Friday, August 29, 2008
Today, John McCain made a huge strategic blunder. In an effort to appeal to disgruntled Clinton voters,
he chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate. Palin's resume is so thin it could model on the cover of Vogue Magazine.
The move was not even historic, as Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman chosen for a VP running mate in 1984, by Democrat Walter Mondale.
Palin has virtually no experience - particularly in foreign policy. Considering McCain is 72, elevating Palin makes it infinitely more difficult for him to claim Obama does not have the experience to be president. After all, before Palin was governor, she was mayor of some little town I've never heard of with about 6 residents. I think my apartment building in Brooklyn has more residents than her entire town.
Furthermore, she is
under investigation for improper use of her office. Stay tuned.
At the Democratic convention, the Clinton's helped unite the party - thus limiting defections. The fact that Palin is pro-life and anti-gay will not exactly bring many Hillary women to the McCain/Palin ticket.
Unless Palin emerges as an unusually good politician, this will go down as one of the worst VP picks in memory. It shows that McCain is another Bush and too incompetent to govern. What a gift to the Obama campaign.
66 Comments:
Strategically speaking, this is a terrible choice for McCain! Palin offers no regional advantage and is totally unknown. What's more, having a woman on the ticket is no longer the big news it was just a few months ago. What a blunder! Sorry, Charlie Crist.
posted by , at
8/29/2008 12:21 PM
Remain diligent. These couch potatos may put the chips and dip down, get off the couch and vote in great numbers.
posted by , at
8/29/2008 12:28 PM
McCain must be absolutely desperate. After ten minutes of Governor Palin on CNN, the kindest thing I can say is that she is provincial. She appears to be insubstantial, unsophisticated, inexperienced, and lacking in charisma. Why didn't McCain at least pick a substantial Republican woman -- Kay Bailey Hutchinson, for example?
posted by , at
8/29/2008 1:01 PM
posted by , at
8/29/2008 1:16 PM
She is an excellent pick. Pro life with about 15 kids of her own including a mongoloid idiot (the lifers will eat that up). She hunts, is athletic, attractive, her husband is a union member. She supported anti gay discrimination. whats not to like. She will pick up some Hillary supporters, but not a lot of the pro choice women.
posted by , at
8/29/2008 1:18 PM
HRC Says:
McCain Picks Little-Known, Anti-Gay Governor as VP
"America may not know much about Sarah Palin, but based on what our
community has seen of her, we know enough," said Human Rights Campaign
President Joe Solmonese. "Sarah Palin not only supported the 1998 Alaska constitutional amendment banning marriage equality but, in her less than two years as Governor, even expressed the extreme position of supporting
stripping away domestic partner benefits for state workers. When you can't even support giving our community the rights to health insurance and pension benefits, it's a frightening window into where she stands on equality."
When asked about the right-wing's reaction to the choice of Gov Palin, the New York Times quoted Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition as saying, "They're beyond ecstatic".
posted by Wayne Besen, at
8/29/2008 1:48 PM
Wayne, I love you, but please dont stereotype my profession. Most librarians are pretty liberal and progressive and look like everyone else. The tight-assed shushers of yesteryear are pretty much non-existent now. Having said that, I think picking her was a super blunder on McCain's part. Ed Schultz just said on the radio that it will galvanize the Clinton's, their supporters and liberal women everywhere not to let this unknown lightweight become the first woman to be 1 heartbeat away from the presidency (a very old heart too). I dont know why the fundos are so happy, many of them clearly dont like powerful women and think they should be subservient to men anyway. They tolerate Condolsleeza and crazies like Anne Coulter because they do their bidding. I cant wait to hear Randi Rhodes this afternoon. ;)
Gary (NJ)
posted by , at
8/29/2008 2:21 PM
PS to anon 1:18, it's called Down's syndrome now, not mongoloid idiocy.
Gary (NJ)
posted by , at
8/29/2008 2:23 PM
Good point, Gary. Sorry, I'll edit out the library comment. :)
posted by Wayne Besen, at
8/29/2008 3:12 PM
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!
