Democrats & Liberals Archives

Sarah Palin - Who cares!

Wow, John McCain picked a woman to be his Vice-Presidential running mate, an unknown to boot. Why is everyone surprised? Good old John belongs to a political institution whose philosophy simply says, “Yesterday was better.” That philosophy was so clearly demonstrated by the list of now dead politicians it memorialized during their Convention and those it ignored (Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, Bush & Bush).

The convention saluted Abraham Lincoln, defender of the nation. Martyr in the cause of national unity. The man who emancipated the slaves. That is a good one to remember. The problem is today's Republican party doesn't agree with him. Today's Republicans continue to be White Anglo Saxon Protestants. You saw their faces occupying 99% of the convention seats. The descendants of the people Lincoln freed are not "the right stuff." for this lot. Republicans don't recruit Black Americans. I think they are afraid of this segment of American citizenry.

Then there was Theodore Roosevelt. Left a good life to volunteer for the Spanish-American War. He was a man who chose service to the nation. What the Republicans didn't mention was that he was a trust buster who was not a friend of the big corporations who were an unscrupulous lot back in the early 1900s, funny that many think the same way today. He also was the Father of the "Square Deal." You know, give the average citizen a fair shake. I didn't hear any mention of that did you? No, but you did hear about "WAR." Nor did you hear that Roosevelt left the Republican Party in 1912, taking the Progressives, who would never come back to the RP, by forming the Bull Moose Party for the 1912 p0residential elections.

Then there was The great presidential career of Gerald Ford. What a guy. I was amazed by this example. He was used because the Republicans really have nothing to be proud of. Each president has set this country back a notch. We went from respected to being suspect under Republican presidents. I digress.

In 1972, Republican Richard Nixon was elected president. In 1973, Spiro Agnew, his Vice-President resigned because of an IRS Scandal. Gerald Ford became Vice-President. In 1974, Richard Nixon resigned because he was going to be convicted in the Watergate Scandal. Gerald then became president and immediately pardoned Nixon. Ford did such a good job over three years, , the voters threw him out in the 1976 election.

So now they bring forth another lightweight, Sarah Palin. And what are they going to sell? Why "she's a barracuda" of course. The Republicans love tough unthinking people. It is difficult for the Republican Forbes 400 crowd to manipulate a smart person with principles. So McCain picked a rash risk taker. She got herself pregnant at age 44. Did she care about the potential for risk. Hell no, she's a Good Mom.

Well, pregnancies after the age of 35 starts getting dangerous with the danger and risk increasing each year for the Mom, if not the Mom then the baby, if not the baby then for both. I'm sure her doctor advised her of the risks she chose to ignore. My observation of her saysshe is a person who takes no advise form anyone and believes she knows everything. You know the arrogant type.

Here's the Pregnancy risks age 35 to 45:

35 is the age at which genetic testing in pregnancy is first recommended since the chance of picking up an abnormality is greater than the risk of the procedure used to find it.

At 35, the miscarriage rate is 25%

The risk of Down syndrome becomes about 1/350.

Embryo biopsy reveal that at least 90% of a woman’s eggs are genetically abnormal when a woman is over 40.

The miscarriage rate is 33% at age 40.

Genetically abnormal pregnancies are more common as well with an incidence of 1/38 at age 40.

Risks of medical conditions complicating pregnancy increase.

Source: Southern California Center for Reproductive Medicine

So we have a Republican Party that has not achieved anything of note for 100 years. A party that has no plans for anything other than to keep the public scared of "enemies out to destroy out civilivation." John, I think we've got 10,000 nuclear weapons and a defense budget larger than the rest of the world combined. You want more??? A party that has shipped 2.5 million jobs overseas, built the largest financial depth in history, devalued the dollar, eliminated our manufacturing core and built up a $1 trillion dollar debt to the Chinese Communists. They did this not because they are stupid, they did it by design.

To ensure this trend continues they have given us a Republican presidential candidate, who has nothing in his play book other than :I was a Viet Nam War POW - my gosh, 33 years of chanting "I'm was a POW" is enough already. I know people who were in Viet Nam. They don't like talking about what the saw and did. What is wrong with McCain? Still suffering with a severe case of post-traumatic stress syndrome.

