Sarah Palin

[Anonymous]

What Bristol and Levi -- and their families -- do about the pregancy/marriage question is, as has been stated, a personal matter. Why it is relevant to the nation -- and therefore a public issue -- is the way this is being handled by McCain and Palin, and concerns about how and why McCain chose Palin in the first place. These concerns speak to the judgement of the man and woman who want to be President and Vice President of this country.

I remember when the question of JFK's Catholicism came up when he was running. He reassured the American people that there would be a separation between his religious views and his responsibility to uphold the Constitution and other laws. In addition to the poor judgement exhibited so far by both McCain and Palin, I am not reassured that their --and in particular her -- religious views would not take precidence. For example, it does not really matter when you think that life begins. The point is that the Supreme Court made a decision about the right of a woman to have a choice about abortion within certain parameters. It is the responsibility of the Pres and VP to uphold that law. Of course, McCain and Palin would made every effort to overturn Roe v Wade, especially by appointing anti-choice judges to the Supreme Court.

Creationism and thinking that this is a "Christian country" (would we once again be hearing a cry to have prayer in the schools and other erosions in separation of church and state?) are other examples where Palin's religious views would impact the policies she would promote.

I feel panic when I think that these two could become Pres. and V.P.

[Anonymous]

Many mothers, might I even say most women, now work outside the home and do so inorder to afford cable TV, two new cars, and designer clothes. Is it fair to say Palin is running for office for fame and power? Perhaps she sees her work there as creating a greater good, I hope they all do. Just because she's in the spotlight doesn't make her any different than other working moms! Even celebrity moms put their kids in the spotlight and work crazy hours, sometimes even in various locations. No one says they have to remain childless or give up working.
If you are for working mothers then, she's no different!

[Anonymous]

I should hope that if one had deep held religious beliefs that they would come through in any position they held. If not, it would be hypocracy. A lie the nation, their selves, and to God!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many mothers, might I even say most women, now work outside the home and do so inorder to afford cable TV, two new cars, and designer clothes. Is it fair to say Palin is running for office for fame and power? Perhaps she sees her work there as creating a greater good, I hope they all do. Just because she's in the spotlight doesn't make her any different than other working moms! Even celebrity moms put their kids in the spotlight and work crazy hours, sometimes even in various locations. No one says they have to remain childless or give up working.
If you are for working mothers then, she's no different!

What on earth does it mean to be "for working mothers"?

Does it mean supporting universal preschool education (or infant-toddler daycare) for all children, so working PARENTS do not have such a hard time finding and affording quality, consistent care for their youngest children?

If so does Sarah Palin support this? DOes she have a record of promoting it in her 18 months as governor of Alaska?

Does it mean supporting paid maternity leave for parents and the right to nurse a baby at work or whereever one wants? (Not every woman has the ability to bring her newborn baby on the job with her.) Does Palin support that, and does she have record of having supported that in her 18 months as governor of Alaska?

Does "supporting working mothers" mean, excusing them from their duties, and accepting poor performance as "experience", not asking hard questions, and allowing them to essentially be sequestered from public inquiries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I should hope that if one had deep held religious beliefs that they would come through in any position they held. If not, it would be hypocracy. A lie the nation, their selves, and to God!

I added the boldface above to highlight what I believe is a lovely typo. We all know what hypocrisy is. This variation must mean government by hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

I posted the previous comment about hypocrites. It was actually just a spelling error, I meant "hypocrisy."

I was reacting to the previous post that stated
"I remember when the question of JFK's Catholicism came up when he was running. He reassured the American people that there would be a separation between his religious views and his responsibility to uphold the Constitution and other laws. In addition to the poor judgement exhibited so far by both McCain and Palin, I am not reassured that their --and in particular her -- religious views would not take precidence."

I do believe that it does matter what one believes and that it should come through. Our decisions should be based on our religious views. If I believe something is evil I wouldn't promote it, regardless of the state's opinion. "Is it better to please God or man?" To fail to follow your beliefs in any position is hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

I also posted the comment about "being for working mothers." (Forgive me I'm new to these forums and I don't know how to paste from previous comments) The statement was a response from the previous page on this topic that said Palin shouldn't be in public office because she has a house full of kids, especially a special needs child and a pregnant teen. This person said politics aside, this mother should not be taking on these campaign and possibly presidential duties, for the sake of mothering her children.
My response was- also politics aside- being a mother should not exclude her from running from office. Our country has working mothers in almost every field. If this poster has no problems with mothers working elsewhere, why would Palin's campaign work be such a target for criticism?
Again, the comment was 'politics aside'. I don't know Palin's activity to aide working mothers. Just commenting on the fact that she was one, and I think that's no reason to disqualify her. Doesn't make her a bad president or a bad mother. (Or a good one for that matter)

[Anonymous]

What a difference 56 days make.

I'm seriously interested in knowing the current impressions of the posters originally impressed with Sarah Palin when she was first picked. I like to think the world is rational, and I'd like to think people form their opinions based on information (and new information). Can any of the "Yeah Sarah" posters respond and say what you are feeling now?

[Anonymous]

I don't think I posted earlier on this thread, although I have posted enough on DCUM that it is possible! However, my view was and remains that my primary focus for this election is on Obama and McCain. Palin would certainly not have been on my short (or long) list for VP, but her presence on the ticket does not alter where my focus lies. To the extent her choice reflects well or ill on McCain's judgment is a valid point, but it is not the ONLY measure to be considered. McCain's position on the surge in Iraq is far more important to me, for example.

[Anonymous]

What is WRONG with you "liberals" for Palin? She spews more rhetoric than all of the politicians combined, doesn't believe in a woman's decision to choose for herself, is forcing her teenage daughter to marry, is affiliated with some ultra conservative Evangelical church, believes that dinosaurs never roamed the earth, has a husband who was part of AIP, cannot hold her own during interviews, and is proud of her colloquialisms. THAT's the type of woman you want as a role model for your daughters?

Do the REAL liberals a favor and switch parties. The Republicans need you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: THAT's the type of woman you want as a role model for your daughters?

Shee-it. If my DD turned out like Sarah Palin, I'd do some serious soul searching on what DH & I did wrong. Were we too strict? Too permissive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: THAT's the type of woman you want as a role model for your daughters?

Shee-it. If my DD turned out like Sarah Palin, I'd do some serious soul searching on what DH & I did wrong. Were we too strict? Too permissive?

Amen to that, sister! And I mean that in a "non-denominational" way!

[Anonymous]

Great quote in the Post this a.m. from former congresswoman Bella Abzug--she stated that we will know women have true equality when a mediocre woman can get as far as a mediocre man--i.e. why are women consistently held to a higher standard than men... and often by fellow women!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great quote in the Post this a.m. from former congresswoman Bella Abzug--she stated that we will know women have true equality when a mediocre woman can get as far as a mediocre man--i.e. why are women consistently held to a higher standard than men... and often by fellow women!!!

Why support mediocrity for EITHER sex? What's the point?

Women aren't necessarily held to a higher standard. But considering we've unfortunately been the underdogs for far too many years, why should we embrace an average Jane as a role model? What message do we send to young women in this country? My father always taught me to surround myself with people SMARTER than I am. That's the only way to grow and evolve.

[Anonymous]

PP, why does progress have to be measured in such absolute terms?