McCain's team hits a (baby) bump in the road
When I was out and about over the holiday weekend, people everywhere seemed to be talking about the news that Republican vice presidential nominee-in-waiting Sarah Palin's unmarried 17-year-old daughter has found herself in the "family way." Palin's camp apparently decided to break the news publicly after Internet rumblings that the Alaska governor faked her own recent pregnancy in order to cover up the pregnancy of 17-year-old Bristol, shown at left with her youngest sibling. In other words, no, she wasn't pregnant then, but guess what, she is now. The Palins say their daughter will be marrying the fella who helped put her in this predicament. Most likely, they will do OK. At least on the maternal side, the parents have money. But 17-year-olds all across the country are getting pregnant every day - hundreds a day, probably - and many of them do not have the resources to properly raise a child. You and I will pay a lot of money to do so, whether now or later, when they end up on welfare or in prison. Perhaps it would have helped some of those teenage girls to have had more information on how to prevent pregnancy. But Sarah Palin doesn't go for that sort of thing. She opposes comprehensive sex education in public schools. You just wonder whether Bristol Palin, if she had been given more information about the risks of pregnancy and disease from unprotected sex, would have taken preventive measures. Also, perhaps if she came from a less rigid home, instead of one in which the only answer to sex questions is a demand for abstinence, she might have felt comfortable telling her parents she was sexually active and asking for their help in obtaining birth-control pills. Palin's running mate, John McCain, has been evasive and vague when talking about the teen sex issue, but he has voted against teen pregnancy prevention efforts in the past. It's funny that Palin apparently expected her daughter to be a responsible person in the area of procreation when she, herself, showed poor judgment with her last pregnancy, which resulted in the birth of a Down syndrome baby a few months back. Women of her age have a much greater chance (about 1 in 40 births) of having a Down syndrome child, and the rate of other chromosomal abnormalities is also highly elevated. It's one thing for the parents to be willing to take the risk that when they're 85, they'll still be providing child care, but the handicapped child is given no choice in the matter. It just seems selfish and reckless to me, especially if you, because of your beliefs, have no intention of terminating a pregnancy, even if early testing shows a severe abnormality. A friend of mine remarked that he heard Sarah Palin say that her Down syndrome son, Trig, had taught her and her husband more than they could ever teach him. Said the friend, "I thought they were talking about a 10-year-old kid. Then I find out the kid is five months old. Gimme a break." Of course, now the McCain campaign is blasting the media for reporting on Palin's family issues, and the Palins are asking the media to respect their daughter's privacy. Perhaps Mrs. Palin should have had some respect for her daughter's privacy, since she knew damn well that all of her family's laundry would be on display once she accepted a spot on a major-party presidential ticket. Perhaps when she was asked to join McCain, the right answer would have been, "I just had a Down syndrome baby, and my 17-year-old unwed daughter is expecting. Now is just not the right time for me take this nomination, based on the needs of my family." Don't "family values" come first?
Labels: Politics
posted by Brant at
12:45 PM
124 Comments:
Thank you for saying it better than I could have. I think you hit just about every one of the main points in this whole situation... There are a number of "sub-points" that I am sure will be raised in the coming weeks... but you have laid a great foundation for conversation on this topic.
-ellipses
While I sympathize with the Palins, I think this is a great case to prove that abstinence only sex education doesn't work even in the most Christian of families -- provided that the entire Palin family actually bought into that approach to contraception.
As for the wisdom of having a baby past the age of 40, it's a personal decision, although taking the chance of inflicting that on a child for the rest of its life seems self-centered to me. I don't fault her for deciding not to abort -- again, it's personal. Who knows if the pregnancy was planned? Going out to pursue a career like VEEP while a child is still in diapers (let alone handicapped) tells me something about Palin's motivations and values, and the pregnant daughter angle adds another log to the "judgment" bonfire that some people are building next to the stake they want to tie Palin to.
More than anything, this we should finally make us realize that the possibility of finding a "superhuman" candidate who does not have some kind of skeleton hanging in a closet is virtually nihl. Clinton smoked but didn't inhale and dallied while in office. Nixon swore worse than most any longshoreman and went out of his way to complie enemies lists. Carter was too honest. Bush 1 didn't see the big picture. Gore is too boring. Bush II still colors outside the lines and thinks Cheny is a cool dude. Where are the Harry Trumans when we need 'em?
I'll bet McCain is thinking Romney looks good right now, although I hear from those who know that he really wanted Lieberman. But the way things are going, Liberman is probably a cross-dressing alkie with a Jamaican love child chained in his basement.
Most people miss the point about this sitiuation. Those who describe this pregnancy as a private matter are right. But where the conservative moment loses is in Palin's ability to talk about or debate family values. How can you preach one thing, when something else is happening in your family?
It's simply hypocritical.
The following from today's Los Angeles Times sheds some light on the vetting -- or lack therof -- that went into the Palin choice:
"One Republican strategist with close ties to the campaign described the candidate's closest supporters as "keeping their fingers crossed" in hopes that additional information does not force McCain to revisit the decision. According to this Republican, who would discuss internal campaign strategizing only on condition of anonymity, the McCain team used little more than a Google Internet search as part of a rushed effort to review Palin's potential pitfalls. Just over a week ago, Palin was not on McCain's short list of potential running mates, the Republican said."
--Brad Hundt
And this is from Salon, regarding the baby's father:
"The New York Post has the scoop on Levi Johnston, the soon-to-be-husband to the pregnant daugther of the woman who may become the next vice president of the United States of America. He loves hockey and is pretty good at it: 24 goals in 24 games last season.
On his MySpace page, Johnston boasts, "I'm a f---in' redneck" who likes to snowboard and ride dirt bikes.
"But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some s--- and just f---in' chillin' I guess."
"Ya f--- with me I'll kick [your] ass," he added.
He also claims to be "in a relationship," but states, "I don't want kids."
Levi has a bit of a potty mouth and likes to shoot stuff. Paging Dick Cheney!"
--Brad Hundt
Golly -- McCain uses "the Google, just like Bushie. I guess he figures that because the information comes through "a series of tubes" (the Internet), it can't possibly have been polluted. It's pretty bad when the NY Post has better info than the possible president.
To say poor judgement by Palin to have a down syndrome baby is disgusting by you Brant. These children deserve to live and be loved. As someone that has worked for years with children like this, I challenge you to take your callous remarks on the road. Say it to the families, say it to people.
Your anti-woman, anti-life comments are getting more boring and I am sure I will be flamed by your sidekick ellispses and buddies for saying this, but you are showing little humanity in your comments. Absolutely disgusting. No wonder you are supporting Obama.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH HER CHOOSING TO HAVE A BABY OR CHOOSING NOT TO ABORT THE CHILD WHEN SHE FOUND OUT IT WOULD BE A DOWN SYNDROME INFANT. I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH HER TAKING ON A JOB AS COMPLICATED AS CAMPAIGNING AND BEING VP WHILE THE CHILD IS ONLY 4MONTHS OLD, AND WITH HER TAKING OFF WHILE HER PREGNANT DAUGHTER IS IN NEED OF SUPPORT. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HER GENDER. I'D HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM IF IT WERE HER HUSBAND RUNNING. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ANTI-LIFE. IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH OUTING FAMILY FIRST. Yes I know the caps are on. No, I'm not Brant or one of his buddies.
