Sarah Palin to be John McCain's running mate - A Mom in the White House?

Linda,

Why do I doubt that you were ever actually sincerely considering voting for McCain?

Executive positions are usually considered a better training ground for VP or Presidential candidates. & Part of the reason for the so called "divisiveness" you refer to is the fact that she was largely responsible for purging corruption in her own party as well as the AK state government as a whole.

As far as whether or not she attempted to get anyone fired, it is pure speculation at this point, but I will say that even if it were true, why assume it was not for legitimate reasons.

If you are a Liberal, fine. I can understand you not voting for McCain. Otherwise, citizens usually do not predicate their vote on a VP selection.

Winston

Linda,

I'm dying to know, based on your logic, what makes Obama qualified to be President then?

"Hope" and "change" aren't really great resume builders.

Besides, never trust anyone that hails from Chicago's political scene in the last 20 years.

Well Cassandra,

If that is the case, it is a good thing for the pro-choice proponents of today that you weren't involved in the judicial process which decided favorably for their cause in its inception. If you were, Roe vs. Wade would have never passed.

I don't know if you have researched Roe vs. Wade extensively or not, but the decision was predicated on the verdict that a fetus was not a living human being. Even the pro-choice Supreme Court justices based their ruling on the supposition that if a fetus was found to be a living human being, then abortion would be the equivalent to murder.

Although perhaps our level of enlightenment has reached such new heights now that we recognize that a fetus is a living human being, but that it really doesn't matter, & that you are entirely correct in stating that a women's right to choose supersedes a human's right to live.

Maybe that is why Barak Obama was the only Illinois legislator who voted to terminate the life of a child who survived an attempted abortion in perfect health, even after he passed through the birth canal after the third trimester, & more & more pro-choice advocates are favoring partial birth abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy.

Any ambiguity makes choice fair game now, and as time goes by, an increasingly larger number of people are beginning to think just like you. You are in good company, & your strength in numbers helps justify your cause. It is great for the cause of women's rights to know that people of all walks of live can choose to terminate a life willingly & with confidence in knowing that they have done nothing wrong.

Winston

Yes, it *is* great that women can have sovereignty over their bodies and make their own moral decisions, isn't it?

Also, my comments reflect my personal opinions—I am a civilian, not a judge or a lawmaker.

It is just so wonderful. There is a new sense of empowerment when women don’t need to hide behind the lie that a fetus is not a living human being and still be in favor of a women’s right to choose whether or not to kill their baby in the womb.

By the way, civilians are the only ones who can be appointed or elected to the Civil Judiciary or Legislature. Otherwise it would be considered a military tribunal with a totally separate set of legal standards.

Just so I can understand more of where you are coming from, is the primary justification for the right to abort children in the womb more due to the fact that a fetus is a human life, as you have acknowledged, yet just not viable? Or is it based more on the premise that it is women who are the ones making the choice, regardless of the viability of the child?

Would you still favor a women’s right to choose to kill her child while in the womb if we discovered that they are viable in that stage? Or what if, with all the wonders of modern technology we discovered that men or even transgender citizens could somehow get pregnant, but also decide to abort their child while still in their stomachs? Homosexuals are actually desiring a medical breakthrough to achieve just that.

If you’re primary consideration is for women’s rights, even over the right for a human being to live, would you still favor those individuals’ rights to kill their children in their bodies even though they are not women? If you would, wouldn’t it be more apropos to say that you are not so much in favor of women’s rights specifically as much as you are
human rights, in as much as they pertain to the right of the human race to terminate children while still in the body?

Do you favor gender specific rights as they pertain to women more than you would rights in general for the human populous? Are women’s rights more important to you than the rights of any one else?

Is it because women own their bodies that you think their right to choose to kill their babies while still in the womb is pertinent? What if a woman tried to abort her baby in her house, yet that slippery rascal passed through the birth canal alive and unscathed? Should she still have the right to kill her baby in her house seeing as how she owns her house just as much as she does her body? Or would her right to choose be mitigated in those conditions?

What if a woman wanted to abort her child in the third trimester, or even the ninth month? Should she have the right to do it? & if not why? How about if the women’s life would be in danger if she actually had an abortion while her child was still in the womb, yet she still wanted to kill it anyway? Would a partial birth abortion suffice from your perspective? Should a women’s right to partial birth abortion differ from a standard abortion? And why, one way or another?

It is wonderful to be free & to be able to decide what is moral and what isn’t. You have the right, not necessarily legally, to cheat on your husband & him on you? How about for your kids to use drugs? Those dastardly moral laws, whether recognized in the civil legal arena or not, have really done much to hamper our happiness, but being able to do whatever we choose would make life all worth while.

I don't view a fetus as a viable human--a rudimentary form of life, yes, but not as viable as a fully-formed adult, with a fully-formed life and a fully-formed range of senses, emotions, etc. The bottom line, for me, is this: I believe a woman has the right to control what does and does not happen within her own body. Period. Looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. And I say "women" simply because they are the part of the population this issue impacts, in the most immediate sense, primarily, at least at this point in time.

