Palin Criticized From the Right Before Criticism Was Withdrawn

The religious right's love affair with Sarah Palin didn't prevent Leslee Unruh, president of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse, from questioning whether Palin has strayed too far from a centerpiece of religious right orthodoxy.

John McCain and the GOP platform say children should be taught that abstinence until marriage is the only safe way to avoid pregnancy and disease. Palin's position is less clear. In a widely quoted 2006 survey she answered during her gubernatorial campaign, Palin said she supported abstinence-until-marriage programs. But weeks later, she proclaimed herself "pro-contraception" and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence.

Unruh hasn't exactly accused Palin of flip-flopping on abstinence-only education, but she criticized Palin for suggesting that kids should learn that contraception is an alternative way to avoid pregnancy. Unruh said Palin's mixed message is "disjointed" and unclear and urged Palin to get on board with a "clear and concise" abstinence-only philosophy. Two days later, perhaps having received a "shut up" memo, Unruh dismissed Palin's pro-contraception comments as "old" and said she supports Palin in every way. Yet Palin's spokesperson says Palin stands by her remarks. [more...]

McCain's campaign did not respond to questions about whether Palin's position is inconsistent with his.

The McCain campaign continues its insistence that teaching kids how to prevent pregnancy encourages them to become sexually active. As if they need encouragement.

< Palin Diminishes McCain? | Saturday Evening Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Not your point, but I'm happy (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:24:55 PM EST
    Gov. Palin has some common sense.

    agree (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by hlr on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:26:21 PM EST
    there comes a point where one has to consider that if the GOP ticket wins, that Palin isn't in lockstep with the likes of Unruh is a Good Thing.

    The impression I've gotten so far (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:31:25 PM EST
    is she doesn't govern by her religious beliefs. That wasn't why she went into politics.

    Wouldn't it be 'funny' if she was a strong believer in Separation of Church/State? Anyone know where she stands on that?


    Calls for a Ban (3.50 / 2) (#7)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:35:22 PM EST
    On embryonic stem cell research, calls to teach creationism and evolution side by side in a biology class.  Ban abortion nationwide, including rape, incest, engangerment to the mother's life.

    All very suggestive of a Church/State separatist.


    Links? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:42:05 PM EST
    calls to teach creationism and evolution side by side in a biology class.  Ban abortion nationwide, including rape, incest, engangerment to the mother's life.

    She's given her opinion, but I haven't seen where she's "called" for this. Nor governed for it. And she is for abortion w/regards for mother's life.


    Oh and then I forgot (none / 0) (#18)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:12:26 PM EST
    The fact that she looked into banning books at the public library as Mayor.  Perfect.  A War Dog as Comander In Chief and an Aspiring Book Banner working the crowds.

    And the call to ban embryonic stem cell research is obsene.  And the desire to criminalize abortion across the Board is obsene.  And Independents deserve to know that the GOP Ticket is not Maverick, but zealouslky defensive of those and other GOP tenets.

    As for your quaint suggestion that it is only her beliefs with regard to creationism.  Not only have you likely seen an abundance of links where she has used her political bully pulpit to state that they ought to be taught side by side in Science Class.  

    But more importantly.  Sorry, but the GOP as a whole has forefeited the right to be given the benefit of the doubt on that.  When the avegare Dem pol says, "I am personally against abortion," for example, he or she quickly adds that in terms of governance they respect others right to make that choice. But the GOP, lines between personal/religious beliefs and governance have not existed.  Witness all social issues, from gay rights to the war on science to abortion rights to.  Oh yeah.  How quickly we forget.  The Shiavo fiasco.

    How specious, how cynical, to push the meme that she even might be a civil libertarian.  Defending McCain's and her views is one thing.  Seeking to fool voters on them is another.  But then, that's all the GOP has got at this point.  


    Not much to the book-banning story ... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Inky on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:32:12 PM EST
    at least according to The Boston Herald. You should check Palin's governing record. You will see that it is more libertarian than most people on the left want to believe. For instance, for many right-wing "theocrats" fight to have the operating hours of bars and pubs extended?

    I would also like to see evidence that Palin has ever come out against stem cell research. I haven't been able to find any myself.


    So, no links? (none / 0) (#29)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:31:06 PM EST
    Numerous Threads (none / 0) (#39)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:56:30 PM EST
    Including this one, are alive with links.  See Molly Bloom for example.  All this stuff has been hashed out and linked to death.  What hasn't been established at all, however, is on what grounds any sane person would view McCain or Palin either one as civil libertarians at this point.