Brant where is the line on terminating a baby?
First is it not the woman's choice according to your position? Or does that only apply when they act the way you want?
Second, referring to the line, 70 IQ, or maybe 65 IQ is the line of death? Where would you draw it?
Would anyone (I know the one poster say it but lets be honest) really say this about a man that was a governor? If his wife had a child with a disability, would they claim he should leave his job?
Of course not and you know that. this is blatant sexism by a group of men.
Please read carefully. Number one, I didn't say Palin shouldn't have had the baby. That's her decision. I said she was reckless and/or selfish to have another baby in her mid-40s, when the risk of birth defects is so high. I also never suggested that Down syndrome babies should be put to death or shut away in special facilities. They do, indeed, deserve all of the love and care and affection we can give them, as do all children. Finally, anyone who knows me knows I am not anti-woman. Three of the last four people we have hired on the night news desk are woman, and they are all outstanding co-workers. I support women so completely, in fact, that I staunchly defend their right to choose what to do with their own bodies, and I have frequently chastised the Catholic Church for treating women as second-class citizens. By the way, just for the record, I don't think much of Obama's running mate choice, either.
but the handicapped child is given no choice in the matter. It just seems selfish and reckless to me, especially if you, because of your beliefs, have no intention of terminating a pregnancy,
Your words Brant disagree with your past statement. You seem to imply that it was selfish because she would not abort it for being downs. Sorry but you can't have it both ways.
I was not speaking specifically of Down children in regard to that statement. There are some Down children who are mildly afflicted and function fairly well. Others don't. What I was speaking of was the severe abnormalities that I mentioned, the part you cut off from the end of the sentence you extracted. In other words, I'm talking about a horribly malformed fetus or one without a developed brain, for instance. In those cases, I would, without a doubt, be in favor of abortion, but again, that's ultimately up to the person who is carrying the fetus. If my wife and I were expecting a child, and early testing showed the fetus had Down syndrome, I would favor an abortion, but it would be my wife's call. I still stand by my belief that it is selfish and reckless for a woman in her mid-40s to bear children, whether it be the lady down the street or one of those Hollywood buffoons. Bottom line: I am pro-choice or, if it makes you happier to say it this way, pro abortion. If you've got a problem with that, well, you've got a problem with that. And that's fine.
I think something that comes into play here is Palin's (and McCain's) stance on abortion... she made a choice not to abort Trig... perhaps due to her convictions, it was never a choice to her. Her daughter made a choice (again, maybe not really) to keep her child. However, the right seems to be clamoring for this McCain/Palin ticket because they believe it could, ultimately, take that choice off the table. The right to choose in these cases is fundamentally a conservative value... you are free to make a decision for yourself that will affect the rest of your life. Just as you don't want government telling you what doctor to go to, others don't want government telling them they have to have a child. If you are against abortion, don't have one. That is freedom. However, Sarah Palin's "strength" in this matter shouldn't extend to forcing the hand of teenage girls, 40 something women, and females of whatever bent... She has family values? Great. So do I... and they are different... but my family is no worse off because of them.
-ellipses...
Brant, I must say that your comments genuinely trouble me.
Your attitude against persons with disabilities would appear to be the epitome of intolerance and discrimination. It appears that a child with Down syndrome is somehow sub-standard, and a parent who risks having a child with Down syndrome is irresponsible.
A person with Down syndorme (or any other disability) has as much right to live their life as you do. People with Down syndrome are generally happy and productive. They can live independently and make positive contributions to our society. But I guess if we decided to give the child a "choice" about being born with Down syndrome they would choose to die violently by abortion? I doubt that. I have a child with Down syndrome, and I cannot imagine life without him. He is a true delight, and yes, I have learned a lot from him, as have my other children. I cannot imagine that upwards of 80% of Down syndrome babies are killed. Is that to save the baby from a life of perceived hardship, or is it a convenience to the parent? Having a child with Down syndrome is not some horrible fate, and the chance of having such a child does not make a person selfish or reckless. Remember that while the incidents of births of children with Down Syndrome increases with the age of the mother, most children with Down syndrome are born to women younger than 35 (they have more babies). So at what age does the parent enter into selfishness and poor judgment? 20? 30? 35? 40? By the way, I am doing my best to raise my son as a happy and productive member of our community, but if I am still "providing child care" when I am 85, I will be glad to do so for my son. That is what you do for those you love.
Hitler wanted to create the perfect race, and killed those not meeting his definition. Now with the pre-natal testing technology, we can make sure we only have "perfect" babies. So who gets to decide what the perfect baby is. What if a baby will be blind? Kill it? What if a baby will have a lower IQ? Kill it? What if I only want a baby with red hair, or green eyes? I do not agree that a child's anticipated cognitive abilities (which cannot be determined by pre-natal testing) should make them eligible for extermination.
Gov. Palin's decision to accept the VP nomination is her own business. I am not sure that I would have accepted it under her circumstances, but I am not her. I will also not pretend to know her own thoughts better than she does. Hopefully if she makes it to VP she will help defend those who cannot defend themselves.
I find it troubling that someone would still have this type of archaic bias. You often speak of tolerance in your blog, and you are quick to point out what you perceive to be intolerance in others. And then you attack the value of disabled people, even going so far as to say you would probably abort them.
For as much pride as you take in "chastising" the Catholic Church for treating women as second-class citizens, I would encourage you to learn the true teachings of the church. The church is pro-woman. It is also pro-baby, and pro-coginitively disabled, and so on. All human life is considered sacred by the church. My son with Down syndrome has as much worth and value as you or I. Please learn more about the whole teachings of the church. It makes taking certain pieces out of context to fit a specific agenda much more difficult.
Read your comments carefully, and see how your attitude towards the disabled is presented.
Please contact the National Down Syndrome Society, the National Down Syndrome Congress, the ARC of Washington or the Down Syndrome Clinic at Children's Hospital in Pittsburgh for more information to clear up your misconceptions about Down syndrome. People "have" Down syndrome. They do not "suffer" from it, nor are the "afflicted" by it. They love and are loved just as much as any other child, and they are not the curse you make them out to be.
I hope that someday your heart will change and you can appreciate those who are different than you.
Dave Lyle
Very well said, Dave. I don't agree with everyone you say, and I think you misunderstand me in some ways, but I do appreciate your input. It provides us all with another, valuable perspective.
I think I'm going to call Dave out on his belief that the Catholic Church is pro-woman. How many women are in leadership roles in the Catholic church? None.
How much say do women have in determining Catholic doctorine or the teachings of the church? None. Because they can't be ordained, their opinions hold no weight.
Women who attempt to become priests are belittled and shunned. That's a pro-women stance?
It's not just the Catholic church but nearly every religious affiliation that deems women as second-class citizens and provides opportunities for only subservant roles in their churches.
God created all men equal. The Catholic church and others take that saying in the literal sense.
I never thought I'd agree with Republicans, but I have to say that I do agree with Dana Perrino, who said that all the questions about Palin's ability to do the Veep job while still being a mother would not be raised if she were male. This applies not only to politics but to life in general. I wonder if they were saying this about Palin before she got the Veep nod?