This is a guy who wants to outdo his father and grandfather. A Republican presidential candidate who voted with the president 90% of the time but now makes like those votes never happened. A Republican candidate whose poor judgment led to choosing a Vice-Presidential candidate who was willing to risk the life and health of her child just ot get pregnant a fifth time.

These two will implode under the weight of their arrogance by mid-October.

Posted by Mike Wrona at September 7, 2008 9:14 PM
Comments
Comment #262072

Palin can’t implode…no one can find her…I’m pretty sure she’s hiding from the media. I don’t blame her for hiding too much, because the media is a bunch of big mouthed looneys, but if she doesn’t show herself soon, her following will forget who their Veep candidate is.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 7, 2008 11:03 PM
Comment #262073
So McCain picked a rash risk taker. She got herself pregnant at age 44. Did she care about the potential for risk….My observation of her says she is a person who takes no advise form anyone and believes she knows everything. You know the arrogant type.

When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you ought to do is quit digging.

Do Democrats have ANY idea how offensive this kind of thing is? Do they even care? So women who have children in their late thirties and forties, according to the statistics you trot out, are arrogant, reckless, and irresponsible in your view? Do you realize how MANY women do the same thing? Do you actually believe that Sarah Palin is some kind of tiny minority in this regard and that Democrats can afford to sneer at her and women like her for choosing to have a child?

Sit up and take note, women of America! This is how the Democratic left feels about YOU!

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at September 7, 2008 11:10 PM
Comment #262078

Palin is proving to be the female version of Dick Cheney. When it comes to answering any questions the media might have, she can’t be found. Like Dick, her underground bunker is in an undisclosed location. Why should she have to interrupt her selling of GOP propaganda and go completely off script? I hear ABC’s Gibson has now been given the golden prize of doing a puff piece with Ms. Palin. Oh, how LUCKY he is! I’m sure he’ll be asking the most hard-hitting of questions! I’m sure it will be oh-so-very enlightening.

As for McCain vetting his VP? Clearly he didn’t. But then, my friends, he didn’t get to vet anything at all — WHEN HE WAS A POW!!!

Time for a fake news segment that is far more real and hard hitting than what actually passes for “serious newscasting” these days:

John McCain: Reformed Maverick

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 8, 2008 12:08 AM
Comment #262084
Do you realize how MANY women do the same thing? Do you actually believe that Sarah Palin is some kind of tiny minority in this regard and that Democrats can afford to sneer at her and women like her for choosing to have a child?

Yes. Around 2% or 100,000 or about half the population of Anchorage. Not a lot. A small selfish and careless minority, in many people’s mind, in fact.

Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 8, 2008 12:49 AM
Comment #262091

Well said, goog. Selfish and careless is exactly how I would describe it, too. Also, driven by religious fanaticism, therefore, totally unthinking and nonsensical.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 8, 2008 1:27 AM
Comment #262100

Hmmm. McCain now ahead of Obama 54%-44%. I guess, as usual, the American people disagree with you.

Posted by: Duane-o at September 8, 2008 2:47 AM
Comment #262102

Apparently you do care.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at September 8, 2008 3:22 AM
Comment #262103

duane-o, this one suggests a different trend.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/poll-tracker.htm

Posted by: janedoe at September 8, 2008 3:26 AM
Comment #262104

janedoe,

The “trend” you refer to is simply averaging all the polls from before “Hurricane Sarah” swept through this Presidential race, which skews McCain huge lead. Oh well, keep your head in the sand, but it looks like you might have to keep it there for at least another four years.

Posted by: Duane-o at September 8, 2008 3:35 AM
Comment #262112

Mike Wrona wrote: “Today’s Republicans continue to be White Anglo Saxon Protestants.”

Not continue, Mike. They became that way when the Southern bigot Democrats flipped to the GOP in response to the civil rights legislation and enforcement in the 1960’s and 1970’s. And the GOP welcomed the bigots with open arms.

Now they are saddled with the bigots - some would argue blessed with them. But, the Republican has not continued to be racist since the slavery days, they were the anti-slavery champions through the late 19th century and early 20th century.

