Palin on Death Penalty, Abortion, War in Iraq

Here's more of the repsonses Sarah Palin provided the Anchorage Daily News in October, 2006 when running for Governor (Anchorage Daily News, October 22, 2006, via Lexis.com):

8. Would you introduce - or, if introduced by a legislator, would you support - a bill to adopt the death penalty in Alaska? If yes, which crimes should it apply to?

If the Legislature were to pass a bill that established a death penalty on adults who murder children, I would sign it.

6. If Roe v. Wade were overturned and states could once again prohibit abortion, in your view, to what extent should abortion be prohibited in Alaska?

Under this hypothetical scenario, it would not be up to the governor to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values.


7. Do you support or oppose the use of public funds for abortion (e.g., paying for abortion, promoting abortion, subsidizing organizations that provide or refer for abortion)?

I oppose the use of public funds for elective abortions.

13. This year saw the biggest wartime call-up of Alaska National Guard troops ever. Combined with deployments of active-duty forces, thousands of Alaskans are now serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere overseas. What's your view of the Iraq war, and do you support President Bush's "war on terror"?

I support President Bush's efforts to stop terrorism by taking the fight to the terrorists. In the Iraq war, I would like to see the president develop an exit strategy to get our troops home.

11. Do you support an increase in state-funded, faith-based initiatives?

We see an adequate level of funding for faith-based initiatives today.

24. The state has seen big growth of minority and immigrant populations, specifically Latinos, Southeast Asians, Asians and Pacific Islanders. What sort of outreach has your campaign done in these communities, and what have you learned about what these communities' specific needs?

I have reached out to all these communities and asked them to identify their needs. Their response has been for more vocational training, senior assistance, ending gang violence, and more state outreach and communication with their communities. One of the key components of my internal campaign is a diversity task force. I turn to them often.

As background, she provided this to the paper:

Education: Wasilla High School, 1982 graduate; University of Idaho, B.S. degree, journalism, 1987

Previous public offices held (include dates) and offices run for: Former mayor of Wasilla, Wasilla City Council, president of Alaska Conference of Mayors, Alaska Municipal League, Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, former chair of Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2002 candidate for lieutenant governor.

< Palin on Pot Policy | Sarah Palin's Judicial Appointments >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    More nuanced than I would have thought (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:28:09 PM EST
    Alternatively, you could view some of them as evasive.  

    and ... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Monda on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:32:31 PM EST
    Forget the left, and the extreme right.

    How her views resonate with the middle, moderate Americans?  (Assuming she sticks to this kind of responses.)  


    Definitely evasive which is why Dems (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:35:52 PM EST
    shouldn't be so cocky about that VP debate. I think she's smarter than Dan Quayle. Her problem on the Iraq question is she will have to defend McCain's refusal to accept Obama's, America's, and now BUSH's "timeline/timehorizon". People aren't gonna ultimately for the VP moreso than the #1 and her/his decisions. If anything, her statement UNDERCUTS McCain.

    Couple of things (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:39:42 PM EST
    These appear to be written responses, so they don't tell you too much about how she will do in a debate.  Biden has done a ton of them this year, and that is a great advantage.  

    Second, this is not a high bar:  " I think she's smarter than Dan Quayle."

    Still, I agree that the Dems need to be careful about dealing with her candidacy.


    She was a superstar (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:41:49 PM EST
    of her college debate team and will probably not implode as so many seem to want.

    Had not heard that (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:53:00 PM EST
    That is a big plus

    Biden MUST tread carefully and attack (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:53:08 PM EST
    McCain's positions. Mention HIS or BUSH's policies, and leave her ideology alone, since it's pretty much identical to the GOP. If the moderator asks a question pertaining to Mrs. Palin's policies as Gov., pivot quickly off the question and tie her ideology and policies to Bush/McCain and their GOP failures the the past 8 years. McCain is wrong, McCain is wrong, McCain is wrong... and keep pounding that fact home.

    A little humor (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:48:50 PM EST
    I would have hated to be this woman's younger sister! She would have spent her whole life hearing: Sarah did this, Sarah did that, Sarah won this Sarah won that.

    The press releases are turning her into  a cross between Donna Reed and Wonder Woman with just a dash of Susan B Anthony.

    It a shame she's on the wrong side of everything I support.


    Except for the fact that I disagree with (none / 0) (#131)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:25:19 PM EST
    a number of positions she holds, I can handle them if they are simply hers.  The Iraq position was the same as the US except that she still seems to support the war Although she does want an exit strategy.  I have known women like her and they are wonderful.  They are energetic, sincere, and by and large very honest.  I like her. Of course I loved Hillary for some of the same reasons although different styles.

    evasive a bit... (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:50:16 PM EST
    but some of them aren't...

    The RvW one is a hypothetical...and she answered it with what would actually happen. My own state set up its own abortion laws sometime after RvW was decided...just in case it should ever be overturned.

    I suspect that she's quite a bit smarter than Quayle. And I also suspect that many see her as a lightweight because she's pretty.


    I actually thought that that was (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:55:39 PM EST
    the most evasive of all.  They asked her whether she thought Alaska should ban abortion.  Rather than answer the question about what she thought should be done, she gave a non-answer.

    The answer made sense (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:59:53 PM EST
    to me.

    She's gov...not queen, so she answered it with...if that happened, the people get to say via the process.


    My answer would have been (3.00 / 0) (#47)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:02:30 PM EST
    no, I do not think that Alaska should ban abortions.  

    Mine, too, but we're Democrats. (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:10:28 PM EST
    Her views seem like standard conservative Republican to me. I'm not sure what else we expected from a McCain choice. My fear is that she can sell herself to moderate voters because she comes across as so ordinary.

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:10:08 PM EST
    But would you make it a policy? Or would you put it up for Alaskans to vote on?

    The two answers arent mutually exclusive (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:16:05 PM EST
    I would oppose/support a ban, but ultimately, it will be decided by the voters/legislature.  

    as gov... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:22:26 PM EST
    you can oppose/support legislation. But you cannot simply say "I declare that X is going to be policy."