On another subject, it's not only the Catholic church that relegates women to secondary roles. The Catholic church (and maybe others) cites Biblical precedent, but it's clearly a reflection of societies that were and still are patriarchal. Several religions or styles of worship prohibit men and women from worshiping together. At least one I know of says that men and women can't worship together because it may lead to sex. It also claims that id coed worship is allowed, women may "pick up the spiritual dirt" that is cleansed from men during worship. Apparently they believe that men are immune to picking up the spiritual dirt of women. If that's not sexism in relgion, I don't know what is.
One real question that can probably never be answered is, is it worse to abort or to have a child that will be forced to live in squalor or never have any real opportunity to advance simply because its parent(s) don't have the means, skills or interest to raise it. I know adoption offers an alternative to abortion, but I believe that we need to do more to prevent pregnancy while still offering counseling to those who do not want a child but who, for whatever reason, either become pregnant by choice or by accident.
I don't believe goverment has the right to tell a woman she cannot have an abortion any more than it has the right to tell a woman she cannot use birth control or a man that he cannot (or has to) wear a condom. That's where religion and personal choice (and responsibility) come in. True, in matters of sex it is often impossible for even the most devout to resist, and not only for young, unmarried women like Palin's daughter.
Some right-to-lifers will argue that we have no right to "interfere with the will of God." Well -- I'm nearsighted. Should I not wear glasses? If I lose my hearing, should I refuse hearing aids? If I catch a cold, should I refuse medication? If I see a person about to step in front of a bus, should I stand by, figuring that God intended that person to die? Or should I rush to their aid, trusting that maybe God wants us both to die, or to survive? Or did God want me to try to save the person, without success?
In most popular religions, God supposedly gave us a set of rules that are to be adhered to , although some say that, for example, the Ten Commandments-- rather than being carved in stone (OK ... they were) -- are simply a list that shows you how impossibly hard it is to live a perfect life. God gave us guidelines. But he also gave us free will.
Living life well requires more than making the right decisions all the time. It's all about how we recover from making the wrong ones.
As far as I can recall, there's nothing in the Bible that explicitly bans priests from marrying or women from serving as priests. It's all just interpretation by ... you guessed it, men.
It's funny to me that someone like George W. Bush is so pro-life and yet on the other hand had the highest execution rate of any governor in American history. Alot of pro-lifers are also pro-death penalty. And the majority of pro-choice people are anti-death penalty. Interesting.
I support abortion rights, executions and assisted suicide. It's the Death Trifecta.
I often question why so many support the rights of the unborn but then disappear and fail to puch for enforcing the rights of the born child -- like healthcare and equal opportunity education.
The way I understand the "Biblical precedent" for not having women as priests is, Jesus had no female apostles. That is, as far as we know -- again, the New Testament as we know it was edited and its contents decided by men. If you've read "The Gnostic Gospels," you'll know the Gospel of Mary (no one is agreed as to which Mary it refers to), which portrays her as a powerful, activist female. Easy to see why the men in charge had a problem with that.
Religion and faith are meant to be something so very positive and yet they are the root of war, violence and intolerance. Interesting. I'm getting pretty deep today.
What has always galled my about the Catholic Church is their discrimination of women. How can they teach that all are created equal, except for those of us born without a penis.
To address another point, I believe there is no hypocrisy in being pro life and in favor of the death penalty. Babies are born innocent and should be protected. A society has the right to rid itself of its predators.
To make that connection between abortion and the death penalty, could we not also say that if you are pro-life, then hospitals should be required to place anyone at death's door on a respirator to keep them from the medical definition of death?
McCain's team has now issued a statement that "this nonsense is over." In other words, no one is allowed to look any further into his running mate's background. Got that?!? Just listen to her carefully crafted speech tonight and watch her carefully choreographed press availabilities. It will be interesting to see how soon they will allow her to do a one-on-one interview with a real, independent journalist who might ask some tough questions. She might do well. She might not. We just don't know enough about this person's intellect, abilities and grasp of domestic and foreign affairs issues. The fact that her husband got a DUI 20 years ago is the biggest non-issue ever. But the fact that there are some inconsistencies in her claims to be a reformer are certainly fair game.
If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an
abortion?
It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts.
Here are the facts about the three candidates. Who would you vote for?
Candidate A.
Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologist. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.
Candidate B.
He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in
college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.
Candidate C
He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.
Which of these candidates would be our choice?
Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Candidate B is Winston Churchill.
Candidate C is Adolf Hitler.
And, by the way, on your answer to the abortion question:
If you said YES, you just killed Beethoven.
Pretty interesting isn't it? Makes a person think before judging someone.
Never be afraid to try something new.
Remember:
Amateurs...built the ark.
Professionals...built the Titanic
And Finally, can you imagine wor king for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:
* 29 have been accused of spousal abuse
* 7 have been arrested for fraud
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks
* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
* 3 have done time for assault
* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year...
Can you guess which organization this is?
It's the 535 members of the United States Congress.
The same group that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.
Wow... and this one time, I got an email from a guy at work that had been forwarded about a half a million times before that... and I went ahead and copied it an pasted it on a blog :-)
Sarah Palin is what we get when we insist we want a "regular guy (gal)" in office... I don't want a regular guy... I want an elitist ivy-league intellectual who can give a killer speech.
Beer is fine for a barbecue, but wine is better for important occasions.
-ellipses... aka Chad Ocho Cinco
That's pretty entertaining, but it would be nice if it were factual. Hitler couldn't have cheated on his wife. He was never married and just might've been homosexual. The stuff about Beethoven's mother? Not true. Also, Beethoven was the second of his parents' children, and there's no evidence anyone in the family suffered the afflictions you mention. Those numbers about members of Congress are old and bogus. That old chestnut resurfaces from time to time, and it's full of vague and unsubstantiated crap. Don't you think it would be a major national news story if one of every six or seven members of Congress was up on DUI charges in the last year? And finally, do you really believe that ark story?
I think McCain, with his Palin pick, went for the "wow" factor over substance. He could have chosen Sen. Olympia Snowe or a similarly accomplished Republican woman, but Snowe and those like her aren't far enough on the right-wing fringe. McCain decided to shovel some red meat in the direction of the NRA and evangelical wings of the party.
I haven't ventured down from my ivory tower in a while, but is that REALLY the "majority" of this 21st century country?
I'm a man... I like guns a bunch. But I have never considered voting for someone because they ALSO like guns...
Even when I was a big Bush cheerleader (ok, that sounds bad)... I cringed at the campus "protesters" with the signs "Sportsmen for Bush." With the PLETHORA of really good issues at play in '04, you choose your "right" to shoot a duck to identify yourself with an "issue?"
C'mon now!
-ellipses
Sounds like a bunch of SEXIST PIGS here. Most of the things you commented on are NONE of your business.
Where would we find a "real independent journalist" to interview Gov. Palin? Your independence (and that of your employer) is obviously a farce!
Anybody who watched Wednesday night's speech and still believes Palin can't carry her own water - no pun intended - is a little foolish.
