It does mean is that i have an acute sense of the amount of effort and responsibility which you will never understand that it takes to hold onto that. And I will not sit idle by and watch it destroyed because of the average american such as yourself taking for granite the freedoms we provide for you by standing a post. You spit on the grave of every man or women who has served. Take examples from Latvia, Belarus, Zimbabwe where guns are outlawed. Look at the rise in crime in the UK and Australia.

The right to bear arms doesno't appear in the Canadian Constitution. And we are so oppressed, right? Never mind the fact that our crime rate is far worse than the one in the U.S.

No mainstream U.S. politician is actually advocating a repeal of the Second Amendment. And it such a repeal is unlikely to occur. You, on the other hand, are demonstrating a willingness to resort to terrorism if you don't get your way. Killing American soldiers, American politicians, perhaps even American civilians. Perhaps even overthrow a democratically elected government, right? If anyone is spitting on the grave of countless American men and women who have died to preserve democracy, it is you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The right to bear arms doesno't appear in the Canadian Constitution. And we are so oppressed, right? Never mind the fact that our crime rate is far worse than the one in the U.S.

No mainstream U.S. politician is actually advocating a repeal of the Second Amendment. And it such a repeal is unlikely to occur. You, on the other hand, are demonstrating a willingness to resort to terrorism if you don't get your way. Killing American soldiers, American politicians, perhaps even American civilians. Perhaps even overthrow a democratically elected government, right? If anyone is spitting on the grave of countless American men and women who have died to preserve democracy, it is you.

Any US government that appeals the 2nd amendment is not a democracy. I would be honoring them for fighting to save it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
In response to AW

My point is you have absolutely no idea on the dedication and service it takes to provide freedom.

Bullsh*t I don't. As I said, your "service" sounds a lot more "self-serving" than it does "service to our country." That you have the gall to accuse me of having "absolutely no idea on the dedication and service it takes to provide freedom" shows just how ignorant you are.

The founding fathers of the constitution put the second amendment in the constitution not so we could revoke it later but because they came from a time when Government's had no fear of its citizens.

Unless you've talked to the founding fathers personally, that's no more than your personal take on it. On the other hand, the founding fathers did put in the ability to amend the Constitution so it could be amended later, so we could revoke a law/amendment if we saw fit as a nation. That includes the second amendment.

There own Journals have spelled out that they always intended citizens to be able to protect themseleves with arms.

Protect themselves with arms against attack because they didn't want to have to rely on a federal army to protect them.

We have a democracy because of the blood payments that soldiers have made to protect it. Does that mean my vote or opinion means more than yours. No it does not.

You got that right, so you should get off your high horse and stop insinuating otherwise, because millions of Americans have served. You aren't unique in that respect.

It does mean is that i have an acute sense of the amount of effort and responsibility which you will never understand that it takes to hold onto that.

It only means that in your self-serving mind, ignorant mind.

And I will not sit idle by and watch it destroyed because of the average american such as yourself taking for granite the freedoms we provide for you by standing a post. You spit on the grave of every man or women who has served.

I'm no more "average" than you are, and for you to insinuate otherwise, while accusing me of taking my freedoms for granted, further shows your self-serving ignorance. I have great respect for most men and women who have served; just not the self-serving ones. Your claim that I spit on the grave of every man or woman who has served because I've pointed out that you don't have the right to become "a terrorist to the US" if the second amendment is repealed not only shows your ignorance, but it shows that you are a hothead lowlife. <_<

But do carry on with your self serving bullshit. That doesn't change the fact that if you were to "become a terrorist to the US" if the second amendment were repealed, you would end up with Timothy McVeigh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any US government that appeals the 2nd amendment is not a democracy. I would be honoring them for fighting to save it.

A U.S. Government that would honour the wish of its citizens - if they so expressed that wish - would be acting democratically. And how would you propose then to change the decision of the People? By murdering every citizen who had freely made that choice until those who share your view are the majority? Or would you just cease power by force?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullsh*t I don't. As I said, your "service" sounds a lot more "self-serving" than it does "service to our country." That you have the gall to accuse me of having "absolutely no idea on the dedication and service it takes to provide freedom" shows just how ignorant you are.