    Your comments are intellectually dishonest.


    where exactly did I say I viewed (none / 0) (#58)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:31:38 PM EST
    either as civil libertarians?

    Really now, who's being dishonest here? I've asked you to back up your "called for" comments with links (which you should have no problem doing, right?). How is that intellectually dishonest?


    Suggesting (none / 0) (#63)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:41:19 PM EST
    That her personal views and public policy stances are not be the same is suggesting that she might be a civil libertarian.  Which would appeal to more Indys than would, say, the Truth.

    The book banning and the abortion links are on this very thread.  She ran for Mayor on criminalizing abortion, for God's sake.  


    Heh, I was just making an observation (none / 0) (#69)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:56:04 PM EST
    not trying to make her more appealing to indies. She runs as a conservative republican and she pandered to the right (growing majority in her town) and won the election. Doesn't seem like she's done much for them since, or has she? Do you have any other info on her running to criminalize abortion? Or did she just run as a pro-lifer? The article states she brought abortion into the race, but I thought her main point of running was to make government work better in her town?

    if she made it work so much better, (none / 0) (#95)
    by cpinva on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:52:20 PM EST
    but I thought her main point of running was to make government work better in her town?

    how come it was 22 million in debt when she left? no, i'm not going to post yet another link, they're all over this site, get off your fat ass and go look.


    Actually I have read a report that she said in (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by hairspray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:52:49 PM EST
    effect that both evolution and creationism should be discussed in class and that people shouldn't be afraid of the discussion.  Several bloggers on this site have said that discussing the differences is better than having creationism taught as dogma out of a fire and brimstone church setting and I agree.  But to give creationism status as science is wrong and I don't think she would do that.

    Discusing it in the Context of a Science Class (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:04:19 PM EST
    Is giving it status as a science.  Note that she doesn't suggest that, in science classes, that they might cite Douglas Adams' race of beings who believe that the Universe was created when a Giant sneezed, and that these folk live in perpetaul fear of the coming of the great white hankerchief.

    BTW: I think all reasonable people could compromise and agree that Creationism, like the Beings Adams created, would both be fair game for the Humanities, as both represent angles from which to peer into the human condition.  


    Discussing creationism (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by tootired on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:27:20 PM EST
    in science class is the best place to point out that creationist theories do not pass the science test of having a testable hypothesis that can be proved or disproved. Unfortunately, that's also the class where people who are opposed to the teaching of evolution target their outrage. The humanities teachers can teach that creationism in its various forms is religion, but they seldom succeed at convincing their students that it is also not science.

    You are wrong (none / 0) (#81)
    by sas on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:05:44 PM EST
    she supports abortion to save the life of the mother....believes in creation but has said teaching of creationism should not be included in the curriculum

    she also says abstinence is best, but does support (none / 0) (#89)
    by sas on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:47:41 PM EST
    she says (none / 0) (#90)
    by sas on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:49:09 PM EST
    abstinence is best but does support condom use and distribution

    too bad(?)her teenage daughter didn't listen

    but that's teenagers too


    she allows an exception for the endargement of (none / 0) (#84)
    by nycvoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:13:54 PM EST
    mother's life, but that's the only one

    She did not call for (none / 0) (#100)
    by BernieO on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:20:04 PM EST
    a ban on abortion. She said if Roe v. Wade is thrown out then each state should decide. There is a big difference.
    I do not agree that states' rights means that a state should be able to deny an individual their rights, by the way, so I do not like this solution because women in some, if not many, states would be denied the right to make this decision for themselves. Still, saying it should be left to each state is a far cry from calling for a ban.
    I personally know several of people who do not believe abortion is right and would not have one but also recognize that this is their personal belief based in their faith and not something they would impose on others. I do not know if Palin feels like this, but we should not assume that she is determined to impose her beliefs on others without proof. Her stand on sex education is a lot more nuanced than originally reported so it may be her stand on abortion is, too. I believe in making judgments on facts. I also do not have to demonize people that I oppose politically.

    All this nuance to Palin's Political Views (none / 0) (#101)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 09:32:19 PM EST
    All this depth.  She doesn't want to impose anything on anybody, it's all about personal choices with Gov. Palin, as it is with most Republicans.  

    No wonder the Dobsonians are so excited about her.


