Sarah Palin: Why A Fifth Child at 44?

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I hesitate to raise questions about a woman's reproductive choices, and I do find it laudable that Sarah Palin chose to raise a Downs syndrome child when so many women these days abort fetuses diagnosed with Downs. However, why would a woman at age 44 take the risk of getting pregnant with a fifth child knowing (as she should) that one of the risks of such a pregnancy is Downs syndrome?

Here is an article pointing to the dramatic increase in risk of Downs syndrome as the mother's age increases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#Incidence

I can't imagine that a responsible physician would have encouraged her to seek to get pregnant at that age when she already has four children.

Is Palin one of those extreme right-wingers who believes that all birth control is wrong? I was shocked to discover that there is a faction within the Christian Right that opposes all birth control--is that where she is coming from? Some of the more extreme policy-makers appointed by the Bush Administration opposed all birth-control. Is this what we can expect in a McCain-Palin administration--more of the same?

Steven Webster

[Alecto]

Um...this makes me really, really uncomfortable. I'm the youngest in my family, and at 22 my mother just turned 60. At what age should women just no longer have children if they feel they want (and are now in a place to support) more children?

I don't know much about this candidate, and I'm 100% sure that some very very legitimate criticisms will pop up, regarding to policy issues, voting record, and stated beliefs. This post feels like a personal attack and a grasp in the dark, and I wouldn't have expected to see it here, or from you.
:(

[u-dog]

Um...this makes me really, really uncomfortable. I'm the youngest in my family, and at 22 my mother just turned 60. At what age should women just no longer have children if they feel they want (and are now in a place to support) more children?

I don't know much about this candidate, and I'm 100% sure that some very very legitimate criticisms will pop up, regarding to policy issues, voting record, and stated beliefs. This post feels like a personal attack and a grasp in the dark, and I wouldn't have expected to see it here, or from you.
:(


I am child #3 (pregancy #7) of a 38 year old mother (at the time...not now) and the father of three (the last two twins) so maybe I'm not in a position to say this but... perhaps after two healthy children EVERYONE should stop? The planet is not able to support an infinite number of over-consuming Americans. In terms of consumption and pollution and greenhouse gas emissions the US is the most over-populated nation in the world.

[Rick336]

.....and I do find it laudable that Sarah Palin chose to raise a Downs syndrome child when so many women these days abort fetuses diagnosed with Downs.

Maybe I'm confused at what you're saying here. Aborting a fetus because it has Downs Syndrome seems very cruel.

Rick

[nmwolfboy]

Ostensibly Palin is pro-contraception, but is adamantly anti-abortion. It doesn't seem accurate to refer to her position of reproductive choices as pro-life, since she's also a strong support of the death penalty.

One of my closest childhood friends has Down Syndrome. The significant majority of individuals with Down's have only mild to moderate cognitive impairment. Unless there is severe or profound impairment or other significant related problems physiologically (there's a higher incidence of heart defects for instance) i don't consider Down Syndrome to necessarily be an adverse condition.

i have no idea what the circumstances were with Sarah Palin's son, Trig, other than that pre-natal testing indicated he might have Down Syndrome. Since those tests have a 2 to 5% incidence of false positives, and the follow-up testing (usually amniocentesis) can induce miscarriage, i certainly don't fault her choices with respect to Trig.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with her suitability to be a heartbeat away from being the POTUS. i find McCain's choice of Palin as a running mate to be more of his characteristic (and frankly insulting) pandering. She has no national or foreign policy experience, and has only been a city councilor and mayor of a small town (pop. 5,470 as of the 2000 census) and Governor of Alaska for less than two years, an office she holds after receiving less than 115,000 votes. Her lack of qualifications for the Vice Presidency is alarming, and seriously calls into question Senator McCain's judgment. Then again, she may not make it through the vetting process or even secure the nomination during the Republicans' Convention.

Pax,
scott

[Alecto]

Regardless, this has nothing to do with her suitability to be a heartbeat away from being the POTUS. i find McCain's choice of Palin as a running mate to be more of his characteristic (and frankly insulting) pandering. She has no national or foreign policy experience, and has only been a city councilor and mayor of a small town (pop. 5,470 as of the 2000 census) and Governor of Alaska for less than two years, an office she holds after receiving less than 115,000 votes. Her lack of qualifications for the Vice Presidency is alarming, and seriously calls into question Senator McCain's judgment. Then again, she may not make it through the vetting process or even secure the nomination during the Republicans' Convention.

Pax,
scott

OMG THIS. Also, I found it ridiculous that he would pick her after all the criticism of Obama as being "inexperienced". When I brought that up to my parents, of course, my mom came up with "A lot of times it's governors that end up doing better". (She's kinda crazy/irrational with the Obama hate)

[nmwolfboy]

Aborting a fetus because it has Downs Syndrome seems very cruel.


It's so tragic and sad, but according to a study (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/65500197/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0) published in 1999, 91% - 93% of pregnancies with a pre-natal diagnosis of Down Syndrome were terminated. Since i'll never be faced with considering any such choice, i feel compelled to withhold judgment of those who are.

[Rick336]

Since i'll never be faced with considering any such choice, i feel compelled to withhold judgment of those who are.

Well said. This is pretty much how I feel too. I consider myself to be a liberal Democrat and support a women's right to choose.

At the same time, I have also known people with Down Syndrome and for them have been denied the right to live because they were defective seems terribly cruel.

Abortion is a very emotional issue for many people, especially the women faced with making the decision. Since I'm a gay man, I feel lucky that I will never be faced with this difficult choice.

I also feel lucky that I was born before doctors could determine if a fetus was homosexual. Otherwise, I might not be here typing this.

Rick

[Gennee]

There are children with Down's Symdrome in my church. I admire and applaud the families for loving and raising them. I applaud Mrs Palin for doing the same.

Gennee

:)

[Daniel]

I remember when my aunt, who is in her 60's now, became pregnant, and subesquently had two children. This was more than 25 years ago.

Her sister had a child with down's syndrome, and I remember my aunt dealing with this issue- it was during her pregnancy that the first pre-natal tests became available. It was a radical thing back then, to have the kind of 'choice' that has become available, that is, to bring a child with down's syndrome to full term or not. In her case, she did not have to make that choice. Her children were 'normal'.

I think one of the things that can be forgotten here is the responsibility in caring for a child, especially one which faces special challenges. And how one faces that challenge may not be a test of moral character as much as it is refective of one's economic status in life.

Ms. Palin may have the ability to care for such a child when others do not. Does that make her a saint or somehow worth emulating? I do not think so.

It remains a fact that poorer people have less options in life. Poor women are more inclined to give up their children of adoption, whether they have special issues or not. And it a reality that terminating a pregnancy may be the only viable option. What is cruel- to my mind- is to assert that she should not have become pregnant in the first place.

The mother who gives up her child may be exercising just as much faith as those who have all the riches in the world. In fact, she may have more faith: she is hoping and praying that someone can give her child what she cannot.

In sum, I would say that Ms. Palin's actions are wonderful, but are not less worthy of reflection as those who have to choose a harder and more painful road.

[tymejumper]

Some people do not believe in prenatal testing, especially if they are very anti-abortion. I have a Catholic friend whom refused all tests because she felt that whatever God sent, was what she got and had no intention ever of aborting no matter what. Even though I felt it was a foolhardy decision to not know so she could at least be prepared,(with health, OT, PT and ST if needed) I do support her stance of not wanting to abort for any reason. I am stauncly pro-choice, so we don't discuss it much, unfortunately. We just will never agree.

The bigger issue with Palin is my concern about her bigotry towards gay persons. She cast the sole veto for denighing same sex couples of employees of the Alaskan government health benfits and protections for their partners.

[Steven E. Webster]

Maybe I'm confused at what you're saying here. Aborting a fetus because it has Downs Syndrome seems very cruel.

Rick

I don't disagree with you. Please note that I said her decision to give birth to the child was "laudable"--that means "praise worthy." I, too, feel uncomfortable with people choosing to abort children due to genetic testing. Many Downs syndrome folks live very productive lives.

What I am giving voice to are my own personal values---I believe in birth control and limited families. I believe women should be able to have their children when they are young and in good health and can bring healthy children into a world where they will be cared for.

I disagree with the notion of some evangelicals that women should refuse to use birth control and should have as many babies as "God sends them"--I think that's irresponsible. Those are my values.

Personally, I was one of nine children in a large farm family. We were all born between 1950 and 1970. We were, as in most farm families, our family's substitute for hired help. It was not a bad life--but those days are in the past. Now-a-days one or two children are enough. If you want nine or ten, then adopt.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I see another way my words might be misinterpreted. By "birth control," I do NOT mean abortion. Abortion, in my view, should not be used instead of birth control. I am not pro-abortion. Abortion is an unfortunate choice, in my view, but I am pro-choice.

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

From my original post:

[quote]Is Palin one of those extreme right-wingers who believes that all birth control is wrong? I was shocked to discover that there is a faction within the Christian Right that opposes all birth control--is that where she is coming from? Some of the more extreme policy-makers appointed by the Bush Administration opposed all birth-control. Is this what we can expect in a McCain-Palin administration--more of the same?[/qoute]

This is what concerns me. Does Palin represent that element in the Bush Administration that is not only anti-abortion, but that is also opposed to ALL birth control? Is she part of that faction that wants to give pharmacists the "right" to refuse to fill women's prescriptions for "the pill"? Will she deny birth control information to High School girls? Will she deny emergency contraception to college women? These are all real issues now-a-days (though I scarce can believe it!)

Steven Webster

[tymejumper]

Friends,

From my original post:

[quote]Is Palin one of those extreme right-wingers who believes that all birth control is wrong? I was shocked to discover that there is a faction within the Christian Right that opposes all birth control--is that where she is coming from? Some of the more extreme policy-makers appointed by the Bush Administration opposed all birth-control. Is this what we can expect in a McCain-Palin administration--more of the same?[/qoute]

This is what concerns me. Does Palin represent that element in the Bush Administration that is not only anti-abortion, but that is also opposed to ALL birth control? Is she part of that faction that wants to give pharmacists the "right" to refuse to fill women's prescriptions for "the pill"? Will she deny birth control information to High School girls? Will she deny emergency contraception to college women? These are all real issues now-a-days (though I scarce can believe it!)

