Palin Derangement Syndrome

[Oleg Bach]

I see, so a green Presidential candidate is acceptable, but a green VP, my God, that cannot be!

Don't worry, she'll be asked to serve in the White House, by the voters, in about 4 - 8 years.

She reminds me of our Rona Ambrose - lots of big hair and bravado...but as we found out Ms Ambrose was not heavey in the intellectual realm - same will be found of Palin - scarey part is McCain will not have the health to serve out a full term - and Palin will become the puppet strung along by some quite and hidden committee..that could happen.

[Black Dog]

Feminism means that you can reach for the stars and be what you want to be and when we actually talk to women about what they believe, we still find that women really are still feminists even thought they don't identify themselves as such."

I'm not familiar with that kind of feminism. Perhaps you're referring to this?

And yet here you have this person who has been able to combine professional success and motherhood in a way that many women obviously find admirable and inspiring... but according to the Sistahood "she ain't no woman".

I agree it's a bad choice of words. Perhaps she's best described as a "self-hating woman".

The same people who'd be complaining that feminism somehow came to mean this ridiculous stereotype in the popular imagination, are now furious at Palin because she opposes abortion, I guess, or because she goes to church or maybe she didn't stop at the Sistahood-mandated 1.76 children, or doesn't wear lime-green pant-suits. "Hey, feminism isn't just that ridiculous cartoon stereotype, but we object to the idea of some woman who doesn't fit with our political agenda seeking prominent political office."

So? Are you suggesting women who support abortion rights (for example) should be stoked about a rabid pro-life VP simply because she's a woman? That ain't feminism either. I don't know why people are baffled by the reaction. First, her beliefs are by-the-book Republican kant. Second, she was chosen in an act of transparent political pandering to the kind of nimrods out there who would vote for a woman regardless of her beliefs.

It's also interesting to me that the people who created and trade in the stereotype of the man hating feminist are, well, people like Palin.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Black Dog

[JerrySeinfeld]

So? Are you suggesting women who support abortion rights (for example) should be stoked about a rabid pro-life VP simply because she's a woman? That ain't feminism either.

I think the point here is that some hardcore feminists see Palin as a threat to their idealist view of a "woman", especially because she's been able to break glass ceilings without giving up on some of the more traditional definitions of what a woman contributes to society or what a woman believes in or prioritizes (eg. Having lots of kids and opposing the killing of unborn children).

A woman who has made it to where she is - United States of American Vice Presidential Nominee, Governor of Alaska with 80% approval rating - in many feminits' eyes should also flout old stereotypes about motherhood and should CERTAINLY be pro-choice. It hurts some women to see THEIR stereotypes being challenged; An interesting phenomenon!

Edited September 19, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[WIP]

Sinc I have put the link once and I am putting again (link), pay a visit to Fact check; it is a non-partisan site that debunks "facts" put forward by both campaiiiigns, through checking the facts and analysing them; beats the "if it's bad, it must be true".

Do you think Factcheck is some freakin divine revelation or something! Many issues, likely most issues, don't have simple black or white answers. YOu have to do your own "factchecking" and make a largely subjective judgement on what explanations you consider to be the most plausible. There is no One Stop shopping guide where all of your questions can be answered for you, even if the hosts try to be unbiased and well intentioned; they are just as much at risk of falling for spin, lies and misrepresentations as the rest of us!

If you believe the Vice-Charman of the Independence party, will you believe the President of the Party (who happens to be his wife, but hey), who after saying that Palin had been a member, Apologized ON THE PARTY'S WEBSITE, stating that she hadn't checked the information provided by another party official. The Director of Alaska's Division of Elections confirmed that Palin has always registered as a Republican, and that her husband was at one point registered as a member of the Independence Party. According to the Party, Sarah Palin paid a visit to their convention twice: in 2000 in Wasilla, when she was mayor, and in 2006, when she was campaigning. It is not clear if she attended the 1994 convention, also held in Wasilla.

Well, here are some facts that can't be denied about the Palin's connection to a state party:

The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:

1) Remain a Territory.