    This is why the Palin lovers (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:38:50 PM EST
    can't see the forest from the trees. If Palin is fake, that a BAD thing. Her popularity right now is due to her purity. Simply put: The media WILL expose her duplicity and the shine she has now will wear off just like every other new kid on the block. THAT'S the obvious point of TChris's post.

    Really (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by fercryinoutloud on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:42:31 PM EST
    Her stance on alternatives to abstinence is more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

    I'm sure Palin would thank TChris for pointing this out as it would sell well to unaffiliated voters and maybe even some Democrats and moderate Republicans who might have voted for Obama which I'm sure was not TChis' intention. But this is what happens when you are trying to dig up of mud on someone, any kind of mud - it often backfires. Mud turns to, as oculus said, common sense.


    Come On (none / 0) (#35)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:42:49 PM EST
    Any voters who disagree with the government inserting itself into the private reproductive choices of citizens as the GOP platform mandates aren't going to be swayed by any alleged variation Governor Palin may or may not subscribe to and vote for McCain.

    And this "mud" you refer to is the appropriate scrutiny that comes when you're a relatively unknown candidate with scant record of public service to demonstrate your positions.

    Not mud. Rather, an examination by the news media and engaged voters of what evidence there is.


    She'll be interesting to watch (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by davnee on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:32:31 PM EST
    While I have no doubt she's extreme in her views, I wouldn't be surprised if she also has a bit of a frontier, libertarian streak in her.   She may not prove to be the perfect darling of the far right after all.  This in no way means I want to see her in the White House or view her as a moderate in disguise.  But I confess that I will be watching her campaign and career with interest.  No matter what, she is obviously a talented politician and a woman on the rise.  That alone makes her interesting to me.

    I think the biggest surprise (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:32:58 PM EST
    about Palin that we will discover in the future is that she is more of a classic libertarian than orthodox evandelical.

    Despite her "stated" beliefes she didn't act on a single one of them in terms of policy or decision making either as a mayor or as a governor.

    Classic libertarian? Hardly (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    Read the bold parts from these quotes from a Time Magazine story.

    Note the last one- classic libertarians don't inquire how to ban books. At least non of the libertarians I know.

    Lets assume you are correct, she just campaigns heavily on hot button evangelical issues, but doesn't actually do anything about it. Is that what you want every election to be about- hot button social issues? Don't you get tired of fighting these cultural wars?

    But in the first major race of her career -- the 1996 campaign for mayor of her hometown, Wasilla -- Palin was a far more conventional politician. In fact, according to some who were involved in that fight, Palin was a highly polarizing political figure who brought partisan politics and hot-button social issues like abortion and gun control into a mayoral race that had traditionally been contested like a friendly intramural contest among neighbors.

    In Stein's view, Palin's main transgression was injecting big-time politics into a small-town local race. "It was always a nonpartisan job," he says. "But with her, the state GOP came in and started affecting the race." While Palin often describes that race as having been a fight against the old boys' club, Stein says she made sure the campaign hinged on issues like gun owners' rights and her opposition to abortion (Stein is pro-choice). "It got to the extent that -- I don't remember who it was now -- but some national antiabortion outfit sent little pink cards to voters in Wasilla endorsing her," he says.

    Vicki Naegele was the managing editor of the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman at the time. "[Stein] figured he was just going to run your average, friendly small-town race," she recalls, "but it turned into something much different than that." Naegele held the same conservative Christian beliefs as Palin but didn't think they had any place in local politics.

    "I just thought, That's ridiculous, she should concentrate on roads, not abortion," says Naegele.

    One thing all sides agree on is that the valley was in flux. The old libertarian pioneer ethos was giving way to a rising Christian conservatism. By shrewdly invoking issues that mattered to the ascendant majority, Palin won the mayor's race

    Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast."

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:22:43 PM EST
    For being a voice of reason.

    She was the Mayor. (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by Bob K on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:12:17 PM EST
    She may have heard there were rumors about some group possibly making an issue with regard to some books and wanted to know the librarian's position. It could have been a perfectly innocuous question since nothing came of it anyway. No books were banned.

    Abortion issue is a non-starter since Democratic control in the senate gives them the final approval on SC appoinments.

    If she succeeded in actually framing the debate during the campaign, Then her opponents let her do it. Sounds like politics.


    You don't really prove anything (none / 0) (#24)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:23:00 PM EST
    except to confirm my nagging suspicion that in this day and age, there is a price of entry in politics.

