Female Mccain''s VP pick

[galeteia]

I have been thinking a great deal about this thread and about the interest in Palin''s personal life, and the charges that the focus on her personal life is unfair, irrelevant, etc. and that her personal life is none of our business.

The reason why a Republican''s personal life is relevant is because part of their platform is making people''s personal lives their business. Whether or not you can marry, whether or not you have children, which religion''s views your children are taught in their science classes.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. If they have made Americans'' personal lives their domain of interest and control, it is not unfair for their own personal lives to come under scrutiny, since they have stated they plan to have a say in everyone else''s.

 

[miraclesrule]

Dangit!! I so have a bunch of work to do on this upcoming charity event, but I can't help myself after reading this thread.....Grrrrrrrr I am bad.....

DFan: I'm so sorry you had to endure what you did when you were 18 and grateful, eternally grateful that you were given a choice. :::::::::raising my hand::::::::::: Guilty here too! (But later on when with the failed sponge) And Bless You for having the courage to state it in this thread. You are dignity and personal truth defined (even if I don't agree with your Obama take).

Palin...innnnnterrrresting woman. I love the fact that she auctioned off a plane that a previous governmental regime purchased with tax dollar money and she yielded a nice sum from it's sale. She was a maverick and so loathed Federal Politics and she just wanted Alaska to become a commonwealth. Awesome in many respects. All until she was targeted by the big policitical machine. The truth is, we don't know crap about her yet. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Do I think that we should bash a woman's ambition just because she is a woman. NOPE, but then again, that causes me to be curious about who she is choosing to take her place in the Motherhood/Guardian department. I want to know more about her husband. He is on leave from his job. How long has he been on leave? What kind of leave? FMLA medical leave? Disability leave? Paid for by the Republican Party leave? Personal leave? So many questions, so few answers.

I have no problem with the reality of teenage preganancy. It's real, it's documented and we can judge all we want. Responsible parents, IMHO, would educate their children about protection from life threatening sexually transmitted diseases. Getting pregnant is testament to the fact that Palin didn't educate her daughter, or her daughter didn't follow her dictates, about "safe sex". Her daughter is lucky to have pregnancy as the only consequence of her sexual behavior. (IF she is really even pregnant right now and not being a scape goat to detract from the conspiracy theory) Heck, maybe it was her 14 year old who gave birth to Palin's new born. Do we know if she was in school? (I hear there isn't much to do in Alaska, so bodily warmth is prevalent)

There are posters here of all ages. What was once available or not available to or for some are now available to/for others. Certain risks that exist today did not exist in the 60's and 70's as they do now. Life changes. Society changes. Risk changes. If people don't adapt to the change, then they are being ignorant. There used to be a time when there was no such thing as a gun. There used to be a time where there was no such thing as AIDS. There used to be a time when women didn't have an overwhelming rise in cervical cancer due to HPV. But that is in the past.

Do our soldiers go into war with chainmail? Nope, not anymore. Because it won't protect them against new technology and weapons. They go to war in armored vehicles with all the equipment they can to protect them.
Do we still want our children to go into sexual activity risking their lives? I don't, I want them in an armored vehicle....so to speak.

And speaking of women's rights. Let's please remember that it isn't the man who gets pregnant, it's the woman. The man can run off (and often do), divorce her, hide from his obligations, die...and the woman is still the person who will have to raise these children....maybe even on the taxpayer's dime. If we were to add up every child who is not born as a result of a legal abortion, I wonder how many would be raised on welfare and how many people would complain about that.

And it scares the bejesus out of me to think that the potential leader of my country would not "get that". But then again, Palin married her husband because she was pregnant, so I guess in every family it goes one of two ways. You do exactly the opposite of your parents, or you follow them. I have no concern for a person's choice as it pertains to their body. I take issue with those that would declare ownership and authority over mine.

And let's be honest here. McCain is probably beside himself right now. He didn't even want Palin. He wanted Lieberman or Ridge. The huge conservative religious right were incensed and let McCain know that because both of those men weren't against abortion, the delegates would not confirm either of them as picks. McCain had no option in the 11th hour but to go with a choice that the delegates would support. There is a reason that his campaign raised a record breaking amount of money after the VP nod. Follow the money and who has it. One can dream about the separation of church and state all one wants, but it's a bit like walking around the house with ones hands over their eyes as one bumps into furniture cursing that the room is dark. It's called denial. Money is power in politics.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/2/2008 10:40:26 PM
Author: Galateia
I have been thinking a great deal about this thread and about the interest in Palin's personal life, and the charges that the focus on her personal life is unfair, irrelevant, etc. and that her personal life is none of our business.

The reason why a Republican's personal life is relevant is because part of their platform is making people's personal lives their business. Whether or not you can marry, whether or not you have children, which religion's views your children are taught in their science classes.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. If they have made Americans' personal lives their domain of interest and control, it is not unfair for their own personal lives to come under scrutiny, since they have stated they plan to have a say in everyone else's.

Well, Obama is against gay marriage too...so does that make his personal life fair game? I would love to hear about how Barack and Michelle raise their kids so I can evaluate how good of a president he will be.

ETA: Sorry for this threadjack but I was *hoping* this thread wouldn't turn into an abortion debate but it looks headed that way...no one needs to discuss the actual morality of abortion, as that is an on-going debate that will continue until well after we've left this Earth. I do want to say that I've never known a time when abortion *wasn't* legal, so it goes both ways depending on which side of the issue you're on. Speculation about what would be/not be could also go both ways...i.e. what if an aborted baby would've grown up to have the cure for cancer, etc., etc. Anyway, I'm not going to condemn anyone for feeling one way or another, I just think it's distasteful to throw the mistakes of a pro-life mother's daughter in her face and laugh about it. The same thing happens to pro-choice mothers everyday, so I just don't think that's the issue. Threadjack over!

 

[diamondfan]

Miracle, I love ya and we can certainly agree to disagree about Obama. I just do not feel good about him...but things are sure nutty right about now.

I am not a very conservative person. I believe a woman should be able to decide to have an abortion. I did, I had a safe clean place to do so, not some dirty place or somewhere out of the US. I have friends with daughters, wealthy friends, who do not believe Roe v. Wade can really be overturned. They know doctors who can say the girl''s life is in danger. If somehow they cannot get an abortion in the US, they would take their daughter to Europe. But that is not the reality for most people. Now, do I love the idea of abortion as birth control? No. My oldest friend''s sister used to make quarterly trips to the abortion clinic. I am not kidding. It was sick.