2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.

3) Accept Commonwealth status.

4) Become a State.

Her husband's membership in the party between 1995 and 2002, is verified by Alaska State Elections official Gail Fenumiai. Perhaps many A.I.P. members assumed she was a member because she attended conventions with her husband.

She was certainly not critical of the party or their goals when she made a video address to the 2008 Alaska Independence Party convention and expressed her feelings of kinship with the secessionists on reducing government spending, expanding individual rights and making the state self-sufficient:

Your party plays an important role in our state’s politics. I’ve always said that competition is so good, and that applies to political parties as well. I share your party’s vision of upholding the constitution of our great state. My administration remains focused on reining in government growth so individual liberty and opportunity can expand. I know you agree with that. We have a great promise to be a self-sufficient state, made up of the hardest-working, most grateful Americans in our nation. So as your convention gets underway I hope that you all are inspired by remembering that all those years ago, it was in this same city that Alaska’s constitution was born. And it was founded on hope and trust and liberty and opportunity. I carry that message of opportunity forward in my administration, as we continue to move our state ahead and create positive change. So I say good luck on a successful and inspiring convention. Keep up the good work, and God bless you.

What does she mean by "keep up the good work?" She is aware of the party's other goals!

As for the librarian, the story reported by the local newspaper Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman and later corraborated by Anne Kilkenny, a local resident who was at the meeting and has since written opinion pieces critical of Palin, is that Palin did not ask how she could go about banning book, but what would be her (the librarian's) reaction to a request to ban certain books. Not the same. It is interesting to note that the list of books some claim were banned by Palin before 2000 include some Harry Potter novels written AFTER 2000; the infamous list is actually an exxact copy of a list on the Florida Institute of Technology's web site of books banned at one point or another in some US libraries (complete with typos). And while it is a fact that Palin briefly fired the librarian for lack of support, ALL of the department heads who had supported Palin's opponent in the election were either fired or threatened with firing.

A state governor should not be asking such a hypothetical question in the first place! Interesting that the librarian somehow lost her job afterward; but if someone wants to be intentionally obtuse, they can deny any connection to her "hypothetical" questions about banning books.

According to the police chief who she fired in the Troopergate scandal, Palin asked similar hypothetical questions about how her ex-brother-in-law could be fired, and followup questions regarding why he was still employed; but never directly said 'either you fire him or you lose your job!' FACTCHECK is a little too dense to pick up the subtleties of her intimidation tactics and indirect threats that could be plausibly denied in court, but have appeared in the complaints of many other state employees .

There is enough that is wrong with Palin without taking at fact every tidbit of misindormation.

Here's another example from an issue I didn't bother to raise, where the whole creationist strategy has floated right over their heads:

Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

Creationists in positions of power like Sarah Palin, know full well that they have such an extremely weak scientific case for their views on the natural world that they have repackaged them as a so called nontheistic theory called "Intelligent Design" and claim that they merely want schools to "teach the controversy" There is no controversy among biologists, paleontologists and the like; the controversy only exists in fundamentalist churches, and the goal of creationists in high office is to warp the minds of children who don't know the facts about science or the theory of evolution. So, Factcheck is wrong again that labelling Palin as a meddling creationist is a false charge!

[BC_chick]

The Right may fustigate Leftist leaders but the Right never falls on to the floor writhing in frustration because a Leftist won an election.

Did you sleep through the Democratic primaries or do you just not notice the similar reaction the "right" has shown to toward Obama's victory because you agree with the whole "Obamanation" crowd?

[Black Dog]

I think the point here is that some hardcore feminists see Palin as a threat to their idealist view of a "woman", especially because she's been able to break glass ceilings without giving up on some of the more traditional definitions of what a woman contributes to society or what a woman believes in or prioritizes (eg. Having lots of kids and opposing the killing of unborn children).

A woman who has made it to where she is - United States of American Vice Presidential Nominee, Governor of Alaska with 80% approval rating - in many feminits' eyes should also flout old stereotypes about motherhood and should CERTAINLY be pro-choice. It hurts some women to see THEIR stereotypes being challenged; An interesting phenomenon!