Steven Webster


That is what I am scared of, as a woman. Obviously not for me, my wife can't impregnate me. I do have two daughters. I see Palin as a very extreme right-wing conservative. It worries me a lot. I don't believe anyone is the medical profession should be able to put their relious belief before their jobs. Why don't some female pharmasist refuse Viagra and Cialis to men? After all, when God decides that you can't get it up, it's time to quit!:lol::lol::lol:

[Daniel]

The bigger issue with Palin is my concern about her bigotry towards gay persons. She cast the sole veto for denighing same sex couples of employees of the Alaskan government health benfits and protections for their partners.

There is another thread that discusses this issue. Current information indicates that Palin vetoed a law that would have prevented health benefits and protections. However, this was not done because she supported gay rights.

See here: http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=59921&postcount=7

[Daniel]

Friends,

From my original post:

Is Palin one of those extreme right-wingers who believes that all birth control is wrong? I was shocked to discover that there is a faction within the Christian Right that opposes all birth control--is that where she is coming from? Some of the more extreme policy-makers appointed by the Bush Administration opposed all birth-control. Is this what we can expect in a McCain-Palin administration--more of the same?[/qoute]

This is what concerns me. Does Palin represent that element in the Bush Administration that is not only anti-abortion, but that is also opposed to ALL birth control? Is she part of that faction that wants to give pharmacists the "right" to refuse to fill women's prescriptions for "the pill"? Will she deny birth control information to High School girls? Will she deny emergency contraception to college women? These are all real issues now-a-days (though I scarce can believe it!)

Steven Webster

The blog in the following link is in keeping with the concern here- asking a torrent of questions- perhaps not in the most polite way- but I do agree with the author in that the public needs to know what Palin believes and thinks about.

From the HuffintonPost, Jane Smiley's column on Palin, titled Make Her Whine, strikes to the heart of the matter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/make-her-whine_b_122648.html

[tymejumper]

There is another thread that discusses this issue. Current information indicates that Palin vetoed a law that would have prevented health benefits and protections. However, this was not done because she supported gay rights.

See here: http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showpost.php?p=59921&postcount=7


Yes, that is what I meant to say. :rolleyes: I didn't write it very well. It looked as if I was saying thet she vetoed it in support of gay rights, but she actually veoted it so we could not have the same rights. Even though the law to ban same sex marriages was in place before she took office, she cast the veto that banned us from having the same rights as heteros in Alaska.

[Matt Algren]

Now-a-days one or two children are enough. If you want nine or ten, then adopt.
And how would you suggest enforcing this 'one or two' limit? What happens if a third pops up? On what do you base this limit? Didn't China have a policy about this? Are you suggesting that we follow their lead?

I know that several members of these boards have more than one or two children. What do you say to them?

[nmwolfboy]

Friends,

From my original post:

Is Palin one of those extreme right-wingers who believes that all birth control is wrong? I was shocked to discover that there is a faction within the Christian Right that opposes all birth control--is that where she is coming from? Some of the more extreme policy-makers appointed by the Bush Administration opposed all birth-control. Is this what we can expect in a McCain-Palin administration--more of the same?

This is what concerns me. Does Palin represent that element in the Bush Administration that is not only anti-abortion, but that is also opposed to ALL birth control? Is she part of that faction that wants to give pharmacists the "right" to refuse to fill women's prescriptions for "the pill"? Will she deny birth control information to High School girls? Will she deny emergency contraception to college women? These are all real issues now-a-days (though I scarce can believe it!)

Steven Webster

Reportedly Palin is pro-contraception. So far i haven't found any source that states her position specifically on emergency contraception. Given the other values she is on record as espousing, it wouldn't be a surprise if she's pro-contraception but opposed to emergency contraception, since it's not uncommon for some in the pro-life movement to view emergency contraception ('morning after pill', 'plan B', etc.) as de facto abortion.

[Steven E. Webster]

And how would you suggest enforcing this 'one or two' limit? What happens if a third pops up? On what do you base this limit? Didn't China have a policy about this? Are you suggesting that we follow their lead?

I know that several members of these boards have more than one or two children. What do you say to them?

Matt,
Of course I don't propose any "enforcement." If someone wants to have 20 children, it's a free country--just don't expect me to applaud having 20 children (when I was growing up, there were farm families with that many children).

I would be interested to hear those here who may have CHOSEN to have a large family how they square that with social responsibility. Again, I think raising a large family of adopted children is a fine thing. I also realize that no family planning is perfect--people do experience "surprises"--there's nothing wrong with that! Nor will I arbitrarily say that one or two is great and three is wrong.

Also, I believe every child that comes into this world has a claim on all of our love and resources. For that reason the choice to bring a child into this world is a very serious choice. And the reality is that the children of middle and upper-class Americans consume more of the world's resources, per capita, than the children of the world's poor--this raises questions of justice along with a lot of our country's other policies. Just because one might be able to afford a large family, does not justify having a large family.

I don't like what goes on in China. I believe they have reacted in a situation of extreme over-population--much worse than we have now. I don't want to see us get into a similar situation and react in the same way. I do not believe in totalitarianism, nor do I approve of China's totalitarian solutions to population or anything else.

As I said, I'm from a large family myself--eight brothers and sisters. My husband and I raised his two daughters together and we are over-joyed to have a little grand-daughter. I'd be just as happy to have more grand-children, but that's up to the daughters and not to us and it doesn't look like it's going to happen. I'm not going to be disappointed in the one grandchild we have--quite the opposite! She will be very fortunate to have all the resources and love that comes from parents, grandparents and an aunt!

We all could get into another big argument over automobiles and whether people have the "right" to burn alot of carbon-based fuels. Sure they have the "right," but that doesn't make it the right thing to do. It comes down to much the same concern--it's a small world and the human race is having a catastrophic impact on it.

Steven Webster

[nmwolfboy]

Despite Palin's claim to be pro-contraception, she is a member of the radical and deceptively named "Feminists for Life," (FFL) which is a strong opponent of not only abortion, but also of IUDs and hormonal birth control methods, which includes birth control pills. Among other deceptive positions held by FFL is the claim that they represent 'true choice' for women, while actively promoting in their periodical The American Feminist that the best choice for women is to stay home as full-time mothers.

Given Palin's membership in and support of FFL, i find her claim to be pro-contraception very suspect.

The more i research her, the more Palin appears to be a Christian Dominionist (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/163234/559/495/579213) idealogue, or at the very least, a person sympathetic to the Christian Dominionist philosophy.

[keltic63]

I've skimmed much of this thread, and I see that you all have a very interesting conversation going here. The thing that I'd like to point out, is that while Palin is Pro Life, and that she may be considered noble for continuing her pregnancy with the knowledge that her child is downs syndrome, the fact remains that she had a CHOICE. It is a choice that she would deny to other women.

Personally, I have been in that position. My youngest child, early in the pregnancy, was identified as possibly having downs syndrome. We did our research, asked a lot of questions, and discovered that the test is not accurate, and by itself should never be used to consider aborting a fetus. Further testing indicated that our child was healthy (he is!) but even that high level ultrasound could not guarantee he didn't have downs. We could never have aborted, but we still had the choice, which I value.

[tymejumper]

I've skimmed much of this thread, and I see that you all have a very interesting conversation going here. The thing that I'd like to point out, is that while Palin is Pro Life, and that she may be considered noble for continuing her pregnancy with the knowledge that her child is downs syndrome, the fact remains that she had a CHOICE. It is a choice that she would deny to other women.


Again, you explain it far better than I could. She did have a choice, and continued her pregnancy.

I also had a scare with my youngest child. (She was a bit unplanned, at least by my ex! :lol:.) I was told that she was not viable, my body told me different(after you are pregnant a few times, you know) I went originally to a right-to-life clinic to get tested as I had my insurance cancled at work and I needed help. They told me that my body was lying, I was not pregnant according to their test, and if I were, I would miscarry. My instinct told me otherwise and I went to the Planned Parenthood clinic and was retested. They showed me as just pregnant and encouragedme strongly to go to the OB and get my hormones tested. I did go the next day and surprise, my progesterone was low. I WOULD have miscarried if they didn't intervene with hormone shots(owie! 2 shots in the rear for 12 weeks, ever week, I could barely sit)and continued monitoring with weekly blood tests. My beautiful 9 year old would not be here if I had listened to Right To Life. If Palin gets in, how many WANTED children would die? They will continue to fund out of date info(at right to life) and they will indirectly murder many wanted children. The whole thing scares the tar out of me.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Andrew Sullivan is raising questions originally raised by Daily Kos: Is Sarah Palin really the mother of Trig after all? Is the child really her grandchild and the mother is her high school age daughter (who has been out of high school for eight months)?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/things-that-mak.html

I expect the truth will come out on this one way or the other. A legal birth certificate will remove all doubt.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

Friends,

Andrew Sullivan is raising questions originally raised by Daily Kos: Is Sarah Palin really the mother of Trig after all? Is the child really her grandchild and the mother is her high school age daughter (who has been out of high school for eight months)?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/things-that-mak.html

I expect the truth will come out on this one way or the other. A legal birth certificate will remove all doubt.

Steven Webster

If this proves out to be true, Palin's actions would be a slap in the face to every undwed mother in the country. And of course, at the heart of the story- again- if it turns out to be true- is the matter of lying to get ahead.

That would be the big no-no, would it not? My sense is that evangelicals would have a dim view of the matter. This would highlight the facade that conservatives like to show the world, rather than being normal - that is- ripe with contradiction- like the rest of humanity.

Can't wait to hear what diligent reporters come up with.

Addendum:

I looked at what the Daily Kos has on this, and I have to say that I find their information to be quite convincing- pictures and all. Interestingly, the hospital where the birth took place has not recorded it. And that's just one strange fact out of many.

I can imagine McCain ruing the day....

Next stop...Lieberman?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223

Oh God...I think I am coming down with a severe case of schadenfreude. I mean what could be worse? Here it is- the perfect storm: a big fat ol' lie and Gustave- all in the same week. You can't make this stuff up.

[Rick336]

That would be the big no-no, would it not? My sense is that evangelicals would have a dim view of the matter.