The majority of the women who get abortions actually have the audacity to admit that they suffer from the mistaken notion that they have just killed their child & carry the associated pain with them for the rest of their lives.

Those damn 3d ultrasound machines don't make things any better when, coupled with all the recent research showing that fetuses are capable of not only self-sustained life as well as all the human faculties & feelings associated with their already born counterparts at an earlier stage than previously thought possible, these machines show way too much dimension of the intricacies of the child in the womb.

These poor women either become extremely bitter & ardent supporters of abortion rights to justify their actions, or recognize it was wrong & turn to God to deal with their conscience. No matter who tries to appease their conscience, nothing makes a difference, except in the circumstances of those weak-minded women who turn to God in repentance & fall into the delusion that they have been forgiven. For what, I ask? Who needs to be forgiven when they have done nothing wrong?

Of course we know who is in the right. The women who become bitter & ardent supporter of abortion rights. They have the guts to not only face down those fanatics who actually prioritize the life of a human being over a women's right to choose, but also face down their own human conscience. That takes some serious guts. As Vladimir Lenin once said, "conscience can be an enemy of the progress of the human race, & must be repressed by any means possible in order for us to accomplish our end.”

Cassandra,
Please tell my beautiful baby boy who was born during my second trimester that you" don't view a fetus as a viable human--a rudimentary form of life, yes, but not as viable as a fully-formed adult". He is now 4 yrs old and just as lively and mischeiveous as any other 4 yr old boy. He torments his big sister, he plays obsessively with his trains, and he has the most wonderful laugh that just makes everyone around him smile. Yet, at 25 weeks, when he had to be born, he was still considered a fetus. Should he not be enriching our lives today because he's not worthy?

I know that's not what you were trying to say. But when I hear someone say that a fetus is not a living being, or doesn't have rights, or whatever pro-abortion people say, it hurts my heart and makes me cling to my little precious boy a little tighter. It makes me sad for all the fetuses (feti?) who never stood a chance.

Oh my. Agree to disagree we shall! For me, being pro-choice doesn't mean I think abortion is always an uncomplicated issue. Of course it isn't, and that is why it is imperative women have the space and the right to make their own moral choices freely, without coercion from one side or the other. Like with any major life decision, some will be regretted and some we will be grateful for. I have seen many sides of the issue, and encountered both women who regretted their abortions and those who felt it saved their life. The point is: women deserve the chance to chose what happens inside their bodies for themselves.

At the end of the day, I am unlikely to be dissuaded by anti-choice rhetoric, just as you are unlikely to be swayed by my pro-choice idealology. So this seems like a good time to, once again, agree to disagree.

Michelle, it warms my heart to hear how wanted and loved your son is. It was certainly not my intention to disparage him in any way

I am not blind or oblivious to what is going on in politics and I am very clear minded which is exactly why I am voting republican! By the way, Palin has the most executive experience than anyone else on either ticket. Lets not do where are the republican values one, John Edwards cheating on his sick wife, thats vaules, or Bill Clinton having oral sex in the White House, oh the republicans have alot to live up to, NOT!

so are you saying i am not clear minded?? why dont you step in my shoes and see how well you can live pay check to pay check wondering were your next meal is comeing from or how your going to heat your house this winter..I AM CLEAR MINDED TOO and since the repulicans are only for the rich in american and doesnt give a sweet "F" about the working class poor like myself who i might add pays more in taxes percentage wise with thier income level then anyone else in america...Fact....soo dont even try to say i am not clear minded ..please inform me what they are going to do for me>??? I would love to hear it cuz i havent heard anything yet...

amen...you hit it right on the button..she wants more drilling for the oil stock holders that are in the pockets of the repulican party..good for you about her daughter very well said...but she wouldnt have put her on the pill...they dont believe in giving the pill to teenage kids..through rudys speech all i heard (other than blah blah blah)was drill more..ya more money for the oil cronies ...love your comment thanks

Traci,

On Sara Palin's experience, do you know the difference between the Executive & Legislative branches on either the State or Federal level?

Generally, it is recognized that Governors would make a better choice than Congressman & Senators due to similarities in job description between Governorship & the President of the United States, except on a smaller scale.

The daily routines of a Governor vastly resembles more of what the President would do on a daily bases with regard to decision making, serving as Commander and Chief of the state's National Guard, economic & emergency relief decisions, setting the overall agenda & tone of the public service environment, weeding our corruption, etc.

In other words, serving as a state Governor for just a few weeks or months would provide substantially more experience similar to the Presidential Office than serving in the Legislature for many terms, unless certain Legislature Positions on various committees due to seniority have provided a Senator or Congressman with some experience in specifically those areas.