This is the most cynical thing I've ever seen.
"Hey who should I pick for a VP?"
"Well those damn affirmative-action-loving liberals have a darky and almost picked a chick."
"Yeah... they think they're so fucking modern... but wait! Maybe WE could have a chick?"
"OMG That's brilliant! Yeah! That'll show 'em! And ours will be cute too!"
...
AAAAAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!
posted by , at
8/29/2008 5:51 PM
posted by , at
8/29/2008 9:16 PM
What does Palin offer? Ah, hmm...
- The pick wipes out the image of McCain as the crotchety elder and brings back that of the fly-boy and gambler, which is much more appealing, and the genuine person.
- It puts youth, change, and history on both of the tickets.
- It will detach some young people, especially women. Contrary to popular belief, a significant percentage of the female electorate really is so shallow and stupid that they will vote for a woman simply because she is a woman. It's the same reason that more than 90 percent of the black electorate is going to vote for Obama. This isn't rocket science people.
- On a related note, it will attach some women pissed off about Hillary.
- It revives some of the double-edged nature of the Democratic primary, which featured a black vs. a female trail-blazer, and put both sides on notice on sensitivity issues. Democrats used to raising charges of racism against Obama's critics will face charges of sexism and/or condescension when they try to diss her.
- It steps on Obama's claims to have been a reformer, as he reformed nothing (much less the corrupt mare's nest of Chicago arrangements), while she was a dragon-slayer up in Alaska.
- As a mother of five, one a Down Syndrome baby, it helps her side take on the Democrats on abortion extremism and the Born Alive bill.
- It reignites the deep and unhealed stresses inside the Democrats, some of whom will now wonder more loudly than ever why they didn't pick Hillary.
- It counter-intuitively makes the issue of Obama's light resume more potent than ever. Her lack of experience is no more than his is. And he's - to use a term from Alaska, and the Iditarod - their lead dog.
posted by , at
8/29/2008 9:23 PM
To all the people who are bringing up shallow points about lack of experience, "women vs. negroes," etc.: If we're going by shallow voters making stupid decisions alone, let's not forget that Obama is more handsome than McCain and more charismatic. Remember kennedy/nixon (from history class)? People who listened to their big debate on the radio thought Nixon did better. People who watched it on TV thought Kennedy did better. Because kennedy was more handsome and looked better speaking in front of the public. Obama has a pretty face and good voice and Biden has the "experience." And I'd trust a guy who's a career senator more than a woman who's a career mayor. Plus, she's still a "chick." Women think with their menstrual cycles and therefor cannot be trusted. Another minus on the McCain front.
Bottom line, nobody - and i mean NOBODY - can be worse than having another fucking born-again Christian who thinks all people must convert to their religion/way of thinking in order to have any kind of true human value. "Love the Jews" my ass. McCain will drag the Bushie way of thought into the Oval office again. I'd take a wet noodle over a third bush term with the Christian Right at the helm.
posted by Emily K, at
8/29/2008 9:41 PM
Plus, she's still a "chick." Women think with their menstrual cycles and therefor cannot be trusted.
I can't believe you said that Emily.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/30/2008 12:28 AM
Forgive me for being cynical Wayne but bluntly put, this is simply McCains' way of trying to appear progressive while running for a party who is anything but.
posted by Unknown, at
8/30/2008 1:31 AM
I've seen an awful lot of feminist bloggers saying they'll vote for McCain just because of his VP choice, though.
posted by , at
8/30/2008 5:36 AM
On another note- the homophobic hatred from Jamaica is about to hit the U.S. Should be interesting to see how they react to the protestors. http://www.timeout.com/newyork/articles/own-this-city/54001/straight-dope
posted by Joey, at
8/30/2008 5:47 AM
This was forwarded to me by one of my liberal tree-hugger friends. . . . :)
WASHINGTON-- Senator John McCain just announced his choice for running mate: Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. To follow is a statement by Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund.