    As I said, her answer made sense in that she pointed out what the process would be should something like RvW get over turned.

    The people get to decide rather than the governor or legislature gets to decide...


    Doesnt also preclude her (none / 0) (#88)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:48:11 PM EST
    from stating her own view.

    We will have to agree to disagree


    The question was about Alaska... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:00:05 PM EST
    whilst fishing for her POV.

    Well she did say the president needs to develop an (2.00 / 1) (#12)
    by frenly on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:41:05 PM EST
    exit strategy, and it looks like he's done that so....

    Wait a minute? (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:39:36 PM EST
    I seem to recall another candidate in this presidential race being applauded for having nuanced views that in the end were nothing more than word fog.

    Why is it fine for one and not the other? I am glad she is showing more nuance and less hard line, freaking language. It will help me make mmy decision to read her actual thoughts instead of what bobbleheads tell me she said.


    Actually, I was not criticizing her (none / 0) (#13)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:41:11 PM EST
    for her nuanced responses.  Some were beyond nuanced, they were evasive.

    It's not fine for one and not the other (none / 0) (#36)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:54:52 PM EST
    No one applauds Obama for his word fogs.  The people who applaud him don't think his word fogs are word fogs.

    Palin's answers to these questions are nuanced (and evasive).  Her actual views, on the other hand ... who knows.  Nuance isn't something that theocrats are known for, but some of them do learn how to answer questions so as not to scare people off ...

    None of this is to say there hasn't been a double standard - just that one need not have one.  


    Sheesh (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:00:59 PM EST
    She's very clearly NOT a theocrat.  She has strong personal beliefs, which are certainly not my beliefs, but a theocrat is someone who wants the church or church-derived policy to control the law.  I see no evidence of that at all, quite the contrary.

    We've gotten so used to thinking of people with strong religious views as wanting to impose them on everybody else by law that it's hard to imagine there are some who do not.  But there are, and Palin appears -- appears -- to be one of them.


    No, she's not (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:15:50 PM EST
    She is pro-life and wants to overturn Roe.....Why do you think the social conservatives love her so much...

    She was a an active campaigner for Pat Buchanan, and supports the teaching of Creationism in pubic schools.....

    She will was scheduled to speak at the Republican Convention on the issue of abortion....The Republican Platform was just modified to oppose stem-cell research, even private stem cell research.

    This reminds me of 2000.  George Bush was a different kind of Republican; he could work across the aisle with Democrats and had done so in Texas; he was a compassionate conservative.....And people believed it.  

    In 2000, Bush refused to say that he would appoint Justices to the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe but said he would appoint Justices who would not legislate from the bench....so, he made his point to pro-lifers but seemed moderate to everyone else (who weren't paying attention.)

    Palin is an ideological social conservative--that is why they like her.


    From what I understand (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:25:53 PM EST
    supports the teaching of Creationism in pubic schools.....

    that's not exactly what she has said and her actions show nothing in that direction.

    The actual quote on her stance was posted here a couple times yesterday and I've seen it in other places.


    it's not what she said... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:03:04 PM EST
    But what she did say doesn't fit well in a soundbyte that can be repeated again and again...

    your argument is circular (none / 0) (#136)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:00:32 PM EST
    theocrats often use nuanced/evasive answers to show that she must be a theocrat, because she used nuanced evasive answers.

    Word fogs -- another category: people applauding who don't care whether he's word fogging or not, they're just tagging 'nuanced' onto whatever he says.


    Savvy, IMO. (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:51:13 PM EST
    Cagey (none / 0) (#21)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:45:26 PM EST
    Every question is either answered with something pleasantly moderate sounding or in a way that pushes a hot button (e.g., death penalty answer).  Is the term "stealth candidate" still used in polite company?  

    Then look at how she has governed so (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:03:29 PM EST
    far and see if it's moderate or scary extreme right wing  ;)

    Why research Palin, when everything is (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:10:34 PM EST
    being spoonfed to them via anti-mccain bloggers?
    Everyone would benefit by researching the candidates from both sides.

    I like to research (none / 0) (#66)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:16:16 PM EST
    to see where they stand in case they get in. Had a heck of a time with some of my issues when researching Obama. I still don't know if I'll have to kick and scream and stay on top of things or not :/

    I'm trying to see if I'll get anything from McCain/Palin if they get in and what I'll need to stay on top of and how much screaming* I'll have to do.

    *screaming = emailing, calling, getting support from as many people as possible etc.


    nycstray....It is the smart thing to do! Good (none / 0) (#67)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:18:46 PM EST
    on ya.

    No chance at all that (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:03:43 PM EST
    those are her actual beliefs, right?

    Evasive is right. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by TheRealFrank on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:35:28 PM EST
    It's clear what her abortion views are, but the answer avoids stating it by citing a technicality (i.e. that the governor can't determine that alone).

    Weasel language all around.

    The spinning around her is almost desperate. Like "she knows how to deal with Big Oil". Uhm, yes, the most critical thing she's done with Big Oil is asking them to drill more and quicker. That's some ridiculous spin.

    Here's the bottom line: she's more conservative than McCain. McCain is wrong on the issues. She's even more wrong on the issues.

    I'm scared to death of what will happen if these people get to the White House. The US and the world really can't afford it. Obama is not a favorite of mine, but McCain's VP pick makes me want to go work my ass off for Obama.

    Weasel language should be easy to spot (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:49:42 PM EST
    after this last campaign for the dem nominee...

    Her abortion view (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:35:56 PM EST
    is much more nuanced than I expected. She certainly does not sound like a foaming at the mouth right winger.

    You're right. That's why Dems should (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:42:53 PM EST
    take her political act seriously. And voters should exercise some common sense and not just listen to the candidates words, but look and study votes and legislation.

    She's not (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:53:35 PM EST
    and trying to paint her as one will only backfire, IMHO.

    As far as I can tell -- and it's early yet, so more may come out -- she holds quite conservative views personally but has not had any enthusiasm for foisting them on the rest of us by law or regulation.


    Honestly? (none / 0) (#142)
    by Eleanor A on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:28:21 PM EST
    That's the only kind of GOPer I have any respect for, personally...