Unless you've talked to the founding fathers personally, that's no more than your personal take on it. On the other hand, the founding fathers did put in the ability to amend the Constitution so it could be amended later, so we could revoke a law/amendment if we saw fit as a nation. That includes the second amendment.

Protect themselves with arms against attack because they didn't want to have to rely on a federal army to protect them.

You got that right, so you should get off your high horse and stop insinuating otherwise, because millions of Americans have served. You aren't unique in that respect.

It only means that in your self-serving mind, ignorant mind.

I'm no more "average" than you are, and for you to insinuate otherwise, while accusing me of taking my freedoms for granted, further shows your self-serving ignorance. I have great respect for most men and women who have served; just not the self-serving ones. Your claim that I spit on the grave of every man or woman who has served because I've pointed out that you don't have the right to become "a terrorist to the US" if the second amendment is repealed not only shows your ignorance, but it shows that you are a hothead lowlife. <_<

But do carry on with your self serving bullshit. That doesn't change the fact that if you were to "become a terrorist to the US" if the second amendment were repealed, you would end up with Timothy McVeigh.

Intrestingly enough i have provided examples and sources for my points, you have only attempted to Insult my charachter. But what can I expect? But Im the hothead lowlife because I draw a line in the sand on what im willing to put up with my government. Well be my guest and give away your protection willingly. I might end up being branded Timothy Mcveigh by a totalitarian regime. But hey most people believe in what Hitler said too. After all he was Man of the Year in times. But I guess the government is always right huh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
The right to bear arms doesno't appear in the Canadian Constitution. And we are so oppressed, right? Never mind the fact that our crime rate is far worse than the one in the U.S.

No mainstream U.S. politician is actually advocating a repeal of the Second Amendment. And it such a repeal is unlikely to occur. You, on the other hand, are demonstrating a willingness to resort to terrorism if you don't get your way. Killing American soldiers, American politicians, perhaps even American civilians. Perhaps even overthrow a democratically elected government, right? If anyone is spitting on the grave of countless American men and women who have died to preserve democracy, it is you.

Well said.

But is this a typo? "Never mind the fact that our crime rate is far worse than the one in the U.S." Your crime rate isn't higher than ours, is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
Intrestingly enough i have provided examples and sources for my points, you have only attempted to Insult my charachter. But what can I expect? But Im the hothead lowlife because I draw a line in the sand on what im willing to put up with my government. Well be my guest and give away your protection willingly. I might end up being branded Timothy Mcveigh by a totalitarian regime. But hey most people believe in what Hitler said too. After all he was Man of the Year in times. But I guess the government is always right huh?

You evidently have no idea what the criteria is for being chosen Time's Man of the Year, so here's a hint: it in no way means that Time believed in what Hitler said. :rolleyes:

But your accusing me of attempting to insult your character, as your posts are filled with insults to my character, is rich. Furthermore, I have provided examples and sources for my points too, but interestingly enough, that seems to have totally escaped you. As for why you're a hothead, I made that quite clear. So cry me a river, but that doesn't change anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You evidently have no idea what the criteria is for being chosen Time's Man of the Year, so here's a hint: it in no way means that Time believed in what Hitler said. :rolleyes:

But your accusing me of attempting to insult your character, as your posts are filled with insults to my character, is rich. Furthermore, I have provided examples and sources for my points too, but interestingly enough, that seems to have totally escaped you. As for why you're a hothead, I made that quite clear. So cry me a river, but that doesn't change anything.

You linked nothing, Your post are you own conjecture, so are my mine but atleast I post something backing up my points. I never said I didn't insult you.

My post: I believe this, this arcticle agrees with me link

Your post: Your IGNORANT! no link, no reasoning.