An interesting phenomenon indeed, if by "interesting" you mean "total nonsense." A much more logical explanation would be that people aren't that enthused about the prospect of a cultural reactionary like Palin getting her mitts on the keys to the Oval Office because of her views which are, down the line, straight out of the G.O.P. old boy's club playbook.

[BC_chick]

A woman who has made it to where she is - United States of American Vice Presidential Nominee, Governor of Alaska with 80% approval rating - in many feminits' eyes should also flout old stereotypes about motherhood and should CERTAINLY be pro-choice. It hurts some women to see THEIR stereotypes being challenged; An interesting phenomenon!

If America gets its 1st black president, it was because of the man's charisma and vision. If America ends up with its 1st woman VP, it was the result of an expendient political decision by John McCain.

I don't think this is a proud moment in feminism at all. In fact, as a woman, I'm quite saddened by the whole thing.

[BC_chick]

On 2nd thought...

Edited September 19, 2008 by BC_chick

[Shady]

If America gets its 1st black president, it was because of the man's charisma and vision.

A rehashing of the Carter Administration isn't any kind of "vision". And when you unplug the teleprompter, you unplug his charisma.

[Black Dog]

A rehashing of the Carter Administration isn't any kind of "vision". And when you unplug the teleprompter, you unplug his charisma.

Looks like a bad case of ODS....

[moderateamericain]

O for fuck sakes is she a women or isnt she. Because if she isn't then well then I'm gay. Can I ask an obvious question? What does a women have to be a feminist, or more to the point why is it wrong if she isn't?

[Carinthia]

A rehashing of the Carter Administration isn't any kind of "vision". And when you unplug the teleprompter, you unplug his charisma.

McCain should stick to a teleprompter. It might be too far away for him to read though.

[CANADIEN]

Do you think Factcheck is some freakin divine revelation or something! Many issues, likely most issues, don't have simple black or white answers. YOu have to do your own "factchecking" and make a largely subjective judgement on what explanations you consider to be the most plausible. There is no One Stop shopping guide where all of your questions can be answered for you, even if the hosts try to be unbiased and well intentioned; they are just as much at risk of falling for spin, lies and misrepresentations as the rest of us!

Well, here are some facts that can't be denied about the Palin's connection to a state party:

The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:

1) Remain a Territory.

2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.

3) Accept Commonwealth status.

4) Become a State.

Her husband's membership in the party between 1995 and 2002, is verified by Alaska State Elections official Gail Fenumiai. Perhaps many A.I.P. members assumed she was a member because she attended conventions with her husband.

She was certainly not critical of the party or their goals when she made a video address to the 2008 Alaska Independence Party convention and expressed her feelings of kinship with the secessionists on reducing government spending, expanding individual rights and making the state self-sufficient:

Your party plays an important role in our state’s politics. I’ve always said that competition is so good, and that applies to political parties as well. I share your party’s vision of upholding the constitution of our great state. My administration remains focused on reining in government growth so individual liberty and opportunity can expand. I know you agree with that. We have a great promise to be a self-sufficient state, made up of the hardest-working, most grateful Americans in our nation. So as your convention gets underway I hope that you all are inspired by remembering that all those years ago, it was in this same city that Alaska’s constitution was born. And it was founded on hope and trust and liberty and opportunity. I carry that message of opportunity forward in my administration, as we continue to move our state ahead and create positive change. So I say good luck on a successful and inspiring convention. Keep up the good work, and God bless you.

What does she mean by "keep up the good work?" She is aware of the party's other goals!

A state governor should not be asking such a hypothetical question in the first place! Interesting that the librarian somehow lost her job afterward; but if someone wants to be intentionally obtuse, they can deny any connection to her "hypothetical" questions about banning books.