I also totally respect that someone feels very opposed to having an abortion. I know someone who thought two of her babies were likely Down''s, but her beliefs did not allow the thought of terminating the pregnancy. Luckily, the results were wrong...she had the routine screen which should false positives TWICE but did not test further as in her mind the result made no difference to her decision to keep the baby. I respected and admired her, even though I knew I could not have done the same.

There are judgment filled Republicans, Democrats, Independants...people who think they have all the right answers and know how people should live their lives. I abhor that. But, I also think it is tough to be a woman today and achieve on a national stage and be under scrutiny. To be honest, it is true no man would be talked about this way, and also, there are many CEO''s who are female who leave their families for long hours a day and travel and are gone. Do all their kids, if they have them, end up messed up? No. Is it better that a loving and capable mom is at the helm during those early years? I think so. It is really a tough road to walk.

I kinda admit I am confused how saying the daughter is pregnant NOW when Sarah gave birth in April is a cover up. The daughter will be due early next year, the other baby is already here. What does this pregnancy announcement accomplish as a ruse?

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 9/2/2008 10:40:26 PM
Author: Galateia
I have been thinking a great deal about this thread and about the interest in Palin''s personal life, and the charges that the focus on her personal life is unfair, irrelevant, etc. and that her personal life is none of our business.


The reason why a Republican''s personal life is relevant is because part of their platform is making people''s personal lives their business. Whether or not you can marry, whether or not you have children, which religion''s views your children are taught in their science classes.


Live by the sword, die by the sword. If they have made Americans'' personal lives their domain of interest and control, it is not unfair for their own personal lives to come under scrutiny, since they have stated they plan to have a say in everyone else''s.

YES! So true!

 

[AGBF]

Date: 9/2/2008 10:40:26 PM

Author: Galateia

The reason why a Republican''s personal life is relevant is because part of their platform is making people''s personal lives their business. Whether or not you can marry, whether or not you have children, which religion''s views your children are taught in their science classes.

Galateia, You are amazing! I never thought about it that way at all! You are really brilliant. What did Wordsworth say, full many a flower is born to bloom unseen and waste its sweetness on the desert air? Not that your sweetness is being wasted, really, since you are sharing it here. I have to go look up that quotation! I do hope it is Wordsworth! At any rate, I salute you! You are wonderfully aware and prescient!


Deborah

 

[HollyS]

Date: 9/2/2008 10:08:33 PM
Author: swimmer
So she went into labor with her 5th child, one who she knew would have a difficult time of it, having chromosomal anomalies and her advanced age...THEN she gets on an 8 hour flight, (which is normally a violation of airline policy), then she lands and drives past an excellent hospital with world class facilities to go to her hometown facility to deliver, 22 hours from first ''leaking amniotic fluid'' a healthy baby that is not listed on the facility''s roster of births for the day.

Either she is hiding something or she has very poor judgment. Regardless, she wasn''t going to get my vote, not that anyone on that ticket would have. I would vote for McCain, if it was him or Bush...

I''m with those of you laughing. Its just too rich, so many layers of lies, nepotism, etc. Usually you can''t get this stuff from anyone but the Kennedys! But they never pretend to be holier than thou. And this is not a jab a religious folks. You can have faith and not act all high and mighty. At a rally in high school we were supposed to all sign promise/contracts to Jesus about staying celibate till marriage. I was the only female to not sign it, took some serious grief for it from other students and teachers. I was also the only Jewish female in this public school of 2,000; laughed my butt off when the daughter of the woman who organized the rally (she was the star of the show) was preggers the next year. still chuckling about that one.

I can''t wait for a woman candidate to vote for. I will work my butt off for her, in the meantime, anyone else volunteering for either campaign? (or Green/Ind/Anarchy/whatevs) What sorts of things are you doing? (if you don''t mind sharing)

Or, 99% of this story is just that. . . a story.

 

[AGBF]

My high school English teacher would be very disappointed in me . It is not only not Wordsworth (it is Thomas Gray), but it is from the incredibly famous poem, "Elegy Written in a Country Church-Yard", which I failed to recognize. I trust that none of you will be able to report me to her!!!

For your edification, should you want to read the rest of the poem, I am posting it here.