Some evangelicals might have a dim view of this, but many evangelicals would probably overlook it because Palin is pro-life. They might also sympathize with her, asking themselves what they would do in her shoes.

The big question is, if the Republicans win in November and McCain dies of a heart attack in December, can Palin negotiate with Iran on nuclear weapons?

Rick

[Steven E. Webster]

Some evangelicals might have a dim view of this, but many evangelicals would probably overlook it because Palin is pro-life. They might also sympathize with her, asking themselves what they would do in her shoes.

The big question is, if the Republicans win in November and McCain dies of a heart attack in December, can Palin negotiate with Iran on nuclear weapons?

Rick

Rick,

The issue is--did McCain do a proper job of vetting this VP candidate? Are there patterns of untruthful and unethical behavior that went unnoticed? (There are a lot of issues being raised besides "babygate," for instance abuse of power in trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from a state job.) Did McCain ever even consider her foreign policy experience? Or did McCain just go for a pretty face and a compelling (though untrue) story? If she were properly vetted in the first place, we probably wouldn't even be asking these questions.

As Andrew Sullivan has pointed out on his blog--McCain's campaign is the one that put Sarah Palin's private life out there for comment and question by making such a big deal of her supposed fifth child. McCain presented THAT as her qualification for office, and not her foreign policy experience.

Remember Thomas Eagleton? He was the Democrat VP Candidate under McGovern. When it was learned that he'd been treated for depression and that came out in the media and it was suggested that he was not properly vetted, he was forced to resign from the ticket. This was a blow to the McGovern Campaign from which it did not recover.

Steven Webster

[Rick336]

Rick,

The issue is--did McCain do a proper job of vetting this VP candidate? Are there patterns of untruthful and unethical behavior that went unnoticed? (There are a lot of issues being raised besides "babygate," for instance abuse of power in trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from a state job.) Did McCain ever even consider her foreign policy experience? Or did McCain just go for a pretty face and a compelling (though untrue) story? If she were properly vetted in the first place, we probably wouldn't even be asking these questions.

As Andrew Sullivan has pointed out on his blog--McCain's campaign is the one that put Sarah Palin's private life out there for comment and question by making such a big deal of her supposed fifth child. McCain presented THAT as her qualification for office, and not her foreign policy experience.

Remember Thomas Eagleton? He was the Democrat VP Candidate under McGovern. When it was learned that he'd been treated for depression and that came out in the media and it was suggested that he was not properly vetted, he was forced to resign from the ticket. This was a blow to the McGovern Campaign from which it did not recover.

Steven Webster

Good point. I agree.

And yes, I do remember Thomas Eagleton. Damn. I'm old.

Rick

[Daniel]

Some evangelicals might have a dim view of this, but many evangelicals would probably overlook it because Palin is pro-life. They might also sympathize with her, asking themselves what they would do in her shoes.

The big question is, if the Republicans win in November and McCain dies of a heart attack in December, can Palin negotiate with Iran on nuclear weapons?


I agree with Steven: McCain is-ultimately- the one in the hot seat. And his campaign's lack of vetting Palin is probably going to haunt him in the days and weeks to come.

That said, let's think about what good Christian folk would do under the circumstances- that is- a daughter have a child out of wedlock.

Is lying and making a show of that lie to be considered a good thing? I don't think so. For one thing, Palin (of course we will wait for more evidence to come out) could have stood behind her daughter. Instead, what has she down? Treated her daughter as though she has something to be ashamed of. And why is that? Because of her beliefs which supercede her actual relationship with her daughter. In the end, Palin's actions toward her daughter are about the face Palin presents to the world.

So much for truth, love and family values.

To say that Palin was simply trying to protect her daughter is an utter sham. Add a letter to that word and you have shame.

That's what were dealing with here.

You know, it's always the coverup that gets politicians. If only they had the good sense to be the truth-tellers the are always telling us they are.

[Rick336]

You know, it's always the coverup that gets politicians. If only they had the good sense to be the truth-tellers the are always telling us they are.

Yes. And this is why I'm so disgusted at John Edwards right now.

Rick

[Alecto]

How old is the child in question? I had a friend who was "the child in question" in her family; she grew up calling her biological mother her sister, and her grandparents here parents. If I remember correctly (it's been awhile since we talked about it), they didn't really tell her until she got a little older, which I think is fair.

Also: granted, she wasn't running for public office, but she didn't tell everyone that she met about that quirk of her family. Not even necessarily as a shame thing, but more of a relevance thing.

I don't want to come across as defending this VP candidate, because the truth is I don't know the first hting about her yet. But I'm very ...distraught to be hearing a number of criticisms about irrelevancies, or speculation, when I'm 100% certain there's more legitimate criticism to be made (the in-law-firing, for example, or the lack of experience / qualifications).

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Looks like both Sullivan and Daily Kos are backing off from giving credence to the rumors about Sarah Palin's daughter being the real mother of Sarah Palin's fifth child, Trig. However, Andrew Sullivan would still like to see a little more information. It appears that pictures have come to light that appear to show Sarah Palin pregnant.

Steven W.

[Rick336]

Looks like both Sullivan and Daily Kos are backing off from giving credence to the rumors about Sarah Palin's daughter being the real mother of Sarah Palin's fifth child, Trig.

But I just got done spray painting it on the overpass. :mad:

Rick

[Daniel]

Looks like both Sullivan and Daily Kos are backing off from giving credence to the rumors about Sarah Palin's daughter being the real mother of Sarah Palin's fifth child, Trig. However, Andrew Sullivan would still like to see a little more information. It appears that pictures have come to light that appear to show Sarah Palin pregnant.


http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/31/234157/516/1017/581734

In light of the other photos taken - which show something else entirely- and the story line itself regarding how she flew back to a little known hospital, I would like to see something like a birth certificate as well as a statement by the attending physician. No doctor is going to risk losing their license over something like this.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but a photo is not sufficient- not when there are more than several showing something else and when photoshop is at the ready. Perhaps a major paper will take this on. That would be helpful.

If Palin has nothing to hide, she will make her hospital records available. If not, she will simply keep the rumours alive.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,
Apparently this has been officially announced by the McCain Campaign in response to the rumors of this weekend.

Here's Andrew Sullivan's blog:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/bristol-is-preg.html

Discuss among yourselves.

Steven Webster

[u-dog]

This article is now on Yahoo and reports that Palin/McCain are saying that Bristol is 5 months pregnant and engaged to the baby's father

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

If Trig was born on April 18th and bristol is 5 months along then she is not Trigs mother. Of course if Bristol suddenly miscarries or the baby is born at 12 months gestation ... we can again begin to wonder about the chronology but I'm thinkin' that this is all going nowhere.

[Daniel]

Friends,
Apparently this has been officially announced by the McCain Campaign in response to the rumors of this weekend.

Here's Andrew Sullivan's blog:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/bristol-is-preg.html

Discuss among yourselves.

Steven Webster

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/palins-17-year-old-daughter-is-pregnant/?hp


The family’s statement said: “Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media, respect our daughter and Levi’s privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates.”

I really don't see what this pregnancy has to do with the VP's. They are not the same thing. And it concerns me that it appears- for all intent and purposes- that an effort is being made to stop any inquiry into the matter of the VP's pregnancy.

From the same article...


The announcement was intended to counter rumors by liberal bloggers that Mrs. Palin had claimed to have given birth to her fifth child in April when, according to the rumors, the child was her daughter’s.

[ctozrn]

I am wondering how this will affect their campaign? It would seem to me as a mother, that Mrs. Palin needs to focus her attention to the matters at her home, rather than on the presidential election. I am just saying that if I had a baby with Downs Syndrome and a teenager that was pregnant, my attention would not be in running the country or campaigning. I say this because my partner has a sister with Downs and I know how much attention these children require.

I find this quite ironic that this is happening to the ultra conservative candidate, one that is so evangelical Christian. Not to say that teenagers from Christian families don't get pregnant, I have two teenagers and know how hormones can be! I just find the whole matter rather interesting!

The plot thickens.....

[matthewspeed]

I don't understand. The main argument for the pro choice movement is for women to have control over their own body and no one should interfere with a womens choice.

Ok then, if Sarah Palin, or any other woman for that matter, chooses to have childern at the age of 44, it is their choice. Right??? You can't have it both ways. Either she has her choice or she does not. If Sarah Palin chose to have a child at 44, then she has her right. It is her body, her choice.

Being pro choice is not about being pro abortion. It is about a women deciding to abort when necessary and to give birth when necessary.

I am pro life, but I have many close friends who are extremely pro choice. They support the right for a women to choose either way - to abort or to give birth.

[u-dog]

Matthew,

Of course she has the right to choose and no one who supports a true pro-choice position would say otherwise or attempt to undermine her decision to keep Trig and raise him in a loving home. There is much to admire in the choices that the Palin's have made.

But freedom of choice doesn't mean that every choice is equally wise. and often making one choice means that one has fewer choices about other matters.

Bristol made a choice about being sexually active in High School and now she has fewer choices about the future. She is choosing not to abort her pregnancy and that will further restrict her choices. And there is nothing wrong with that... its how life works.

Sarah Palin has a pregnant teen in her house and a special needs infant and she is choosing to be the Vice-presidential candidate for the Republican party. Is that a wise choice for the Party? Is it a wise choice for the country? Is it a wise choice for Bristol and Trig?

I believe that if I had a down's syndrome baby and pregnant daughter I would NOT choose to be away from home 24/7 for the next two months. Nor would I commit myself to more than a full time job in washington for the next four years if that is how it turns out. I'm pretty sure that my pro-choice feminist wife would choose to stay closer to hearth and home and be a Mom above all else.

And THAT choice that she is making ... makes me question her judgement and her credentials as a pro-family candidate.

[ctozrn]

U-dog,

That is exactly the point I was making. As the mother of two teenagers I can't imagine the stress that she is facing with a special needs child and pregnant teenager. I am with you in saying that her focus can not be on the needs of the country or running a campaign 24/7 for the next two months. I also can't help but wonder what the response of the Republican party and the evangelicals would be if Barak Obama had a pregnant teenager. I am sure that comments about family values and judgements would be made. It will be interesting to see how this will affect their campaign and standing in the polls.