Then they got conservative, wanting to conserve servitude of the multitude, servitude of the colored folk, servitude of the poor white trash at election time. Out of public earshot, you can still hear Republicans talk this way if you listen quietly from behind a tree or building corner on a lazy Sunday morning after Church.

Of course, there are still a fair number of bigots who have refused to leave the Democratic Party as well. You will find them in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana, where voting Democrat is a tradition for union reasons primarily, but, Obama is making it pretty tough this year to observe tradition.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 8, 2008 6:43 AM
Comment #262113

Duane-o, it takes a few days to conduct these polls and get the results tabulated and verified and published, and even longer to do poll averaging which covers the GOP convention period.

What your comments don’t appear to know about polling is remarkable. McCain may get a large bump in the trend line. Anything is possible.

But, that’s the difference between your comments and mine. Yours cherry pick the good news and deride others for refusing to do the same. I will wait for the data and trendline to avoid appearing prematurely jubilant over nothing. Prejudgment without fact and empirical evidence is not a strong credibilty factor.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 8, 2008 6:48 AM
Comment #262115

Mike

At the sake of getting into another discussion re: Sarah Palin, which I am loath to do but here goes.

I am not sure if I misunderstood one of your points or not but will respond as I understood it and then you can correct me if I am wrong. The decisions that a woman and her husband make regarding whether to get pregnant and then carry said pregnancy to term IMO is no indicator of what she will think about the presidency or how she vote and make political decisions. Doctors are not Gods and therefore when making decisions women can only take what they say under advise and then make the best informed decision. Also, are you suggesting that she shouldn’t have gotten pregnant because of the increased odds of having a handicapped baby? Somehow you are suggesting that it wasn’t a good decision? Ever heard of accidential pregnancy? Even the best birth control can fail. Then it also means that if she and her husband decided to get pregnant anyway given the increased risk that somehow that was wrong. That people shouldn’t place themselves in the position to have a handicapped baby. What bull. I have worked with children with down syndrome and their families. Handicapped children have as much right to be here as any other child and anyway who gave you the right to judge that handicapped babies are not as valued in the grand scheme of things as “normal” babies.

I am not a Sarah Palin fan. I dislike her politics. I am a liberal democrat but wish democrats would let this Sarah Palin thing go. IMO We are going to end up cutting our own throats and putting John McCain in the white house if we don’t quit focusing so much attention on her and much of it has become personal attacks. We are becoming the enemy. That is all we have heard from days now. We made our point days ago about her experience and politics. When we continue to focus on her all it does is bring more attention to McCain-Palin and gives them more fuel to attack us with especially as we contiue to make our attacks on her more personal.

This whole Palin thing is beyond belief. I can’t believe how democrats are going so nutsy over this. Its time we moved on and went back to discussing Barack and his plan for our country. We have gotten off message. Joe Biden was on Meet the Press yesterday and it was a good interview but are democrats talking about that NO we are still talking about Ms. Palin. What a waste.

Posted by: Carolina at September 8, 2008 8:34 AM
Comment #262122

Mike Wrona-
I think you chose the wrong line of attack on Sarah Palin. The real line of attack is that her experience, if taken at face value, flatly contradicts her message of being a change agent.

True change agents reorganize the system around themselves. Palin simply exploited it as is, with a few smartly chosen high profile rebellions.

It’s in her typical behavior that we find her true politics: She welcomed Earmarks as both a Mayor and a Governor. When she became Mayor, the town didn’t have or need a lobbyists. She gave them one, and now the officials go begging to Washington every year.

As Governor, her state remains the nation’s leader on earmarks. The most famous example of her reform credentials, her opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere, was a case of bayoneting the wounded after the battle; it only was killed after the Feds cancelled the Earmark, and the decision didn’t save the taxpayer one red cent. Palin kept every dime.

I don’t care if Palin wanted to have baby after forty, that’s none of my business. If women have a right to their bodies, they have a right to have children at that age and accept the consequences.