Deborah

"ELEGY WRITTEN IN
A COUNTRY CHURCH-YARD"
The curfew tolls the knell of parting day,
The lowing herd winds slowly o''er the lea,
The ploughman homeward plods his weary way,
And leaves the world to darkness and to me.
Now fades the glimmering landscape on the sight,
And all the air a solemn stillness holds,
Save where the beetle wheels his droning flight,
And drowsy tinklings lull the distant folds:
Save that from yonder ivy-mantled tower
The moping owl does to the moon complain
Of such as, wandering near her secret bower,
Molest her ancient solitary reign.
Beneath those rugged elms, that yew-tree''s shade,
Where heaves the turf in many a mouldering heap,
Each in his narrow cell for ever laid,
The rude Forefathers of the hamlet sleep.
The breezy call of incense-breathing morn,
The swallow twittering from the straw-built shed,
The cock''s shrill clarion, or the echoing horn,
No more shall rouse them from their lowly bed.
For them no more the blazing hearth shall burn,
Or busy housewife ply her evening care:
No children run to lisp their sire''s return,
Or climb his knees the envied kiss to share,
Oft did the harvest to their sickle yield,
Their furrow oft the stubborn glebe has broke;
How jocund did they drive their team afield!
How bow''d the woods beneath their sturdy stroke!
Let not Ambition mock their useful toil,
Their homely joys, and destiny obscure;
Nor Grandeur hear with a disdainful smile
The short and simple annals of the Poor.
The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power,
And all that beauty, all that wealth e''er gave,
Awaits alike th'' inevitable hour:-
The paths of glory lead but to the grave.
Nor you, ye Proud, impute to these the fault
If Memory o''er their tomb no trophies raise,
Where through the long-drawn aisle and fretted vault
The pealing anthem swells the note of praise.
Can storied urn or animated bust
Back to its mansion call the fleeting breath?
Can Honour''s voice provoke the silent dust,
Or Flattery soothe the dull cold ear of Death?
Perhaps in this neglected spot is laid
Some heart once pregnant with celestial fire;
Hands, that the rod of empire might have sway''d,
Or waked to ecstasy the living lyre:
But Knowledge to their eyes her ample page,
Rich with the spoils of time, did ne''er unroll;
Chill Penury repress''d their noble rage,
And froze the genial current of the soul.
Full many a gem of purest ray serene
The dark unfathom''d caves of ocean bear:
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
Some village-Hampden, that with dauntless breast
The little tyrant of his fields withstood,
Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest,
Some Cromwell, guiltless of his country''s blood.
Th'' applause of list''ning senates to command,
The threats of pain and ruin to despise,
To scatter plenty o''er a smiling land,
And read their history in a nation''s eyes,
Their lot forbad: nor circumscribed alone
Their growing virtues, but their crimes confined;
Forbad to wade through slaughter to a throne,
And shut the gates of mercy on mankind,
The struggling pangs of conscious truth to hide,
To quench the blushes of ingenuous shame,
Or heap the shrine of Luxury and Pride
With incense kindled at the Muse''s flame.
Far from the madding crowd''s ignoble strife,
Their sober wishes never learn''d to stray;
Along the cool sequester''d vale of life
They kept the noiseless tenour of their way.
Yet e''en these bones from insult to protect
Some frail memorial still erected nigh,
With uncouth rhymes and shapeless sculpture deck''d,
Implores the passing tribute of a sigh.
Their name, their years, spelt by th'' unletter''d Muse,
The place of fame and elegy supply:
And many a holy text around she strews,
That teach the rustic moralist to die.
For who, to dumb forgetfulness a prey,
This pleasing anxious being e''er resign''d,
Left the warm precincts of the cheerful day,
Nor cast one longing lingering look behind?
On some fond breast the parting soul relies,
Some pious drops the closing eye requires;
E''en from the tomb the voice of Nature cries,
E''en in our ashes live their wonted fires.
For thee, who, mindful of th'' unhonour''d dead,
Dost in these lines their artless tale relate;
If chance, by lonely contemplation led,
Some kindred spirit shall inquire thy fate, --
Haply some hoary-headed swain may say,
"Oft have we seen him at the peep of dawn
Brushing with hasty steps the dews away,
To meet the sun upon the upland lawn;
"There at the foot of yonder nodding beech
That wreathes its old fantastic roots so high.
His listless length at noontide would he stretch,
And pore upon the brook that babbles by.
"Hard by yon wood, now smiling as in scorn,
Muttering his wayward fancies he would rove;
Now drooping, woeful wan, like one forlorn,
Or crazed with care, or cross''d in hopeless love.
"One morn I miss''d him on the custom''d hill,
Along the heath, and near his favourite tree;
Another came; nor yet beside the rill,
Nor up the lawn, nor at the wood was he;
"The next with dirges due in sad array
Slow through the church-way path we saw him borne,-
Approach and read (for thou canst read) the lay
Graved on the stone beneath yon aged thorn."

The Epitaph
Here rests his head upon the lap of Earth
A youth to Fortune and to Fame unknown.
Fair Science frowned not on his humble birth,
And Melacholy marked him for her own.
Large was his bounty, and his soul sincere,
Heaven did a recompense as largely send:
He gave to Misery all he had, a tear,
He gained from Heaven (''twas all he wish''d) a friend.
No farther seek his merits to disclose,
Or draw his frailties from their dread abode
(There they alike in trembling hope repose),
The bosom of his Father and his God.

By Thomas Gray (1716-71).

 

[HollyS]

Date: 9/2/2008 10:52:45 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/2/2008 10:40:26 PM
Author: Galateia
I have been thinking a great deal about this thread and about the interest in Palin''s personal life, and the charges that the focus on her personal life is unfair, irrelevant, etc. and that her personal life is none of our business.

The reason why a Republican''s personal life is relevant is because part of their platform is making people''s personal lives their business. Whether or not you can marry, whether or not you have children, which religion''s views your children are taught in their science classes.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. If they have made Americans'' personal lives their domain of interest and control, it is not unfair for their own personal lives to come under scrutiny, since they have stated they plan to have a say in everyone else''s.

Well, Obama is against gay marriage too...so does that make his personal life fair game? I would love to hear about how Barack and Michelle raise their kids so I can evaluate how good of a president he will be.

ETA: Sorry for this threadjack but I was *hoping* this thread wouldn''t turn into an abortion debate but it looks headed that way...no one needs to discuss the actual morality of abortion, as that is an on-going debate that will continue until well after we''ve left this Earth. I do want to say that I''ve never known a time when abortion *wasn''t* legal, so it goes both ways depending on which side of the issue you''re on. Speculation about what would be/not be could also go both ways...i.e. what if an aborted baby would''ve grown up to have the cure for cancer, etc., etc. Anyway, I''m not going to condemn anyone for feeling one way or another, I just think it''s distasteful to throw the mistakes of a pro-life mother''s daughter in her face and laugh about it. The same thing happens to pro-choice mothers everyday, so I just don''t think that''s the issue. Threadjack over!

You know, I''m a little tired of the abortion debate. There is nothing to debate. It is, and has been for some time now, perfectly legal to obtain an abortion. This will not change in the near future. Nobody is waiting in the wings, gavel in hand, to be appointed to the SC, and be the one to bring this back up for a vote. No would be SC judge wants that on their page in the history book; it has too many ramifications. It has been, and should be, a dead issue. And yet, decades later, we''re still talking about it.

 

[miraclesrule]

style="WIDTH: 99%; HEIGHT: 393px">Date: 9/2/2008 11:23:48 PM
Author: HollyS

Date: 9/2/2008 10:52:45 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/2/2008 10:40:26 PM
Author: Galateia
I have been thinking a great deal about this thread and about the interest in Palin''s personal life, and the charges that the focus on her personal life is unfair, irrelevant, etc. and that her personal life is none of our business.

The reason why a Republican''s personal life is relevant is because part of their platform is making people''s personal lives their business. Whether or not you can marry, whether or not you have children, which religion''s views your children are taught in their science classes.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. If they have made Americans'' personal lives their domain of interest and control, it is not unfair for their own personal lives to come under scrutiny, since they have stated they plan to have a say in everyone else''s.

Well, Obama is against gay marriage too...so does that make his personal life fair game? I would love to hear about how Barack and Michelle raise their kids so I can evaluate how good of a president he will be.

ETA: Sorry for this threadjack but I was *hoping* this thread wouldn''t turn into an abortion debate but it looks headed that way...no one needs to discuss the actual morality of abortion, as that is an on-going debate that will continue until well after we''ve left this Earth. I do want to say that I''ve never known a time when abortion *wasn''t* legal, so it goes both ways depending on which side of the issue you''re on. Speculation about what would be/not be could also go both ways...i.e. what if an aborted baby would''ve grown up to have the cure for cancer, etc., etc. Anyway, I''m not going to condemn anyone for feeling one way or another, I just think it''s distasteful to throw the mistakes of a pro-life mother''s daughter in her face and laugh about it. The same thing happens to pro-choice mothers everyday, so I just don''t think that''s the issue. Threadjack over!