“Senator McCain’s choice for a running mate is beyond belief. By choosing Sarah Palin, McCain has clearly made a decision to continue the Bush legacy of destructive environmental policies.
“Sarah Palin, whose husband works for BP (formerly British Petroleum), has repeatedly put special interests first when it comes to the environment. In her scant two years as governor, she has lobbied aggressively to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, pushed for more drilling off of Alaska’s coasts, and put special interests above science. Ms. Palin has made it clear through her actions that she is unwilling to do even as much as the Bush administration to address the impacts of global warming. Her most recent effort has been to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the polar bear from the endangered species list, putting Big Oil before sound science. As unbelievable as this may sound, this actually puts her to the right of the Bush administration.
“This is Senator McCain’s first significant choice in building his executive team and it’s a bad one. It has to raise serious doubts in the minds of voters about John McCain’s commitment to conservation, to addressing the impacts of global warming and to ensuring our country ends its dependency on oil.”
posted by , at
8/30/2008 11:55 AM
Wayne writes: "Palin has virtually no experience - particularly in foreign policy."
Yep, the fearful critics are already trying to damn Sarah Palin for her perceived lack of foreign-policy experience (while ignorning Obama's!), but what they are not allowing for is something more important that she has the right basic attitudes and sense of priorities.
Gov. Palin understands that aggression has to be resisted and commitments have to be honored. She has a record for integrity and for getting the job done matched by very few politicians, as shown by her success in tackling the corrupt Republican-party establishment in Alaska, and her highly effective economic program there.
Like John McCain, Sarah Palin is a doer who means what she says, unlike Barack Obama and Joe Biden who may come out with fine sentiments they read off a teleprompter but are unwilling to get to grips with fundamental problems posed by Iran and Syria.
posted by , at
8/30/2008 12:45 PM
The post above nailed it. The Dems are scared as hell. Gov. Sarah Palin is a young, attractive, and unapologetic conservative. She's free of the taint (fair or unfair) of the Bush administration and the recent Republican Congress. And she is able to invigorate a McCain administration and to govern beyond it.
She's a working woman who's a proud wife and mother; a traditionalist in important matters who's broken through all kinds of barriers; a reformer who's a Republican; a challenger of a corrupt good-old-boy establishment who's a conservative; a successful woman whose life is unapologetically grounded in religious belief; a lady who's a leader.
Yes indeed, the Dems are scared, and they should be. Palin's spectacular performance in her introduction in Dayton was outstanding, and millions of Americans (including many, many disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters) saw it. Her remarks were cogent and compelling. Her presentation of herself was shrewd and savvy. I'm confident as ever - McCain is gonna win this election!
posted by , at
8/30/2008 1:03 PM
Priya Lynn, I was being facetious. I don't actually believe that. Just like I use the term "Negro" to demonstrate bigotry.
posted by Emily K, at
8/30/2008 1:07 PM
Ooookaaay Emily. I'm not sure what you were trying to demonstrate with that line.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/30/2008 1:42 PM
Maybe her point was that most women are fuckin' morons (Exhibit A: Priya Lynn) who'll vote for a ticket merely because there's a woman on the ticket. The same way most blacks will vote for one ticket merely because of the Magic Negro that heads it. Again, not rocket science people.
posted by , at
8/30/2008 2:24 PM
No, my point was that most PEOPLE are fuckin' morons. Men will say "she thinks with her periods" just like conservatives will say "she opposes the kweer-pederfiles."
Name-calling was definitely NOT in the agenda of my comment.
posted by Emily K, at
8/30/2008 3:43 PM
LOL, anonymous makes it clear that he's been rejected by every woman he's ever approached. Hence the unmitigated anger at all women.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/30/2008 6:22 PM
Actually I have a smokin' hot girlfriend, who I hope one day will be my wife.
That said, contemptuous is probably the word you were looking for. And there are two reasons one is contemptuous of another. One is a conscious belief in one's own superiority. As I do not believe in inherent male superiority - men have their own, very different set of weaknesses and problems - this does not apply. The other reason is that one observes contemptible behavior.