    So why, I am curious, (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:57:41 PM EST
    is Dobson of Focus on the Family so thrilled by her.  Living in the shadow of this complex, seeing what it has done to my city, has made me wary of any one they support.

    Seriously just asking.


    Good question (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:06:18 PM EST
    I suspect Dobson is making the same assumption a lot of folks here are, that she is or will be an advocate for forcing everybody else to abide by her religious views.

    Plus, Dobson really, really doesn't want to not be on board what's looking increasingly like a successful McCain candidacy, so Palin gives him the perfect excuse to join up without losing face.


    Dobson (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by andrys on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:57:06 PM EST
    I think he has been impressed by her constancy in her own views and in living by them, for herself at least.

    What seems to get to the conservatives is her decision to keep her baby knowing of the challenges involved that would cause most to have aborted it.   I'm not making a value judgment on either side of this one, but Dobson has.

    What bothers me is that it's been reported that she is against abortion for ANY reason, including rape and incest.

      I haven't read if this is so, but I suspect it is but also want to know how much she would want to foist this philosophy on the rest of us.


    Maybe because she has injected new (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:12:36 PM EST
    life into the mccain campaign...

    Nah Dobson (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:31:21 PM EST
    only cares about his own power which has been diminishing along with W's ratings.  Something is scary here........
    unless you live in the shadow of the monstrosity of Dobson you cannot even imagine how good these people are at quietly seeping in and turning people into Stepford voters.

    Way back in the 80s, teaching in the public schools here, I saw how they slowly but surely infiltrated our school boards, our PTA's.  It's so subtle that you don't even notice until it is too late.   Parents who worked there would challenge teachers on anything and everything...from children's stories, to Halloween parties to studying Maya Culture.   I actually had a parent scream at me that I was evil for doing Halloween art with my class.....seriously.  
    Our district by the early 90s replaced "Halloween" anything with "Harvest".  In most of the schools in the north part of the city near Focus teachers  could do Harvest parties, Harvest art.....BUT NO HALLOWEEN.  The only "dress-up' we allowed was "literary characters...."  Dobson and his crowd were able to quietly take away a piece of American culture....from many.

    By 2000 they were able to run a stealth campaign that put four people on our school board who came to town with funding of the Christian Right/anti public education people from all over the country.
    It took a recall group a few years later, teachers and retired teachers and the small group of liberals left here working our butts off to get them out of office.  It was a wake up call for many of us.  Still Dobson and the Christian Coalition and Club for Growth were still able to get the MOST RIGHT WING, most incompetent nincompoop into Congress.  He is a W rubber stamp.  Even in his reelection this year, the republican party here, including the former republican congressman, tried to get rid of him in the primary and failed. Even moderate to fiscal republicans here could not win against the Dobson machine.  Seriously these people are not to be underestimated.

    These people scare me...don't trust any of them.  And if they like someone...it scares the hell out of me.


    Sorry, but I will base my decision on (none / 0) (#85)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:45:56 PM EST
    Palin herself, not what anyone else says or implies I should do.  I think all these mega churches and/or pastors and big religious conglomerates are scary...While living in Hollywood, CA, I was approached several times a week by Scientologists...cmon just come in and do a personality test....no thank you!  

    That's fine (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:02:36 PM EST
    but the only way I KNOW any candidate is through what I read, what I hear, and from whom.  Unless I get a one on one with a candidate I have to use a variety of sources to make a judgment.

    If you think I was trying to influence, I wasn't. I am simply adding my skepticism here.  I have do have first hand experience with those supported by Dobson and Club for Growth and the Christian Coalition.
    So those experiences color my view of any candidate.
    Not asking you to agree.


    $4 million in one day online donations vs (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by bronte17 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:27:23 PM EST
    $1 million as their highest ever raised in the past.

    God and guns. And placing a wedge between women on the abortion issue. With Limbaugh playing the Down's Syndrome baby card already.


    Money (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:41:09 PM EST
    That's the main reason I(being a cynic) think the Republican's will never overturn Roe vs Wade or get their constitutional marriage ammendment. These issues are better than an ATM for them, the mega churches and NRA. No one will be anxious to kill the cash cow!

    Wow, She's doing much better than our (none / 0) (#120)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:54:57 PM EST
    VP choice.  This is not looking good, for us. :(  

    Really...? (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by EddieInCA on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:22:18 PM EST
    Can you point me to where you got this information?  I'd love to see how Biden's selection has affected fundraising for Obama.

    Any cite?



    The fact that there is no news is (none / 0) (#139)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:15:36 PM EST
    news in itself.

    You want to know the various bounce figures on Biden, Google is your friend.


    Thanks for arguing a point I didn't make.... (5.00 / 0) (#149)
    by EddieInCA on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:16:53 PM EST
    The poster I was referring to made the comment that the Palin selection had given McCain a stronger fundraising advantage than Obama. I asked, very simply, the poster to provide evidence of this.

    As you are unable to do so as well, it says enough for me.  There is no such evidence.

    As for the Biden Bounce, it's obvious that SOMETHING has given Obama a bounce, both nationally and in State polls, and pretty much EVERY electoral calculator has him pulling away at this point.


    For one thing the Dem Convention took place (none / 0) (#153)
    by andrys on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:08:41 PM EST
    and long-time attention-payers know there is usually a 15-pt bounce after a convention.  There was zero bounce after the Biden announcement.  It was said often in the news, that most of us follow daily.

      They did not announce fundraising wonders following the Biden announcement either.  However, some of us were very reassured by the announcement.  But that doesn't mean we sent a lot of contributions as might have happened if the announcement were a deal-maker.  McCain has had only passive support from Conservatives, so it was a real worry for them.  Many had said they'd stay home, finding McCain too much the 'maverick' until he needed the Republican nomination.

      Palin has made the difference for those and it would account for the spurt of contributions and now constant statements that they will vote for him after all (and, apparently, put money where their mouths are)

      Now it's $7 million since she was announced.