Christine

[matthewspeed]

I wonder if these statements about Palin not making the right choice to be in the vice presidency is just because she is a Republican. Would you be saying the same things if Biden or Obama was in the same situation?

I am not trying to make a case for Palin. I am being objective here. Honestly, I am an Obama/Biden supporter.

I don't think we have the right to judge Palin. She is the one who is raising her children. There are thousands, perhaps millions of parents with special needs children that have demanding careers and are able to raise their children properly. If we were to evaluate every presidential nominee's family life, I am sure we would find all sorts of reasons why he/she shouldn't run for office. As a matter of fact, having a parent running for office as V.P. is an honorable decision. What an awsome role model for ones children.

[nmwolfboy]

It seems to me that we have seen about 18 months of questioning Senator Obama's choices, in many instances over issues that have little or no relevancy to his run for the office of the Presidency. In fact, the questioning of his judgement (experience, electability, blackness, etc.) continue mostly unabated even when he has (imo) openly answered them.

I wonder how McCain's campaign would be faring if he were subjected to the same degree of questioning? Perhaps that is exactly what we're beginning to witness.

[Daniel]

I don't think we have the right to judge Palin. She is the one who is raising her children. There are thousands, perhaps millions of parents with special needs children that have demanding careers and are able to raise their children properly. If we were to evaluate every presidential nominee's family life, I am sure we would find all sorts of reasons why he/she shouldn't run for office. As a matter of fact, having a parent running for office as V.P. is an honorable decision. What an awsome role model for ones children.

And why should anyone, much less Obama? The leader- and VP- of the most powerful nation in the world should be gone over with a fine-tooth comb no matter if they are black, white, female, male, transgendered or a Martian!

Palin's not running for head of the PTA for Christ's Sake! And if she can't take the heat, to quote Truman, she should get out of the kitchen.

And it should be noted that Hillary took a hell of a lot more heat while was First Lady. Remember Kenneth Starr and the millions that were spent on that bit of madness?

It's not about judgement. It's about discernment. And that's a very different thing.

[ctozrn]

First of all, I am trying not to sound judgemental of Mrs. Palin. I think as the mother of a teenage daughter, I know in the blink of an eye the same could happen to me. (There but for the grace of God go I....) I am offering only my opinions in running for office, no judgements. Yes, I do believe that I would feel the same way if she were a Democrat. As a hospice nurse, I felt that John Edwards should focus his attention on his wife's cancer spreading when he was thinking about running for President. I know firsthand how stressful cancer can be in a family especially when there are children are involved. It was their decision to make, no judgements by me, just my thoughts and opinions. Also, these are the things that I think about when I am going to elect someone to assist in running the country. I want someone that can focus on the needs of the country and not have so many pressing issues at home. I think that we the people have the right to elect someone that can focus on their duties rather than worry about problems at home. Not to say that their family has to be perfect. It just seems that there are more pressing issues for her right now. Issues that as a mother would be more important to me than running for public office. She is young, she could easily run later.

This is not about judging someone but trying to find the best people to serve as President and Vice President of our country.

I am sure that the press will not be as kind......

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

The Anchorage Daily News is suggesting that the McCain campaign is refusing to really say whether they knew about Bristol's pregnancy before naming Palin VP candidate.

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/512560.html

It's not all about a family's private choices. It's about McCain's poor judgment in failing to fully vet a VP candidate.

All too often candidates put their families forward as a qualification for office. Frankly, Obama put his wife and daughters forward at the convention so that we could all give them a good look over before we let them move in to our White House.

And how about FOX News referring to Michelle as "Obama's baby mama" a term that deliberately uses language that brings up images of illegitimate births in the African American community.

Families are not off-limits in American politics (despite what Barak has just said), and probably never have been.

I can't believe McCain would have put Palin in this position if he really knew the whole story. That Palin has put herself and her daughter in this position is hard to fathom. There is something seriously not right with Sarah Palin.

Steven Webster

[tymejumper]

Here's my opinion, hope it does not offend....

I don't give a rip about who gave birth to this child, or if her child is pregnant or if she is mothering the baby and it's her grandchild. I care as much as I did about Clinton getting oral in the Oval office. It really is no ones business.

I know it was a lie, but come on....all politicians are liars(cynical I know) They learn to lie, blend the truth or only tell certain parts of it. It's called damage control, it's part of politics and will always be. That's how they get that far, the better they are at white lies, the further up they get. We all know it, and when they get caught doing what we know they are doing, we get upset. The government certainly keeps secrets and lies to us, the people. I know we all wish and hope the next one is better than the previous one but odds are it's only going to be more of the same. I take all of it with a grain of salt.

What I AM worried about is her general policies and the stuff I read about how she is against womens rights to choose. That is what I am concerned and interested in. Her lack of support for the gay community, her belief that her conservative morals are the ONLY way. What kind of VP will she make? I don't see anyting to recommend her for the job, she will only make women go back 100 years. If she gets in, we will go back to being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, we will be forced to live a lie again, back into the closet and hiding those we love.

That is what I see about this Palin

[Matt Algren]

I am wondering how this will affect their campaign? It would seem to me as a mother, that Mrs. Palin needs to focus her attention to the matters at her home, rather than on the presidential election. I am just saying that if I had a baby with Downs Syndrome and a teenager that was pregnant, my attention would not be in running the country or campaigning. I say this because my partner has a sister with Downs and I know how much attention these children require.

I find this quite ironic that this is happening to the ultra conservative candidate, one that is so evangelical Christian. Not to say that teenagers from Christian families don't get pregnant, I have two teenagers and know how hormones can be! I just find the whole matter rather interesting!

The plot thickens.....She makes (IIRC about double her husband's salary. No reason he can't take care of the baby. How they parent is kind of beside the point, the same as it is with Obama's two young children. The youngest was barely out of diapers when he started campaigning.

Speaking of Obama, he had this to say (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13050.html) today.

"I have said before, and I will repeat again: People's families are off-limits," Obama said. "And people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. So I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18, and how a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn’t be a topic of our politics."

On charges that his campaign has stoked the story via liberal blogs:

"I am offended by that statement. There is no evidence at all that any of this involved us," he said. "Our people were not involved in any way in this, and they will not be. And if I thought there was somebody in my campaign who was involved in something like that, they would be fired."

[Daniel]

She makes (IIRC about double her husband's salary. No reason he can't take care of the baby. How they parent is kind of beside the point, the same as it is with Obama's two young children. The youngest was barely out of diapers when he started campaigning.

Speaking of Obama, he had this to say (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13050.html) today.

I like Obama and will vote for him. However, I recognize the irony in this situation.

It's very noble of him to say that families are off-limits, but at the same time, this is a man who as recently as last week had his children onstage- fairly flogging the idea of 'family'.

Oh....it's been done before. Jackie Onassis had a great sense of theatre (and I mean that as a compliment!) when she dressed up her son and had him salute his Dad at his tomb. That image is burned into the consciousness of those who remember it.

Is this a bad thing? Perhaps. And perhaps not: I guess it depends on one's perspective. However, when you put your children out there in such a way, you draw attention to them in a way that is very hard to control.

[Matt Algren]

I like Obama and will vote for him. However, I recognize the irony in this situation.

It's very noble of him to say that families are off-limits, but at the same time, this is a man who as recently as last week had his children onstage- fairly flogging the idea of 'family'.

Oh....it's been done before. Jackie Onassis had a great sense of theatre (and I mean that as a compliment!) when she dressed up her son and had him salute his Dad at his tomb. That image is burned into the consciousness of those who remember it.

Is this a bad thing? Perhaps. And perhaps not: I guess it depends on one's perspective. However, when you put your children out there in such a way, you draw attention to them in a way that is very hard to control.
I really didn't have a problem with his kids waving at people from the stage. I thought it was sweet, which was probably the point, but they're right there in the front row. What's he gonna do, make them sit with Grandma?

I see a difference between that and people doing their best to dig up dirt on someone's 16 year old kid. To bring it back home, what if the rumor had been that one of the kids were gay? They're playing to a conservative anti-gay audience, so it would've been right at home. Would that have been okay?

If the kids were out on the campaign trail every day, I could see your point, but they haven't been.

I guess what I'm saying is that I see a difference between a candidate (sparingly) using their kids to engender warm fuzzy family feelings and an opponent using the kids to engender cold negative feelings.

[Daniel]

I really didn't have a problem with his kids waving at people from the stage. I thought it was sweet, which was probably the point, but they're right there in the front row. What's he gonna do, make them sit with Grandma?

I see a difference between that and people doing their best to dig up dirt on someone's 16 year old kid. To bring it back home, what if the rumor had been that one of the kids were gay? They're playing to a conservative anti-gay audience, so it would've been right at home. Would that have been okay?

If the kids were out on the campaign trail every day, I could see your point, but they haven't been.

I guess what I'm saying is that I see a difference between a candidate (sparingly) using their kids to engender warm fuzzy family feelings and an opponent using the kids to engender cold negative feelings.


I believe that Chelsea Clinton was never on the campaign trail when she was a kid (thought I am ready to be corrected in this regard). What does that say about her parents? That they did everything to keep her out of the glare of the spotlight.

My point is that you can't exploit your kids and then cry when the public wants to know more about them.

Is Sarah Palin exploiting her family? That's a fair question. No matter how one answers that question, I think one thing is quite clear: she is exploiting her religion. As is the McCain machine.

As I see it, a politican who features his or her family in the media is selling something. I don't think this is bad per se. However, it does point the values involved. As such, my take is that we have become a nation of appearances.

As for someone's child being gay: I don't see anything bad about that. Better to have it known than hidden in the shadows. I don't see how being gay is 'dirt'.

And lastly- yes....Obama's kids could have sat with Grandma. Are they of age when they can consent to appear on the national stage? I don't think so. Of course, this argument can be referenced with regard to Palin's children. That said, my take is that if there are questions about the information being presented, it is only right that those questions be answered in a forthright manner.

If there is nothing to hide, then there isn't any probem. The problem arises when appearances don't mesh with reality. And if the appearance that one is 'selling' is not the actual reality, well....that's a problem.

Sadly, we live in an age when everything under the sun is being marketed. And as such, Obama has marketed his family as being the standard bearer of every cliche regarding 'family', when in fact, statistics reveal that actual families look very different. Is it Ok to market one's family in an effort to be warm and fuzzy? Perhaps. But that's not what I'll be thinking of when I pull the lever.