And, as another stated, this whole arguement about her running for an office with a baby at home is bogus. He's right, if she were a man, nobody would say a word.
Hell, Biden went ahead and was sworn into the Senate two weeks after his wife died in a car accident that also injured his sons. And he did so at his son's hospital room.
If he were being held to the same standard as Palin, he would have stepped down immediately to be with his kids - what suddenly being a single parent and all.
But there was his son at the convention last week trumpeting the fact his dad was always there for him.
Good for Biden.
But it's not OK for Palin. At best it's hypocritical. At worst, it's sexist.
As for the abortion/death penalty issue, both parties are hypocritcal on that.
Who are the first people to stand up for those on death row, but don't mind killing babies?
On this issue, I'm a little closer to Brant. I'm anti-abortion, but it's a personal choice. I'm also a pro-death penalty person.
On abortion, I don't see anything in the constitution that could even be perceived as dealing with the issue. I think it's bad law. I think the Supreme Court was wrong to rule on it one way or the other.
I don't think the Federal Government should have anything to do with it. I certainly don't think my tax money should go to pay for it.
It should be up to the individual states. But I'm a states rights guy as well.
Some states would outlaw it. Others wouldn't. But many of the states that would outlaw it – Utah and such – don't have an abundance of abortion clinics.
Dale is it is shame that you don't write something other than sports. It is also why so many conservatives look at you as a lone wolf in the Ivory Tower.
Brant, I was horrified by your comments that Sarah Palin shouldn't have had a child because of her age and the risk that the child would have Downs.
And your assertion that a woman should consider aborting any child with a handicap and women in loving, supportive family relationships are stupid if they don't consider abortion? The mind boggles.
For all your claims of being pro-woman, it's clear you think you know better than Sarah Palin what is best for her, her son and her family, even not knowing the situation as well as she.
Obviously, she needs a man's guidance, and yours in particular, right, Brant?
Don't mince words. When you say it is selfish she had a baby at that age, you are clearly implying women of that age should not become pregnant because of the risk of genetic defects.
Accidental pregnancies happen, at all ages and with and without birth control.
Maybe she chose to have another child. The details are not known to us.
Apparently, you think if she chose to have another child, she was making a "selfish" decision. So what happened to a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body?
Your own words: "It just seems selfish and reckless to me, especially if you, because of your beliefs, have no intention of terminating a pregnancy, even if early testing shows a severe abnormality."
How can you say you don't mean here that if a child is handicapped, terminating the pregnacy should be an option, SOLELY based on a handicap?
Should we do more to prevent teenage pregnancy? Absolutely.
Teens are less emotionally mature and financially prepared than an adult to have a child. Younger teens are not really emotionally ready for a sexual relationship, let alone dealing with the consequences of them.
Is absentience the answer? Not completely. We should give our children sex education and encourage them to wait until they are ready for such a relationship. If they can't or won't, then hopefully they will have the education to protect themselves.
Even better, they will have a positive enough relationship with their parents that they can talk to them and choose a prevention measure together. Sadly, this is often not the case.
We don't know what happened in the Palin household. We don't know if Bristol had access to birth control or not.
You have made some assumptions based on Sarah Palin's anti-education stance and basically accused her of being a bad mother.
Did she want this for her daughter? Undoubtedly not. Did she probably try to prevent it from happening, based on her personal belief system? Probably. Does she love her child? Yes.
Just because she doesn't share your beliefs about sex education doesn't make her a bad person or a bad mother.
It makes her human, capable of making mistakes. If you want to find a perfect human candidate, then you are about two thousand years too late.
She and her husband didn't see/wasn't able to prevent this, and now their entire family must deal with it. It doesn't make them any better or worse than you or I.
They should be lifted up, not condemned. None of us are qualified to judge anyone else, and your words sound like a harsh judgment.
Bristol Palin is seventeen, pregnant, unwed and probably scared half to death. And now the entire country is talking about her.
When the McCain campaign says "let's not talk about this," perhaps we should move the focus from Bristol Palin in particular to teenage pregnacy in general. It is an important issue that needs to discussed, but should it be done at her expense?
Lastly, the questions about whether Sarah Palin can do the job with her Downs son and pregnant daughter vying for attention? Did anyone suggest JFK step down from the presidency when his infant son died to focus on his family?
It's sexist, pure and simple. It wouldn't even be an issue if she wasn't a woman.
I never mince my words. Ask anyone who knows me. But if there's any chance you're not getting what I'm saying, let me be 100 percent clear. YES, I am saying that women in their mid-40s and older should not be having children because of the tremendously high risk of genetic defects. If they do so deliberately, I think they are being selfish and reckless. That is only my opinion, and every woman must make that decision on her own. And, YES, I have no objection whatsoever if a couple decides to abort a pregnancy in which Down syndrome has been detected through early screening. Studies show that as many as 90 percent of people who receive such a diagnosis choose abortion, so I'm hardly alone in my opinion. Again, it should be up to the individual mother to decide. If people who oppose abortion really want to reduce its prevalance, the best thing they can do is demand comprehensive sex education in our schools and make sure anyone who wants birth control - children and adults - have access to it. I would like to ask a couple of questions of those who favor a complete ban on abortion: If a 13-year-old girl is raped by her grandfather, should she have access to the morning-after pill in order to terminate a possible pregnancy? If that same girl misses the window for use of the morning-after pill, should she be allowed to obtain a traditional abortion? Is it morally wrong for anyone, teenager or adult, to use birth-control pills or IUDs or some similar means to block a pregnancy? Let's discuss.
Brant, I still disagree with you on your stance that a woman should not be able to become pregnant when they are older -- many women are choosing to have careers and become financially secure before having children, thus having them later -- because I believe a woman has a right to choose what happens to her body.
Because I do, I am not anti-abortion. I do pray for those women who choose it, not because they are wrong or evil, but because they have to make such a weighty decision. The responsibility must be staggering. I have no right to judge them. I have never been there.
Do I think that people who abort their children because they're not "designer" are making a terrible decision? Yes, but I have not been there.
I can not judge, but I am very disappointed that you have pointed at Sarah Palin and judged her for choosing to undertake the responsiblity for raising a special needs child.
Your entire blog post was very judgmental toward a woman you do not know, based on her family life.
If you had chosen to talk about the ethics investigation she's involved in, the pork projects that have been approved during her administration or her experience in governing, that would have been a lot more responsible.
Instead, you chose to attack her for being a selfish, bad mother who should be at home, taking care of her children and not campaigning for the White House.
You never addressed my questions about discussing the issue of teen pregnancy instead of pilloring Bristol Palin or the assumption that Sarah Palin can't govern and mother at the same time.
Sarah Palin isn't perfect. None of us are. She may not be the right person for the job, but let's talk about her expressed political views, her ethics and her record (or lack of it) as a public servant, not whether or not she's a good mother.
She has made mistakes, but she also is making history.
"And, by the way, on your answer to the abortion question:
If you said YES, you just killed Beethoven."
This is an argument that is quoted, verbatim, by damn near every Christian evangelical I've heard, and it was used last year in the church I used to attend by a 16-year-old who tried to pass it off as her own argument that she had compiled after voracious reading. The congregation applauded. How about some creative thinking instead of the company line?