    Maybe she had to pander to evangelicals in order to get in and maybe it was easier for her because she shares their social position. But just because she shares them publicly is not a proof that she will act on them.

    The story of banned books, in my view, could just as easily be explained as a loyalty test by someone who won the election and is dealing with hostile personnel from the previous administration. Again, I'm not judging her - I'm just saying that this story proves nothing. Especially - not intent.

    And I certainly don't subsribe to stories written by professional journalists. I remember all too vididly the stories they wrote about Hillary to know that journalism in this country is based on opinions.


    From what I've read, looks like, after (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:36:19 PM EST
    being elected mayor, Palin inquired of the librarian about the general subject of banning books and the librarian sd. h@ll no and Palin didn't pursue it.  Probably went back to the conservatives and sd., hey, I tried.

    And I also didn't see (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:42:18 PM EST
    Molly's point that she's even going as far as campaigning on hot button issues.

    She's not calling for overturn of Roe-Wade, is she? She's not calling for ban on gay marriage, is she?

    My impression was that time and time again she says she leaves it up to voters via ballot initiatives.


    McCain Calls for Roe v Wade Overturn (none / 0) (#54)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:14:32 PM EST
    GOP Platform Calls for passage of a Human Life Amendment to the constitution banning abortion.

    So here comes Governor Palin running as McCain's VP nominee on the GOP ticket.

    What she may or not believe is up for grabs. And what she may have said in the past as well.

    Because unless she now specifically repudiates either McCain's position on reproductive freedoms and/or the GOP's, all we have to go on is the company she keeps.

    Staying silent and not speaking up about where she disagrees with these policies is implicit support.

    Anyone 'seeing' anything otherwise is wishfully thinking something is so. And wishing doesn't make it so.


    OK (none / 0) (#55)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:21:13 PM EST
    so that's in the GOP platform.

    Does it mean that if there is a McCain/Palin administration everyone is gong to roll-over and go through the endless motion to amend the constituion?

    Does it mean that the Democratic control of the Congress is just wishful thinking too?

    On a personal note, I don't understand why it's not possible to oppose McCain/Palin on anti-abortion positions while supporting them on energy independence.


    For Me, Reproductive Freedom (4.50 / 2) (#64)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:45:49 PM EST
    is one of my few (and, in fact, dwindling number of) deal breakers for supporting or opposing a candidate. So McCain could have the BEST energy plan ever, and I would never vote for him with his draconian position on Roe.

    McCain and Palin may well sit on their hands and appoint judges who don't threaten our right to make our own private choices about our own bodies and our own health without gov't interference.

    But since there is NO evidence that's the stance they'll take, why persist in dreaming the possibility exists when all the evidence points in the other direction?


    OK, I respect your position. (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:51:32 PM EST
    That means that for you the case is closed.

    For it's not so black and white. I disagree with Republicans on plenty of things. But I also disagree with Democrats on plenty of things. Since we have a two-party reality, it's inevitable they will become polarized - they won't be able to assemble voting blocs otherwise.

    That means that my reality is prioritizing my issues. It's never going to be possible to have a candidate that fits perfectly with everyone's positions and needs.


    Social Issues With Repubs (none / 0) (#70)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:02:29 PM EST
    have ALWAYS been a deal breaker for me ever since they constructed their southern strategy and became  even more of a party of exclusion and RW religious definitions of family and morality.

    I still sometimes vote Republican on the local level, though.

    And for the record, as an independent, I'm seldom enamored of the Dem candidate either. They've smugly become just the only port in the electoral storm I can ever find at the presidential level. So often I haven't voted at the top of the ticket. Obama is somewhat of the exception to that for me--my first in 35 years!

    But I have no illusions about him as some idealistic heroic figure who will meet all my needs etc. He's just the pol who seems the best to me this time and as soon as he is elected I expect to be criticizing him (more) too.


    Yeah, the Repubs on social issues (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:05:18 PM EST
    pretty much stops me cold.

    Only "Repub" I can recall voting for is Bloomberg, lol!~


    Yeah (none / 0) (#91)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:52:48 PM EST
    In my city, different decades have shifted me D to R and back again as the power was amassed and abused from one side to the other.

    We passed a term limit for the mayor about 10 years ago which I opposed because if there's one thing the voters in my city have proven time and again (and, in fact, are rather (in)famous for depending on your point of view) it's that we get tired of the same familiar folks up there at the council table and the mayor's office for very long.