You know, I''m a little tired of the abortion debate. There is nothing to debate. It is, and has been for some time now, perfectly legal to obtain an abortion. This will not change in the near future. Nobody is waiting in the wings, gavel in hand, to be appointed to the SC, and be the one to bring this back up for a vote. No would be SC judge wants that on their page in the history book; it has too many ramifications. It has been, and should be, a dead issue. And yet, decades later, we''re still talking about it.

This is very true. However, if we are to honestly talk about Palin as the title of this thread suggests, then we can''t ignore the fact that if it weren''t for her strong anti-abortion stance, this thread would be about Leiberman or Ridge. This is not heresay or speculation, it is a documented fact that McCain was given no option but to appease not just the pro-life candidates, but more specifically, the anti-abortion ones. That is a huge statement of intent from the delegates.

Who among us ins''t honestly pro-life? I think we can safely assume from most of the people here that we all have a reverence for life. But that is far and away a different stance from being anti-abortion, even in the face of rape or incest. That''s extreme. And to think that no other experienced candidate was suitable because of this one fact is troubling for me, and I think, for many people.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/2/2008 11:23:48 PM
Author: HollyS

You know, I''m a little tired of the abortion debate. There is nothing to debate. It is, and has been for some time now, perfectly legal to obtain an abortion. This will not change in the near future. Nobody is waiting in the wings, gavel in hand, to be appointed to the SC, and be the one to bring this back up for a vote. No would be SC judge wants that on their page in the history book; it has too many ramifications. It has been, and should be, a dead issue. And yet, decades later, we''re still talking about it.

I agree that it isn''t going anywhere...unless you believe Obama, who thinks a vote for McCain will outlaw abortion immediately.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/2/2008 11:38:15 PM
Author: miraclesrule

This is very true. However, if we are to honestly talk about Palin as the title of this thread suggests, then we can''t ignore the fact that if it weren''t for her strong anti-abortion stance, this thread would be about Leiberman or Ridge. This is not heresay or speculation, it is a documented fact that McCain was given no option but to appease not just the pro-life candidates, but more specifically, the anti-abortion ones. That is a huge statement of intent from the delegates.

Who among us ins''t honestly pro-life? I think we can safely assume from most of the people here that we all have a reverence for life. But that is far and away a different stance from being anti-abortion, even in the face of rape or incest. That''s extreme. And to think that no other experienced candidate was suitable because of this one fact is troubling for me, and I think, for many people.

Aren''t Romney and Pawlenty pro-life? They were also in the running right up until the end...

 

[ladypirate]

This was posted in the comments section of this article and I thought it was interesting. Certainly another interesting and somewhat more personal account of Ms. Palin.

ABOUT SARAH PALIN

I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992. Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her father was my child's favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the city.

She is enormously popular; in every way she’s like the most popular girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won't vote for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because she is a "babe".

It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for seven months.

She is "pro-life". She recently gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby. There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby.

She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.

She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out there" and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.

Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin’s kind of job is highly sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything like that of native Alaskans.

Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters.

She's smart.

Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000 (at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about 670,000 residents.

During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign.

Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a “fiscal conservative”. During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.

The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren’t enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn’t even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing.

While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated more than once.

These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.

As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state.

In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's surplus, borrow for needs.

She’s not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them.

While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.

Sarah complained about the “old boy’s club” when she first ran for Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of "old boys". Palin fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal--loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of pressuring the State’s top cop (see below).

As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla’s Police Chief because he “intimidated” her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska's top cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support.

She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn’t like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.

Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her.

When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job which paid $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the “old boys’ club” when she dramatically quit, exposing this man’s ethics violations (for which he was fined).

As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the “bridge to nowhere” after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.

As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of these projects--which had been vetoed simply because she was not aware of their importance--but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as “anti-pork”.

She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal conservative.

Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They call her “Sarah Barracuda” because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah's mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her.

As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package of legislation known as “AGIA” that forced the oil companies to march to the beat of her drum.

Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. She campaigned “as a private citizen” against a state initiaitive that would have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the State’s lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior’s decision to list polar bears as threatened species.

McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a heartbeat away from being President.

There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable and experienced than she.

However, there’s a lot of people who have underestimated her and are regretting it.


CLAIM VS FACT
•“Hockey mom”: true for a few years
•“PTA mom”: true years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, not since
•“NRA supporter”: absolutely true
•social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she did this because it was unconsitutional).
•pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to promote it.
•“Pro-life”: mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down’s syndrome baby BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life legislation
•“Experienced”: Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska. No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000.
•political maverick: not at all
•gutsy: absolutely!
•open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.
•has a developed philosophy of public policy: no
•”a Greenie”: no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
•fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
•pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20th century standards.
•pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents
•pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla’s history.
•pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union doesn’t make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is pro-labor/pro-union.

WHY AM I WRITING THIS?

First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting programs in the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny + Alaska), you will find references to my participation in local government, education, and PTA/parent organizations.

Secondly, I've always operated in the belief that "Bad things happen when good people stay silent". Few people know as much as I do because few have gone to as many City Council meetings.

Third, I am just a housewife. I don't have a job she can bump me out of. I don't belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will cost me somehow in the future: that’s life.

Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah's attempt at censorship.

Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to say anything because they were somehow vulnerable.

CAVEATS
I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor) from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of Wasilla, and I can't recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust for inflation? for population increases? Right now, it is impossible for a private person to get any info out of City Hall--they are swamped. So I can't verify my numbers.

You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the population of Wasilla, ranging from my "about 5,000", up to 9,000. The day Palin’s selection was announced a city official told me that the current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was 5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90’s.

Anne Kilkenny
August 31, 2008

 

[diamondfan]

Wowza, pretty intense!

I wonder WHY if she is pro life would she hide her pregnancy that long, even when she knew the baby had Down''s? I just do not see what that really accomplishes. The baby would appear at some point...

 

[Beacon]

Now I am scared of her!

 

[trillionaire]

Oh Palin...

such an interesting candidate. Some have said that she is as experienced as Obama. Hm. If she spent the last 18-24mos preparing/running for president, perfecting ones understanding of policy and government, maybe we could have that conversation. But this chick is one week into the biggest role of her life, and she is showing up looking like a doe in the headlights. Not cool. And way to make McCain look like Senator Palpatine...