[ctozrn]

I still think that if this had happened to a democrat the conservatives would have a field day.

Regardless, how do you think this will affect the McCain campaign? Do you think this will help him, hurt him, or just blow over?

Christine

[Rick336]

Regardless, how do you think this will affect the McCain campaign? Do you think this will help him, hurt him, or just blow over?

It's hard to tell. This incident with her daughter's pregnancy, along with her husband getting arrested for drunk driving, and Palin trying to get her brother-in-law fired....is beginning to look more and more like a dysfunctional family.

On the other hand, there's a lot of dysfunctional families in America that claim to support traditional family values. So, who knows?

Rick

[ctozrn]

Very true...misery loves company! :) I had not heard about the husband's DUI....the plot thickens!

Christine

[Matt Algren]

I really think we aren't that far apart, but here are some specific responses.I believe that Chelsea Clinton was never on the campaign trail when she was a kid (thought I am ready to be corrected in this regard). What does that say about her parents? That they did everything to keep her out of the glare of the spotlight.She was also past the cute kid stage and well into the awkward teen stage.

My point is that you can't exploit your kids and then cry when the public wants to know more about them.Well, define 'wants to know more'. It's a long-standing tradition for a politician to pose with his/her kids. There's a qualitative difference between that and digging for the slightest appearance of dirt on someone's kids.

Is Sarah Palin exploiting her family?Her oldest son ships of to Iraq on 9/11. What a coincidence.

Not that Obama/Biden should bring that up. They absolutely shouldn't. McCain/Palin will almost certainly make a big show of it at the convention, and they'll try to use that to force Obama/Biden to lay off the war material. They need to ignore the son altogether and pull the attention back to the real issue, not the photogenic mother crying with her jaw set as her son gets on a plane.

Again, fair for them to bring it up? Yes. Reasonable for the opposition to attack based on it? Almost certainly dirty politics. Best plan is to ignore it and return to the issues.

That's a fair question. No matter how one answers that question, I think one thing is quite clear: she is exploiting her religion. As is the McCain machine.Agreed. To be fair, one of my Catholic friends was upset last week because she sees Biden as a Catholic by name only. I don't know if I agree with her, but I told her that now she knows how the Methodists feel. Anytime a politician needs to find religion, they pick ours. It's a relief to have some time off from defending the faith this year.

As I see it, a politican who features his or her family in the media is selling something. I don't think this is bad per se. However, it does point the values involved. As such, my take is that we have become a nation of appearances.God bless America. ;)

As for someone's child being gay: I don't see anything bad about that. Better to have it known than hidden in the shadows. I don't see how being gay is 'dirt'.We agree, but for someone playing to the conservative base? Revealing a gay/transgender child would be scandalous. Almost certainly election losing. (I'd also have a huge problem with someone outing the relative of a candidate.)

And lastly- yes....Obama's kids could have sat with Grandma.Oh, come on. No way that would play in the sticks. By morning the fundie blogs would have started talking about how he hates his kids.
Are they of age when they can consent to appear on the national stage? I don't think so. Of course, this argument can be referenced with regard to Palin's children. That said, my take is that if there are questions about the information being presented, it is only right that those questions be answered in a forthright manner.Forthright I don't have a problem with. Frothing at the mouth and conspiracy theories I absolutely do. And that's what I've seen in some of the commentary on the blogs and message boards about this pregnancy stuff.

If there is nothing to hide, then there isn't any probem. The problem arises when appearances don't mesh with reality.No, the problem arises when it's a slow news day and the internet blog machine gets behind an almost-certainly false rumor and runs with it like it's proven fact while the people whose lives the rumor affects try to figure out how someone would believe something that.

Sadly, we live in an age when everything under the sun is being marketed. And as such, Obama has marketed his family as being the standard bearer of every cliche regarding 'family', when in fact, statistics reveal that actual families look very different. Is it Ok to market one's family in an effort to be warm and fuzzy? Perhaps. But that's not what I'll be thinking of when I pull the lever.Well, not every family. In fact, the Obamas don't look like most families. He's from a 'broken home', both parents are dead, he was raised by his grandmother, he's of mixed race, and his daughters' skin is markedly darker than most Americans', making them a potential target for racism and sexism. What he's presenting, on the rare occasion when they do make an appearance, is stability.

One more thing on Palin. I hadn't heard of her until Friday morning, and I'm pretty sure that was the purpose of her elevation. She's a big question mark everywhere but in Alaska, so people will have to go on first impressions for the election. Or so the McCain team thought.

What they didn't count on was the squeezing of years' worth of character related questions packed into two months. I said before that I think Palin's nomination was a huge tactical error for the Republicans, and I think we're seeing fall-out to that error.

For all the other candidates, the press, and to a lesser extent the public, has a cheat sheet on what they say and how they vote and what skeletons are in the closet. All (or most) of that stuff's kind of out in the open, even if it isn't all resolved.

With Palin, they (and we) are having to work faster to get up to speed, and it's going to be harder to sort out the harmless fiction from the cold hard facts. The Democrats need to lay low with that and let the reporters ask the uncomfortable questions. Stay on the offensive with respect to the issues and let Governor Palin's record speak for itself.

Because just as there isn't time to figure it all out, there won't be time for McCain/Palin to dig out before November 4th.

[Rick336]

I had not heard about the husband's DUI....the plot thickens!

The news report this afternoon didn't mention how old he was when he got it, but I just read on line that he was only 22 years old at the time, so I guess it's a no big deal now.

Rick

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republican_race/2008/09/01/2008-09-01_bristol_palins_pregnancy_was_an_open_sec.html

No comment.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

I really think we aren't that far apart, but here are some specific responses.She was also past the cute kid stage and well into the awkward teen stage.

Matt- what does 'cute' have to do with anything? It's not Ok if a kid is past the 'cute' stage? You see, this is what I don't understand. I don't see what this has to do with being 'cute' or 'awkward'. I think it's much more relevant to note that young kids don't understand what it means to stand up in front of a TV camera in the same way that a teenage does. And in that sense, young children are taken advantage of. Just my opinion.

Well, define 'wants to know more'. It's a long-standing tradition for a politician to pose with his/her kids. There's a qualitative difference between that and digging for the slightest appearance of dirt on someone's kids.

Again- I don't buy the whole notion of long-standing tradition of using one's children to get ahead. I would rather the focus be on policy, not appearance. But I am very aware that this- like true campaign finance reform- isn't going to happen any time soon, In that sense, I am much more European in my outlook. However, even Europeans are becoming more 'Amercian' these days ie the selling of image rather than ideas.

Her oldest son ships of to Iraq on 9/11. What a coincidence.

Not that Obama/Biden should bring that up. They absolutely shouldn't. McCain/Palin will almost certainly make a big show of it at the convention, and they'll try to use that to force Obama/Biden to lay off the war material. They need to ignore the son altogether and pull the attention back to the real issue, not the photogenic mother crying with her jaw set as her son gets on a plane.

Again, fair for them to bring it up? Yes. Reasonable for the opposition to attack based on it? Almost certainly dirty politics. Best plan is to ignore it and return to the issues.



Agreed. To be fair, one of my Catholic friends was upset last week because she sees Biden as a Catholic by name only. I don't know if I agree with her, but I told her that now she knows how the Methodists feel. Anytime a politician needs to find religion, they pick ours. It's a relief to have some time off from defending the faith this year.

God bless America. ;)

We agree, but for someone playing to the conservative base? Revealing a gay/transgender child would be scandalous. Almost certainly election losing. (I'd also have a huge problem with someone outing the relative of a candidate.)

Oh, come on. No way that would play in the sticks. By morning the fundie blogs would have started talking about how he hates his kids.
Forthright I don't have a problem with. Frothing at the mouth and conspiracy theories I absolutely do. And that's what I've seen in some of the commentary on the blogs and message boards about this pregnancy stuff.

And this is my point: why is it a matter of playing? This I don't understand. Shoving one's kids out in front on the world stage because the fundies may say something if one doesn't? You know- I really don't get that. At some point, one has to stop caring about what the neighbors think. After all, that is the problem, isn't it?

No, the problem arises when it's a slow news day and the internet blog machine gets behind an almost-certainly false rumor and runs with it like it's proven fact while the people whose lives the rumor affects try to figure out how someone would believe something that.

Well, not every family. In fact, the Obamas don't look like most families. He's from a 'broken home', both parents are dead, he was raised by his grandmother, he's of mixed race, and his daughters' skin is markedly darker than most Americans', making them a potential target for racism and sexism. What he's presenting, on the rare occasion when they do make an appearance, is stability.

That's a interesting point. However, one might say that the stability being presented simply plays into conservative stereotypes. Married with two kids. Is that real stability? I wonder about that. That it is a reality of gay and straight lives is not in question. My overall point is that selling a particular image of one's family may ultimately say more about the public wants to see than what is needs to hear.

Addendum:

Read this after posting earlier today...


Plouffe: Palin Choice a ‘Transparent Moment’
By Jeff Zeleny

CHICAGO – Senator Barack Obama has declared the personal life and family of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska to be off-limits for criticism, but his campaign manager said Tuesday that voters should be allowed to weigh Senator John McCain’s judgment in choosing Ms. Palin as his running-mate.

“The way the process was done should be of interest to voters because I do think it speaks to how things will be managed and executed as president,” said David Plouffe, who manages the Obama campaign. “At the end of the day, it may work out for them, but the process is a transparent moment for voters to decide how these two people will go about major decisions.”

Since Mr. McCain announced his surprise vice presidential selection last week, the Obama campaign has grappled with how to respond to Ms. Palin.

First, aides belittled her experience as a former small-town mayor. Then, Mr. Obama praised Ms. Palin’s life story and admonished Democrats to “back off” criticizing her family over the revelation that her teen-age daughter is pregnant. In doing so, Mr. Obama said, “My mother had me when she was 18. How family deals with issues and teen-age children, that shouldn’t be the topic of our politics.”

In an interview here on Tuesday, Mr. Plouffe said voters should instead judge Mr. McCain for what he called an “impulsive” decision to choose Ms. Palin, who has served as governor of Alaska for 20 months. He said Ms. Palin’s governmental record in Alaska is fair game for examination in the final two months of the campaign, but not her family.