    The money bounce may owe to Palin's appeal with conservative donors, many of whom said privately they had planned on sitting out the campaign this year. The money comes in just under the wire -- after McCain accepts the GOP nomination Thursday, he will accept public funds and no longer be permitted to raise private money for the campaign.

    That will not, however, stop McCain and Palin from raising money for the Republican National Committee.



    The Obama campain doesn't release fundraising... (none / 0) (#159)
    by EddieInCA on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:13:44 PM EST
    ...numbers until they have to. And they have, to date, outraised everyone.

    Do you think that the Palin announcement will bring McCain's fundrasing to parity with Obama's.

    I think that's highly unlikely.

    The McCain's campaign statement reminds me of Will Bowers going on Fox to announce that his PumaPac had raised 10Million to retire Hillary's debt.  When it came time to offically file the paperwork for the quarter, we learned they had raised $50K, not $10M.  The McCain campaign can say they raised $20M on Sarah Palin's announcement, but until they actually file the paperwork, we wont' really know.

    And a long time attention payer (sic), you should know that the McCain campaign lies.  Just like Obama's, but when it comes to fundraising, I'll take my chances with Obama.


    Doobson was already going the tepid (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:22:03 PM EST
    supporter route as was one of the others. Saddleback helped McCain with these guys, Palin sweetens the deal for them. And remember, McCain was throwing out questions about a pro-choice VP selection, so there's prob some relief also.

    Whether they end up liking her in the long run, only time will tell.


    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by rdandrea on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:25:08 PM EST
    Dobson had painted himself into a corner by saying he wouldn't support, let alone vote for, McCain.  Since Dobson fancies himself to be a player, having no candidate to support was a little frustrating for him.

    Palin gives the RR an excuse to "come home."

    That's where her greatest impact will be.


    That may be why he did not choose Susan (none / 0) (#111)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:31:02 PM EST
    Collins who I thought would be a good foil for Hillary supporters.  However, several other posters suggested Palin was a choice for the GOP and indy's to shore up their base, rather than an attempt to lure Hillary supporters.

    Hillary supporters are not all the same (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by andrys on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:15:07 PM EST
    Among them were Republicans voting Dem for the first time or planning to in November (people I know) and also conservative Democrats, who are plentiful, not to mention comprise a large portion of the needed States.

      A lot of Hillary supporters are even anti-choice but liked her plans for health care and other social causes and her obvious abilities and intense interest in these.


    Is this wingnutty enough for ya? (none / 0) (#152)
    by eustiscg on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:59:48 PM EST
    From NARAL:
    Palin, a member of the anti-choice group Feminists for Life, said during her campaign for governor that she is opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. [Juneau Empire, "Abortion Draws Clear Divide in State Races," accessed 8/29/08 and Anchorage Daily News, "Governor's Race: Top contenders meet one last time to debate," 11/03/06.]

    Banning Abortion In Case of Rape (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by john horse on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:45:23 PM EST
    is moderate or nuanced?

    From Steviez314's post

    From Anchorage Daily News:

    The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant.
    Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother's life was in danger.

    Palin Opposes Abortion for Rape and Incest (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by john horse on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:35:47 PM EST
    (NARAL President Nancy) Keenan is upset because Palin also opposes abortions in very rare cases of rape or incest and she complained that "Palin is also a member of the anti-choice group Feminists for Life.

    As I said before, Palin's views are not what I would consider nuanced or moderate.  She, of course, has a right to her personal convictions but as a member of the anti-choice group Feminists for Life I have no doubts that both she and John McCain will act on their opposition to choice to overthrow Roe v Wade.  John McCain has already said he would appoint pro-life Justices to the Supreme Court to do just that.  


    NARAL (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:41:00 PM EST
    does even provide a link. I have yet to see anywhere where Gov. Palin said she would legislate anything close to that. She talked about a personal choice with an underage daughter and a hypothetical choice.

    She is pro contraception and does favor an exception for the health of the mother.

    If there are links otherwise with words coming directly from Sarah then I would love to see it.


    Here Is The Link to Palin's View on Abortion (none / 0) (#137)
    by john horse on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:05:45 PM EST
    you and PL requested.  Its from the newspaper the Juneau Empire during the gubernatorial election and it quotes Curtis Smith who was the spokesman for the Palin campaign.  

    Smith said Palin is opposed to abortion, but believes an exception should be made if the health of the mother is in danger.

    That's the only exception Palin would make, though, Smith said.

    "She doesn't make exception for rape and incest, only for health of the mother," he said.

    I think Palin's position is pretty clear. Smith was referring to all cases, not just a hypothetical case in which Palin's daughter gets pregnant.


    Palin - Special Session for Abortion Restriction (none / 0) (#148)
    by john horse on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:10:09 PM EST
    re: Seems to me Palin wants to leave well enough alone and would rather not exploit a wedge issue for political gain. That's more than I can say for some people.

    You must be referring to a different Sarah Palin.  The one that I was referring to was this one (from a pro-life website) - Alaska Gov. Palin Suggests Special Session for Failed Abortion Restriction Laws.  Does this sound like she wants to "leave well enough alone"?  

    Personally, I'm less concerned about what Palin will do than I am about McCain.  He has already announced his intention to overturn Roe v Wade.  Does that sound like he wants to "leave well enough alone" to you?


    She refused to include them in pipeline session (none / 0) (#155)
    by andrys on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:40:31 PM EST
    From the article you linked, it's worth reading between the lines too:
    After refusing to introduce two abortion restricting bills to a special session on a natural gas pipeline on Wednesday...

    She expressed "willingness" to bring the legislation to separate sessions.
    Senate President Lyda Green called on Palin to incorporate the two bills into the pipeline special session after the bills failed to pass the House.

    Palin argued that Green should have used her position to support the two bills before they died... she said she fully supports the bills (forbidding partial-birth abortions and parental consent for abortions for those under 17 yrs of age) but

    "These issues are so important they shouldn't be diluted with oil and gas deliberations," added Palin.

    Palin refused to then include these bills during a session put together for other purposes and then asked Senate leaders to examine how best to advance legislation similar to those two failed bills, suggesting instead

    the possibility of a separate session for abortion restricting legislation, provided  Green could "show a path to success."