Alaska borders Russia, & contains among the highest levels of natural gas & oil deposits of any state in the nation. Governor Palin has done more to tap into those resources before our current fuel crisis even hit the price levels that they are, she weeded out corruption every bit as much in her party as the opposition party, managed Alaska's National Guard in the state's highest level of alert to monitor Russia's suspect military movements since the cold war, crossing over the Bearing Straight & Canadian air space.

I find it remarkable that Obama, Biden & even McCain has less Executive experience than Palin, & you are over simplifying her as having the least experience.

You have bought into the total untruth that the Republican Party is not for the working class & that the rich is comprised almost entirely of Republicans who pay less taxes than anyone else. You also seem to believe that the Democratic agenda would help our economy.

This is stereotype personified. In reality, the opposite is true. First, the higher the income bracket, the higher the percentage of income tax paid by those who fall into that bracket. The highest 5% of wage earners pay over 80% of all the taxes. You don’t hear the actual statistics; all you hear is that “the rich need to pay their fair share.” But what does that mean? To your typical Socialist, it means that since the upper bracket of income earners can afford it, they should pay a higher percentage, but no percentage, regardless of how much they pay is enough because after all, the rich can afford it.

In addition, when the rich prosper in an unmitigated fashion if in fact they are owners of large corporations without the government inhibiting their progress with regulation & over-taxation, the rest of the working class prosper as well. There are several elements which have been responsible for an economic downturn nationwide.

First & foremost, the attack of 9/11/2000 was, according to economic & political analysts, supposed to cause a nationwide depression, & it was supposed to happen relatively soon after the catastrophe itself, most likely within a year. On a side bar, we were also supposed to have endured another catastrophic attack on US soil soon after that event as well. I believe that the single biggest reason for it not happening was the war in Iraq, as it successfully diverted the attention of the terrorist enemies of our country away from our turf & onto foreign soil. People have managed to oversimplify their understanding of this conflict & its purpose, & consequently more menial reasons have been assigned for our involvement.

The fact that our economy was relatively unscathed from the 9/11/2000 attack until just recently, 8 years later, is actually a remarkable testament to the fact that something had to have been done right in our government in order to alleviate the immediacy & extent of the anticipated economic depression & second terrorist attack.

The second reason for the current economic downturn is the fact that a Republican Administration & Legislature concurred with tax increases normally associated with Liberal Democratic policies, as well as increased spending on social programs. President Bush unfortunately behaved too much like a Democrat from a fiscal perspective than he should have when it comes to tax & spending increases in the social arena. Rule number one regarding economics is that higher taxes contribute to an economic slowdown, for obvious reasons. The economy is basically the movement of the free enterprise market & commerce in the way of supply & demand. Demand comes first, which is driven by the working class having enough of their own money to spend in the free market. How do they get more money? #1, by making it, which has to do with their income level compared to expenditures. #2, by keeping it, which largely has to do with how much of their income they have to pay the government in taxes.

The Republican Platform is based on 1) lower taxes, 2) less federal regulations, 3) less government social programs, whereas the Democratic Platform is based on 1) more federal regulations to monitor free enterprise, 2) more government social & redistribution programs, & 3) higher takes to pay for them. That means you have less of your money to live on, & your employer has less of his company’s prophets to share with you & even, in some cases, stay in business. Which is why many businesses are going out of business right now.

When wealthy business owners have to endure more unnecessary mandatory federal regulations as well as higher payroll taxes, higher workers comp & other mandatory expenses made necessary to own & run a business, they have less room to pay higher wages to their employees as well as other prophet sharing programs, & often could hardly make enough prophet to continue operations. That contributes to lower wages & higher unemployment rates. This is directly due to a Democratic Liberal platform which requires more regulation & tax burdens on business owners.

When economic stagnation takes place during a Republican controlled Congress, Presidency, or both, apart from unique circumstances such as the catastrophic terrorist attack on US soil targeting as economic epicenter involving substantial loss of life, it is not because Republicans were instituting Conservative policies, bur rather that they were instituting Liberal policies & playing footsies with their Liberal counterparts in Congress.

Another myth propagated by Liberal Socialists is that Republicans are always the wealthiest 1-5% in America, and are almost always the owners & CEOs of large corporations. This is simply not true. As a matter of fact, many or most of the big businesses in America & the world are owned & run by Liberal Democrats.

Some examples large corporations owned &/or operated by Democrats are:

Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Costco, GE, Ford, ABC, NBC, CBS, Disney & a host of other major corporation. In addition, the Entertainment industry is practically monopolized by Liberal Democrat actors, actresses, producers, directors & business executives.

Liberally instituted federal regulations & tax & fiscal burdens have caused many businesses to go over seas just to keep their overhead down, prophets high enough to keep their doors open & stay in business.

Ironically, you probably think that Liberal policies giving you certain handouts is what is necessary to keep your family afloat. Yet, it is those very social programs & government handouts & mandatory compensation plans which need to be paid for through a higher tax burden on the working class, which is the very cause for a poor economy’s effect on your personal fiscal condition.

Winston