What is my business, and the business of any self-respecting Republican or Democrat is that Sarah Palin is no fiscal conservative, and a fraud as a reformer. If Republicans wish to vote for fine words as opposed to good policies, they are welcome to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket.

If they are truly sick of being taken to the cleaners by Washington Republicans, they should either hold their nose and vote for Obama, or they should choose a third party candidate they can live with voting for.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 8, 2008 9:47 AM
Comment #262123

Carolina-

There are 53 lines in my post, 17 lines are about Sarah Palin. You chose to ignore the remaining 36 lines which talked about the Republican view of its history, and John McCain.

I’m sorry you chose to ignore the bulk of the post.

Posted by: Mike Wrona at September 8, 2008 9:55 AM
Comment #262126

Stephen Daugherty-

There are a number of lines of attack I could have used. But one can only go one item at a time.

A federal bridge collapsed in Minneapolis due to neglect by a Republican Congress, a Republican President, a 14 year Republican controlled Congress, and a Republican Minnesota governor.

So when the Republicans brought it up at the convention what did they do? The Elephants brought on stage on an “Attractive” Minneapolis Fire Dept. Captain to speak of heroism in rescuing the motorists.

What McCain and Palin should have done is explain what they were going to do to prevent it from happening again. Instead they raised the great “Hockey Mom” issue as a national issue.

Besides, 70% of my post was about a Republican Party that doesn’t even know its own history, and a Presidential candidate who offers nothing but “I was a Viet Nam POW 33 years ago”

Sarah Palin is the icing on their shallowness.

Posted by: Mike Wrona at September 8, 2008 10:09 AM
Comment #262130

Mike Wrona-
Be that as it may, certain lines can get more attention and draw more fire than others. Meaning does not scale with word-count.

Sarah Palin is not merely icing on their shallowness, she takes the cake. Her main strength as a Republican should be her fiscal discipline, but in truth she’s a failure along those lines, just like Most Republicans in Washington are. She is the symbol of what is wrong with Washington. Who cares what she does with her womb, it’s her double-dealing hypocrisy on reform that makes her a terrible choice.

That’s a line of attack that doesn’t make us look like hypocrites on Reproductive choice. That’s a line of attack that has the potential to soften support among Republicans and budget minded independents.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 8, 2008 10:35 AM
Comment #262131

I agree that we need to quit hammering Palin on her parenting decisions. Good or bad they are totally beside the point of why she would be a disaster as VP and even worse as president.

She is as corrupt as they come. She worked for Ted Stevens for god’s sake, she took tons of earmark funds (hypocrisy), she has hired an attorney for an ethics investigation.

Her ideas are a recipe for policy disaster. She is a creationist and has tried banning books is school libraries, she is radically anti-choice for women, she has no clue about foreign policy (being closer to Russia than the rest of us doesn’t count at all), she and McCain have proposed nothing new in economic policy than George W. Bush and we have seen how that’s worked out, she brings nothing to the table at all other than a personal story.

There is so much to criticize about this ticket that has nothing to do with their personal lives. I know we all jumped on this story about her family and there are things that don’t seem to add up but progressives attacking a woman for choosing to work and raise a family is a losing argument.

It was progressives that fought for a woman’s right to have the career they choose not to be forced to stay at home as conservative forces argued in the last century. The more we attack Palin on this ground the more we look like the GOP. If the tables were turned and Palin was a Dem (hopefully we would have the good sense not to let this person anywhere near the presidency) the GOP would be doing exactly what has gone on with this blog and many others and probably a lot worse. It’s hard to let salacious stories go and this one is certainly that. But we have to let it go.

I agree with Stephen - these two people on the GOP ticket are running a fraudulent campaign. They are not reformers or mavericks - just the opposite they are the essence of the status quo. McCain voted with Bush 94% of the time. He brings no new policy ideas that would separate him from Bush and relies on a false persona to give the appearance of a difference. Palin is a female version of George W. Bush - not very curious, no FP experience, ideologically bent (and the wrong ideology), doesn’t believe in science, believes that bi-partisanship means everybody going along with her plan and stomping anyone who gets in the way, and on and on.