“You have to assume that when you’re making this pick – if something happened to you – you are choosing the 45th president of the United States,” Mr. Plouffe said. “And it’s a big decision.”

The McCain campaign says that the pick of Ms. Palin was carefully made and that she was thoroughly vetted.

When Mr. Obama named Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. as his running-mate on Aug. 23, aides declined to offer a window into how Mr. Obama made what he called one of the biggest decisions of his candidacy. But as questions persist over the extent of vetting Ms. Palin was subjected to, aides to Mr. Obama reversed course Tuesday and sought to draw distinctions between the two vice presidential searches.

Mr. Plouffe said the selection of Mr. Biden came after more than two months of extensive examination that included separate meetings with a team of lawyers, the leaders of the search committee, top campaign aides and finally an interview with Mr. Obama. Mr. Plouffe said every immediate member of the Biden family, including his three children, his brother, his sister and his wife also met with members of the vetting team.

“If you’re fortunate enough to win, this person could become president and you better feel comfortable you got that right,” Mr. Plouffe said. “We have a history of vice presidents becoming president in this country. Hopefully, no matter who wins, that won’t be the case, but I think the process and the thought that goes into this is pretty important to voters.


In light of this thread, and my previous comments regarding Palin's on this thread, could one say that Obama is taking the high road? Perhaps. One could also say that in doing so he wants to deflect any criticism of his own family and upbringing. Whatever the motivation, debating one's record is a lot simplier and nobler than a mudfest. That I can see.

So- following Obama's lead (I can't believe that I am writing this!), I wish to retract my statements about Palin and will stick to debating Palin's record. That makes sense to me. And maybe I'll just ignore the Obama's kids from here on out too. They'll have their psychotherapy in 20 years, right? And they can yell at their parents about how they were dragged around on the campaign trail- or not.

Let the chips fall where they may!

[u-dog]

LEVI JOHNSTON TO JOIN PALIN FAMILY AT THE CONVENTION


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080902/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter

This is becoming downright SURREAL. Now they are bringing the boyfriend/father/fiance/future soninlaw to St. Paul. Its like these social conservatives are making the RNC into some kind of celebration of teen pregnancy. It boggles the mind !! :eek:

[tymejumper]

Things to note here:

1) Obviously abstinence only does NOT work, case in point, Palins teen daughter.

2) Why are they handling Palin with kid gloves? The Republicans tried to roast Hillary and raked her over the coals, calling her a ball buster and even saying she is a lesbian...like that's a bad thing all to discredit her. She made it, that makes Palin fair game.

3) Hillary had to be accountable for Bills past indescretions and also troubles, the Rebuplicans had a field day with it. Why should Palin not be held accountable for her husbands past indescrections? DUI and all?

4) Her daughter is just a child. 17, probably very scared and obviously not given good birth control options or knowledge. Her parents are allowing her to become engaged at 17 to the boy who knocked her up. Poor thing, leave her out of it. She's basically ruined her own life with poor choices, and as a minor and child, is off limits.

5) I would cheerfully kill anyone who dragged MY child into something she had no part in(ie politics). I think that many women are going to be very angry that this girl gets attacked in the name of politics.

6) McCain shot himself in the foot I think this time, which is sad, only because of all the Republicans out there, I would vote for him out of all of them, if I HAD to vote Republican. I am voting Democratic.

7) Obama is smart to issue the statement he did. He does not want his children dragged in, and I'm not talking about them waving at the crowd! I am talking about sheilding our youth from things they don't need to know about yet, they are not adults.


That is my opinion
Much Metta
Rebekah

[tdogg]

Apparently, from an article I read on CNN.com, the conservatives are using the pregnancy of Palin's daughter as a valient example of her pro-life stance. They are saying this will win all the evangelical votes, as this proves Palin is pro-life, it shows she is responsible by not only deciding to keep her child with Down's Syndrome, but to support her daughter's pregnancy. It was explained that evangelicals consider babies to be blessings, not punishments, so the pregnancy is actually a blessed and great event, that is sure to send McCain and Palin to the White House in November.

While the fact that Palin's teenaged daughter is pregnant doesn't really bother me, I find it interesting that the evangelicals are holding on to the above stated opinions. Do you think as Christian teens get wind of this 'approval' they might not bother to think twice about having sex and getting pregnant? I'm not sure this is a message we want to be sending to our teenagers.

I also have to question the decision of Palin to accept the offer to be on McCain's ticket. Christians/evangelicals are pretty staunch on the view that a woman's place is home taking care of family & children. Personally, I don't hold the same view, but it does seem a bit hypocritical of them to preach women's responsibilities (family & children come first) and then praise Palin for accepting this offer (not being around to care for family & children).

Just some interesting observations from someone who should be reading her textbook! Ok, back to it..

[Rick336]

Do you think as Christian teens get wind of this 'approval' they might not bother to think twice about having sex and getting pregnant?

It may be a good pro-life message, but it seems like the wrong message for "abstinence only" sex education, which Palin supports.

Rick

[u-dog]

Things to note here:


4) Her daughter is just a child. 17, probably very scared and obviously not given good birth control options or knowledge. Her parents are allowing her to become engaged at 17 to the boy who knocked her up. Poor thing, leave her out of it. She's basically ruined her own life with poor choices, and as a minor and child, is off limits.


That is my opinion
Much Metta
Rebekah

Ok, this is true but... what kind of a mother would expose her own daughter to this kind of scrutiny? Assuming that she is a "good Christian Girl" who is aware of the bad judgement she has employed then must this notariety not be massively humiliating? How does Sarah justify that?

[Rick336]

Ok, this is true but... what kind of a mother would expose her own daughter to this kind of scrutiny? Assuming that she is a "good Christian Girl" who is aware of the bad judgement she has employed then must this notariety not be massively humiliating? How does Sarah justify that?

I think whether or not Palin came forward with the information about her daughter, the media would have jumped on it sooner or later. Anytime you're in the public spotlight, your life is an open book.

Examples: John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard....etc.

Rick

[u-dog]

I think whether or not Palin came forward with the information about her daughter, the media would have jumped on it sooner or later. Anytime you're in the public spotlight, your life is an open book.

Examples: John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard....etc.

Rick

Thats exactly my point, Rick, What kind of a mother would accept the invitation to be a candidate for VP knowing that it would expose her daughter to this kind of scrutiny? I would NEVER EVER EVER do something like that to one of my kids. How does she look at herself in the mirror?

[Rick336]

What kind of a mother would accept the invitation to be a candidate for VP knowing that it would expose her daughter to this kind of scrutiny?

That's a good question. I see your point.

Maybe she sat down with her daughter last week and they both came to a mutual decision about it before she accepted McCain's offer for VP.

Or, maybe the offer to run for Vice President of the United States was so huge that she accepted it regardless of how it affected the rest of her family.

It's hard to say.

Rick

[tdogg]

It may be a good pro-life message, but it seems like the wrong message for "abstinence only" sex education, which Palin supports.

Rick

But the evangelical right is overlooking that, and history shows they throw out flawed arguments to support their 'opinion' of the moment. It is hypocritical.

[Rick336]

But the evangelical right is overlooking that, and history shows they throw out flawed arguments to support their 'opinion' of the moment. It is hypocritical.

I agree. But they'll throw out the flawed arguments because Sarah Palin supports teaching creationism in public schools, and is anti-gun control, anti-abortion, and anti-gay......and so are they. She's a young, good-looking, white, Christian, hockey mom with a son on his way to Iraq. From the reports I'm hearing on TV news, the evangelicals love her.

All I can say is, thank God the Democrats have Obama because he's got something Palin and McCain don't have; charisma and intellect.

Rick

[Daniel]

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/09/congressman-bar.html


Congressman Barney Frank: Sarah Palin Family Life Fair Game

Congressman Barney Frank told the AP today that Sarah Palin's family life is fair game, reports the Boston Herald: "[Republicans are] the ones that made an issue of her family...Apparently she’s a great favorite with the conservative social movement. They have said that it’s liberalism and liberals who have undermined families — same-sex marriage has been a problem, they don’t want gay people to adopt ... This helps undercut those arguments."

Waffle waffle? Nope. I'm staying out of this one. I've made my own head spin! :lol: But finding what Frank has to say- and he's a seasoned politico- is interesting, no?

And here's news on Palin's gay record. No surprise there!

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/09/document-reveal.html


Document Reveals Sarah Palin's Anti-Gay Record

A 63-page research document assembled by her 2006 gubernatorial opponent Tony Knowles and published today by Politico details Sarah Palin's socially conservative positions and includes these points on gay rights:

Palin Opposed Supreme Court Ruling Giving Same-Sex Couples Benefits: Asked if she would support the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling that spousal benefits for state employees should be given to same-sex couples, Palin responded, “No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution.” [Eagle Forum questionnaire]

Palin Opposed Expanding Hate Crimes Laws: Asked if she would support an effort to expand hate crime laws, Palin responded, “No, as I believe all heinous crime is based on hate.” [Eagle Forum questionnaire]

Palin Said She Supported Ban on Gay Marriage and Denying Benefits to Gay Couples: “Palin said she’s not out to judge anyone and has good friends who are gay, but that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment [to ban gay marriage]. Elected officials can’t defy the court when it comes to how rights are applied, she said, but she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples. ‘I believe that honoring the family structure is that important,’ Palin said. She said she doesn’t know if people choose to be gay.” [Anchorage Daily News (Alaska), 8/6/06]

Palin Said She Supported a Constitutional Amendment Overturning Supreme Court Mandate of Benefits for Same-Sex Couples: Asked if she would support a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Alaska Supreme Court decision mandating public employers to provide benefits equivalent to same-sex couples, Sarah Palin responded “yes.” [Alaska Family Council Voter Guide, 8/22/06]

In related news, Jimmy LaSalvia, director of programs and policy for the Log Cabin Republicans, told Reuters in an interview today: "If being anti-gay was a priority for her, we would know about it."

In other news, Palin was reportedly once a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, which has been pushing since the 70's for the state's secession from the United States.


She doesn't want to judge.

Ok then Sarah: don't. It's that simple. Just don't.

Then - maybe we can talk about being friends.