    Albany, which is nearby, had the same mayor and the same machine in power for over 40 years--I think the single longest mayoral term in the U.S. Maybe we're in reaction to that.


    So let me ask you this (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:13:58 PM EST
    if you were a Republican who felt that his party was taken over by agressively intolerant religous wing - and you wanted to fix that

    what would you do to WIN the election?

    I think you would carefully position yourself as a moderate to gain votes, until you can actually govern and do something to rebuild the coalition.

    That's not to say that's what McCain is doing. But it's probably the only way for any Republican to do it.


    It Depends (none / 0) (#86)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:43:53 PM EST
    First on what you mean by moderate and where and what I would be running for.

    What might pass for moderate in, say, Juneau would be classified something quite different in Brooklyn.

    And at a national level? Where is there any wriggle room for moderation (as I--an aging leftie going more soft and--eh-liberal leaning by the day) might define it.

    I would love to see a return of some moderate Republicans wresting at least some power from the right wing extremists at the national level. But I doubt I will in the next decade or so at least. remember most of who remained hanging on by their fingernails got ousted in 2006.

    And the ones that remain--heck, you don't even see them filling the Kucinich role in the primaries unless you think Paul represents Republican moderation...


    I don't know why you wouldn't support McCain/Palin (none / 0) (#88)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:46:25 PM EST
    if this is truly what you want.

    And let me add also, that if abortion is your big issue, you would be absolutely delighted to know that on Palin's watch Alaska liberalized its abortion laws.


    You're Kidding, Right? (none / 0) (#92)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:13:13 PM EST
    Did you read the article you linked to?


    "...Last November, the Alaska Supreme Court rejected a 1997 law requiring girls younger than 16 to obtain parental consent before getting an abortion. Palin slammed the ruling as "outrageous" and had her attorney general file for a rehearing, but it was promptly denied."

    Whoops, can't really give her credit there.

    Or here: Snip:

    "Meanwhile, both this year and last year, she has used her line-item veto to slash state funds for programs providing precisely the kinds of resources Feminists for Life supports for at-risk mothers on the fence about abortion. She cut by 20 percent the funding for Covenant House Alaska, a state program that includes a transitional home where new teenage mothers can spend up to 18 months learning money management and parenting skills. Critics have jumped all over that decision, arguing that the decision looks especially bad in light of the news that Palin's 17-year-old daughter has since become pregnant.

    "Palin has also voided funds for two other similar programs during her tenure as governor. One, the WIC (Women, Infants, Children) Program, would have provided breast pumps and nutrition support to low-income rural women, for a total cost of $15,480. Another, the Cook Inlet Housing Authority's student housing and daycare facility project, would have built a childcare facility and family-style housing units for students pursuing vocational education in Anchorage, most of whom come from rural areas."

    It goes on to describe Alaska's domestic violence and sexual assault rates as being "over twice as high as the national average. More women[in Alaska] are murdered by men there than in any other state in the country."

    The state also has the highest Chlamydia rate in the nation, with 681.8 cases per every 100,000 people (the national average is 347.8 per 100,000).


    "Activists point to a dire shortage in funding for domestic violence shelters, which have waiting lists despite the fact that the state boasts a $7 billion budget surplus. Amnesty International joined the chorus in April 2007, slamming both federal and state authorities for creating "a maze of tribal, state and federal jurisdictions" that effectively allowed sexual assailants impunity."

    This looks especially bad in light of her concern about her brother in law's alleged wife battery.


    "In response, Palin has requested--and secured--a $436,000 increase in state funding for the public safety department's Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. The year before, too, she'd bumped up funding by another $300,000. But the organizers of the Women's Summit, Clover Simon, head of Planned Parenthood Alaska, and Geran Tarr, a former state legislator who heads up the affiliated Alliance for Reproductive Justice, point to the overflowing shelters and say much more is needed. And Alaska might be able to afford it, given the council's total budget of nearly $11.5 million."

    I read the whole article, but it doesn't come close to being persuasive to me. Even less so when you see the range of women's/family interest issues (i.e. not just abortion rights) that Governor Palin doesn't seem to have addressed adequately in her 2 years on the job.