Further, as a woman, I am HIGHLY insulted by how she is being paraded around by the RNC. First, it is clear and commonly stated that she was not the first OR second choice for the job. She was the politically convenient choice, being Pro-life and conservative. If she was a man with the same resume, SHE WOULD NOT BE THE NOMINEE. Call me sexist, but I resent a woman being used for political gain. I really, truly want to see a qualified woman in the job, but McCain "using" her womanness to get him elected really irks me. No, it makes me ill to my catholic all girls HS stomach. (And yes, I am one of the people who thinks mommy can work while daddy stays home)

Re: unwed motherhood. I have read a lot of comments about Obama taking the high road. I agree with that I respect his style. I feel bad, because I feel that if the tables were turned, the GOP would probably not be so "nice". Regardless, I really have a problem with someone equating an unexpected pregnancy 47-48 years ago with an unexpected pregnancy today. First, we have a LOT more information about contraception, and it is much more widely available. Second, since his mom was pregnant at 18 almost 50 years ago, you could actually get a decent job, and support a kid with a high school diploma back then. And before anyone gets all holier than thou, SO's parent's were 18 when they had him. They got pregnant, then got married. They are still together, thankfully (I

them!), but neither of them went to college, and baby #2 was only 15 months later. And that was 27 years ago, but you could still make it as an 18 year old with no degrees. Now, most of the college graduates I know are spending months looking for jobs, and defaulting to grad school when they can't find any. I know people with Master's degrees working retail jobs. I hate when people don't acknowledge that times have changed. I am not saying its impossible, but it's definitely not equivalent. The average kid costs $250,000 to raise from 0-18, without factoring in college. (tack on another 100-200K for that) Good luck tackling that as a single mom, or a pair with no college credentials.

I am not saying that these things don't happen, nor is it the "business" of the world, but you make a choice to be a public figure, and all that it entails. Between Jamie Lynn and Bristol, either teenage girls are getting very confused messages about sex and pregnancy, or they are getting more sex ed lectures than EVER! I really hope it is the latter.

As for Palin, I am watching and reading.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 9/2/2008 10:48:34 PM
Author: miraclesrule
Dangit!! I so have a bunch of work to do on this upcoming charity event, but I can't help myself after reading this thread.....Grrrrrrrr I am bad.....

DFan: I'm so sorry you had to endure what you did when you were 18 and grateful, eternally grateful that you were given a choice. :::::::::raising my hand::::::::::: Guilty here too! (But later on when with the failed sponge) And Bless You for having the courage to state it in this thread. You are dignity and personal truth defined (even if I don't agree with your Obama take).

Palin...innnnnterrrresting woman. I love the fact that she auctioned off a plane that a previous governmental regime purchased with tax dollar money and she yielded a nice sum from it's sale. She was a maverick and so loathed Federal Politics and she just wanted Alaska to become a commonwealth. Awesome in many respects. All until she was targeted by the big policitical machine. The truth is, we don't know crap about her yet. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Do I think that we should bash a woman's ambition just because she is a woman. NOPE, but then again, that causes me to be curious about who she is choosing to take her place in the Motherhood/Guardian department. I want to know more about her husband. He is on leave from his job. How long has he been on leave? What kind of leave? FMLA medical leave? Disability leave? Paid for by the Republican Party leave? Personal leave? So many questions, so few answers.

I have no problem with the reality of teenage preganancy. It's real, it's documented and we can judge all we want. Responsible parents, IMHO, would educate their children about protection from life threatening sexually transmitted diseases. Getting pregnant is testament to the fact that Palin didn't educate her daughter, or her daughter didn't follow her dictates, about 'safe sex'. Her daughter is lucky to have pregnancy as the only consequence of her sexual behavior. (IF she is really even pregnant right now and not being a scape goat to detract from the conspiracy theory) Heck, maybe it was her 14 year old who gave birth to Palin's new born. Do we know if she was in school? (I hear there isn't much to do in Alaska, so bodily warmth is prevalent)

There are posters here of all ages. What was once available or not available to or for some are now available to/for others. Certain risks that exist today did not exist in the 60's and 70's as they do now. Life changes. Society changes. Risk changes. If people don't adapt to the change, then they are being ignorant. There used to be a time when there was no such thing as a gun. There used to be a time where there was no such thing as AIDS. There used to be a time when women didn't have an overwhelming rise in cervical cancer due to HPV. But that is in the past.

Do our soldiers go into war with chainmail? Nope, not anymore. Because it won't protect them against new technology and weapons. They go to war in armored vehicles with all the equipment they can to protect them.
Do we still want our children to go into sexual activity risking their lives? I don't, I want them in an armored vehicle....so to speak.

And speaking of women's rights. Let's please remember that it isn't the man who gets pregnant, it's the woman. The man can run off (and often do), divorce her, hide from his obligations, die...and the woman is still the person who will have to raise these children....maybe even on the taxpayer's dime. If we were to add up every child who is not born as a result of a legal abortion, I wonder how many would be raised on welfare and how many people would complain about that.

And it scares the bejesus out of me to think that the potential leader of my country would not 'get that'. But then again, Palin married her husband because she was pregnant, so I guess in every family it goes one of two ways. You do exactly the opposite of your parents, or you follow them. I have no concern for a person's choice as it pertains to their body. I take issue with those that would declare ownership and authority over mine.

And let's be honest here. McCain is probably beside himself right now. He didn't even want Palin. He wanted Lieberman or Ridge. The huge conservative religious right were incensed and let McCain know that because both of those men weren't against abortion, the delegates would not confirm either of them as picks. McCain had no option in the 11th hour but to go with a choice that the delegates would support. There is a reason that his campaign raised a record breaking amount of money after the VP nod. Follow the money and who has it. One can dream about the separation of church and state all one wants, but it's a bit like walking around the house with ones hands over their eyes as one bumps into furniture cursing that the room is dark. It's called denial. Money is power in politics.

Tiny unrelated threadjack here.

Sorry Miracles. Gonna have to call you on that one. Prior to the advent of the PAP test in the 50's, cervical cancer was, if not the, then one of the TOP killers of women worldwide. It ALWAYS was. It still is in the developing world. There has been no "overwhelming rise" in cervical cancer, just the opposite in fact, at least in the developed countries. And the vast majority of women's bodies still attack and get rid of HPV infections on their own with no need for any intervention. It is only a very very few that go on to develop actual cancer from it, and they are typically NOT teens but women in their 40s and 50s, from infections picked up later than their teen years. (Re-infection is common) In fact, cervical cancer since the PAP test has been one of the LEAST impacting cancers, and one of the easiest to treat and head off at the pass, so to speak, and now that we have the PAP test in conjuction with high-risk strain HPV tests, even better. That is why the vaccine is somewhat controversial. We are vaccinating against a cancer that gives us the "ooglies" (ewwww!! WARTS!!!. If only it were that easy...since the strains of HPV that turn into cancer have no visible outward signs) but in the grand scheme of cancer, is not all that bad, and was already knocked to the ground by the PAP test. Understand, I'm not against the vaccine, but I'm also aware of the money and "loadedness" involved in the pushing of it. I view it with a bit of a jaundiced eye...