The reality is, you don't know if you're aborting Hitler, Beethoven, Sadam Hussein, George Bush or Christ himself.
What a load of hooey.
"Sounds like a bunch of SEXIST PIGS here. Most of the things you commented on are NONE of your business."
Wrong -- Palin made it our business by running for Veep. The only valid question is, would there have been such a major upheaval if she were male. That's sexism.
No wonder Euopeans laugh at American "morals."
First, the testing for birth defects is not 100% correct. Statistics show that many women who choose to continue the pregnancy give birth to a healthy baby.
Second, as for being selfish because a woman is over 40 and may have an increased risk of giving birth to a baby with special needs... just ask ANY handicapped person if he would rather be alive or dead.
I am sad to say Brant, it is you who are selfish. Handicapped or "special needs" people have just as much of a right to exist as the rest.
I'm not a usual poster, but this blog was too much.
Actually, the top-of-the-line non-invasive test is about 90 percent accurate, and if that's not sufficient, an amniocentesis for confirmation purposes is nearly 100 percent (I believe it's 99.8 percent) on the mark. So, the truth is that a huge majority of women who have quality testing that reveals Down syndrome will, in fact, give birth to a Down's baby. The babies do not miraculously heal themselves betweeen testing and birth. But, as I've said before, it's the woman's decision whether to continue the pregnancy, and I've never suggested that handicapped children should be mistreated once they're born.
"I've never suggested that handicapped children should be mistreated once they're born."
How compassionate of you. I guess it is okay to perform the ultimate mistreatment before they are born though. That would be okay, but it is illegal after they are born. You are too kind to not suggest they not be mistreated after they are born.
It's not like you think people with disabilities are worth anything anyway.
Abortion is legal in the US. Murder isn't. Until someone defines life as starting at conception, abortion isn't murder. Again: Why so much attention paid to the unborn when so little is paid to the living? Tell me this: Is it murder to kill off Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein? If not, why was it murder for terrorists to kill Americans on 9/11.
Hey, it's a shitty choice to make... nobody is sitting around saying "I can't wait to abort a disabled baby!"
But terminating a pregnancy is not a deprivation of that child. To deprive is to take something away. With no body of experience nor any "human" experiences, they simply cease to exist. Like all the sperm in a condom that were prevented from matriculating into a being, they were simply removed from the equation. Is it difficult? I am sure it is... Would you rather not be in a position to make that choice? I am sure... but realistically, it's like visiting a cemetery... you are crying over a stone and parcel of dirt.
-ellipses
Brant, I think you better RETHINK your harsh tongue on women.
First, it isn't really anyone's business when they choose to have sex, conceive a child or give birth.
Second, AND THIS IS A BIG ONE...........Don't forget who carried you for 9 months ......Yep, it was a WOMAN!
Look ... wimmen is human, too. If humans are allowed choice, what is wrong with other humans questioning those choices? Trouble comes when some humans think that theirs is the only correct opinion. There is a school of thought that wimmen were condemned to carry babies and suffer horrible labor pains as punishment for eve's bustin' the law in Eden. Everyone down with that?
I want to thank the next-to-last anonymous poster for the valuable information about my birth. I had always been told that I was found in a basket floating among the reeds in the Nile River.
If you have always been told that you were found in a basket floating among the reeds in the Nile River, did they mention anything about the 9 months prior to your birth?
I think the post was....
Don't forget who carried you for 9 months ......Yep, it was a WOMAN!
as usual, some people find it hard to reply without ignorance and arrogrance, I imagine you'll blame that on a woman, too.
I was joking, obviously (at least it would be obvious to most people), because pointing out that a woman had carried me for nine months before my birth is pretty much the biggest "no sh!t" statement of all time. I have always been very nice to my mother, who is one of the finest people on the planet, and I am unfailingly respectful of women, especially when it comes to respecting their right to do whatever they please with their bodies.
But terminating a pregnancy is not a deprivation of that child.
You are taking away life. You are being judge jury and executioner.
BTW Ellipses some of us go to the cemetary to remember our loved ones.
Thank you Brant and Ellipses for showing us all that is wrong with your viewpoint. It has been enlightening.
Yes, and as carrier of that child, it is your choice to make.
And I am saying that going to a cemetery to remember your loved ones is ridiculous. Can you remember them at home? Can you remember them at the grocery store? How do you know to go to the cemetery if you don't remember your loved ones until you are there? What is it about cemeteries that makes you remember your loved ones? Forest Lawn is FULL of my relatives... yet, I can tell you their names, personality quirks, and anecdotes about their lives without walking through duck crap to look at a patch of grass.
-ellipses... i am glad you are enlightened
Whatever you may accuse Brant of, it certainly can't be sexism. He goes after men and women equally. But if he pointed out the lack of judgment of a male candidate who chose to run for such a high office and leave a Down Syndrome child at home with his wife, no one would be accusing Brant of sexism. Would anyone be calling that hypothetical candidate sexist because he did what so many men through the ages have done -- leave the kinds with wifey while he pursues a career?
Why are charges of sexism always directed at men? Is saying that men can't sew or cook or appreciate a romance novel sexist? Of course it is, but mention that and everyone will think you're joking. You never hear about men abused by their spouses. You seldom hear about female sexual predators. You don't often hear about women using sex as a means to gain a better job. But all these examples exist.
Look ... men for many reasons always have been in dominant positions in politics, business, religion -- you name it. It may not be fair, but it's fact. There is no biblical precedent for the exclusion of females from any walk of life, but it seems to have found its way into Christianity and into many other religions as well. But religions are, after all, merely reflections of the values we develop in our daily lives.
It's good to see that so many people feel so strongly on both sides of all the issues surrounding Palin's choice for VP because It means that not all of us were more interested in the Olympics or the start of the NFL season. What I find sorely lacking, however, is a sense of a middle ground. What happened to agreeing to disagree, to putting aside differences in opinion to find a compromise that each side can live with? Why does everything have to be black and white (or red and blue)? Have we not all lived long enough to understand that without compromise, there is no progress? That sometimes the answer dwells not on left or right, but in the center, in that large gray area that so many of us live in?
Why does the country have to go through eight years of a swing to one side, then eight years of 180-degree swing in an effort to "correct" the "problem?" One step forward, two steps back.
I'd love to agree to disagree... but if we set aside the "argument," what becomes of policy? Agreeing to disagree kinda concedes to the status quo. If we were to agree to disagree, "choice" remains policy... therefore, "life" has an incentive to keep it an issue. Sometimes, dead horses just need a good beatin'
-ellipses
If you are pro choice, then you have to believe that the THING inside a pregnant woman is nothing more than some sort of science project that has no standing in the world until birth. Because that's when life starts. You have to be in favor of partial birth abortions, aborting fetuses that have any type of genetic maladies, or aborting fetuses just because you feel like it. If you don't feel that way, then you aren't really pro choice.
Perhaps it would fit the views of most Americans if our laws protected the right to an abortion, but with some restrictions. However, neither the extreme left nor the extreme right will ever go for that, so the fight goes on. One of the previous posters is correct that it would be much more beneficial for the country as a whole if we could strive for compromise and middle ground. We once had lawmakers who were not averse to compromise, but our country now is so much more polarized, with people shifting to the right and left, and leaving a relative few in the middle who would hope to deal with both sides.