     Notice she's saying if they want to do this, they have to work on how best to advance such legislation to the two failed bills and said they could have a separate session but they'd have to "show a path to success" first.

      In other words, she does not seem very bent on making them happen but is willing to support such bills if there is any evidence they'd be successful, meaning they'd have the support of enough people.


    Logically speaking, (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by tree on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:45:51 PM EST
    her stance is a more consistent view if one truly believes that life begins at conception and has rights at that point. This is a true pro-life viewpoint, to my way of thinking. I may not agree with it but I see it as logically based. Those who claim to be "pro-life" but make exceptions in the case of incest or rape are not really "pro-life", they are anti-sex and anti-choice. They believe that women must suffer the consequence of pregnancy if they choose to have sex, but they provide an out for those upon which sex was forced.

    Thank you for saying this. (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by FemB4dem on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:10:31 PM EST
    It is a distinction I make as well.  There is a difference between true pro-life believers, and those who just want to punish women for having sex.  There is no difference between an embryo, fetus, whatever you want to call it, caused by rape, incest or consensual sex, yet that is the stance taken by those who want a rape/incest exception, but not other exceptions.  I can admire Palin, although I disagree vehemently on choice, because she is consistent within herself.  In other words, she has integrity.

    Sounds good but I think some people (none / 0) (#156)
    by andrys on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:49:10 PM EST
    who are totally against abortion (seen as killing of new life) are just agreeing beyond their beliefs to make exceptions for those cases where one would have to live with the results of having one's child be the genetic child of a rapist and that child being a reminder everyday of violence forced upon you.

    With incest there is increased chance of malformation.

    And there is the idea that one lives with one's chosen behavior (sex without contraceptives, feeling one can just kill any untoward result) but if one was violently assaulted there'd been no choice made in that case.


    Sounds good but I think some people (none / 0) (#157)
    by andrys on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:49:33 PM EST
    who are totally against abortion (seen as killing of new life) are just agreeing beyond their beliefs to make exceptions for those cases where one would have to live with the results of having one's child be the genetic child of a rapist and that child being a reminder everyday of violence forced upon you.

    With incest there is increased chance of malformation.

    And there is the idea that one lives with one's chosen behavior (sex without contraceptives, feeling one can just kill any untoward result) but if one was violently assaulted there'd been no choice made in that case.


    A life for a life (none / 0) (#141)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:16:51 PM EST
    Palin wants to ban abortion for rape victims, and Obama wants to execute the rapist.

    You are wrong about her and big oil (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:37:59 PM EST
    The spinning around her is almost desperate. Like "she knows how to deal with Big Oil". Uhm, yes, the most critical thing she's done with Big Oil is asking them to drill more and quicker. That's some ridiculous spin.

    Wrong. Research is your friend. She has taken on big oil in a number of ways, forcing Exxon to use a lease or lose it and also raised taxes on the oil companies, much to their chagrin, which is why Alaska's cofers are now filling and people are getting a $1200 rebate.

    As Frank pointed out, she demanded that Big Oil (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by bronte17 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:56:42 PM EST
    drill more.  

    She doesn't believe in the science behind global warming, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as well as offshore drilling, and she opposed an initiative banning the discharge of pollution from metal mines into salmon streams.

    You also have to realize that the deal she struck for that windfall tax on oil affected only the state lands and those oil fields are in decline.

    Federal lands are where the significant untapped oil reserves lie (with the federal government owning 60% of the land in Alaska).  That's where the real value of oil fields lies.

    "Unfortunately, with her support for drilling in the Arctic Refuge and off our coasts, Governor Palin will simply continue the failed policies of the Bush-Cheney administration and their Big Oil friends -- policies that could make us even more dependent on foreign oil," League of Conservation Voters president Gene Karpinski said in a statement.

    She also opposed the ban on aerial hunting of wolves and the ban was voted down recently.  She went so far as to send the Fish & Wildlife Department out to pull wolf pups from their dens and slaughtered them.  I believe it was 67 of them.  

    That isn't a respectable support of guns nor an admirable thing to endorse from her.  Aerial hunting is a gutless and cowardly way to slaughter animals and any self-respecting hunter will tell you that.



    I think you are right about her stance on (none / 0) (#126)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:13:26 PM EST
    ANWAR, but the environmental story is more complex.  I read that she had said that they wanted to build up the elk and moose herds and I thought it had something to do with native american's hunting.  Wait for more info on that.

    Why permit *aerial* hunting? (none / 0) (#134)
    by bronte17 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:43:35 PM EST
    It is barbaric and beyond cruel; honest hunters find it revolting.

    The moose herds are thin in certain regions of Alaska, but in other Alaskan regions the moose herds need to be thinned.  I haven't read that Palin makes that distinction as a means to rationalize her support of aerial hunting.

    Yes, the environmental issues are much more complex and it is an issue that will make many voters' eyes glaze over.  


    Your take on her environmntal positions (none / 0) (#138)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:06:27 PM EST
    are rigid.  I have difficulty believing you. In the same way I never believed Hillary was power crazed or that Obama has good friends who are terrorists I find my self uncomfortable with your righteousness.

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#145)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:06:13 PM EST
    Accompanied by lack of sources, I'm inclined to just disregard what you're saying.

    Awaiting evidence elsewhere.


    Actually I did google this issue (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:09:54 PM EST
    and aerial hunting is hated by most.  The problem is that wolfe packs are prolific and need to kill a lot of caribou to feed their growing families. The fish and game allows for aerial hunting to thin the packs in winter when the snow allows them to see the wolves. Otherwise they are trapped.  In the last reporting period 124 wolves were killed by plane and almost 4,000 by trapping.  The aerial hunting is tightly controlled to the areas that biologists tell them that the caribou herds are declining.  I have sent money to help bring wolves back into the lower 48, and I love the wolves, but they eat and no one eats them.  That throws the whole system out of whack. I don't like it but it is a fact of nature.  If you go to www.collegetimes.com you can read about it.