End tiny threadjack.

ETA - Oh, and in case there is any misunderstanding still, HPV is THE cause of cervical cancer, not A cause. Cervical cancer without HPV involvment has, (at least in my researches) only been reported in elderly women in their 70s, and even then it's something of an anomaly. Virtually every case you hear about is HPV related. In fact, if you've EVER had an atypical PAP test at any point in your life, you've HAD HPV. Period.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 9/2/2008 9:09:06 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/2/2008 8:53:09 PM
Author: vespergirl

Children are only babies and toddlers for a very short while, and it has been proven in countless studies that children under the age of 3 thrive best when raised by a primary caretaker in a non-institutional setting. Whether that''s a mother, father, grandparent, or excellent nanny is up to the family. For me & my family, the right choice was to give my child the gift of a full-time mother for a few short years, until he''s in school full-time. But even when I go back to work, I intend to work only while he''s in school, so I can be there for him after he gets home.

The reason that I''m criticizing Sarah Palin is because she is coming from a ''family values'' platform - I can''t believe that any pediatrician or child psychologist would agree that it''s in the best interest of her disabled infant son that she went back to work when he was 3 days old. And if she''s looking to work 20 hour days for the next 4-8 years, then no, I do not think that she is a good mother.

So if any primary caretaker in a non-institutional setting can best raise a child, then why does Palin have to turn down a possible **VP** position if her husband can be at home full-time? What works for one person does not work for another...to each his own. If she was trotting off to Washington and abandoning her children then yes, maybe she wouldn''t be the World''s Best Mother, but if her family is coming with her and they have one full-time parent, where is the problem? I won''t judge someone''s parenting skills based upon their chosen profession. Women''s rights and equality in the workplace must not be as progressive as I had thought...

In response to this, it doesn''t have anything to do with how progressive I am - for instance I have great respect for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who has had a phenomenal political career, but also dedicated her time to her children when they were small. Nothing is going to change the fact that babies and toddlers do best when cared for at home, and not shuttled around to day care on a mother''s schedule. I am a feminist, but why does women''s advancement have to come at the expense of their children''s well-being? If you really want to work a hundred hour a week job, maybe you should do that before you have kids, or after they are in school, or maybe don''t have "trophy kids" at all, if you are a very career focused person. This goes for both men & women.

From an article on this week''s NY Times, here is the example of Jane Swift, a Republican who gave birth to twin girls in 2001 while acting governor of Massachusetts and then, her popularity ratings low in part because of her prior use of aides as baby sitters, dropped out of the 2002 primary race for election in her own right. Later she attributed her struggles to the difficulties of balancing work and family. “I know now that it was virtually impossible for me to take advice and make decisions when I was responding emotionally as a mother, not thinking rationally as a public official,” she wrote in an essay in Boston magazine.
I also stick to my original opinion about a father being able to stay at home as well, but Mr. Palin does not. Here is a direct quote from a NY Times article about him:
"He is a member of the steelworkers’ union and has continued to work part time for BP in the oil fields of the North Slope and as a commercial fisherman since his wife was elected. Alaskan news outlets reported that she said he would not work for BP if she were elected ... but Mr. Palin returned to work for BP six months later; the governor’s office said there was no conflict because he had taken a nonmanagement position."

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 9/2/2008 10:40:26 PM
Author: Galateia
I have been thinking a great deal about this thread and about the interest in Palin''s personal life, and the charges that the focus on her personal life is unfair, irrelevant, etc. and that her personal life is none of our business.

The reason why a Republican''s personal life is relevant is because part of their platform is making people''s personal lives their business. Whether or not you can marry, whether or not you have children, which religion''s views your children are taught in their science classes.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. If they have made Americans'' personal lives their domain of interest and control, it is not unfair for their own personal lives to come under scrutiny, since they have stated they plan to have a say in everyone else''s.

BRAVO!!!

 

[ksinger]

Date: 9/2/2008 11:03:25 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 9/2/2008 10:40:26 PM

Author: Galateia

The reason why a Republican''s personal life is relevant is because part of their platform is making people''s personal lives their business. Whether or not you can marry, whether or not you have children, which religion''s views your children are taught in their science classes.

Galateia, You are amazing! I never thought about it that way at all! You are really brilliant. What did Wordsworth say, full many a flower is born to bloom unseen and waste its sweetness on the desert air? Not that your sweetness is being wasted, really, since you are sharing it here. I have to go look up that quotation! I do hope it is Wordsworth! At any rate, I salute you! You are wonderfully aware and prescient!


Deborah

Ditto. However in our house, it is stated a bit less poetically, as "being hoist on one''s own petard".

(The origins of "petard" are far more interesting than you might imagine. It ain''t what you might be thinking, although what you''re probably thinking works out pretty well even so...)

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/3/2008 8:03:43 AM
Author: vespergirl

In response to this, it doesn''t have anything to do with how progressive I am - for instance I have great respect for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who has had a phenomenal political career, but also dedicated her time to her children when they were small. Nothing is going to change the fact that babies and toddlers do best when cared for at home, and not shuttled around to day care on a mother''s schedule. I am a feminist, but why does women''s advancement have to come at the expense of their children''s well-being? If you really want to work a hundred hour a week job, maybe you should do that before you have kids, or after they are in school, or maybe don''t have ''trophy kids'' at all, if you are a very career focused person. This goes for both men & women.

From an article on this week''s NY Times, here is the example of Jane Swift, a Republican who gave birth to twin girls in 2001 while acting governor of Massachusetts and then, her popularity ratings low in part because of her prior use of aides as baby sitters, dropped out of the 2002 primary race for election in her own right. Later she attributed her struggles to the difficulties of balancing work and family. “I know now that it was virtually impossible for me to take advice and make decisions when I was responding emotionally as a mother, not thinking rationally as a public official,” she wrote in an essay in Boston magazine.