My affection for the women I love and my positive relationships with them has little to do with the behavior and thought processes I witness in them and others around me. They have long been aware of what I think and they are likewise aware that there is nothing that I have said on the subject which cannot be supported conclusively, in both anecdotal and more substantive statistical manner. I barely even need to articulate my case, as a simple selection of quotes from various female leaders and references to their actions suffices to speak for me.
posted by , at
8/30/2008 7:17 PM
Yeah, you're right anonymous, you're barely even articulate. Its good that you have an imaginary girlfriend, hate to see losers have no one.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/30/2008 8:03 PM
Classic Priya Lynn. Obvious reading comprehension problems. No argument. And commenting on issues she positively, absolutely has no information to back up her absurd claims. She's one of a kind!
posted by , at
8/30/2008 8:20 PM
LOL, Oh anonymous, I can read you like a book. You're still smarting from the intellectual spankings I've given you. You're a desperate lonely loser bitter at women for rejecting you. You're still a virgin and now you're trying to hide from the questions you have about your sexuality, that's why you hang out at gay blogs using your anger at gays to try and help you suppress those same sex attractions you can't quite hide from yourself.
posted by Priya Lynn, at
8/30/2008 10:21 PM
I have to admit, even among name-calling, Priya seems to be somewhat on to something IMHO... It's weird that people who are so hostile to pro-gay movements, people, ideas, etc. spend their time at gay blogs.
posted by Emily K, at
8/31/2008 1:32 AM
Emily, anonymous is a deeply closeted bitter gay male. No straight male in his right mind would troll a gay blog or website, unless he has some prurient interest. I guess he just can't stay away from the men.
Another thing, the 18 million Hillary supporters many of whom are women....wouldn't be so stupid as to vote for McCain with a VP who is pro-life, anti-choice and anti-gay. If they do, then they're as dumb as log cabiners who continue to support the party of hate and they will get what they deserve, another four years of failed Bush policies and zilch on equality. McCain's choice is reckless nonetheless. Just let him or Palin bring up family issues, then we can remind the country that McCain wasn't so profamily when he cheated on his first wife, several times. So much for our being a threat to marriage! What a hypocrite!
posted by , at
8/31/2008 8:31 AM
Priya Lynn, nothing you've posted that I've seen could ever be characterized as "intellectual." In fact, you're probably the most uninformed, least intellectually mature person who posts on this blog. Seriously, you're not bright. At all. Sorry to have to point that out to you.
And Robert, that's the point. Those female Hillary supporters ARE stupid and dumb, and polls are still showing that many of them are going to vote for McCain/Palin - even after Hillary's convention speech.
You're right that John McCain's adulterous activity in his first marriage was wrong, despicable, and sinful. And he's acknowledged publicly in front of millions of viewers that it was his greatest moral failure.
And that is what will resonate with Americans on that issue. The more his enemies bring up his first wife and his actions, the more the clips from that public acknowledgement will be shown, leading to more people liking McCain and questioning the motives and antics of people like Robert. So keep bringing it up people - now it's actually helping McCain!
Now, this brings us to Barack Obama. He has three major vulnerabilities that are going to be continually addressed after the Republican convention:
- His 20-year relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
- His relationship with the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist bomber William Ayers.
- Obama's 2003 vote against a bill, "virtually identical" as the Obama campaign admits, to one that passed the U.S. Senate 98-0, banning the killing of fetuses who have survived abortions.
Concerning Bill Ayers, the Obama campaign has tried to actually suppress discussion (so much for free speech!). But it will fail. The emergence of the new media and the First Amendment mean that is like stopping the Mississippi River from flowing to the sea.