[Rick336]

In other news, Palin was reportedly once a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, which has been pushing since the 70's for the state's secession from the United States.

Wow. This could be very damaging to McCain. I googled it and here's what I found.

From CBS News website:


"Officials of the Alaskan Independence Party say that Palin was once so independent, she was once a member of their party, which since the 1970s has been pushing for a legal vote for Alaskans to decide whether or not residents of the 49th state can secede from the United States. And while McCain's motto -- as seen in a new TV ad -- is "Country First," the AIP's motto is the exact opposite -- "Alaska First -- Alaska Always."

Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, tells ABC News that Palin and her husband Todd were members in 1994, even attending the 1994 statewide convention in Wasilla. Clark was AIP secretary at the time."

And this is from the Alaskan Independence Party's own website:

Q: What is the Alaskan Independence Party?

A: An Alaskan political party whose members advocate a range of solutions to the conflicts between federal and local authority; from advocacy for state's rights, through a return to territorial status, all the way to complete independence and nationhood status for Alaska



Rick

[ctozrn]

I personally feel that Palin's daughter being pregnant is NOT off limits. This is a woman that has made a stance on teaching abstinence only to American school children, then her own daughter becomes pregnant. What does that say about her ability to run the country? You have to practice what you preach. I am with many of you, if my daughter was pregnant I would not have willingly placed her in the national spotlight by accepting the nomination.

Something else that I find ironic, didn't the evangelicals go crazy last year when Brittany Spears kid sister showed up pregnant? People were calling for boycotts to get the pregnant teen off her TV show on the Disney channel, saying that she was a bad influence and bad role model. Now, Palin's daughter shows up pregnant and everything is lovely? They freaking love this woman! I don't get it!

Has anyone read the article that I think was put up by Rick about this baby's teen father? He is a self described, "f-in redneck" not exactly the boy next door. He doesn't look like the getting married, settling down kind of kid. I wonder if this marriage between these two kids is being heavily forced by the parents.

I think it is all a terrible mess. I am scared. I am afraid that the Republicans will be able to spin everything their way and that the conservatives would rather have a hockey mom with a pregnant teen as their VP than a black man for president. I really like Obama and totally support him but I am worried.....

[Daniel]

I personally feel that Palin's daughter being pregnant is NOT off limits. This is a woman that has made a stance on teaching abstinence only to American school children, then her own daughter becomes pregnant. What does that say about her ability to run the country? You have to practice what you preach. I am with many of you, if my daughter was pregnant I would not have willingly placed her in the national spotlight by accepting the nomination.

Palin didn't know that her daugther was pregnant until a few days ago? Not that I'm trying to give her an out. In fact, if her daughter felt like she couldn't tell her....well....that says something too, doesn't it?

Oops!

And great research Rick!

There's an interesting article about Palin in the paper this morning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us/politics/03wasilla.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin



And for some, Ms. Palin’s first months in office here were so jarring — and so alienating — that an effort was made to force a recall. About 100 people attended a meeting to discuss the effort, which was covered in the local press, but the idea was dropped.

Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books, though she never followed through and it was unclear which books or passages were in question.

Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.

The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support. Ms. Emmons, who left her job and Wasilla a couple of years later, declined to comment for this article.

In 1996, Ms. Palin suggested to the local paper, The Frontiersman, that the conversations about banning books were “rhetorical.”

Rhetorical? That's interesting. We'll never know, but I bet my last dollar that the books Palin had in her sights were the gay ones. Then again, I can fully imagine that The Joy of Sex was on the list!

Ok....that was a cheap shot...I admit it.

Mea Cupla.

Know what? You can't make this stuff up. Oy!

Wanna-be book-burning secessionist becomes VP candidate!

And finally, on the editorial page of the NYTimes this morning, I read that Palin goes to the same church I went to at one time- the Assemblies of God. Here's what she had to say in June.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/opinion/03wed1.html?ref=opinion


The Republicans are presenting Ms. Palin as a crusader against Mr. Stevens’s infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.” The record says otherwise; she initially supported Mr. Stevens’s boondoggle, diverting the money to other projects when the bridge became a political disaster. In her speech to the Wasilla Assembly of God in June, Ms. Palin said it was “God’s will” that the federal government contribute to a $30 billion gas pipeline she wants built in Alaska.

So much for the separation of church and state.

[Matt Algren]

I've been following reports from The Washington Independent's Laura McGann (http://www.washingtonindependent.com/author/lkmcgann). She flew up to Wasilla, Alaska and has been going through old newspapers and city council minutes and whatnot since yesterday morning. It's rather interesting, especially the fact that nobody else had asked the city clerk for information. NOT EVEN THE McCAIN CAMPAIGN MACHINE. (http://www.washingtonindependent.com/3867/vetting)

Other choice tidbits:

I’m reading an article from October 1996, in which a reporter named Laura Mitchell Harris asks Palin about her intentions for a shake up. How would she effectively run a city without experienced leaders? “”It’s not rocket science,” Palin said, “It’s $6 million and 53 employees.”

=====

(article from 1997) (http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/510219.html)
The mayor told them she appreciated their service but felt it was time for a change. ''I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment ...'' the letter said.

Palin said Friday she now feels Emmons supports her but does not feel the same about Stambaugh. As to what prompted the change, Palin said she now has Emmons' assurance that she is behind her. She refused to give details about how Stambaugh has not supported her, saying only that ''You know in your heart when someone is supportive of you.''

[Daniel]

QG1vPYbRB7k

k84m2orSOaM

As she says..

"God's will has to be done".

Of partcular note is the Rapture/Dominionist thinking that is expoused by the pastor before the prayer in the second half. He posits that Americans will be going to Alaska to escape the tribulation in the lower States. And there is Sarah, the possible next VP standing right there, participating as Governor.

[ctozrn]

Daniel, I did not realize she was a member of Assemblies of God....I am quite familiar with them. I have been to their churches and my ex's family were members. That says a WHOLE lot! I am even more afraid now! That mentality in public office can not be good. In my experience they for the most part do not believe in a seperation of church and state. Everyone in the world should be Christian and the laws are very much dictated by their faith.

Scary stuff.....I can't imagine going through four years of them in the White House. God forbid something happens to JM and she ends up as Pres.....

God help us!

[Rick336]

Author Sam Harris in the Los Angeles Times had this to say about McCain's choice of Palin:

"McCain not only has thrown all sensible concerns about good governance aside merely to pander to a sliver of female and masses of conservative Christian voters, he has turned this period of American history into an episode of high-stakes reality television."

Here's the entire article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris3-2008sep03,0,5745350.story



Rick

[u-dog]

In London, the odds against McCain dumping Palin from the ticket before the election have gone from 22:1 to 8:1

[ctozrn]

We can only hope.....:)

[u-dog]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080903/pl_politico/20576


This article from Politico is now on Yahoo. Check it out. Two right-wing pundits (Peggy Noonan for one) are talking about the Palin choice. Its a hot microphone faux paux. ITS PRICELESS!!

[Daniel]

Author Sam Harris in the Los Angeles Times had this to say about McCain's choice of Palin:

"McCain not only has thrown all sensible concerns about good governance aside merely to pander to a sliver of female and masses of conservative Christian voters, he has turned this period of American history into an episode of high-stakes reality television."

Here's the entire article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-harris3-2008sep03,0,5745350.story



Rick

And here is Harris' response to criticism of the original piece.


Sam Harris: Sexist Pig and Liberal Shill

I've received more than the usual amount of criticism for my recent opinion piece on Sarah Palin, most of it alleging sexism and/or an unseemly infatuation with Barack Obama. For those who care, I'd like to briefly respond:

My alleged sexism: It is true that I used some hackneyed, gender-slanted language in the piece ("get sassy," "girl-next-door," etc.). This was deliberate. Clearly, I played this game at my peril. I can say that if Sarah Palin were a man of similar qualifications, I would have used equally slanted language to describe him. I might have called Mr. Palin a "frat-boy" or a "lumberjack." I would have invoked some silly macho phrasing like,"Watch Cousin Jim flip Putin the bird." My concern is not that Mrs. Palin is a woman. My concern is that she is a totally unqualified and poorly educated woman who was added to the Republican ticket as a token woman (and Creationist wacko). For what it's worth, the article was vetted by the two women closest to me (wife and mother) and by two female editors at the LA Times. If anything, the editing at the Times made the piece even more "sexist."

My alleged Obamamania: Many McCain supporters have written to say that (1) Obama is also unqualified (or even less qualified than Palin) and (2) I have shown myself to be a hypocrite by not objecting to Obama's religiosity. Briefly: My criticism of Palin should not be construed as uncritical acceptance of Obama. Needless to say, I find Obama's religious pandering repulsive. The suspicion that he is pandering, out of obvious necessity, and not quite as religious as he makes out, is somewhat comforting, however. But even if Obama were precisely as religious as he appears, he is not a Creationist, Rapture-Ready blockhead. Palin, by all appearances, seems to be one. This is a difference worth noting. Whatever you may think of his politics, Obama is very intelligent and reasonably well educated. Palin thinks the universe is 6000 years old. Unfortunately, I wrote my article before some of the most disturbing signs of her religious extremism came to light.

So, let me simply declare that I would be overjoyed to have a qualified woman in the White House. I would, likewise, be overjoyed to have a qualified African American in the White House. In fact, I would be overjoyed to have a qualified WASP man in the White House. I will be guardedly optimistic to have a very smart (and somewhat qualified) Barack Obama in the White House. And I would be frankly terrified to have a religious bumpkin like Sarah Palin in the White House. I think you should share this last conviction. Hence my latest opinion piece.

Best,
Sam

[Matt Algren]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080903/pl_politico/20576


This article from Politico is now on Yahoo. Check it out. Two right-wing pundits (Peggy Noonan for one) are talking about the Palin choice. Its a hot microphone faux paux. ITS PRICELESS!!
Full transcript over at Good As You. There's a youtube link too.

[tymejumper]

Ok, this is true but... what kind of a mother would expose her own daughter to this kind of scrutiny? Assuming that she is a "good Christian Girl" who is aware of the bad judgement she has employed then must this notariety not be massively humiliating? How does Sarah justify that?