The conventions are over both sides have had their say without any cross-examination. Now they have to face the music and each other. The debates look like they will be the deciding factor in this campaign. Palin goes on ABC next week (finally) - hopefully Charles Gibson will ask more than just dumb, fluff questions so America can get a real impression of what this woman is like.

Posted by: tcsned at September 8, 2008 11:00 AM
Comment #262136

The US government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It had to be done. Foreign investments held significant amount of the mortgage debt. The foregin investors were not willing to lose hundreds of billions of dollars. So the US government did what it had to do. Taxpayers are taking the hit for the mortgage meltdown, because the entities are too big to fail, and alternative is a 1929 style depression.

Most people are blissfully unaware of just how bad the situation really is. The ‘For Sale’ signs, falling housing prices, and foreclosures register, but it’s worse.

This isn’t a problem that will end in a few months, or a year.

Think in terms of an economic downturn that will last a decade.

Deregulate, privatize the profit, socialize the loss. Incredibly, the GOP still seems to believe this, even as the US government becomes the guarantor of at least half the nation’s mortgages. Incredibly, McCain still seems intent on following the Bush economic program. The foolishness of such a course boggles the mind.

A country gets the government it deserves. I suppose. Personally, I feel we deserve better.

Posted by: phx8 at September 8, 2008 11:54 AM
Comment #262141

tcsned,

She is a creationist…

That’s your only valid argument. It won’t get you very far, though. People who have a problem with that already agree with you.

…and has tried banning books is school libraries

That has been debunked now that quotes from the librarian she talked to have been reprinted.

she is radically anti-choice for women

Like people who say she shouldn’t have had a baby at her age?

she has no clue about foreign policy (being closer to Russia than the rest of us doesn’t count at all)

That’s not true either. As governor Palin received security briefings for that very reason.

she and McCain have proposed nothing new in economic policy than George W. Bush

Obama’s plan isn’t much different either, apart from raising taxes on the rich. Now he’s saying that he might not even do that. As for raising taxes on businesses? He’ll quietly let that drop if he’s elected. Obama knows it would hurt job creation.

Posted by: Republicwin at September 8, 2008 12:26 PM
Comment #262144

>Oh well, keep your head in the sand, but it looks like you might have to keep it there for at least another four years.

Posted by: Duane-o at September 8, 2008 03:35 AM>Oh well, keep your head in the sand, but it looks like you might have to keep it there for at least another four years.

Posted by: Duane-o at September 8, 2008 03:35 AM

Duane-o,

What’s that old saw??? Be careful what you wish for…you may actually get it…Well, I’d be careful of my wishes if I were you…do you really want another two or three trillion added to the debt, another war either with Russia or Iran or both…Twenty or thirty more Republicans indicted…etc., etc.? And, that would likely take place in just those four years you speak so casually of, under a Cheney/Bush/McPain/Palin administration.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 8, 2008 12:32 PM
Comment #262148

do you really want another two or three trillion added to the debt,

We’ll get that no matter who’s elected…

another war either with Russia or Iran or both

Nice scare tactics you’ve got there. Unrealistic, but nice.

Twenty or thirty more Republicans indicted…

Again, nothing to do with the presidential election.

Posted by: TheTraveler at September 8, 2008 12:48 PM
Comment #262149

Repulicwin -
Nice bait and switch - her being radically anti-choice has nothing to do with her having a baby at any age. I don’t care what her personal family is like. That has zero to do with the fact that a McCain/Palin win would mean an overturn of Roe v. Wade.

Getting a briefing doesn’t mean she has a clue about foreign policy. she also trumpets her CIC of the Alaska’s guard as experience but as far as I know she never issued a single order in her short tenure. Someone who believes that the Iraq war was a task from god doesn’t have a clue. George Bush got lots of “briefings” too where did that get him? Has she been hiding from the press because she is so solid on foreign policy that she doesn’t want to embarrass the “liberal” media?

Obama’s economic plan is the same as the GOP? Huh? Obama did say that he might not raise taxes on the rich, but it is only because of the disastrous economy he will inherit from 8 years of W’s blunders that have resulted in a horrible housing market, a shrinking middle class, and the largest government bailout in US history. It’s interesting that McCain has been in the middle of the 2 biggest bailouts in my lifetime - his less than upstanding relationship with Keating and the S&L crisis and now his support of deregulation that spawned this mortgage crisis.

