They obviously saw something in the numbers that led them to believe that thier "pro-choice" voting public wasn''t in jeopardy. I am not a fan of Obama and my pro-choice view wouldn''t sway me to him just because McCain picked a pro-life running mate. It may look like a HUGE ticket item to some, but to others of us, it was never a deciding factor.
Date: 9/4/2008 1:40:54 PM
Author: decodelighted
Re: women carrying small ... true, some women do. But not Palin. Here she is 7 months pregnant with her first child.
I am not going to weigh in on the pregnancy issue--my own sister was pretty big with her first and by the fourth she was significantly smaller--we joked that she was bloated and not pregnant. I''m just tired of looking at Palin''s stomach. Shoot, she''s probably sick of looking at her own stomach on the internet.
I wish that Palin had walked out on stage in a pregnancy suit...and with one child on each hip, of course. I mean what kind of mom would she be if she delivered a speech for more than 5 minutes without also physically caring for her children?
I love her expression in this photo, though. It''s as if she knew that in a couple of decades the nation would be scrutiniizing it and she wanted her face to read "You know, this is bullshi*t".
I agree...it's called political strategy people! McCain would've lost way more voters than he would've gained by picking a pro-choice candidate. Pro-choice voters who support him obviously DO NOT CARE that he himself is pro-life, so why would they care if his VP is? The issue wouldn't turn them into Obama lovers. On the other hand, pro-life voters who support him obviously DO CARE that he is pro-life, so they would care if his VP is and possibly just not vote at all. It's basic politics to me...McCain can't do anything if he's not elected and had to do what he had to do.
As I recall, the media attention was so intense that Hillary dubbed the whole thing "a vast right-wing conspiracy" to discredit her husband.
I wouldn''t go so far as to say that the entire Republican party puts this issue at the top just because a minority of them do. There are also pro-life Republicans that don''t put abortion at the top of their list and aren''t voting for McCain solely for that reason. I think McCain supporters who are voting for him based on that issue alone are few and far between. However, in a close election like this where Obama has the lead, McCain can''t afford to LOSE any voters he already has on his side. His supporters who are concerned primarily with abortion wouldn''t necessarily need to go vote for Obama for him to lose the election, they could simply just not vote at all. Pro-choice Republicans who like McCain like him for reasons other than his stance on abortion, so his VP''s stance on the issue didn''t matter to them. I also don''t think her stance was *the* deciding factor on her nomination...there are plenty of other pro-life VP candidates he could have chosen (Romney, Pawlenty). I don''t deny that it was a large factor, but it certainly wasn''t the only one.
Of course she''s too conservative for you, you''re not a Republican. She SHOULD be too conservative for you. Republicans aren''t supposed to be the new Democrats. When you''re completely middle of the road, you alienate people on both sides, which is what was happening to McCain. He''s too liberal for true conservatives and too conservative for liberals. Granted, most people who are true conservatives would still vote for him because who else are they going to vote for? Still, Palin strengthens his conservative base, which is who he should focus on...being a republican and all. I still think that the Palin choice was to go for some of the Libertarians. I know many Libertarians who are happy to vote for McCain now. I''m not one of them, but I see it happening.
I have no problem that she's being attacked in general, it's the basis of the attacks that are a problem to me. Attack her on her policies, inexperience, past political choices, drug use, fraud, etc., etc. for all I care. But a faked pregnancy? How she will raise her kids? PleaseDate: 9/4/2008 2:54:32 PM
Author: purrfectpear
FWIW, I don't think Palin is being attacked because she is a woman by the majority of people, I think she's being attacked because she's running for public office. Didn't Bush Jr. get attacked with leaks of his cocaine use? Didn't Hillary get attacked over the Foster issue? Doesn't EVERY politician with ANY FRIGGIN SKELETON get attacked? Why do we think Teddy Kennedy will never be a Presidential candidate
Let's not pull the gender card ladies and claim 'oh woe is me, they're picking on us wimmens'
Lies are lies. Clinton''s stuff was just "rumors" until proven. And, IIRC, Palin *is* spending taxpayer money ... at least 95K defending herself against the "abuse of power" charges related to her sister''s messy divorce from a State Trooper.
It's not a big issue to us(me), as a Rep. It is pushed high in the press, but that isn't very true to real life. It's definitely not big enough to vote for someone that I have MUCH bigger issues with, just beacuse they are pro-choice.
Like I've said several times, I have *no problem* with people investigating her for matters that directly pertain to her ability to be a good leader. I specifically said she hasn't used taxpayer money defending herself against "tabloid talk." The allegations of abuse of power are actually backed with witnesses, physical evidence, etc. so I say yes, let it play out and see what happens...right now we don't know if she lied or not. For the record, even the man accusing her of the abuse said that she never told him to fire anyone. I just don't consider pictures of a slightly pudgy teen and a trim pregnant mother evidence...maybe that's just me. I have no idea what the reimbursement/ebay comment meantDate: 9/4/2008 3:12:18 PM
Author: decodelighted
Lies are lies. Clinton's stuff was just 'rumors' until proven. And, IIRC, Palin *is* spending taxpayer money ... at least 95K defending herself against the 'abuse of power' charges related to her sister's messy divorce from a State Trooper.