But hey If you think Im gonna shed a tear over you you got another thing coming. I just feel pitty for you. Because if it ever comes to a break down in democracy here you wont pick a side and you will just get chewed up. Thats okay tho, convictions are easy to avoid I understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

I'll let you have the last word since I have faith that others here are capable of seeing that I provided sources, links, and whatever else it is that you claim you provided and I didn't, while I don't have faith that you ever will, so this discussion has become a lesson in futility for me.

Have a nice day! And remember-- if you climb into the saddle, be prepared for the ride. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palin's daughter pregnant.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Speaking from the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, CTV Washington Bureau Chief Tom Clark told CTV Newsnet, that the announcement "might have an impact on the conservative base of the Republican party. But I don't know if there's any political mileage in attacking a 17-year-old girl who's pregnant."

This news comes in the midst of some intense scrutiny of Palin by left-wing bloggers who, over the weekend, speculated that Gov. Palin was actually the grandmother of her fifth child born in April.

McCain's advisers have said that their campaign knew of the pregnancy before Palin was picked as their VP-nominee.

But the Anchorage Daily News is reporting that Palin's governor-office press secretary, Bill McAllister, was asked on Saturday if Bristol was pregnant.

"I don't know. I have no evidence that Bristol's pregnant," he told the newspaper. He said Monday that he learned of pregnancy with everyone else.

Yikes, I hadn't heard what those bloggers were saying till now.

Edited by jdobbin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we Vote out guns we wont be a democracy for long. Next will go your freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to assemble. If you think the only people having guns is the government is a good thing you are clueless. Besides I served this country for eight years, do you think I need you to tell me about democracy? I lived and breathed it. Sweated for it. And if you think I would let people like you take away the freedoms that my friends have shed there blood for you are dead wrong. Timothy McVeigh was a coward who killed women and children because he did not have the ability to really effect change. No maam, take away guns, democracy in the USofA is dead, and everything every soldier fought for for the last hundred years dies with it. For that, I willingly would fight against the government so that every sacrifice that we who have SERVED does not go to waste. http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html

Groups like the NRA are totally disingenuous when they present 2nd Amendment rights as the individual American citizen defending his constitutional rights. The truth is, if you stand on your front porch with your shotgun and intend to stop the FBI, ATF or local police from coming onto your property, you're as good as dead!

The only way this works in real life for American citizens who feel the government has violated constitutional guaranteed rights and freedoms, is if they organize themselves into "a well regulated militia;" which in real life, means an armed insurrection by revolutionary groups. And if the future is a federal government collapsing under the weight of spiraling debt caused by an expensive military, foreign wars, and increased cost of energy imports, the "well regulated militias" who will fill the gaps in security will be the racists and conspiracy crackpots who are organized and have the guns now: like the Michigan Militia, Militias of Montana, and if they're still around, those crackpots called the Republic of Texas, who 10 years ago declared independence from the U.S., started printing their own money and took hostages in a standoff with federal authorities..

I'm not all that interested in all of the constitutional wrangling on the 2nd Amendment even though I used to be a dual citizen and most of my relatives on my mother's side of the family live in the U.S. To me, the practical side of this issue is that an increasingly stressed federal government will lose the ability to control anarchists armed with guns, and the breakdown into civil strife and chaos will resemble the situations that happened in Lebanon and Yugoslavia, where ethnic and religious groups who hated and could barely tolerate each other, felt free to unleash their vengeance on opposing groups.

Considering the hostile relations between blacks, whites and latinos in many areas of the country, I think the ingredients are in place for a balkanization and ethnic cleansing in many areas of the U.S., if the economy continues to go downhill. And if it does, all of those guns out there will be like throwing gasoline on a fire, just like they were in Yugoslavia, where guns and local armouries were scattered throughout the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palin's daughter pregnant.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Yikes, I hadn't heard what those bloggers were saying till now.