    Of course (none / 0) (#93)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:35:47 PM EST
    Not quite true (none / 0) (#94)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:35:57 PM EST
    She cut by 20 percent the funding for Covenant House Alaska, a state program that includes a transitional home where new teenage mothers can spend up to 18 months learning money management and parenting skills.

    she actually increased the funding. Prior year (numbers off top of head) 1.9 mil, budget request 5 mil, line item veto by gov balancing down the budget brought it in at around 4 mil.

    other points in the article may be "off" also. It is Newsweek after all.

    here's a fun site for Rumor Control


    Supporting them on energy independence? (none / 0) (#74)
    by onemanrules on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:21:26 PM EST
    Palin actually endorsed Obama's energy plan. There are hundreds of links on google supporting this. The only part of the plan she questioned was the taxing of oil companies big profits. This that what your against also?

    That's back-and-forth (none / 0) (#82)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:10:12 PM EST
    and not for me to judge.

    But she actually did something about energy apart from speechifying. I don't think her actions are 100% perfect, but they clearly benefitted her state.

    That's a huge plus for her and if it's Obama's idea then you should be happy that someone already started on that road.


    Questions (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:48:54 PM EST
    you are giving Palin every benefit of the doubt. Do you extent this courtesy to Obama?

    Do you like elections that turn on hot button social issues? Do you think this is a good idea, because it is "just politics?" Its just politics, its Ok to go after medical professionals for doing their job? Its just politics, so its Ok to target gay relationships? Its just politics, so its Ok to target "dirty" books (cause we don't really mean it)?

    Do you think a loyalty involving freedom of expression is a good idea- because the tester, didn't really mean it?

    Should the town librarian be given a loyalty test? Is there some Republican or Democratic way to be a librarian? Does this extend to your trash pickup? Should the folks who pick up your garbage livelihood depend on who they support in an election?  Do you have any idea why civil service was created? Do you think that all government positions should be based upon patronage - that your job should always hinge on your backing the right candidate?


    I started out donating to Obama (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:58:49 PM EST
    in case you are interested.

    And yes, OF COURSE I give her the benefit of the doubt. I gave it to Obama too.

    Is that wrong??

    As to your rhetorically phrased questions that clearly do not require an answer, you start to sound like an Obama speech, because you ask them not for answers but for their implication.

    For someone who supports Obama, you sound an awful lot like Rush to me, sorry, because your post is filled with implied condemnation.


    GOP (none / 0) (#48)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:06:51 PM EST
    Has not earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to respecting people's privacy and rights. Witness Shiavo.

    Her draconian positions on social issues, like McCain's, are there for anyone to see, who wants to look.


    Sorry, but (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:09:14 PM EST
    this wholesale dismissal from a fan of "post-partisan" candidate is what makes your arguments so shallow.

    Post Partisan is not a line I ever bought (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:13:01 PM EST
    That is a big reason I supported Clinton in the Primary.  And it might feel good and get Giuliani style guffaws to call Obama supporters "fans."  And there are indeed Obamamaniacs, as it were.  But I assure you I am none of this.  See my history of comments for evidence.

    Eight years have taught us that the people running the GOP are out for blood.  There is no more reason to assume Palin is a civil libertarian than there is to assume that Rick Santorum would govern as a civil libertarian.  And I bet you know this.  


    All I ask is for you to think about the (none / 0) (#49)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:07:22 PM EST
     implications of what you are saying. I would hope you would answer no to all of them. And if you would answer no to all of them, then maybe you should reconsider your defense of Ms. Palin - that it was just politics and she had no ill intent.

    I'm not defending Palin (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:12:27 PM EST
    neither am I attacking her.

    I believe that so far her actual record - her actions as a mayor and as a governor, as they relate to the well-being of her state - speaks louder than interpreting magazine articles for the purpose of the campaign based on ideology.

    I can't understand why you are doing something you seem to be against.


    Her Actual Record Today (none / 0) (#56)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:23:26 PM EST
    is that she is campaigning on the ticket of a party and a presidential candidate who want, in the one case, to adopt a constitutional amendment banning abortion and in the other, to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    If Palin disagrees with either or both of these policies, now is the time for her to set the record straight.

    Then I will (probably) believe she is more liberal on these issues than she has been portrayed.

    But since she is now basking in a role as a poster VP for the religious right, I don't really expect her to do so.

    So the choice becomes, she is more liberal on reproductive freedoms than she is being portrayed and is therefore pandering to the right. Or she sincerely shares McCain's and the GOP's positions and what we see is what we get. So far I have no reason to doubt the latter, and if this is true, at least she is being honest.