According to the police chief who she fired in the Troopergate scandal, Palin asked similar hypothetical questions about how her ex-brother-in-law could be fired, and followup questions regarding why he was still employed; but never directly said 'either you fire him or you lose your job!' FACTCHECK is a little too dense to pick up the subtleties of her intimidation tactics and indirect threats that could be plausibly denied in court, but have appeared in the complaints of many other state employees .

Here's another example from an issue I didn't bother to raise, where the whole creationist strategy has floated right over their heads:

Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

Creationists in positions of power like Sarah Palin, know full well that they have such an extremely weak scientific case for their views on the natural world that they have repackaged them as a so called nontheistic theory called "Intelligent Design" and claim that they merely want schools to "teach the controversy" There is no controversy among biologists, paleontologists and the like; the controversy only exists in fundamentalist churches, and the goal of creationists in high office is to warp the minds of children who don't know the facts about science or the theory of evolution. So, Factcheck is wrong again that labelling Palin as a meddling creationist is a false charge!

Checking facts means seeking reliable of information, not sources that confirm your made-in-advance opinions.

Sarah Palin has never been a registered member of the Alaska Independence Party, and no amount of "but her husband was" and "she's nice to them" and "she shares some of their goals" will change that FACT.

Sarah Palin never tried to impose censorship iin libraries while a state governor. She asked hypothetical questions about censorship while a MAYOR, and as FastCheck and other sources has indicated, their is no conclusive indication that those questions and the response were the motivation for her attempt at firing the local librararian. Your belief (and mine) that Palin is a dangerous right-winger will not change that FACT.

Regarding the Troopergate, Factcheck has presented the FACTS as they are known, not speculations. I too believe there is more to the story than the known FACTS, but until more of the facts are revealed, speculations are just that, speculations.

As for creationism, it is nothing mre than an attempt at masquerading one aspect of the truth (religion) as another aspect of the truth (science). And I am weary of any politician who wants to make it pass at science. But as Factcheck has indicated, Sarah Palin may be a creationist, but nothing in her declarations or actions as a State Governor amounts to an attempt at puuuushing creationism in the curriculum.

You find them unrealable because they don't reach the same conclusions as you. I find them realable because they do their homework.

[kimmy]

I'm not familiar with that kind of feminism. Perhaps you're referring to this?

So it's not a "big tent" anymore? You're not in the club unless you support abortion access and vote left-of-center?

Are there other issues people need to tow the party line on? Is it just abortion access and party affiliation, or is there more? Do you have to support a state-run daycare program? If you disagree with the enormous sham of statistics laughingly referred to as "Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value", are you also "not a woman"?

Let's cut to the chase. Do I have to turn in my uterus, BD? I'm getting worried here.

I agree it's a bad choice of words. Perhaps she's best described as a "self-hating woman".

'cuz she's got lots of kids? 'cuz she's not a Democrat?

One woman might believe that motherhood and professional success aren't mutually exclusive.

Another woman might buy into the view that children are an obstacle that a woman must either avoid or overcome.

Which one is *really* self-hating?

So?

So, I guess I'm just not ready for this new post-post-feminist feminism which seems to boil down entirely to abortion access.

Are you suggesting women who support abortion rights (for example) should be stoked about a rabid pro-life VP simply because she's a woman?

I'm suggesting that this sudden interest in defining feminism on party lines and narrow issues doesn't really jive with the aforementioned complaint that feminism had been pigeonholed into an ideological realm that people don't relate to.

That ain't feminism either. I don't know why people are baffled by the reaction. First, her beliefs are by-the-book Republican kant. Second, she was chosen in an act of transparent political pandering to the kind of nimrods out there who would vote for a woman regardless of her beliefs.

Such nimrods undoubtedly exist (probably in numbers comparable to those who'd vote for a black man whatever his beliefs.) I'm actually more under the impression that she was chosen to appease nimrods of a different sort (evangelicals, specifically) but whatever.

It's also interesting to me that the people who created and trade in the stereotype of the man hating feminist are, well, people like Palin.

"People like Palin"? Cite?

I don't actually know. I do know that she's a member of a group called "Feminists For Life". I don't know anything about the group, but I do know that there are people who don't see that "feminist" and "pro-life" are not mutually exclusive positions.