    Ehm (4.25 / 4) (#14)
    by TheRealFrank on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:41:28 PM EST
    You're proving my point. She told Exxon to drill harder.

    When people talk about "Big Oil" they talk about dependency on oil and the need to switch to alternative energy.

    The spin is intended to make it seem like she somehow would work for that. But quite the opposite is true.


    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:45:47 PM EST
    read your post.  Quite confusing.  

    On the Charlie Rose show (none / 0) (#115)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:38:51 PM EST
    she said that big oil was jepardizing the security of the nation by trying to compete with each other on their leases and some other issues I did not understand. She talked about safe and responsible drilling (?) to avoid our dependency on foreign oil. She may be for more dilling  which would be very Alaskan of her. What kind is the issue. On the other hand she has been able to break the logjam of almost 30 and get liquid gas flowing to the lower 40 which is quite a feat.  Apparently the issues around drilling are similar to the issues that were around the natural gas pipeline.

    I don't know (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by frenly on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:39:28 PM EST
    her views seem conservative in the old fashioned sense that she doesn't think the executive's job is to make legislation only to, you know, execute the law. More importantly, she will seem right down Main Street USA with these answers.    Most folks would look at these answers and say, "that makes sense."

    This is more like (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by BernieO on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:45:10 PM EST
    the Republican party of Ike, before Nixon empowered the Moral Majority. The irony of that
    never fails to astound me.

    Speaking of Nixon, I recently heard a show on NPR that was talking about Nixon (I think it was on Fresh Air). The man said Nixon had always been a loner with a chip on his shoulder. As a child he refused to take the school bus because he thought the other kids smelled bad. How weird is that?


    I Think You Mean Reagan (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:28:48 PM EST
    empowered the 'Moral Majority'.

    It was created just before his candidacy for president, long after Nixon resigned.

    Moral Majority


    Nixon had Silent Majority (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by RalphB on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:46:01 PM EST
    where Jerry Falwell got his start in politics.

    Amen! (none / 0) (#150)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 08:32:17 PM EST
    Good one.

    That's the scary part. We aren't average (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:45:29 PM EST

    I would suggest... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:43:06 PM EST
    ...her answers are, for the most part, dishonest.  Anyone as extremist anti-choice as she is, when presented with the scenario she was here, would not simply sit back and defer to the legislature.  She would sponsor a bill and fight to send women and doctors to jail or the executioners chamber since, as she says in the earlier query, murdering children would be an acceptable offense to execute someone for.  If she thinks abortions are equivalent to killing born children, then there is no way she can claim she wouldn't support execution for women and doctors who choose to have elective abortions.  On these two points she evidences an intellectual disconnect of pathological proportion.  And, from an earlier post, unless one of her "good gay friends" pops up to talk about what good friends they are, I do not believe at all that she has ANY friend, good or distant, who are gay.  Sorry, I think these are lies told by the right wing and never called.  Who wants to be friends with someone who doesn't believe you deserve equal rights and that believes you are going to burn in hell for all eternity?  No one.

    Just because she sounds nice, please, doesn't mean a thing.  Like with the marijuana question, does she think she should go back and serve retroactive jail time or that she should've served time in jail?  Of course not.  Jail is only for other people who engage in things she used to like to do.  Because, sorry, I get the feeling she toked more than once, and I'm going to say she did like it.  Just don't buy it, don't buy it, don't buy it.


    I doubt it (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by BernieO on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:49:58 PM EST
    if she has a strong libertarian streak as people say.
    As I posted before I happen to know several people who believe abortion is murder, my parents being two of them, who did not think that people who choose or perform abortions should be executed. They knew their belief was based entirely on their faith because, as Catholics, they believed a soul was infused by God at conception. They understood that other people did not share their views and that it was not based on fact so should not be a matter for government. In fact my father was a physician who had seen the results of botched illegal abortions and did not want to see us return to those days.
    I do not know if this is how Sarah Palin thinks but it could well be.

    You're wrong... (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by EddieInCA on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:16:48 PM EST

    Flat. Out. Wrong.

    Anyone who thinks Palin is friendly to gay and lesbian rights is deluding themselves and/or too lazy to do simple research.


    Devil's Advocate (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:35:18 PM EST
    First off I'm definitely not a Palin fan but...She was advised by the court that the law would be unconstitutional, so she vetoed. I agree that's not exactly a hero or supporter. If she was a hardliner she would have asked them for opinions on rewriting it. She also could have taken it to the referendum route and changed the constitution. As far as I know she's done neither.

    Wrong again. (none / 0) (#118)
    by EddieInCA on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:44:39 PM EST
    Read the article..

    or this one:  http://tinyurl.com/PalinGayRights-1

    or this one:  http://tinyurl.com/PalinGayRights-2

    There's a whole lot more if you REALLY want to know her positions.


    Yeah Really (none / 0) (#123)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:01:10 PM EST
    The fact still remains that with an 80% approval rating and control of both houses, she didn't lead that much of a charge or it would be the law. Similar laws have been enacted across the country.

    Other than Barnie Franks, I don't see anyone from either side (Dem or Rep) spending political capital looking out for my interests. DOMA had Democratic support to pass. So her stand isn't any different than 99% of Washington. No she definitely isn't a gay advocate but to try and brand her as Alaska's answer to Anita Bryant is also wrong.


    Either you aren't reading others posts (none / 0) (#124)
    by tree on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:06:04 PM EST
    or you aren't reading the links you post. A non-binding referendum is NOT a referendum to change the state constitution. You are the one that is wrong on this point.

    Which point are you ascribing to me...? (none / 0) (#129)
    by EddieInCA on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:18:08 PM EST
    I wasn't the one who mentioned a referendum.  

    I gave links, and wrote that Palin has STATED she'd support a consitutional admendment on the state and federal level to ban gay marriage.

    Who exactly what point are you talking about in regards to me?


    That's a very generous spin on the facts; (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by EddieInCA on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:37:35 PM EST
    She vetoed the bill because her state lawyers told her the bill was unconstitutional, then led the charge to have it overturned.