Up till now, Sarah Palin's main virtue has been honesty and a direct, straightforward manner. But if her press secretary in Anchorage didn't know she was pregnant, can we really believe that McCain and his staffers knew? We are also discovering that she lied about always being opposed to the "bridge to nowhere" also. She is starting to look more and more like just another ambitious politician who will say and do everything needed to win an election!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That probably won't work unless McCain has another bout of skin cancer, or something else to noticably affect his health. The 'age' issue didn't work against Ronald Reagan -- but then again, he was a lot more energetic and vibrant than McCain appears to be! But the public will probably ignore health questions unless they see some tangible evidence of poor health.

Many were not as worried about the age thing with Reagan but he had one of the most capable Vice President in the last few decades in George Bush.

It's likely better to just stick to the issues and see how well she handles them. She appears to be bright and articulate, but how much does she know aside from oil and energy issues; they're the only national issues that she seems to have taken an interest in.

I agree that it will be the issues that she will be questioned on.

Even there, she is going to have a hard time appealing to people outside of the Republican base. She may be able to sell Anwar, but her attitude on oil development is so extreme that she is a disaster on environmental issues - she's a global warming skeptic who wants the polar bear taken off the endangered species list! That certainly won't win over many Hillary voters!

It will on issues like the environment that we will see some major differences. For example, I have no idea if she believes in global warming.

Governor Palin is almost off the chart on the abortion issue! Every day, I find more bizarre, shocking things this woman has said or believes in. When she ran for governor of Alaska less than two years ago, she and the other candidates were pushed during a debate on how far they would go to "protect life"

The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant.

Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother's life was in danger. When it came to her daughter, she said, "I would choose life."

It looks like her daughter has chosen life.

In other words, if one of her daughters was raped, she would insist that she "protect life" and spend the next nine months carrying the baby to term! Since she was the only one of the three candidates who didn't flinch on difficult questions, I doubt McCain's handlers will be able to reel her in and prevent her from blurting out these kind of chilling personal values.

And for someone who's so concerned about protecting life, it seems she also took a wreckless and cavalier attitude while pregnant with her fifth child, when she refused to leave a conference in Texas after her water broke, and instead gave a speech before boarding a plane to fly back to Alaska. Is this any way for someone who's all about protecting the unborn to behave:

One bit of weirdness associated with Palin concerns the birth of her youngest child. As the Alaskan media reported, Palin was attending an energy conference in Texas on April 18 when her water broke four weeks before her due date. After this happened, Palin didn't head to a hospital or even leave the conference, even though the premature rupture of fetal membranes is normally a cause for an immediate examination by an obstetrician, who will observe the fetus on a monitor to guard against infection and other life-threatening complications. Two other reasons for heightened concern were Palin's age, 43, and the fact that prenatal testing indicated the child had Down syndrome.

Palin stayed at the conference and delivered a 30-minute speech, then boarded a 12-hour Alaska Airlines flight from Dallas to Anchorage, neglecting to tell the airline her water had broken -- most airlines won't fly a woman in labor. The motivation for all of this appears to be the Palins' desire that the child be born in Alaska. Her husband Todd told the Anchorage Daily News, "You can't have a fish picker from Texas."

I guess you have heard what the bloggers were speculating about this birth.

In regards to what Pain said on a variety of social issues in 2006.

http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/...-candidate.html

Do you support the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling that spousal benefits for state employees should be given to same-sex couples? Why or why not?

SP: No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution.

And:

Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
Up till now, Sarah Palin's main virtue has been honesty and a direct, straightforward manner. But if her press secretary in Anchorage didn't know she was pregnant, can we really believe that McCain and his staffers knew?

My thoughts exactly. I find it really hard to believe that McCain knew and picked her anyway. Unless he's losing it even more than I previously thought. <_<

I love how everyone is saying Palin's daughter should be "off limits," too. I agree that no one should attack her, but I find it rather amusing in light of McCain's "joke" about Chelsea Clinton. Talk about a hypocritical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that if Palin is against abortion then is she FOR birth control?? Did/has she talked to her daughter about birth control, or is she one of these parents that think, their child would never have sex if I told them I didn't want them to??? IF elected VP, will her daughter and soninlaw live with them in DC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...