Republicans only: What do you like about her?

[Anonymous]

And should she be President? Could she be President?
What don't you like about her?

[Anonymous]

It's a trap, their not biting (this is a reference to fishing BTW)

[Anonymous]

"What do you like about her?"

She's not one of you.

[Anonymous]

Well-said, PP.

[Anonymous]

She has executive experience; she's a fighter; she's proud; she's tough; she's a she. And I'm socially moderate.

[Anonymous]

I like the way she challenges all of our expectations about what a vice-presidential candidate should look and sound like. Obama is looking and sounding a lot like the rest of Washington right about now.

[Anonymous]

So you're a social moderate that is going to vote for an abstinence-education-only, pro-life, "the Iraq war is god's mission" candidate who makes up part of a ticket that could appoint supreme court justices who could tip the balance and create a court that could eventually decide that gay people should not be protected by the Equal Protection clause of the constitution.

How does that work?

If you're voting for her principally because she is a woman, I beg you, please take a moment and think about who she is and what she would represent as VP not as a female VP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you're a social moderate that is going to vote for an abstinence-education-only, pro-life, "the Iraq war is god's mission" candidate who makes up part of a ticket that could appoint supreme court justices who could tip the balance and create a court that could eventually decide that gay people should not be protected by the Equal Protection clause of the constitution.

How does that work?

If you're voting for her principally because she is a woman, I beg you, please take a moment and think about who she is and what she would represent as VP not as a female VP.

I believe she supports gay rights and has the same position as Obama. Republicans have held the White House for, um, 20 of the past 28 years, and my rights have not been taken away. It's a dead issue and Obama should stop wasting his money on that lame radio add. Talk about the politics of fear.

[Anonymous]

It doesn't matter what her position regarding gay rights is, it matters what party she belongs to. A Republican president is much more likely to nominate justices that will not expand the scope of the EP clause to cover gay people. All it takes is one more conservative judge, and JP Stevens is an old guy who may not last another term.

Saying that it is a dead issue is insulting to all people who believe in equal rights for all Americans, in particular in light of recent state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

[Anonymous]

I believe she supports gay rights and has the same position as Obama. Republicans have held the White House for, um, 20 of the past 28 years, and my rights have not been taken away. It's a dead issue and Obama should stop wasting his money on that lame radio add. Talk about the politics of fear.

here is the human rights committee explanation of actions Palin has taken regarding gay rights.
http://www.hrc.org/11140.htm

[Anonymous]

She is not a supporter of gay rights.


here is the human rights committee explanation of actions Palin has taken regarding gay rights.

http://www.hrc.org/11140.htm

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I believe she supports gay rights and has the same position as Obama. Republicans have held the White House for, um, 20 of the past 28 years, and my rights have not been taken away. It's a dead issue and Obama should stop wasting his money on that lame radio add. Talk about the politics of fear.

Palin is in no way a supporter of gay rights. This is one more element of the myth spun at the time she was picked. The issues is complex, but goes like this:

1) The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees;
2) The Alaskan legislature passed a law that basically overturned the Court ruling (though that's not technically possible);
3) Advised that the legislation was unconstitutional, Palin vetoed it.

If history stopped right there, Palin might have a claim to be supportive of gay rights. But, history didn't stop.

4) Palin supported a state-wide vote to ban benefits to gay partners.
5) Palin has frequently stated that her veto mentioned in (3) was due to the legal opinion that it was unconstitutional, and that she disagreed with the Court's ruling.

When asked, "Do you support the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling that spousal benefits for state employees should be given to same-sex couples? Why or why not?", Palin answered, "No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution."

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:Lh8LX8KyM6sJ:eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html+sarah+palin+eagle+forum&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter what her position regarding gay rights is, it matters what party she belongs to. A Republican president is much more likely to nominate justices that will not expand the scope of the EP clause to cover gay people. All it takes is one more conservative judge, and JP Stevens is an old guy who may not last another term.

Saying that it is a dead issue is insulting to all people who believe in equal rights for all Americans, in particular in light of recent state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

I'm sorry, I meant the abortion ad he's been running in this media market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She is not a supporter of gay rights.


here is the human rights committee explanation of actions Palin has taken regarding gay rights.

http://www.hrc.org/11140.htm

One of those examples where partial information can be misleading. I believed, and have written elsewhere on this board, that she was moderate because she vetoed an anti-gay bill. But it turns out she was actually in favor of it, but vetoed it because it had already been declared unconstitutional, and then she supported an attempt to change the constitution to achieve the anti-gay goal. Like the bridge to nowhere, it appears you have to be sure to look at the entire record to judge her.

That is not to say that the true judgment won't make her even more attractive to some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She has executive experience;

She has 1.5 years of governing the 47th smallest state in population. I think one of the burroughs in NYC has more people than the state of Alaska.