    You're entitled to your opinion, but facts are pesky things.

    The article, and many other like it, very clearly state Palin's opposition to equal rights for homosexuals. Additionally, she has stated, on MANY OCCASIONS, that she's for an state and federal amendments to ban gay marriage and civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.

    Either you didn't read the article, or several other like it, or you're being deliberately disingenous.


    can a governor (none / 0) (#127)
    by TimNCGuy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:15:15 PM EST
    "sponsor" a bill?

    Wow! You are really frightened. (none / 0) (#133)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:39:32 PM EST
    She's a right winger for sure. Her position on (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:43:28 PM EST
    the death penalty is for adults who murder children? I guess that's better than we have now and the same as Obama's. Unfortunately, I don't think that's a winning argument for us. We are in the minority there.

    At least she thinks we have enough faith-based funding now.

    She is going to present herself as someone with views of an average American. It's scary, because where I live, she is average.

    Isn't that the case... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:52:15 PM EST
    SCOTUS just had dropping the death penalty that Obama opposed their ruling?

    I think Obama (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by ding7777 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:10:24 PM EST
    supports the death penalty for child rapists.

    ah... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:12:33 PM EST

    Her DP stance is way, way (none / 0) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:57:24 PM EST
    back from what we have now, and even, dare I say it, from Hillary Clinton's position, not to mention Bill's.

    Doubt it (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:03:14 PM EST
    Evasive, hot button reply that does not answer the question as asked.  Red flag.

    Looking around seeing obama awash (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:15:48 PM EST
    in red flags....let's at least be honest

    Thats (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:47:35 PM EST
    right.  I expect the Dems to hammer her publically and loudly about the Death Penalty.  Let everybody in the country know who stands where and for what.  

    And the opinion on the death penalty (none / 0) (#128)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:16:25 PM EST
    that Americans hold is what...?

    Generally uneducated... (none / 0) (#146)
    by reynwrap582 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 07:25:27 PM EST
    And without any real grounding in logic and reality...  in my experience, at least.

    I'd prefer it if she IS (none / 0) (#158)
    by andrys on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:56:58 PM EST
    'average' in her views, rather than extreme...

    Then remember riverdaughter's advice: (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:47:46 PM EST
    Friends don't let friends vote Republican.

    Palin on abortion: (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by steviez314 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:49:44 PM EST
    From Anchorage Daily News:

    The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant.

    Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother's life was in danger. When it came to her daughter, she said, "I would choose life."

    The question is not (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by BernieO on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:51:30 PM EST
    what she would want for her daughter but whether she would impose this on everyone's daughter.

    BernieO I know you're smarter than that. (3.50 / 2) (#51)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:03:56 PM EST
    That's what many politians try to do: "Well I personally think this, but my policies would be totally opposite." It worked for JFK, but was a disaster for Dukakis, Kerry, Mondale. Palin is not that stupid I don't think. She's against abortion period. I expect the moderator will try to trick her to state a "nuanced" postion on abortion, then (if she takes the bait) follow up on her bullcrap with evidence of her actual views. This is a standard tactic of moderators to highlight/undermine the candidate's credibility and honesty.

    You just make up your own answers, (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by RalphB on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:50:52 PM EST
    to match your prejudices, don't you?  Bernie is correct.

    Why would creeper, (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by tootired on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:52:18 PM EST
    or you for that matter, only want to hang out with people who agree with her? You don't enjoy having a civil and sensible discussion with someone who disagrees with you?

    exactly... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by jeffhas on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:55:50 PM EST
    echo chamber much?

    This thread has been very illuminating. (none / 0) (#135)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:46:57 PM EST
    Throw in some hysterics, and theatrics, bullying and whining, but for all of that there has been some real give and take about a person's views.  very well done.

    She wants an exit strategy (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 01:56:34 PM EST
    re: Iraq?

    The only question that needs to be asked: (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Johannes on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:10:22 PM EST
    Is she ready and capable to be President if McCain kicks the bucket the day after inauguration?

    The answer is "no."

    While that may be true to some extent.. (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by jeffhas on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:22:48 PM EST
    She is at least as qualified as the Candidate WHO IS AT THE TOP OF THE DEM TICKET and who will take control on day one FOR CERTAIN.

    Most are willing to perform a simple calculation/judgment about whether McCain is likely to die in his first day, first year or even first term on the job... chances are he won't.  During that time, she will get valuable on-the-job-training that will make her more supremely qualified to the Dem Candidate now... every day she's on the job is more than Obama.

    Comparing her experience as a VICE PRESIDENTIAL Candidate is just not the same as comparing HIS Experience as a PRESIDENTIAL Candidate.... and you know it, and so do most other people.


    Cheney has had 5 or 6 heart attacks (none / 0) (#89)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:50:21 PM EST
    and refuses to die...not worried about McCain, or anyone in his situation, for that matter.

    Go ahead and ask (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by echinopsia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:29:13 PM EST
    if you want people to reply, "Is Obama?"

    the idea should be .... (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by jeffhas on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:11:42 PM EST
    to win people over with arguments as to why Obama is better, not bully people.

    Whenever I am bullied, I tend to fight back against it.  This means that I took the time to investigate Senator Obama, his many admonitions about what a different candidate he was and found him to be no more than exactly the same kind of politician I have seen for many many years.  This made my view of him that he is a charlatan, and now every word he says I am suspect of.  This is not just his fault, but that of his early supporters - they should have been realistic and honest about him and his positions and past history instead of threatening and bullying all those who disagreed into submission.

    This is why I come here, to be challenged by both sides to an intelligent dialogue - even if I don't  respond or agree, I can participate in the dialogue just by reading.

    The whole 'I can't stand it anymore' or 'go somewhere else' comments are just weird to me, since this site is so much more thought provoking than most... and you can thank all of the participants for that - I suppose even you.

    Shouldn't Posters Be Honest (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by john horse on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:28:55 PM EST
    about their political affiliations?  I have no problem with Republicans or anyone from freerepublic coming here and posting comments but they should be upfront about it.  