Things are looking good for John McCain!
posted by , at
8/31/2008 10:14 AM
Anonymous, guilt by association doesn't wash any more and the American people see through that. It explains why so many closeted gay men in your party or whatever party you support would rather deny their orientation than admit it publicly. You're a classic example of that. You can posture all you want, your political philosophy is definitely losing the cultural war among the young, the future of this generation. They're not growing up with the prejudice, and antigay bias that you grew up with. You think McCain is progressive by picking a woman. Please...she's being used. Nothing novel about that. Had she decided to run for the presidency, that would be a different issue, but no female has in your party. The party of hate has no respect for women, if it did, it would leave Roe v. Wade untouched. Nobody is forcing any woman to have an abortion or to accept it, but your party, mostly all men assume that they speak for women, how arrogant and how misogynystic does it get?
Things must be pretty desperate if a neocon like you trolls a gay blogsite and claims he's straight, please. You better be careful, some neocons might find out you've been taking a very intense interest in gay blogs and websites beyond the political. Maybe they'll figure out what we all know, that you're gay. So get over it, come out of that dark closet you've been living in.
posted by , at
8/31/2008 10:41 AM
"[G]uilt by association doesn't wash any more..."
We'll see. My bets are it'll work as well as it's worked since elections first began. Of course you don't like guilt by association because so many of the politicians you support associate with people they probably shouldn't.
"[Y]our political philosophy is definitely losing the cultural war among the young, the future of this generation."
Not at all. My political philosophy [libertarianism] is the most popular political philosophy among young people. You're living in the past.
Now, I agree that many young people do have humanist and socialistic tendencies when they're young, naive, and idealistic. When they're indoctrinated in government schools. When they're influenced by worthless college professors.
But then they grow up. And experience life. And think for themselves. Pointing to the youth voter as a sign of lasting change is awfully, awfully ignorant from a historical perspective.
"You think McCain is progressive by picking a woman."
Not at all. He's being politically pragmatic, and it was a brilliant move.
"[B]ut no female has [run for President] in your party."
What a moron! Margaret Chase Smith? Elizabeth Dole? My goodness man!
"The party of hate has no respect for women, if it did, it would leave Roe v. Wade untouched."
I'll ignore for a moment the fact that Roe v. Wade was a terrible opinion from strictly a legal perspective. And I bet you've never even read it.
Now, if you want to see the weakest and most subservient women in America, just look at the faces of those entering an abortion clinic. What you will see is sadness, desperation, fear, and resignation. What you will not see is women who feel empowered or in control.
Like suicide, abortion is a choice made by tragic people who have been convinced they have no choice. Better than anyone else, women who submit to abortion understand why no woman was ever admired for having an abortion, and why no woman ever bragged about her abortion, and why no woman ever climbed off an abortionist's table with a higher opinion of herself than she had when she climbed onto it.
This nonsense that women must have the right to kill their children in order to be equal to men is an invention of the abortion industry. With almost no exceptions, pioneers of the women's movement like Susan B. Anthony, Mattie Brinkerhoff, Sarah Norton, Emma Goldman, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were outspoken opponents of legal abortion. Alice Paul, who wrote the original Equal Rights Amendment, called abortion the ultimate exploitation of women. Even suffragist newspapers such as Woodhull's and Claflin's Weekly, had editorial policies which openly attacked both abortion and abortionists.
These early feminists saw that abortion is patronizing and paternalistic and that a woman's willingness to submit to it doesn't free her, it devalues her. They understood that legalized abortion is nothing more than a safety net for sexually predatory and sexually irresponsible men.
Pro-abortion miscreants continue to push the idea that having a clean place to kill their babies is the cornerstone of women's equality. That lie is a self-serving perversion of the basic values of legitimate feminism. As pro-life feminist Melissa Simmons-Tulin once said, "Women will never climb to equality over the dead bodies of their children."
posted by , at
8/31/2008 1:42 PM
Sarah who? Only the corruption-fighting Governor of our great state of Alaska!
Here's a good thing to remember Democrats. Both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin live and work in corrupt states. Sarah did something about the corruption in Alaska, and about the corruption in her own party. She fought it. Relentlessly.
Now, if Barack Obama did anything about corruption in Illinois and the infamous corruption in his own party, someone please remind me what it was. Tony Rezko anyone?