Ok... if abortion is available to someone who is raped, then it has to be available to someone who just decides they don't want it anymore. It should be available to the 13 year old girl with the touchy grandfather... so, it should also be available to the 29 year old slut who has already had 5 abortions.
You make it available for the "right" reasons and then hold your tongue when it is used for the "wrong" reasons.
Whether the fetus is a "thing" or my son is up to the perception of the parent...
And yes... it has NO standing in the world until birth.
example: If my wife were to get pregnant in November, I could not claim that child on my 2008 taxes...
-ellipses
Umm, I think I have a problem with allowing a tax deduction determine when life begins. Perhaps a different example could be found. Such as person who punches a pregnant woman in the stomach and causes the death of the "thing". Should the puncher be punished, or was it only a "thing". And then would it matter if the mother wanted the "thing" or not? If not, then no harm done?
Alright... let's say my wife gets pregnant in november of 2010... that "person" is not counted in the census.
-ellipses
It's a shame we can't count our sperm and eggs for tax-deduction purposes. I understand we have a lot of them and, after all, they represent potential humans.
Careful, your sperm might start lining up for almost-child support ...
That's a lotta checks. Might get writer's cramp.
Well you cant fault Sarah Palin for living what she believes. It's refreshing to see someone who feels so strongly about something. She demonstrates that through choosing to have her son and supporting her daughter's decision to keep her child as well. Regardless of how you feel, she is a strong woman with convictions. There aren't many people like that in Washington.
I applaud her for that! Seriously... I respect someone more who lives what they believe... my problem is that she and McCain will try to extend one of those beliefs to REQUIRE people to live according to her beliefs...
-ellipses
Washington is filled with too many people who believe strongly in things and refuse to compromise. Nothing gets done that way. I won't let your healthcare legislation pass unless you include my piece of legislation that sets aside land for a golf course in my home state. And haven't the last eight years in Iraq taught us the fallacy of sticking to beliefs?
Every presidential election year, everyone believes strongly in everything during the elections, then we all go back to frumping around for four yours, complaining about how bad things are.
yeah, ellipses, just like you want everyone to subscribe to your thoughts, opinions, and convictions, or lack thereof. You all make me sick. Why don't you sweep off you own filthy doorstep before you start talking about others.
I think you are mistaken... you can believe whatever you want... just don't go forcing me to conform to that.
-ellipses
If you're expecting me to jump on the blame Bush bandwagon, you're mistaken. I for one respect Bush's convictions. And McCain and Palin have strong values and common sense that I find important in a candidate. On the other hand, I can't tell you what Obama believes. All I know is he's the candidate of change- trying to change the greatest country in the world!
If you can't tell me what Obama believes, you should try getting your news from sources other than 104.7 and Fox News.
I respect Bush's convictions also... I just wish he would have gotten more stuff "right."
I think McCain and Palin have strong values, but I do not think they have "common sense"... well, at least not Palin. McCain is a smart guy.
We have been the greatest country in the world for quite some time now... and in that time, we have changed immensely. Are you saying that McCain will be elected president and then hide out in the Roosevelt room for 4 years? Doing nothing that might "change" this nation for fear of turning it into something that is not the US of A? Both sides are preaching change. Neither side is proposing anything that will bring this country to its knees.
Anyway, on McCain's values and whatnot... Cheney makes something like 208,000 per year as vice president... based on mccains unwavering convictions, do you think he will knock Palin's pay down to 150k?
-ellipses
i agree with anonymous..and if you are trying to tell me what mccain and palin believe, you should try geting your information from something other than cnn or any other mainstream media. obama is for change, change that has failed in other countries. its proven. obamas ideas are nothing new.. How can you say that Palin doesnt have common sense. thats the problem with you liberals.. u dont understand common sense. thats for sure. For example, i havent met anyone dem. or repub. that doesnt complain about gas prices and high taxes. Obama has actually said with his own two lips that he will raise taxes and would have rather had a more steady increase in gas prices. this is common sense people! Come on!
Stupid populism, lowering the VP salary to below what the Trinity Superindent makes. Come on, get real ellipses, quite the drama (and the blatant sexism)
I will base what I think Palin and McCain believe on what they have said... Fox news has a hard-on for Palin and CNN has a hard-on for Obama. So I'll take my information from the horses' mouths.
Why do you guys insist that I am a liberal? If you knew my position and rationale for my positions on the range of topics, I can see no other conclusion than to call me a conservative.
As far as Obama's ideas failing in other countries... please give an example of an idea and a country where that idea has failed... I will provide a counterexample of where his ideas have flourished.
Do you think that McCain will not raise taxes? How exactly do you propose we pay for our massive debts? I imagine you would say that when we lower taxes, revenues go up, right? Well why don't we lower the marginal tax rate to 1%... we should end up with a 50 trillion dollar economy and have government coffers overflowing with revenue, then...
I am voting for the person that represents things that are pertinent to me. I like McCain, but he doesn't "speak to me." Palin... well... let's just say that I have seen nothing from her that would make me vote for her if she were running for school board, let alone Vice President.
Vote for whomever you want... but try to avoid putting words in my mouth or ideas in my head... both anatomical locations are full of enough of each.
-ellipses
To the last Anon... I was referring to McCain's supposed opposition to equal pay for women... I don't know if you were being sarcastic or if that needed cleared up.
thanks,
-ellipses
well for one thing obama supports government run health care. this has been a proven failure everywhere it has been tried like Canada, Great Britain, Sweden, Germany, France. This type of health care leads to several problems.. including fatal waiting lines, broken economies, declining quality of care, and rationing. Also not to mention that even paying for this would cost us americans 2 billion dollars in additional taxes to our already rediculous list of crap. Government isnt the answer to something that government was the problem in the first place. Canadians come to our country all the time to escape from their disaster of government health care.IT just doesnt work and why would obama think it would work here. i know we have some problems with health care the way it is now, but government control, as in every aspect, isnt the answer. so even with the problems, america still has the best health care in the world. why switch to what isnt working?
And americans go to canada for their prescriptions that they cannot afford here. I would have actually pointed to all of the countries you named as success stories for socialized medicine. Truth be told, I am not sold on the idea, however, I can see which direction we are heading. Rather than resist it, I am willing to give it a go... if it doesn't work, we can always go back to a private system. Obama has said explicitly that he plans to cut failing programs to pay for new ones. So health care, according to the horse's mouth, would not be "in addition to" but "instead of"- cumbersome, useless programs.
What doctor/hospital do you use now that doesn't have a ridiculous wait for routine stuff? Hell, the "emergency" room at Washington Hospital is good for anything that is NOT an emergency... perhaps the reason for this is that the uninsured use emergency services for routine health care because they can't go to a regular doctor? I will give you one thing... socialized medicine in America is probably doomed to failure... not because it doesn't work, intrinsically, but because by the time a plan is launched, it will have so many concessions from both sides as to render it ineffective.
Don't you think that American Socialized Health Care will be the best socialized health care in the world? Who will overtake us in Health Care provision if we nationalize it?