    I don't appreciate the trolls on this site who feign being Democrats or Hillary supporters in order to increase division among us.  They know what they are doing. Its called divide and conquer.

    I do welcome discussion.  I just don't appreciate dishonesty.    


    Weird comment (none / 0) (#140)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:15:40 PM EST
    People's arguments stand free of the affiliations of those making them.  Demanding people's affiliations implies either that you think others are too dim to recognize the validity or invalidity of an argument, and may be 'fooled' by an argument made by a Republican/enemy/whatever or can't be bothered yourself to think about the argument, you just want a quickie tag to shortcut the bother of thinking.

    If you read TL with any frequency, you learn to recognize most people's place on the political spectrum anyway.

    The solution to the troll problem is to demand support for comments that assert facts.  (links to blog ravings don't count).  And to particularly demand support for statements that invoke liberal boogeymen, like 'Oh Noes!  She's a creationist!'


    Creeper (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by echinopsia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:21:31 PM EST
    one rude and clueless commenter is not a blog.

    Stay. We need thinking people here.

    Yes we do! (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by mogal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:31:29 PM EST
    Palin Is No Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by john horse on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:03:56 PM EST
    I supported and voted for Hillary Clinton.

    Governor Palin is no Hillary Clinton.

    Supporting Palin means opposing those things that Hillary Clinton believed in and fought for.  

    Apples and Oranges (none / 0) (#161)
    by andrys on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:33:03 PM EST
    How could Palin be any Hillary Clinton?

    Hillary represents the views of those of us who are Democrats and share the usual philsophies of Democrats.

    Palin represents the views of Republicans, who are always to the 'right' of us and will always seem 'extreme' to some point for not believing as we do.

    Therefore, the Repubs could never be capable of choosing a woman who would placate Hillary supporters unhappy about the DEMS not choosing an unusually capable woman who represents our views.  They have different views!

      However, some Hillary supporters were actually quite conservative but liked what Hillary had to offer, generally, on a wide range of issues.  Some were anti-choice, etc.  So, for those, this might show at least that a Republican nominee and party didn't choke over the idea of choosing a woman for the 2nd spot while our DNC did all they could to drive the capable woman nominee out of the primaries fro March 1 on and treated her as a child who was running for no reason and spoiling things for the adults and 'hurting' the only possible nominee.

      I don't expect the Rep[ublican nominee, male or female, to mirror my thoughts, nor for their Republican presidential nominee to BE a Hillary Clinton or a Barack Obama or Dennis Kucinich.


    Nothing Unexpected (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:11:26 PM EST
    Jeralyn, thanks for posts that are looking at her positions with an objective light. Her answers to the questionaire were Republican answers, so they really didn't surprise me. Yesterday all I heard or read was her campaign rhetoric, which I only half believe of any politician. I'll be very interested in hearing what legislation she has pushed since coming to office. She's very popular in her state and the Republican's control both houses. If she has an agenda I don't see anything that would stand in her way of implementing it.

    So, her grudge match and her refusal (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by bronte17 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:26:18 PM EST
    to turn over emails in an ongoing scandal (sound like another administration you know?) is okay with you?

    And the sweeping political power she vested in herself to fire Public Safety Commissioner, Walter Monegan, because he wouldn't fire her brother-in-law? Do you accept this unethical behavior in a nation that was built on the Rule of Law?

    The July firing of Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan by Gov. Sarah Palin, who was announced as John McCain's running mate on Friday, has unearthed a stream of soap-opera-like details about Palin, her husband, her family and top state appointees. The controversy has also cut against Palin's reputation for holding an ethical line and standing up to colleagues in the Republican Party over matters of principle.

    Monegan, 57, a respected former chief of the Anchorage Police Department, said in an interview with The Washington Post's James V. Grimaldi on Friday that the governor repeatedly brought up the topic of her ex-brother-in-law, Michael Wooten, after Monegan became the state's commissioner of public safety in December 2006. Palin's husband, Todd, met with Monegan and presented a dossier of information about Wooten, who was going through a bitter custody battle with Palin's sister, Molly. Monegan also said Sarah Palin sent him e-mails on the subject, but Monegan declined to disclose them, saying he planned to give them to a legislative investigator looking into the matter.

    Palin initially denied that she or anyone in her administration had ever pressured Monegan to fire the trooper, but this summer acknowledged more than a half a dozen contacts over the matter, including one phone call from a Palin administration official to a state police lieutenant. The call was recorded and was released by Palin's office this month. Todd Palin told a television reporter in Alaska that he did meet with Monegan, but said he was just "informing" Monegan about the issue, not exerting pressure.

    I'm sure it was just someone on her staff (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:31:11 PM EST
    who made the mistakes for her.  /snark

    According to the Anchorage Daily news, investigators have not issues any subpoenas  in the investigation so far, because Palin's been cooperating and the lead investigator says they're not necessary.

    Neither the bit you quoted nor the linked article shows Palin witholding emails.  In fact, this bit you quoted quotes Monegan as saying he's turning over emails from Palin that he received to the head investigator.

    Other sources I've seen say that the Democrats who called for the special investigator acknowledge that she has the power to fire her Public Safety Director for whatever reason.  I'm not sure where the legal violation is here, then, even if true.

    Also, I agree with BTD, when he said (paraphrasing) that you really don't want to be on the side arguing on the side of wife-beaters here, even if she did abuse her power.


    Precisely what qualifications does this *woman* (none / 0) (#125)
    by bronte17 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 05:08:29 PM EST
    exhibit that now captures your vote for McCain's Presidency?

    Since this is an open-minded dialogue.

    then you are limited to four comments a day (none / 0) (#162)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:26:07 AM EST
    McCain/Palin supporters may not shill for their candidates here at all. They may not state their opposition to the Democratic ticket more than 4 times in a 24 hour period.

    Thread cleaned of (none / 0) (#163)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:41:16 AM EST
    unfounded rumors against Palin.

    And McCain/Palin supporters are warned they are chatterers on this site and limited to four comments a day expressing either their support for the Republican ticket or opposition to the Democratic ticket.

    Snide, drive by comments and those insulting other commenters will as usual, be deleted.