Posted by: tcsned at September 8, 2008 12:50 PM
Comment #262152

“Should voters be alarmed by a relatively young or inexperienced vice-presidential candidate? No. Since 1900, five vice presidents have succeeded to the presidency during their term in office: Teddy Roosevelt in 1901, Calvin Coolidge in 1923, Harry Truman in 1945, Lyndon Johnson in 1963, and Gerald Ford in 1974. Teddy Roosevelt took over at age 42, becoming our youngest president, and he’s generally thought to have proved up to the job. Truman was V.P. for less than three months and had been kept in the dark by Franklin Roosevelt about such matters as the atom bomb — and he’s generally thought to have risen to the occasion. Character, judgment and the ability to learn seem to matter more to success as president than the number of years one’s been in Washington.”

For the full story go here; http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/opinion/08kristol.html?th&emc=th

Posted by: Jim M at September 8, 2008 1:16 PM
Comment #262154

Nice bait and switch - her being radically anti-choice has nothing to do with her having a baby at any age. I don’t care what her personal family is like. That has zero to do with the fact that a McCain/Palin win would mean an overturn of Roe v. Wade.

People like Mike Wrona care… You know, the guy who wrote this article.

Getting a briefing doesn’t mean she has a clue about foreign policy.

I think it does… Neither one of us can say how she’ll use that info, but yes, she does have a clue.

she also trumpets her CIC of the Alaska’s guard as experience but as far as I know she never issued a single order in her short tenure.

Don’t know much about how the National guard works do you?
The Guard isn’t just people showing up for two days a month. These are military bases doing much the same stuff as an active duty base, with responsibility of having to be ready to deal with emergencies within the country. Unless they’re on a federal mission, everything they do has to be ordered by the Governor.

Has she been hiding from the press because she is so solid on foreign policy that she doesn’t want to embarrass the “liberal” media?

Hiding? Don’t know if you noticed, but they spent last week having a convention. The campaign is starting to schedule interviews for her.

Obama’s economic plan is the same as the GOP? Huh?

Well if I’m wrong, perhaps you can fill me in…

Posted by: Republicwin at September 8, 2008 1:23 PM
Comment #262155

>(My post) do you really want another two or three trillion added to the debt,

(You) We’ll get that no matter who’s elected…
(Me) Nope, by the end of the first four years the deficit will be halved and by the end of the second term, we’ll have a balanced budget, under ‘O’/Biden…

(My Post)another war either with Russia or Iran or both

(You) Nice scare tactics you’ve got there. Unrealistic, but nice.
(Me) Hardly unrealistic…Both McPain and Palin are bellicose bullies, pit bulls and Mavericks, by their own self descriptions. McPain admits he’s no diplomat (similar to current spellbinders?) and Palin doesn’t even like herself…what’s so unrealistic about it?

(My Post) Twenty or thirty more Republicans indicted…

(You) Again, nothing to do with the presidential election.
(Me) Why not? Many of the same types of people are involved at high level in the McPain/Palin campaign…the people he has associated with in the past, i.e., Keating and the ‘group of five’, etc., would or should point you in the ‘right’ direction on this issue. How is the lead-up to McPain different than the lead-up to Cheney/Bush?

Posted by: TheTraveler at September 8, 2008 12:48 PM

TheTraveler,

Nothing about my post was even exaggerated, let alone untrue.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 8, 2008 1:26 PM
Comment #262157

“Yes. Around 2% or 100,000 or about half the population of Anchorage. Not a lot. A small selfish and careless minority, in many people’s mind, in fact.”
Posted by: googlumpuugus at September 8, 2008 12:49 AM

Goog, it sounds like “Pro-Choice” liberals are hypocrites judging from your language.

David Remer says, “Out of public earshot, you can still hear Republicans talk this way if you listen quietly from behind a tree or building corner on a lazy Sunday morning after Church.”