I can't wait for the Sarah Palin press conference in Chicago pointing out that she has fought corruption in Alaska, while Barack Obama has not only tolerated it but actually supported it in Illinois.
"Obama is one of those rare political figures who seems to grow smaller the closer we approach him." - Michael Gerson, Washington Post
posted by , at
8/31/2008 10:47 PM
i have not read up on palins corruption busting but i do know that it seems many republican state attorney generals have many claims to corruption busting which basically target democrats and leave republicans in the clear. Seems a bit biased to me.
posted by , at
9/01/2008 12:07 AM
Anonymous, rant all you want, we don't take you seriously. Come out honey! What ails you? Why do you so often visit a gay blogsite, why? We don't believe one word of what you say. It is you who is living in the past. Now we know you can't make it with a woman, otherwise you wouldn't be here, so are you now having problems finding a hot man date? Why don't your run along and post on some straight blogsites for a change and try to woo the doubters, the independents. You're wasting your time on gay voters baby! You've made yourself an absolute laughing stock just like the GOP!
I suppose you agree with Palin....who believes that even if a mother's life is at risk, as long as the fetus survives, that's ok, the mother can die. What a moron! There is plenty more dirt that will emerge on Palin mark my words especially on the question of family values.
posted by , at
9/01/2008 8:17 AM
For more on Palin, check this out.
http://www.bentalaska.com/
posted by , at
9/01/2008 9:24 AM
That's the point - Sarah Palin attacked REPUBLICANS (i.e., those corrupt politicians in her own party)! So...so unlike Barack Obama.
As for abortion, Sarah Palin recognizes, fully in line with the findings of modern medicine and scholarship, that the chances that continuing a pregnancy to term might kill a mother are extraordinarily rare. However, in those very rare cases where that possibility may in fact exist, the crucial issue is the same crucial issue that exists in so many fronts - the issue of intent.
If a car wreck has trapped two passengers in such a way that saving one might take the life of the other, the emergency personnel on the scene would never intentionally kill one to get the other one out. Instead, they would do everything possible to save both. If in that process one loses its life, that would be seen as a regrettable, but unavoidable, outcome.
That same dynamic applies when a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. The woman's physician should be directed, by law, to do everything possible to save both mother and baby. If in that effort the child dies, that should be considered an unavoidable, thus lawful, outcome. However, it is as morally indefensible to kill the baby to save the mother as it would be to kill the mother to save the baby.
A baby's rights are not superior to the moms. Their rights are equal. This protects women without caving in to the irrational and morally bankrupt view that it is sometimes "necessary" to kill children.
posted by , at
9/01/2008 10:44 AM
I love how scared Obama-supporters are of Sarah Palin. This was an absolutely brilliant choice by McCain! Listening to Obama-supporters shriek with indignation about her lack of experience is just a little too rich. Where were they when Obama, two years into the Senate, announced his candidacy for president? Where were they when a far more experienced candidate, Hillary Clinton, was seeking the Democratic nomination?
One Obama supporter recently said, "In picking an unknown, untested half-a-term governor from Alaska...John McCain is following in a long line of reckless men who have rolled the dice for a beauty queen." Do we really have to do this again? No sooner was Hillary Clinton out of the race, and a new woman was in Obama's cross hairs.
The McCain camp watched and learned as Obama supporters offended Hillary supporters by their treatment of her. McCain knew that the unhinged Obama left is incapable of behaving, and that Palin would bring out their worst instincts. And he was right! Just wait until Palin is debating Joe Biden and he starts attacking or condescending to her. Hillary voters are going to say, "Oh yeah, I remember this."