And there's a lot of taxpayer money being spent to promote her for this office. If she qualified based on lies & fraud ... will she reimburse us? I know she's familiar with EBAY.
What??? You weren''t invited on a private tour of the oval office?!?!Date: 9/4/2008 3:27:03 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
Like I''ve said several times, I have *no problem* with people investigating her for matters that directly pertain to her ability to be a good leader. I specifically said she hasn''t used taxpayer money defending herself against ''tabloid talk.'' The allegations of abuse of power are actually backed with witnesses, physical evidence, etc. so I say yes, let it play out and see what happens...right now we don''t know if she lied or not. For the record, even the man accusing her of the abuse said that she never told him to fire anyone. I just don''t consider pictures of a slightly pudgy teen and a trim pregnant mother evidence...maybe that''s just me. I have no idea what the reimbursement/ebay comment meantbut I didn''t get a reimbursement from Clinton, so I doubt it?
AHAHAHAH I wish...no Clinton tour guide necessary!Date: 9/4/2008 3:33:09 PM
Author: meresal
What??? You weren''t invited on a private tour of the oval office?!?!Date: 9/4/2008 3:27:03 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
Like I''ve said several times, I have *no problem* with people investigating her for matters that directly pertain to her ability to be a good leader. I specifically said she hasn''t used taxpayer money defending herself against ''tabloid talk.'' The allegations of abuse of power are actually backed with witnesses, physical evidence, etc. so I say yes, let it play out and see what happens...right now we don''t know if she lied or not. For the record, even the man accusing her of the abuse said that she never told him to fire anyone. I just don''t consider pictures of a slightly pudgy teen and a trim pregnant mother evidence...maybe that''s just me. I have no idea what the reimbursement/ebay comment meantbut I didn''t get a reimbursement from Clinton, so I doubt it?
Date: 9/4/2008 3:24:48 PM
Author: meresal
It''s not a big issue to us(me), as a Rep. It is pushed high in the press, but that isn''t very true to real life. It''s definitely not big enough to vote for someone that I have MUCH bigger issues with, just beacuse they are pro-choice.
They are out there, and they will find their way
ETA: IndyGal- I feel that no one wants to believe me when I say it''s not a big ticket item
It wasn''t a ''messy divorce from her sister'' that Palin was challenging, and wanted him removed for. Or haven''t you read the part about him using his authority as a trooper to terrorize his wife and children -- to include tazoring his own child? He isn''t fit to wear the uniform; she was the acting governor; let her demand his removal if she wants to. He deserved to be ousted. By whomever.Date: 9/4/2008 3:12:18 PM
Author: decodelighted
Lies are lies. Clinton''s stuff was just ''rumors'' until proven. And, IIRC, Palin *is* spending taxpayer money ... at least 95K defending herself against the ''abuse of power'' charges related to her sister''s messy divorce from a State Trooper.
And there''s a lot of taxpayer money being spent to promote her for this office. If she qualified based on lies & fraud ... will she reimburse us? I know she''s familiar with EBAY.
I hear you meresal...I think the party affiliations in and of themselves make people lump those who classify themselves as one or the other into a certain set of values/beliefs/etc. I know many more middle-roaders than people who are strongly affiliated with either party. The reason why the pro-life Republicans are the ones "calling the shots" in this election is because McCain is losing a close election and can''t afford to lose votes. *McCain* will be the president if elected and he is pro-life, so why aren''t people equally concerned with his views? Palin won''t be the one appointing Supreme Court justices or vetoing legislation...at least not unless McCain dies and/or gets assassinated (a possibility for Obama too). Even Supreme Court justices need to be confirmed, so make sure you all pay attention when voting for those Senators!Date: 9/4/2008 3:46:39 PM
Author: iluvcarats
Date: 9/4/2008 3:24:48 PM
Author: meresal
It''s not a big issue to us(me), as a Rep. It is pushed high in the press, but that isn''t very true to real life. It''s definitely not big enough to vote for someone that I have MUCH bigger issues with, just beacuse they are pro-choice.
They are out there, and they will find their way
ETA: IndyGal- I feel that no one wants to believe me when I say it''s not a big ticket item
I believe you, and I get it. Many Republicans are pro-choice.
But the ones calling the shots, and orchestrating the nominations are not.
They are determined to overturn Roe v. Wade (even in cases of rape or incest) and this is frightening to me.
Meresal - Just say you would rather lose on one issue than lose an election!Date: 9/4/2008 3:24:48 PM
Author: meresal
It''s not a big issue to us(me), as a Rep. It is pushed high in the press, but that isn''t very true to real life. It''s definitely not big enough to vote for someone that I have MUCH bigger issues with, just beacuse they are pro-choice.
They are out there, and they will find their way
ETA: IndyGal- I feel that no one wants to believe me when I say it''s not a big ticket item
As soon as I'm the one with the multi millions (*cough* billions *cough*Date: 9/4/2008 4:37:31 PM
Author: IndyGirl22
Meresal - Just say you would rather lose on one issue than lose an election!
300x240.png)