David, this remark sounds like it came from a religious “peeping Tom”. I wonder what would happen if you “listened loudly”.


Posted by: Jim M at September 8, 2008 1:37 PM
Comment #262167

The Traveler:

Nice scare tactics you’ve got there.

Scare tactics?
John McCain has promised America “Other Wars” if he is elected in no uncertain terms.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 8, 2008 2:07 PM
Comment #262172

VV - I agree McCain has promised other wars - if he gets in the White House he can certainly make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Reason #1 not to vote for this man. We have bumbled our way into enough wars we don’t need any more.

RW - Palin has been hiding - her own campaign has admitted they are getting the “foreign policy expert” up to speed on foreign policy before she answers any questions. SO I guess those briefings she got as governor didn’t do much good. Plus, when you are getting briefed by the single worst foreign policy team we have ever assembled those briefings aren’t going to contain much useful information. Even at the convention she was hiding, albeit in plain sight. How many reporters questions did she answer? 0. All she did at the convention was get up in front of everybody and read a speech crafted by members of the Bush administration. If all she can do is read what others give her why not let the authors of these speeches take her place on the ticket. She’s a political Milli Vanilli.

Posted by: tcsned at September 8, 2008 2:30 PM
Comment #262176

Stephen:

I don’t care if Palin wanted to have baby after forty, that’s none of my business. If women have a right to their bodies, they have a right to have children at that age and accept the consequences.

Sure, but lets be perfectly clear about this: Sarah Palin doesn’t agree that women have a right to our bodies. She doesn’t even believe that women should have access to birth control, let alone have access to medically safe and sanitary abortions. She wants ALL American women to accept the consequences of having children past the advised childbearing age. Furthermore, she is a hard-hearted Republican who has no answers for people living in poverty who have more children than they can afford, or those who may fall into poverty as a result of forcing women to give birth. All people like her care about is mandating these births, but afterward the mothers and the children are on their own.
Sarah Palin is a Dominionist. The kind of person who doesn’t believe in the First Amendment.
Dominionists (they can come from varying Christian faiths, but are all on the far right) don’t believe that:
‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,’
Instead they want government and laws that are based upon their Christian religious beliefs.

Authoritarian Christian Fascism is an extremely valid reason for people to not wish to vote for Sarah Palin.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 8, 2008 2:51 PM
Comment #262186

Mike,

Democrats are shooting themselves in the face if they start making a point that women disqualify themselves from positions of responsibility when they have children past the age of 35. A substantial number of the responsible women I know postponed having children till they had established careers.

Two of my own children, both perfectly healthy and intelligent, were born after my wife was 35. If my wife were deciding whether to vote Democrat or Republican based on your post do you think she would go with the party of the guy who had just condemned HER?

This is a badly conceived argument even I don’t think worthy of your party.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 8, 2008 3:55 PM
Comment #262190

Stephen Daugherty-

Not everyone’s priority it the same. I am for families. The Republicans are for “talking about families.”

Big difference.

Posted by: Mike Wrona at September 8, 2008 4:30 PM
Comment #262192

Palin church: Alaska will be a ‘refuge’ for Armageddon

CNN’s Jessica Yellin looked into the church’s beliefs and reports that it practices speaking in tongues and also “teaches that Alaska will be a shelter at the end of the world.”

A video produced by the church proclaims with apocalyptic imagery that “God has a destiny for the state of Alaska!” and in another clip someone from the church affirms, “I believe that Alaska’s one of the refuge states.”

Yellin acknowledged that “whether Palin shares these beliefs is unclear” but noted that “during her June visit, she described the Iraq War and a natural gas pipeline she is trying to build as part of God’s plan.”

Will Charlie Gibson ask Palin if she thinks Alaska will be an “apocalyptic refuge”, and whether or not she “speaks in tongues.”
Nah, not very likely. That wouldn’t be “>

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 8, 2008 4:41 PM
Comment #262193

My link didn’t work. Here it is again:
That wouldn’t be “deferential” enough for the McCain/Palin campaign.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 8, 2008 4:49 PM
Comment #262194

Sarah Palin was told there is a risk of Down Syndrome if she gets pregnant.