I also stick to my original opinion about a father being able to stay at home as well, but Mr. Palin does not. Here is a direct quote from a NY Times article about him:
''He is a member of the steelworkers’ union and has continued to work part time for BP in the oil fields of the North Slope and as a commercial fisherman since his wife was elected. Alaskan news outlets reported that she said he would not work for BP if she were elected ... but Mr. Palin returned to work for BP six months later; the governor’s office said there was no conflict because he had taken a nonmanagement position.''

I wasn''t talking about you personally when I made my "progressive" statement, but the fact remains that many questions are being asked of Palin that have never been asked of men. Does anyone ask Obama who is going to care for his young children? No...it is assumed that Michelle does/will. I don''t understand why it''s so difficult to give that same benefit of the doubt to Palin. That *is* a factual inequality that shows that women do not have the same bearing as men in the workplace today. I have no idea what is meant by "trophy" kids...I highly doubt she had these children for any reason other than that she wanted them.

I don''t think women''s advancement *does* have to come at the expense of children...I think, and I''ve seen, women have it all (but their spouse has to step up). There are women who fail at this (I guess Ms. Swift would qualify), but other women succeed. No one knows how a woman will balance her life in the White House because it''s *never happened*. And I''m pretty sure that Mr. Palin will leave his job if McCain gets elected...D.C. to Juneau is a bit far...

 

[ksinger]

Date: 9/3/2008 8:58:47 AM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/3/2008 8:03:43 AM
Author: vespergirl

In response to this, it doesn''t have anything to do with how progressive I am - for instance I have great respect for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who has had a phenomenal political career, but also dedicated her time to her children when they were small. Nothing is going to change the fact that babies and toddlers do best when cared for at home, and not shuttled around to day care on a mother''s schedule. I am a feminist, but why does women''s advancement have to come at the expense of their children''s well-being? If you really want to work a hundred hour a week job, maybe you should do that before you have kids, or after they are in school, or maybe don''t have ''trophy kids'' at all, if you are a very career focused person. This goes for both men & women.

From an article on this week''s NY Times, here is the example of Jane Swift, a Republican who gave birth to twin girls in 2001 while acting governor of Massachusetts and then, her popularity ratings low in part because of her prior use of aides as baby sitters, dropped out of the 2002 primary race for election in her own right. Later she attributed her struggles to the difficulties of balancing work and family. “I know now that it was virtually impossible for me to take advice and make decisions when I was responding emotionally as a mother, not thinking rationally as a public official,” she wrote in an essay in Boston magazine.


I also stick to my original opinion about a father being able to stay at home as well, but Mr. Palin does not. Here is a direct quote from a NY Times article about him:
''He is a member of the steelworkers’ union and has continued to work part time for BP in the oil fields of the North Slope and as a commercial fisherman since his wife was elected. Alaskan news outlets reported that she said he would not work for BP if she were elected ... but Mr. Palin returned to work for BP six months later; the governor’s office said there was no conflict because he had taken a nonmanagement position.''

I wasn''t talking about you personally when I made my ''progressive'' statement, but the fact remains that many questions are being asked of Palin that have never been asked of men. Does anyone ask Obama who is going to care for his young children? No...it is assumed that Michelle does/will. I don''t understand why it''s so difficult to give that same benefit of the doubt to Palin. That *is* a factual inequality that shows that women do not have the same bearing as men in the workplace today. I have no idea what is meant by ''trophy'' kids...I highly doubt she had these children for any reason other than that she wanted them.

I don''t think women''s advancement *does* have to come at the expense of children...I think, and I''ve seen, women have it all (but their spouse has to step up). There are women who fail at this (I guess Ms. Swift would qualify), but other women succeed. No one knows how a woman will balance her life in the White House because it''s *never happened*. And I''m pretty sure that Mr. Palin will leave his job if McCain gets elected...D.C. to Juneau is a bit far...

I think all this, (and this is a general comment and not directed at any one thing or person) it''s interesting from the point of view that in recent years I''ve heard many men, and not a few young women in their 20''s, dismissively say to the older feminists they accuse of being out of touch, that these battles have been fought and won and these women and their arguments are shrill, outdated, and need to bow out. Well, here we have a big ol'' slap back to reality. Twould appear we are not quite as far along as we might think. And the thing that should make us all pause is that many of the prejudices and double-standard type comments are being applied by WOMEN. We DO absorb the air around us don''t we? (And yes, I include myself in that last)

Just a general, high-level observation.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/3/2008 3:43:14 AM
Author: trillionaire
Oh Palin...

such an interesting candidate. Some have said that she is as experienced as Obama. Hm. If she spent the last 18-24mos preparing/running for president, perfecting ones understanding of policy and government, maybe we could have that conversation. But this chick is one week into the biggest role of her life, and she is showing up looking like a doe in the headlights. Not cool. And way to make McCain look like Senator Palpatine...

Further, as a woman, I am HIGHLY insulted by how she is being paraded around by the RNC. First, it is clear and commonly stated that she was not the first OR second choice for the job. She was the politically convenient choice, being Pro-life and conservative. If she was a man with the same resume, SHE WOULD NOT BE THE NOMINEE. Call me sexist, but I resent a woman being used for political gain. I really, truly want to see a qualified woman in the job, but McCain 'using' her womanness to get him elected really irks me. No, it makes me ill to my catholic all girls HS stomach. (And yes, I am one of the people who thinks mommy can work while daddy stays home)

Re: unwed motherhood. I have read a lot of comments about Obama taking the high road. I agree with that I respect his style. I feel bad, because I feel that if the tables were turned, the GOP would probably not be so 'nice'. Regardless, I really have a problem with someone equating an unexpected pregnancy 47-48 years ago with an unexpected pregnancy today. First, we have a LOT more information about contraception, and it is much more widely available. Second, since his mom was pregnant at 18 almost 50 years ago, you could actually get a decent job, and support a kid with a high school diploma back then. And before anyone gets all holier than thou, SO's parent's were 18 when they had him. They got pregnant, then got married. They are still together, thankfully (I

them!), but neither of them went to college, and baby #2 was only 15 months later. And that was 27 years ago, but you could still make it as an 18 year old with no degrees. Now, most of the college graduates I know are spending months looking for jobs, and defaulting to grad school when they can't find any. I know people with Master's degrees working retail jobs. I hate when people don't acknowledge that times have changed. I am not saying its impossible, but it's definitely not equivalent. The average kid costs $250,000 to raise from 0-18, without factoring in college. (tack on another 100-200K for that) Good luck tackling that as a single mom, or a pair with no college credentials.