    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:32:32 PM EST
    but I don't think this election is about Roe vs Wade.

    Do you?

    Obama keeps telling voters that it's about economy, jobs, withdrawing from Iraq, stopping outsourcing, etc, etc.

    If he's not campaigning on Roe-Wade, why should she?


    Election Is About Ending the Bush Years (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by daring grace on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:53:08 PM EST
    And that means we need to keep someone who has  aligned himself 90% of the time with Bush's policies out of the WH.

    Not to mention Obama's solutions for our economic problems are just more realistic and will have greater impact on the stresses working people are facing with jobs, prices and health care.

    As for Roe v. Wade: yes, indeed, Obama has been campaigning in defense of reproductive freedoms.

    He has ads up in at least seven swing states.


    Their answers (3.66 / 3) (#44)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:00:30 PM EST
    to all of these questions that you raise become a louder and louder and more ignorant "Yes!!!' with each instance of parsing that they do.  (Escept for your question, don they have any idea why civil service was created.  At that they just guffaw along with the likes of Giuliani)

    They are excellent representatives for the GOP.  When you have no grounds to stand on, deligitimize the very notion of grounds.

    Enough to make you miss PPJ, aint it?


    Let's also not forget (none / 0) (#25)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:23:48 PM EST
    the price Obama had to pay to enter politics.

    Pander to Evangelicals? (none / 0) (#65)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:48:44 PM EST
    She is one!

    Excuse me, but do you have a point? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Polkan on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:53:39 PM EST
    from the NT Times (none / 0) (#97)
    by wasabi on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:17:54 PM EST
    "And for some, Ms. Palin's first months in office here were so jarring -- and so alienating -- that an effort was made to force a recall. About 100 people attended a meeting to discuss the effort, which was covered in the local press, but the idea was dropped.

    Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books, though she never followed through and it was unclear which books or passages were in question.

    Anne Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin's first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. "They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her," Ms. Kilkenny said.

    The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to "resist all efforts at censorship," Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support. Ms. Emmons, who left her job and Wasilla a couple of years later, declined to comment for this article."


    Very interesting that her parents and her husband (none / 0) (#13)
    by hairspray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:56:38 PM EST
    and son are registered as independents.  Her mother is quoted as saying she wasn't sure who she would vote for (several weeks ago)but that she liked to hear Obama speak.  Her parents are public school teachers and to me that speaks volumes about who Sarah is in her core.

    Not anymore (none / 0) (#23)
    by nell on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:22:59 PM EST
    Her mother-in-law later went on the record during an interview with Inside Edition and said that of course she was going to vote for Palin and that she is so proud of her, etc. The interview basically made it sound like she was suggesting that her statements admiring Obama were taken out of context. It was picked up by Politico, but not made into nearly as big of a deal as the supposedly misconstrued earlier statement:



    Well if my daughter was a VP nominee (none / 0) (#50)
    by hairspray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:08:07 PM EST
    I probably would vote for her ticket unless the top of the ticket was someone like Stalin or Hitler.

    Palin's MIL is Democrat (none / 0) (#98)
    by wasabi on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 06:20:29 PM EST
    Palin's Mother in Law ran for the office of Mayor after Palin was term limited out of office.  Palin threw her support behind the Republican running, and not her mother.

    No her daughter is out of bounds (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by hairspray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:42:25 PM EST
    because you are assuming her pregnancy was a failure to teach her the about contraception.  That is not a political issue. It is the choice within the family. Period.

    Actually, I'm unqualified to comment on this, but (2.66 / 3) (#72)
    by WillBFair on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:11:11 PM EST
    not because I don't fall in with the feminist lockstep. I criticize any hypocrit, including my own people. If you don't believe me, check Deal With It on by blog.
    Palin and her family are hypocrits. And now they can break their own rules and get a pass from ya'll. You may say that it's the same as going after Bill, but he didn't run around telling everyone to give up monogamy.
    But really for me, and this is where I'm wrong, it's a class issue. Where I come from, you don't just pop children out. You make the effort to actually raise them.
    With that, I'm done. I know I'm far beyond the allowable consensus.

    yes that personal discussion (none / 0) (#102)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:56:09 PM EST
    is out of bounds.

    Unruh's (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by sas on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:04:15 PM EST
    position change to Palin, reminds me of many Democrat's position change to Obama.