If America gets its 1st black president, it was because of the man's charisma and vision. If America ends up with its 1st woman VP, it was the result of an expendient political decision by John McCain.

I don't think this is a proud moment in feminism at all. In fact, as a woman, I'm quite saddened by the whole thing.

So if Barack had chosen Hilary as his running mate, would you be equally sad? I mean, she'd just be there because it was an expedient political decision. That would have been pretty terrible for you, I imagine.

-k

[WIP]

So it's not a "big tent" anymore? You're not in the club unless you support abortion access and vote left-of-center?

Are there other issues people need to tow the party line on? Is it just abortion access and party affiliation, or is there more? Do you have to support a state-run daycare program? If you disagree with the enormous sham of statistics laughingly referred to as "Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value", are you also "not a woman"?

Well, one thing's for sure -- if you want to force all women, even in cases of rape and incest to give birth -- you're not a feminist! If you take no practical steps, such as promoting birth control and good sex education programs that would help reduce the numbers of teen pregnancies before an abortion decision has to be made -- you're not a feminist. If you want no assistance for working women who have children -- you're not a feminist. If you oppose equal pay for equal work, you're definitely not a feminist -- but you win a first class ticket on the Sarah Palin campaign bus.

From what I've read so far, most of the feminist pundits are outraged by Sarah Palin for trying to pose as a feminist, while she offers no help to lesser women who are straining under the effort of juggling work and childcare; and in her brief stint as Governor of Alaska, she has spent the bulk of her time on issues like aerial hunting, gun rights, oil and gas issues, and seems to have no plan to deal with problems like rape and incest, even though the rates of these sex crimes are higher in Alaska than any other state in the union. You can't pass off feminist critics as just leftwing idealogues; if you look at Sarah Palin's belief statements and her records as a governor and mayor, it doesn't seem that she cares anything about any issues that specifically affect women.

I don't actually know. I do know that she's a member of a group called "Feminists For Life". I don't know anything about the group, but I do know that there are people who don't see that "feminist" and "pro-life" are not mutually exclusive positions.

It's easy enough to find out about the group; they have their own website! But, if you take the time to do some reading on the FFL topics page, you'll find that they don't have much outside of abortion and a few articles on euthanasia and assisted suicide -- which they also oppose - surprise, surprise! There's also not a whole lot of support for birth control besides catholic roulette, or as it's otherwise known "natural family planning." But I did find a paragraph supporting that equal pay legislation that Sarah Palin opposes, so I guess that means she is even on the far right fringe among members of this group!

FFL looks like another "lipstick on a pig" story in my opinion. They can call themselves prolife feminists, but there are probably real feminists out there who want to stop abortions also, but at the same time, believe that women should be regarded as independent moral agents, and therefore have the final say on whether to carry a pregnancy to term. Prolife feminists say there is only one right decision: Have that baby -- even in cases where she is pregnant as a result of rape or incest. They would more properly call themselves fetalists, rather than feminists, since the rights of the unborn, whether it's a fetus or a fertilized egg, are the only rights that they give much attention to.

[GostHacked]

Who cares...if they were perfect they sure as hell wouldn't be in politics.

Well, even when I give you the chance to really prop up McCain and Palin, you failed. I asked a pretty good question, but yet the 'right' just rambles on,,,, as the left does.

Let's try this again and see what people know and think of the candidates.

I quote myself with

What are those weaknesses of MCCain and Obama that their running mates will make up for it??

[August1991]

From what I've read so far, most of the feminist pundits are outraged by Sarah Palin for trying to pose as a feminist, while she offers no help to lesser women who are straining under the effort of juggling work and childcare...

I guess maybe that's the point, WIP.

"Lesser" women "straining" under the effort? You view women as the weaker sex who need help from the State.

Sarah Palin got on with her life and she generally views the government in Washington as more of a hindrance than a help.

[kimmy]

Well, one thing's for sure -- if you want to force all women, even in cases of rape and incest to give birth -- you're not a feminist!