-ellipses...
well if you admit that it will probably fail, whats the point in wasting our time and tax dollars on it? It appears that neither of us have the answer... again obama isnt offering anything new ... hes just following the crowd.
I am saying that it could work, but due to partisanship it probably won't... we should give it a go, and if it fails, go ahead and take that topic of national bickering off the table for the future... I don't know if I have the attention span to get involved with the 2016 election if its going to be all about health care still.
Nice talkin' to you Bruce... work time :-(
-ellipses
Failure of any particular form of government, health care or taxation in one country does not necessarily indicate that it will fail in others. For any idea to work, the majority of the populace must buy into the idea. That's what scares me about America- the entire country doesn't seem to buy into anything.
Many have been preaching energy conservation for almost 40 years. But until gasoline hit $4 a gallon, no one listened. Now that it's back to $3.50, I imagine we will be back motoring like hell very shortly. I'm 59 years old, and it really POs me that so many people 10 years on either side of my age seem content to live out their remaining years at the status quo and pass the burden along to their children. God forbid that the next generation takes as long to wake up as we have, or they will be in a hole so deep that the shortest way out will be to dig deeper.
Brilliant observation, anonymous...
-ellipses... wants to go back to the moon
Ellipses, from you previous post you complain that you don't appreciate people putting words in your mouth or head. I think it might be a nice change from the SHEET that is in there.
You mean, like a bedsheet? Huh?!?
He my have misspelled sheep... bahhhh
-ellipses... don't squeeze me, I'm full of sheep!
Back to the Down's Syndrome child for a moment. Why would a women go through diagnostic testing for Down's, which carries the risk of misscarriage, if she's not contemplating abortion?
Probably because she is in her 40's and knows she is at risk...
-ellipses
ok..im just gonna throw this out there. if everyone is jumping on palins case on her morals about family and whatnot, why is it that the media has COMPLETELY glazed over the fact that Barock Hussein Obama has a half brother in kenya that lives on a dollar a month! If barock thinks its so important to judge others about these issues, maybe he shouldtake a look in the mirror. But the republicans are a little more "Classy" about attacking a candidate like this. you dont see the republicans trying to find anything negative that they can about someone because they are basically cornered now. Why was it that if this is such a big deal, why didnt anyone talk about john kerrys pothead sons? hmmmm.. maybe its because its obvious that the democrats are absolutely terrified of mccain and palin and the only thing they can do is try to stir up crap which will just end up hurting them in the end.
i mean really..are the democrats really that terrified of Sarah Palin that they have to do things like this? its hilarious.. The hinges are coming off hah.. and its funny.
Brucemoose41, WAY TO GO
You speak the truth like no other.
It's true. The dems are running scared.
Are these the same "classy" Republicans who Swift-boated Kerry four years ago? Puh-leeze. The same "classy" Republicans who smeared their own guy, McCain, in South Carolina just eight years ago. The same "classy" Republicans who ran the racist Willie Horton ad against Dukakis? Obama has made it perfectly clear that a candidate's family members should be off-limits for attacks, and I haven't seen any prominent Democrats who have blasted Palin about her family issues. They might disagree with her stances on sex education, abortion and gay rights, but they haven't been calling her a bad mother because her daughter got pregnant. I'd be interested to hear of one SPECIFIC instance in which Obama, Biden or one of their close associates said anything bad about Palin's personal life. Let's own up to the fact that both Democrats and Republicans engage in untruthful politics. It's really stupid to say that one party is resorting to dirty pool but the other is above board. The Democrats and Republicans are both perfectly willing to spread misinformation and outright lies if they think it will help them get elected.
In most if not all past presidential elections one could be confident the country would survive regardless of the outcome. It truly makes me sick to think there could be a horrible scenario whereas Sarah Palin becomes leader of the Free World. Have you seen the movie “Idiocracy”?
also i would like to add..in every pole in america, mccain is up..even in the poles that support obama. and that has been for a week or so now. so obviousely the unneccesary bashing of palin does nothing. its just a desperate, immature, cornered response of the democrats to try and find dirt. which everyone knows has no effect on the republican campaign.just look at the poles.
I tend to believe the Slovaks a lot more than the Poles.
Up in the poles... 72 year old man... gotta be a viagra joke there somewhere...
-ellipses
Obama has not called Palin a bad mother. That was Brant.
well see in November Brant...
There's really no point in even looking at polls right now. Two weeks ago, Obama was up in most of the polls, and it was meaningless then. Four years ago at this time, President Bush got a big bump in the polls coming out of the GOP convention. A few days later, he and Kerry were dead even again. We have yet to even see the candidates, both presidential and vice presidential, in debates. No matter how Obama does, his staunch supporters will say he won the debates. No matter how McCain does, his steadfast backers will say he won the debates. Same with the VP debate. But the debates could be meaningful in shifting undecided voters one way or the other, and in some highly competitive states such as Virginia and Ohio, that could be the difference between defeat and victory. Ellipses has been following some non-traditional polling data. Perhaps he can share how that has looked over the past couple of weeks. But, as Bruce says, November will tell the tale.
ok..you tell me theres no point in even looking at the polls but dont tell me that you wouldnt be shoving it in my face or just plastering it on here if obama was in the lead.. u know u would. but u cant.
my money is with bruce. with all that i've read there is no doubt that mccain is the best man not to mention his sidekick is 10 x's better than Biden.
Anything is better than Mr. Barack Hussein Anti Christ Obama.
Does anyone know that sarah palin has an 80% approval rating in alaska..Thats absolutely unheard of. but the biased media are actually going to alaska and interviewing the 20% that dont approve of her and are going to make it look like she has more negative followers than positive. hilarious huh! it just gets better and better..
Palin’s 80% approval rating is from outrageous federal earmarks she’s gotten for Alaska, the same earmarks she’s railing against now.
And that 80% approval rating was before the ethics investigation. It dropped to somewhere around 67% when that began.
Obama was ahead in polls a few weeks ago... I don't recall that being rubbed in anyone's face...
I would imagine a lava lamp could get at least 50% approval in a state that can basically give its residents money at the end of the year due to the disproportionate amount of oil revenue coming in and the amount of residents that is divided by. I think it's great for alaska... and great for sarah palin, for that matter.
What's the approval rating for the governor of Wyoming and Montana?
Wyoming=81%
Montana=70%
Generally, when you are kinda remote and don't have a whole lot of people running into each other, you have a sensation that things are A-ok.
-ellipses
I consider myself an independent voter. I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats since I registered, and am only registered Democrat now because I did not want to see Hillary win the nomination. What I would love to see is more than two viable political parties, but both sides have managed to scare people into believing that voting outside of the party is going to result in gun bans, mandatory abortions, the U.S. becoming the next Soviet Union, the U.S. becoming the next Nazi Germany, etc. The reality is that none of these things will ever happen. Unfortunately, things will probably have to hit rock-bottom before anything changes because it’s easier to let someone think for you than it is to think for yourself. It's a negative view of things, but I don't have a whole lot of faith in people and the majority of comments here are only reinforcing this opinion. It's unfortunate when the only contribution you can make to a conversation is repeating verbatim what you hear on Fox News or from Keith Olberman.