And that's why this Hillary Clinton supporter is now supporting McCain/Palin! My party deserves exactly what they're gonna get!!
posted by , at
9/01/2008 11:03 AM
So Anonymous, lets use this scenario. If you were straight and married, what if your pregnant wife was told that giving birth could end her life, would you be prepared to let her die just to save the child? If you would, then just how irrational is that? What if an underage girl is raped, say your 13 year old daughter if you had one, you'd be ok with her going through another traumatic experience at such a young age? What if she were gang raped? What if her health were jeopardized by giving birth? What if in the process of her getting pregnant, the perpetrator(s) had an STD? What if she were the victim of incest? Ok I suppose!
posted by , at
9/01/2008 11:43 AM
"If you were straight and married, what if your pregnant wife was told that giving birth could end her life, would you be prepared to let her die just to save the child?...What if her health were jeopardized by giving birth?"
Already addressed those above. It may be a bit complicated for someone of your intellect, but try to work through it again.
"What if an underage girl is raped, say your 13 year old daughter if you had one, you'd be ok with her going through another traumatic experience at such a young age? What if she were gang raped? What if in the process of her getting pregnant, the perpetrator(s) had an STD? What if she were the victim of incest?"
When pregnancy occurs as a result of rape or incest, the baby is not only the child of the rapist but of the woman as well. Today, it is not unusual for rape victims who aborted their children to say they have come to grips with having been the victim of someone else's violence, but cannot accept that they inflicted violence on their own baby. On the other hand, you never hear a rape victim who did not have an abortion later say she wished she had. In fact, they often see the baby as the only good thing that came from the situation.
There are those who argue that this baby would be a constant reminder of the rape. When adoption is suggested, the response is that many women are not emotionally able to carry a child for nine months and then give it to someone else to raise. In other words, we're asked to believe that the kind of woman who would be traumatized by placing her child with a loving family, would be happier if her baby was brutally ripped to shreds, thrown in a dumpster and hauled off to a landfill.
Even if we bought into that, let's imagine that a woman was kidnapped and held for two years during which time she gave birth to her captor's son. When rescued, the woman says the baby is a constant reminder of her ordeal but that she could not stand to give him up to someone else to raise. Would we allow her to have him killed? After all, the dynamics used to justify abortion also exist in this situation.
Other people rationalize abortion for rape and incest because the pregnancy was beyond the woman's control. That too is illogical. Allowing a victim of violence and brutality to inflict violence and brutality upon her own child will not return the control that the rapist stole from her, nor will it address the physical or psychological damage that was done to her.
Finally, we must never forget that the unborn child created through an act of violence is no less a living human being than the one created through an act of love. And just as we would not discriminate against a five-year-old who was conceived in rape or incest, neither should we discriminate against an unborn child who was so conceived.
posted by , at
9/01/2008 1:02 PM
Oh please Anonymous, stop the denial, you idiot. You'll come up with the most ridiculous excuses to explain why a woman should never have an abortion let alone the right to one if she so chooses. You're just another neocon neanderthal. You think you're so superior to everyone else, well, you're not, you're a dying breed, none too soon.
So what is your sweet little family values heroine Sarah Palin going to do now that her 17 year old daughter has been knocked up? So much for her family values along with McCain's and the entire GOP's mantra on that one. The chickens are coming home to roost. What a frigging bunch of doublestandard bigots you neocons are.
Do us all a favor, Anonymous, and come out of that dark lonely closet you're hiding in and get with the program. You claim to have an intellect yet you can't even come up with an original name, not even a name like Theo. Like most closeted gay men, you hide behind anonymity pretending to be straight, but we know you're not. What are you so afraid of that you have to conceal your real name? Afraid someone will figure out who you are and out you?
posted by , at
9/01/2008 2:27 PM
I'm sorry Robert, but I missed your argument. I understand, you must still be forming the substance part.
posted by , at
9/01/2008 4:08 PM
Since I'm a fair guy, I have to give credit where credit is due.
I've been almost completely underwhelmed by Barack Obama's increasingly bizarre performance since the early part of the Democratic primary when he was driving Team Clinton nuts. That being said, Obama handled the dangerous curve ball of the pregnancy in the Palin family much, much better than many of his supporters.
Obama, was asked at a press conference about the suggestion by some Republicans that Democrats - particularly liberal bloggers - were trying to advance rumors about the Palin family. Obama's response excellent and admirable: "Our people were not involved in any way in this and they will not be. And if I ever thought there was somebody in my campaign that was involved in something like that, they'd be fired, O.K.?"