If one believes that a fetus is a human life, then making exceptions in cases of rape or incest is not a sensible position.

I can respect the pro-choice position. I can respect the pro-life position. But I can't respect the kinda-maybe-sometimes compromise that makes exceptions in certain situations depending on the circumstances of conception.

How does one arrive at the headspace to decide that a fetus is a human life, and yet some of them don't have the same rights as others due to the circumstances of their conception? The logic underlying exceptions for victims of rape and incest is fundamentally abhorrent.

As Mr Miyagi said, walk on the right side of the road, or walk on the left side of the road. Walk in the middle of the road, and sooner or later squish like grape.

If you take no practical steps, such as promoting birth control and good sex education programs that would help reduce the numbers of teen pregnancies before an abortion decision has to be made -- you're not a feminist.

Is this in reference to Palin, specifically? Because the claim that she attempted to block sex education had been discredited last I heard.

If you want no assistance for working women who have children -- you're not a feminist.

I was specifically asking about big state-run daycare programs.

If you oppose equal pay for equal work, you're definitely not a feminist -- but you win a first class ticket on the Sarah Palin campaign bus.

I haven't heard of anybody advocating the idea of "equal pay for equal work" --the notion that a woman doing the same job as a man should earn less money, although I understand that it was held by some during the post-war era (but I thankfully don't need to re-fight the battles of the 1950s and 1960s.) I've never actually heard of a woman being paid less to do the same job as a man with the same experience and qualifications.

But I asked about "equal pay for work of equal value," a concept that extends beyond simple common-sense ideas of fairness.

I always kind of thought I was the sort of person they mean when they're talking about women who don't self-identify as feminists but actually holds feminist ideals. Perhaps I'm wrong on this. It seems to me that the whole concept has been redefined towards a specific political agenda and I just missed the memo.

-k

[Liam]

If one believes that a fetus is a human life, then making exceptions in cases of rape or incest is not a sensible position.

I can respect the pro-choice position. I can respect the pro-life position. But I can't respect the kinda-maybe-sometimes compromise that makes exceptions in certain situations depending on the circumstances of conception.

I'm pro-choice, but this is a point you and I agree on. I don't see how someone could say that abortion is murder but then accept it under circumstances that are irrelevant to the murder victim.

[kimmy]

I'm pro-choice, but this is a point you and I agree on. I don't see how someone could say that abortion is murder but then accept it under circumstances that are irrelevant to the murder victim.

Just to clarify, I'm not advocating for either position. I guess I am "pro-choice" in the sense that I would not choose to have an abortion but am unwilling to advocate that other women shouldn't either.

-k

[jdobbin]

Just to clarify, I'm not advocating for either position. I guess I am "pro-choice" in the sense that I would not choose to have an abortion but am unwilling to advocate that other women shouldn't either.

For many, the vote in the next election is a stark one: Vote McCain-Palin and see a new conservative judge appointed who in all likelihood that will overturn Roe versus Wade. In some states, that would probably mean a ban on abortion outright.

A new conservative judge may also mean a ban on aspects of abortion nation-wide. To what extent, no one knows.

The concentration on what Palin believes personally is less important than what she and McCain might want in terms of a Supreme Court judge.

Edited September 20, 2008 by jdobbin

[BC_chick]

So if Barack had chosen Hilary as his running mate, would you be equally sad? I mean, she'd just be there because it was an expedient political decision. That would have been pretty terrible for you, I imagine.

Clinton had the support of almost 50% of the Democratic base. She ran an incredibly tight race, and until midway through the race, she was expected to win. She would have therefore gotten the nomination based on more than political expedience. But you're kidding yourself if you honestly feel Palin would've had the nomination if it weren't for McCain's decision to get the Clinton vote.

[BC_chick]

I guess maybe that's the point, WIP.

"Lesser" women "straining" under the effort? You view women as the weaker sex who need help from the State.

Sarah Palin got on with her life and she generally views the government in Washington as more of a hindrance than a help.