We have talked a lot about this at work. I work closely with 2 Republicans and they have said that as a mother(they both are) that what she is doing is terrible and she should not have opened her child up to this type of public media and humilation. They also stated that she has her hands full with a Downs Syndrome child and a pregnant teen and obviously does not have her priorities in order, she should be more concerned over her 2 children instead of running in politics. They would not have previously voted for Obama, but are now. They don't want her running the country if McCain dies, which he may he is older.

Personally, I don't think there IS a justification for sacrificing your child to further your career, and that is what she is doing. She just really threw the poor girl to the wolves.

[Rick336]

They don't want her running the country if McCain dies, which he may, he is older.


I agree. For McCain to pick this woman is reckless and irresponsible. I only hope the country is smart enough to see that.

Rick

[nmwolfboy]

Here are some informative links i've found:
Palin's Start in Alaska: Not Politics as Usual (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us/politics/03wasilla.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=slogin)(New York Times)

Wasilla housewife's letter (http://www.andrys.com/palin-kilkenny.html) (Anne Kilkenny)

Documents Detail Palin's Political Life (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13084.html) (politico.com)

2006 Democratic Alaskan Gubernatorial candidate Tony Knowles' Palin research (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM106_palin_doc.html)

Project Votesmart's Palin page (http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=MAK17859)

Mayor Palin: A Rough Record (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html?imw=Y) (Time Magazine online)

John McCain is well-known for regularly publishing his list of 'pork' projects that he finds objectionable. Sarah Palin's requested projects have made his list three times. So much for her being anti-earmarks. LA Times article. (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,284198.story)

There's also a rumor floating around that Sarah Louise Heath Palin is heiress to the Heath Candy fortune. I cannot find anything that independently confirms this. Unless something that i can confirm is found, this rumor is likely a false one. Not that being an heiress has much to do with where someone would stand on the important issues, but it would speak to the branding of Palin as 'just regular folk.'

[Matt Algren]

John McCain is well-known for regularly publishing his list of 'pork' projects that he finds objectionable. Sarah Palin's requested projects have made his list three times. So much for her being anti-earmarks. LA Times article. (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,284198.story)

That last one is important, so I'm going to post a little (okay, a lot) of the text. Please click through (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,284198.story) and read the whole thing, though.

Before we begin, remember that at the time, Wasilla, Alaska (the town Palin was mayor of) had a population of around 5,000 people. Also, former Senator Ted Stevens has now been indicted on federal corruption charges.

Three times in recent years, McCain's catalogs of "objectionable" spending have included earmarks for this small Alaska town, requested by its mayor at the time -- Sarah Palin.

This year, Palin, who has been governor for nearly 22 months, defended earmarking as a vital part of the legislative system. "The federal budget, in its various manifestations, is incredibly important to us, and congressional earmarks are one aspect of this relationship," she wrote in a newspaper column.

Wasilla received $11.9 million in earmarks from 2000 to 2003. The results of this spending are very apparent today. (The town also benefited from $15 million in federal funds to promote regional rail transportation.)

Taylor Griffin, a McCain campaign spokesman, said that when Palin became mayor in 1996, "she faced a system that was broken. Small towns like Wasilla in Alaska depended on earmarks to take care of basic needs. . . . That was something that Gov. Palin was alarmed about and was one of the formative experiences that led her toward the reform-oriented stance that she has taken as her career has progressed."

Palin, he said, was "disgusted" that small towns like hers were dependent on earmarks.

Public records paint a different picture:

Wasilla had received few if any earmarks before Palin became mayor. She actively sought federal funds -- a campaign that began to pay off only after she hired a lobbyist with close ties to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who long controlled federal spending as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He made funneling money to Alaska his hallmark.

Steven Silver was a former chief of staff for Stevens. After he was hired, Wasilla obtained funding for several projects in 2002, including an additional $600,000 in transportation funding.

That year, a local water and sewer project received $1.5 million, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, which combs federal spending measures to identify projects inserted by congressional members.

When Palin spoke after McCain introduced her as his running mate at a rally in Ohio last week, she made fun of earmarking. She said she had rejected $223 million in federal funds for a bridge linking Ketchikan to an island with an airport and 50 residents, referring to it by its derogatory label: the "bridge to nowhere."

In the nationally televised speech, she stood by McCain and said, "I've championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress thanks, but no thanks, on that bridge to nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said, we'd build it ourselves."

However, as a candidate for governor in 2006, Palin had backed funding for the bridge. After her election, she killed the much-ridiculed project when it became clear the state had other priorities. She said she would use the federal funds to fill those needs.

This year she submitted to Congress a list of Alaska projects worth $197.8 million, including $2 million to research crab productivity in the Bering Sea and $7.4 million to improve runway lighting at eight Alaska airports. A spokesman said she cut the original list of 54 projects to 31.

"So while Sen. McCain was going after cutting earmarks in Washington," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, "Gov. Palin was going after getting earmarks."
Just in case somebody missed it in the third paragraph from the bottom, Palin didn't 'reject' the funds as she indicated last Friday, she just moved the 223 MILLION DOLLARS from the federal government to other unspecified projects in her state.

======

Mark my words. This one's got legs.

[Daniel]

Just in case somebody missed it in the third paragraph from the bottom, Palin didn't 'reject' the funds as she indicated last Friday, she just moved the 223 MILLION DOLLARS from the federal government to other unspecified projects in her state.


As noted in the commentary after her speech last night (Shields on PBS), she lied about The Bridge to Nowwhere. As you note, she took the money and put it elsewhere. Not exactly the actions of a reformer.

[BruceChris]

She'll be there to defend us, and you'll be glad that you voted for her.

P&L, BC (You can keep an assault rifle in the White House, if you're elected, right?)

[nmwolfboy]

The Anchorage Daily News published an article (http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515517.html) today addressing some of the lies misrepresentations in Gov. Palin's speech last night. Apparently she's only against earmarks when she's actively running for VP. And in attempting to claim credibility in building infrastructure (the natural gas pipeline), she exhibits either a talent for mendacity or a complete disconnect from reality.

[Rick336]

Here's a great op-ed article by EJ Dionne, Jr. in the September 9th Washington Post about the McCain campaign's secrecy about Sarah Palin:

"The lesson is that McCain's counselors are not interested in fair treatment, and they are certainly not interested in the truth."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090801907.html


Rick

[ctozrn]

There was an article in our local paper saying that yesterday, Palin and McCain criticized Obama for earmark spending but that Palin asked for TWICE the amount that Palin asked for. I forget the exact amount but it is just astonishing to me that she has such nerve! The other thing I have thought about is the fact that she is such an evangelical Christian but she has shown NO Christian love or values. Just because you go into politics does not mean you need to be mean and crude. There are many politicians that walk their faith everyday. Sarah Palin is not one of them. For all the speaking in tounges and evangelical crap that she is involved in, the love of Christ is nowhere to be seen.

Simply amazing.

[BruceChris]

Is it the Pun? No.

Is it the Pollack Joke? Wrong again

It's the Sarah Palin Joke.

Just start thumbing through some of the liberal blogs, and you can't miss them. Many of them make her out to be dumber than a doorknob. And I guess it would be very unChristian of me to chuckle, but I do, now and then.

'nuff said, Bruce Chris

[Daniel]

The article in the NYtimes- yes- the very paper that Palin denounced in her acceptance speak at the Republican Convention- has done some investigating reporting on her time in office(s). It's really something else. Reminds me of words I heard uttered by Mark Shields (the News Hour with Jim Lehrer PBS) a few nights ago: "She peaked this past week." And what he was referring to was the favorable press coverage she has been getting. Well. This article heralds a change in the wind. And it's blowing something fierce.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?hp


Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes

WASILLA, Alaska — Gov. Sarah Palin lives by the maxim that all politics is local, not to mention personal.

So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.

Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.

When Ms. Palin had to cut her first state budget, she avoided the legion of frustrated legislators and mayors. Instead, she huddled with her budget director and her husband, Todd, an oil field worker who is not a state employee, and vetoed millions of dollars of legislative projects.

And four months ago, a Wasilla blogger, Sherry Whitstine, who chronicles the governor’s career with an astringent eye, answered her phone to hear an assistant to the governor on the line, she said.

“You should be ashamed!” Ivy Frye, the assistant, told her. “Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now!

And that's just for starters. Keep in mind, this isn't an op-ed. This is what a free press does- it looks under all the rocks in any given situation.

The facts speak for themselves.

[Jennifer5]

I was going to make comments on many different things, but now that the conversation isn't really focused on those points anymore I'll just try to summarize my opinions.

I think that Sarah was doing the right thing by having baby #5.

I think big families are wonderful, although I agree that you should always try to consider adoption as part of creating a big family.

My mom was currently being faced with the question of whether of not to abort my baby brother, he was downs and had many other medical problems which meant that it would have been a miracle if he lived to be a year old... she didn't have to decide, she miscarried a couple weeks later. I believe in pro-choice! My mom definately wouldn't have aborted if it was just downs, with everything else, I don't know what she would have done... but I in no way blame her for getting just because she got pregant at 42 (surprise). I've definately seen where it has been very hard on the siblings when there is a downs child, you can love them endlessly, but it's also not really fair to them.


I have no problem with her choice to have that baby. I DO have a problem with people saying that she went right back to work though, I think that if she really believed in family, she'd spend more time with hers. This is probably the one and only thing that I think was a good choice... I know enough about her politics to be scared of her.

[Rick336]

The article in the NYtimes- yes- the very paper that Palin denounced in her acceptance speak at the Republican Convention- has done some investigating reporting on her time in office(s). It's really something else. Reminds me of words I heard uttered by Mark Shields (the News Hour with Jim Lehrer PBS) a few nights ago: "She peaked this past week." And what he was referring to was the favorable press coverage she has been getting. Well. This article heralds a change in the wind. And it's blowing something fierce.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?hp



And that's just for starters. Keep in mind, this isn't an op-ed. This is what a free press does- it looks under all the rocks in any given situation.

The facts speak for themselves.

Daniel,

Thanks for the link. I read the entire article in NY Times. But I'm not sure those who now support McCain/Palin will give it much thought. Many of them already think the news media is biased against McCain/Palin and will probably dismiss it as just more "liberal media" attacks on them. The Republicans have done a great job of becoming defenseless victims :'( of the "liberal left".

Rick