I am not saying that these things don't happen, nor is it the 'business' of the world, but you make a choice to be a public figure, and all that it entails. Between Jamie Lynn and Bristol, either teenage girls are getting very confused messages about sex and pregnancy, or they are getting more sex ed lectures than EVER! I really hope it is the latter.

As for Palin, I am watching and reading.

I understand your sentiments about McCain using Palin's gender to get elected, but the real people in power in that situation are the voters, particularly women. So, if women feel that they are being "pandered" to they can simply just not vote for him, it's simple as that. Women have the power for once!

I can't speculate on how the GOP would react if the tables were turned, but I would suspect that McCain/Palin wouldn't be saying much either because it would be considered distasteful to most voters (although politicians from both sides don't mind if bloggers or the media do it).

It is true that 18 year olds with no education could probably make it farther 50 years ago, but Palin's daughter has her family's full support, which makes all the difference I think. I only made the comparison between Obama's mother and Palin's daughter because *Obama himself* made it in his comments about the news and has actually, IMHO, in the past used this fact about his past to get more votes. I've heard several ads where his being raised by a single mother is highlighted; I just commented that Obama has his hands tied about the story because he would be a hypocrite otherwise. I think teens were, and are still today, misinformed about the consequences that arise from sex...not so much that they don't know what *can* happen, but that they don't realize it can happen to *them*....which is the invincibility mentality teens have had, and will probably have, forever.

ETA: YAY for your SO's parents still being together...I think that's so sweet.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 9/3/2008 8:49:41 AM

Author: ksinger

Ditto. However in our house, it is stated a bit less poetically, as 'being hoist on one's own petard'.

(The origins of 'petard' are far more interesting than you might imagine....)

Well...are you going to tell us those origins? I believe it is in the Pricescope rules that it one alludes to the etymology of a word, one must, then, supply it. This thread cannot possibly go more off topic than it already has, anyway.

Deborah

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

Ladypirate-your post was great!

I think we''ve gotten off track with our discussion about this candidate. It''s not just about her pregant teen daughter and family values. Teen pregnancy, marriage, and guns are an every day reality in Alaska and other rural areas of the country. Teen pregnancy is going to happen whether conservative or liberal parents like it. You can argue that it''s the 21st Century and we don''t live in the 50s, but I have family in Alaska, and let me tell you. Not all of that state lives in the 21st century.

There are other, more glaring, neon red flags waving over her head that I''m concerned about.

1. Her lack of experience (as in ZERO) with foreign policy and relations
2. Her inability or unwillingness to look to the future when planning. it seems like she goes for the quick fix that will make her popular vs. what''s actually good for the state/country as a whole in the present and future.
3. Her proported lack of fiscal responsibility
4. Her reported support of censorship

I think the past 8 years have brought the fact that VPs really DO play a role in the health and well being of our country, into focus. We can''t ignore that and we need to choose wisely in this regard. Once again, we''re in a situation of chosing the lesser of two evils. I think in this instance, while I really like McCain as a pres-bid, I have to give my VP pick to Biden. That would change in a heartbeat though if she stepped down and was replaced by Liberman.

 

[decodelighted]

If anyone following this thread wants to further explore my "Conspiracy Theory" hunch ... this lifelong REPUBLICAN is doing some sleuthing of his own

Pretty juicy stuff.

And I love one of the comments: Why doesn''t Sarah Palin release her medical records LIKE EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE HAS. McCain, Biden & Obama have all done it. Not her. Also, conveniently, Alaska is the only state where birth records are not PUBLIC record. Makes ya say "hmmmmm".

Today is the last day McCain can switch to a new nominee without going through the RNC. Tick tock, McCain. Tick tock.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 9/3/2008 11:29:30 AM

Author: decodelighted

If anyone following this thread wants to further explore my ''Conspiracy Theory'' hunch ... this lifelong REPUBLICAN is doing some sleuthing of his own

Deco, I am not usually a fan of Sean Combs; my daughter cannot mention him without hearing me make some negative comment about him. Politics makes strange bedfellows, however. I think he is absolutely, positively on target about Sarah Palin.

I don''t want to discuss the small issues. Mr. Combs hit the big issue. He said it a bit more crudely than, "The New York Times" did, but their editorial today had the same basic message he had.

It is bizarre that Mr. McCain would even think of choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate given her dearth of education and experience. (Not to mention that, as Mr. Combs pointed out, her experience was is in Alaska...hello? And her "executive" experience prior to being governor was as mayor of a tiny hamlet!) That Mr. McCain did not bother to vet her first is just adding evidence that he is unable to make sound decisions under pressure (if at all).

The Republicans will defend Mr. McCain''s choice because they have to, but the rest of the country can see and say that the emperor has no clothes!

Deborah

 

[Anna0499]

Whatever the controversy with Palin, I simply don't think it is enough to cause people who support MCCAIN to vote for Obama. Picking Lieberman or Ridge *would* have caused people who support him to run the other way. I don't know if Palin was the best choice and probably won't make up my mind until/if McCain is elected and she's actually in office, but I certainly don't think she was the worst in terms of political strategy. I think that when the focus is on whether Palin actually gave birth to her son or on her teenage daughter rather than her politics it's actually a good thing for McCain.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

Have there been any polls since the announcement of SP as VP with McCain? Just curious to see if the numbers changed at all...

 

[akmiss]

I have been avoiding this thread for many reasons......
But I do feel that I must say the people need to quit making rude comments about Alaska. Alaska is a real state (49th) and celebrating 50 years of statehood. People are acting like "Where is Alaska?" Come On, If you don''t know where Alaska is then should you be voting? I feel that most educated people would have taken the time (before this election) to learn a little about their great country in entirety. Please........... I will refrain from hurting people feelings here

This statement is for Diddy, Yes there are black people in Alaska. Alaska (like Hawaii) proves to be one of the most ethnically diverse states!

Addressing the whole idea of "flip flopping"
Being able to weigh all sides of an issue before making an informed decision is a sign of intelligence. I would like my president to have this quality and the gift of insight. It is often said that conservatives are strong decision makers and have the character to hold to their beliefs. Being closed minded should never be confused with being a good decision maker. A politician regurgitating out-dated beliefs and imposing those beliefs on others is a BAD THING.

Yes, I am a life-long Alaskan

Did I vote for Palin when she ran for Alaska''s governor?
No

Will I vote for McCain/Palin now?
No

Did Palin do a good job as governor?
Yes

As for the birth of baby Trig

All of Alaska was shocked when Palin announced she was pregnant! Why would she hide something like this? God bless that baby boy no matter what the truth may be.