Palin juggled all that she did with the support of her husband and her position on abortion/birthcontrol is based on the notion that all men are like her husband and will stand by and help with the family while she pursues her high-profile career. But we know that in reality those families are actually rare.

Had she found herself in the "other" statistical 50% who end up divorced with 5 children, would she be where she is today? Who knows, but I know that if she did, she would be an exception, not the rule.

Edited September 20, 2008 by BC_chick

[Liam]

Just to clarify, I'm not advocating for either position. I guess I am "pro-choice" in the sense that I would not choose to have an abortion but am unwilling to advocate that other women shouldn't either.

-k

point taken -- and I'd say my position is similar to yours.

[August1991]

Palin juggled all that she did with the support of her husband and her position on abortion/birthcontrol is based on the notion that all men are like her husband and will stand by and help with the family while she pursues her high-profile career. But we know that in reality those families are actually rare.

Had she found herself in the "other" statistical 50% who end up divorced with 5 children, would she be where she is today? Who knows, but I know that if she did, she would be an exception, not the rule.

That's kind of the same point too, BC Chick.

Palin seems to have chosen her husband well - and maybe other women (and men) should also choose their partner carefully. The State (certainly not the federal government) is not there to clean up our mistakes in life. If it attempts to do this, it first just encourages more bad choices. But second, it also gives a false sense of security. Eventually, it can't provide complete security. Lastly, the State causes so many other problems unless its activities are narrowly directed.

Rather than talk political philosophy, Palin is an individualist who has chosen to make her own life her own way. Like an adult, she assumes responsibility for her choices.

For many, the vote in the next election is a stark one: Vote McCain-Palin and see a new conservative judge appointed who in all likelihood that will overturn Roe versus Wade. In some states, that would probably mean a ban on abortion outright.

A new conservative judge may also mean a ban on aspects of abortion nation-wide. To what extent, no one knows.

The concentration on what Palin believes personally is less important than what she and McCain might want in terms of a Supreme Court judge.

There's a possibility that the Democratic Party, in a last ditch effort, is going to wheel out this argument as we get closer to November.

Roe vs. Wade has survived a Reagan presidency and two Bush presidencies. Abortion is part of the US Constitution and no one is talking about a constitutional amendment. In the unlikely event that a future Supreme Court were to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the abortion question would be left up to individual states (and frankly, that's where I think it should be anyway).

•Sixteen state legislatures are likely to continue current access to abortion. They include every state on the West Coast and almost every state in the Northeast. A half-dozen already have passed laws that specifically protect abortion rights. Most of the states in this group have enacted fewer than half of the abortion restrictions now available to states.

USA Today

Bear in mind that the USA Today is presenting the worst case scenario.

If one believes that a fetus is a human life, then making exceptions in cases of rape or incest is not a sensible position.

I can respect the pro-choice position. I can respect the pro-life position. But I can't respect the kinda-maybe-sometimes compromise that makes exceptions in certain situations depending on the circumstances of conception.

How does one arrive at the headspace to decide that a fetus is a human life, and yet some of them don't have the same rights as others due to the circumstances of their conception? The logic underlying exceptions for victims of rape and incest is fundamentally abhorrent.

At the risk of encouraging a thread hijack and going into the whole abortion question, let me disagree Kimmy. Abortion and life itself is not a black and white issue.

As a society, we tolerate different levels of risk and we accept that some people in some circumstances are going to die even though their death might be preventable. Sometimes we leave these decsions to the State. For example, our government has ordered troops to Afghanistan with the deliberate purpose to kill people. We also stand by and do nothing while other people die preventable deaths in Africa.

The recent deaths due to listeriosis is a similar situation. These deaths might have been preventable but in fact food poisoning is in the top ten leading causes of death. We happen to have learned of listeriosis because detection data is now available. In the past, these deaths would have gone unnoted or recorded under a different category. How much money should we devote to having safe food?

I think my point is that we accept some deaths because the cost of preventing them is simply too great. In my opinion, a similar logic should apply to the abortion question.

Edited September 20, 2008 by August1991