I don’t think either candidate is perfect, but at the very least, most of Obama’s actions are in-line with his words. I don’t know what McCain is trying to sell anymore, but the selection of Palin stinks of pandering to Hillary supporters the Republicans think will vote for anything with a uterus, and to the evangelicals who have far too much power within the party. I don't think that McCain and Palin are the "mavericks" they claim to be, they're opportunists.
The only poll that counts will be taken Nov. 4. Until then, who cares? If you need a poll to tell you which side to favor, stay home on Nov. 4. A
Hey iceman-- do you think that God would allow the antiChrist to be black? I thought the aim of the antiChrist is to appeal to everyone. If a world leader appears that everyone thinks is great, put on your Armageddon-proof undies, pal.
lets talk about the studdering and stumbling of barock obama. now i know some may say that its understandable when you are talking to hundreds of thousands of people. but there is not excuse.you are a presidential candidate, you should be able to speak to anyone. so i believe obama is about as charismatic as a wet carrot. For instance.. even when he does his palin, bush, and mccain bashing, he cant say it without putting a studder or an um in between literally every word. tell me thats a man worthy of a candidate. well really see him fall on his face during the debates. ha.
I think it's interesting that the democratic controlled congress's approval rating is at an alltime low - 9 % in july... another fact you dont hear much about. While you constantly hear the media blasting bush for his 30% approval rating. THATS why we listen to talk radio and Fox news (who also rated at an all time high) to get our news!
That almost makes negative sense...
Because the liberal media harps on bush's 30%, you get your news from Fox?
I listen to talk radio (yes, conservative) and I do watch fox news occasionally (more or less equal between that and the "lib-news")... So between the two, I get more "information" from the conservative side... And yet... Nobody would accuse me of getting my info from fox news. That is probably because that information goes through a filter of knowledge, logic, and experience to arrive at a conclusion.
What is freakin' amazing though is how blatantly obvious it is to see which way different outlets lean. I had CNN on and they were doing basically a biography of Obama. I hit ch ^ a few times and fox news was doing a bio of McCain... it was stunning, the contrast right there. After Obama's speech, Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman were, for lack of a better word, erect... and fox was kinda "eh"... after Palin/McCain... if you watched MSNBC, you'd think McCain yelled at the audience to "git off my lawn you lil' bastards!"... and on fox news you'd think God had spoken at the RNC.
And yet, you can't really go to "alternative" news sources... because right next to the conspiracy theory of the day are ads selling tin foil hats to keep the mothership from controlling your thoughts.
I'm going to throw up now :-)
-ellipses
I see a lot of TV news, and I read a great deal, and I rarely hear any mention of President Bush's approval rating. Also, pretty much every time I see it, it's in a story about the latest poll, and it always includes the numbers for the approval rating for Congress. These are not secret numbers that are somehow unearthed through the dogged investigative skills of Rush Limbaugh and the folks at Fox News. If the incumbents in Congress are that bad, and some of them are, and they are so overwhelmingly hated by the populace, how is it that the vast majority of them win re-election over and over again? It's because while we may have a general disgust with Congress, we always seem to think our guy is OK. And so does everyone else around the country. Only when there is a major shift, such as the so-called Republican Revolution engineered by Newt Gingirch, or the more recent election when the Democrats reclaimed control of Congress, do we see a large number of incuments booted out.
ellipses you're an ass. I'm quite capable of thinking for myself as are most ppl who take the time to voice their opinions on here. One cant help but hear news from everywhere. i'm just saying my news of choice is fox. It doesnt mean 'the mothership is controlling my thoughts'!!
It was pretty clear that when Ellipses was referring to the "mothership controlling your thoughts," he was referring not to Fox News, but to alternative news sources out on the lunatic fringes of both political persuasions.
I would make an addendum to the last blog.
Add Brant to the list of asses. The 2 of them probably suffer from sleep deprevation since they both have such hard ons for themselves. Get real, you're pushin a losing ticket.
Nice take on the issues under discussion. Would you like to point out to me one example anywhere in the initial post or the 110 comments since where either Ellipses and I were "pushing a ticket." Good luck, because there aren't any. If you have a real point, anything remotely interesting to add to the discussion, please feel free to start anytime.
Just to confirm...
The mothership reference WAS referring to "alternative" news sources... Those websites that host the Loose Change videos and the "Barack Obama is a Muslim" arguments.
Also, though I do support Obama, my main driver is to contribute to logical discourse on issues. If supporting Obama is "pushing a ticket" so be it... but you won't here me saying that McCain is a war mongering nazi. That's not how I roll.
thanks,
-ellipses
I did.
Can you spell.........
C-0-M-P-R-E-H-E-N-D ??
Guess not, since you are CLUELESS.
"here" = hear (read)
-ellipses... sorry
Please help me, Iceman, and spell out clearly and slowly where you think I was pushing a ticket. Sixth-grade-level insults don't count as intelligent discourse.
Jeez, i just read the thing about my "non-traditional" polling data... right now, I have Obama at 40% and McCain at 26%... Before the conventions, I think it was obama 43, mccain 23... The intab has increased about 25% since the Repub con and the pre-convention data is static and stays in the results. Therefore, mccain has gotten a rather substantial boost since the convention. I am still on target to have cross tabbed data on who is answering the question one way or the other before the election, so i will let yinz know.
-ellipses
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We now have a Judge on blogs. His name is Brant. He is the Judge and Jury -- so make sure you comments and your 1st admendment rights fit his narrow-minded viewpoints and opinions.
Everyone give Your Royal Highness a big round of applause to make his errection bigger.
(Clap Clap)
That little cracker of a post could use some cheese and pepperoni... in the form of an example, perhaps. I feel guilty for hunkering down on Brant's side so often (I do disagree with him on occasion), but I find his opinions at least well conceived and well executed. Your "side" in this argument could very effectively argue in favor of McCain/Palin, but instead of making a positive endorsement, you guys act cornered and aggressive. Why don't we start this debate over and use different tactics? State the case for McCain/Palin without mentioning the opposition. Throw out all of the positives and we'll see where the debate goes on that front...
-ellipses... impressed by 118 comments on brant's blog
Actually, Iceman, you've provided nothing for anybody to judge. I've been waiting for you to make a point ... and waiting ... and waiting. What's with all the anger? Most people on this blog can make an argument without resorting to childish insults. Are you capable of that? I fully expect people to disagree with me. In fact, I encourage it, because that keeps the discussions going. I'd love to stick around and have a battle of wits with you, but I follow the law of the Old West. I never fight an unarmed man.
It is his blog, Iceman. I would suggest if you want to hammer your own points home, you start one of your own. Man has this topic really gotten off, well, topic.
I think I'd shut this one down Brant, it seems to have run its course.
Dale, I think you're right. I'm just going to ignore it and let the people who have no points to make and have no interest in a reasoned debate do their politicking. You and I have different opinions on a lot of issues, but at least we can discuss them rationally and never resort to name-calling. Fresh stuff coming later today (provided I get the mowing done).
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, another smoke-blower.......you never cease to amaze us.
“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.”
I believe Iceman is suffering from ED
Ego Deflation --the process of discovering that people have opinions other than yours.
If this lasts longer than four hours, call your health care professional.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home