Sarah Palin had 4 healthy children.

Sarah Palin got pregnant anyway.

The baby has Down Syndrome.

Is Sarah Palin heroic and should be praised for what she did?

Thrity percent of my post deals with a 44 year old women with 4 children who decides to get pregnant again tempting birth of a Child with Down Syndrome. the remaining 70% has been ignored.

At least I was correct on 70% of my writing in your eyes.

You responded with a daughter who doesn’t have children and gets pregnant. Did your daughter risk giving birth to a child with birth defects?
Yes, she did. It is fortunate that she didn’t, but, the fact remains risks are greater after age forty whether you want to believe it or not. The human body was not designed for late in life pregnancy. I guess that is Science, and we all know what plenty of Republicans think of science.

And by the way. I speak for me and not the Democratic Party. I don’t even think it has a position or cares to have a position on her pregnancy and birth.

Posted by: Mike Wrona at September 8, 2008 4:54 PM
Comment #262198

You may be speaking of “the Party” as an entity of its’ own, but comments abound out here as to what we, as indiviuals making up “the Party” think about Palin and every move she has made.
Some are tired of hearing the continued lies and rants being made, without the ability to get answers, since questions still aren’t being ALLOWED to be asked of Nanooki of the North (just a feminine suffix, not meant to be suggestive). Bottom line for many of us, Mike, is that we just don’t believe she had anything to do with this birth, except from a distance. There has yet to be evidence supporting her claim, yet all she would have to do would be to produce a birth certificate. Maybe they just take longer to forge than an ID does.

Posted by: janedoe at September 8, 2008 5:16 PM
Comment #262211

janedoe says, “You may be speaking of “the Party” as an entity of its’ own, but comments abound out here as to what we, as indiviuals making up “the Party” think about Palin and every move she has made.”

If only the same view was held regarding the “WE” in our founding documents, construed by many libs as group rights, versus the “WE” as “individuals” making up the (party) country.

Posted by: Jim M at September 8, 2008 6:33 PM
Comment #262227

ITA with Carolina. Get off Palin’s back, you’re making yourselves look like fools. My sister in law had a very healthy baby at age 39, and she is not an irresponsible person or a religious fanatic by any stretch of the imagination. I was born when my mother was 40 years old, and I’m healthy although unfortunately getting older.

The “WASP” Rpblcns have appointed enough Roman Catholics to the SCOTUS that they are now the majority there.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 8, 2008 8:12 PM
Comment #262292

Mike,

A Republican candidate whose poor judgment led to choosing a Vice-Presidential candidate who was willing to risk the life and health of her child just ot get pregnant a fifth time.


What?!!! Are you kidding!?! Is that how you look at someone (in their 40’s) who brings a child into this world? She’s risking the baby’s life??!! And, that’s (supposedly) a problem?! Dude, that is one of the most pathetic and self-centered comments I’ve heard in a while; and, there is plenty of competition out there, particularly on this blog. Disgusting!

Posted by: rahdigly at September 9, 2008 11:30 AM
Comment #263035

True story: my neighbor was 45 with 3 children, had her tubes tied, and still got pregnant! Apparently it is rare, but the tubes can actually grow back together. Point is, we don’t know the circumstances of why Sarah Palin got pregnant at 45… I do know her website says she believes in birthcontrol despite her apparently cutting funding or something to that effect… I don’t know enough about that situation to say for sure.

That said I definitely do agree that unless it was an accident it does not show good reasoning ability to have a child at that age given all of the known risks. I’ve known women who purposefully had babies into their 40’s because they either can’t stop chasing the baby dragon, or they put it off too long, and all I can say is that if the baby did have Down Syndrome they are no hero in my book for having it. The chances are like 1 in 30, and prior to 35 it’s like 1 in 400!

Posted by: Shannon at September 15, 2008 3:12 PM
Comment #263346

Every time one of my “sisters” at work trash her for being a working mom or question how she can be VP and raise 5 kids I want to scream at the silent betrayel of N.O.W. and folks like you. I was a Hillary supporter and guess what.

Posted by: I Care at September 18, 2008 12:40 PM
Post a comment