    Please, what is newsworthy here?

    This sort of thing is done all the time for the sake of "unity".

    Unruh isn't the only one to change her mind... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by JAB on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:21:40 PM EST
    Apparently Sally Quinn had a change of heart as well. I don't know what this means, but if Sally Quinn doesn't see her as Satan, well, I don't know what the world is coming to.


       SALLY QUINN: You pointed out the other night that you thought I was being unfair and that I had judged her before I heard her speak and that I knew anything about her and I think you were right.  I thought that she was amazing in her speech. She was funny and smart and poised and confident and she gave a great speech, beautifully delivered,  and I think she is going to be a formidable opponent. So all of that, I think I was wrong about her. And I didn't know anything about her.  

        BILL O'REILLY: So not only did Miss Palin do a good job as you just said but your column and other columns like yours rallied the folks to her side and actually helped the McCain-Palin ticket dramatically.

        QUINN: Oh, I think you're absolutely right.  I think that there's been a huge backlash against the media...

    Sally Quinn wants Palin (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by ruffian on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:48:01 PM EST
    to grace her cocktail parties.  That's all there is to that.

    Sally Quinn sees herself as a king (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by hairspray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 04:00:49 PM EST
    maker and an overseer of the Washington elite. She and Ben Bradlee hate the Clintons.  White trash you know.

    Oh she's in lockstep (3.00 / 1) (#3)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 12:30:35 PM EST
    So is McCain.  See the last paragraph of the post.  Who cares if there once was a moment when it seemed that Palin or McCain were willing to discuss contraceptives or sex education?  

    Neither will ever ever acknowledge contraceptives, or even acknowledge the fact that teenagers do in fact have sex even when told not to.  Never will they acknowledge this while in Power.  

    With the McCain Admin on this issue, we're going to get four more years of destructive refusal to acknowledge that reality and doctrine are different.

    One thing is certain we simply do not (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by hairspray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:01:17 PM EST
    know how someone like Palin or Obama for that matter will do in the end.  My husband who is voting for Obama (after losing Hillary) says that Obama worries him because he doesn't look like a nuts and bolts kind of guy.  My spouse is very well educated with top level business experience thinks one cannot be an overseer when not having done the grunt work first.  The fact that Obama has been rolling up his sleeves in his latest attempts to win over people who think this job will be very hard is encouraging.

    I agree with your spouse (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:07:16 PM EST
    one cannot be an overseer when not having done the grunt work first

    I've worked for those that have skipped their way to the top. Not pretty.


    One Silver Lining (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by glanton on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 01:20:43 PM EST
    Of a McCain/Palin Administration will be seeing people respond to what they do with surpise.  Like they did with Bush.  The incompetence of Bush's agencies, a lot of people were shocked--shocked by it all.  Some were surprised when he made it clear he was in the business of starting wars.  And I will bet you that some who vote for McCain will turn around and act surprised when he starts a war with Iran.  Well how could we have known that?

    I am sure that you and your husband know this, but a lot of so-called progressives, by showing interest in McCain, apparently have no idea of it: There is a difference between our inability to be dead-on certain as to what will happen in the future, and an blithe unwillingness to pay attention to writing on the wall.


    I am not sure that there isn't some writing on (none / 0) (#79)
    by hairspray on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 03:57:24 PM EST
    the wall that worries us about Obama, but the alternative is a platform (are they still relevant?) of the GOP that is very different than what we believe in. We are hoping that the Democratic platform can stay largely in place over the next four years. That is not to say that we weren't both heartsick over the FISA vote.

    Reminder (none / 0) (#61)
    by TChris on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 02:35:40 PM EST
    Stay on topic.  A number of off topic comments (and reactions to those topics) dealing with the primaries, Hillary, and generalized Obama-bashing have been deleted.  

    actually, at this very moment, (none / 0) (#96)
    by cpinva on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 05:57:10 PM EST
    she's not campaigning on anything, since she only just got nominated. let's see what she says/does in the next two months, shall we?

    she's either a hypocrite or a liar: you can't support both an abstinance-only based sex ed program, and artificial contraceptives. the two stances are, by definition, mutually exclusive.

    now that isn't rocket science!

    Thanks for mentioning this. (none / 0) (#99)
    by WillBFair on Sat Sep 06, 2008 at 08:29:11 PM EST
    I rarely use such words, but it's important to know they're a problem, and that we absolutely should not use them.