Well done Senator Obama. Seriously. All may be fair in love, war, and politics, but there are some attacks that are more dangerous for the attacker than the target. When one considers the fact that the Palin family quite obviously love children, attacking the VP candidate's daughter for having a baby would be crazy. Throw in Obama's position on abortion and it would be a recipe for self-inflicted disaster.
posted by , at
9/01/2008 9:35 PM
Blah blah blah, Anonymous. If Hillary were nominated and Chelsea were pregnant, you neocons would be singing a different tune playing the family issues card. Your bunch is losing credibility on this one. McCain who cheated on his first wife several times, Henry Hyde, the author of Clinton's impeachment, an adulterer; Newt Gingrich who also cheated on his dying wife, Vito Fossella who had a child during his adulterous affair; David Vitter...all of them hurling the family values card at the Democrats and espousing their christian cultist beliefs.
Come out of the closet, Anonymous. You're spending far too much time on a gay blogsite to be straight.
posted by , at
9/02/2008 8:27 AM
Anonymous, and if Palin is gay friendly as Patrick Sammon says she is, lets see her bring up LGBT equality in her speech this week. I can't wait to find out where she stands on that assuming that the party of hate is an all-inclusive party. Lets see what she says about DADT too and I only hope Joe Biden gets to debate her on foreign policy before November.
posted by , at
9/02/2008 8:31 AM
It's Democrats and the loony left that are the hypocrites. While misidentifying and condemning continued conservative support for Sarah Palin as hypocrisy, they're putting on a disgraceful clinic in what real hypocrisy looks like.
You're showing us firsthand Robert how you treat women who refuse to toe the leftist line, just as you've shown us how you treat black Americans who dare stray from your leftist assigned ideology.
In your world of twisted logic and values, you believe you've come upon a smoking gun with the Bristol Palin pregnancy. You are wholly oblivious to the endearing aspects of this story, from Sarah and Todd Palin's unqualified love and support for their daughter to Bristol's decision to marry the baby's father and give birth to this child.
posted by , at
9/02/2008 6:56 PM
Hmmm, Anonymous, "twisted logic?" That most certainly applies to you and all the other neocons, the same sort of twisted logic that I read this morning in one of the local NY dailies. On Governor Paterson's order to recognize out of state same-sex marriage that has now been upheld by a State Supreme Court Judge, some right wing opponents who filed a complaint against the order are now saying that this will compel the state to "recognize polygamy in other societies".
You are skilled at turning things around Anonymous to win an argument, which you have not and never will, but clearly, you are so transparent and desperate. Why do you persist posting on a gay blogsite, unnatural behavior for a "wannabe" straight male?
If anyone is antiwomen, it is your Sarah Palin....simply because she opposes a woman's right to choose. That is one of the many fundamental difference between the loony right and the progressive left, you moron.
Again, come out Anonymous and acknowledge the truth about yourself. We know what you are!
posted by , at
9/03/2008 8:01 AM
A "woman's right to choose"? Choose what? To have an abortion, right? You always leave that part out. Why? Because it's not about the general act of "choosing" that people object to, it's the specific "choice" of killing an unborn child that people do.
You see, the pro-abortion lobby has always realized that abortion itself is indefensible. This has forced them to argue that whether abortion is the deliberate killing of a living human being or not, is unrelated to the question of whether it should be legal. In short, they have to divert attention toward the philosophical concepts of "choice" and "who decides" because they can't afford for the public to look at what's being chosen and decided.
To imply that the issue is not abortion, but choice, is to say that what's being chosen is irrelevant. That is clearly illogical given that all choices are not equal. Choosing whether to buy a new car is vastly different than choosing whether to produce child pornography, and the morality of those choices is not affected by the eventual decision. However, the pro-choice position is that abortion becomes acceptable simply by the act of choosing to do it.
Defenders of slavery also used this same strategy. During the 1858 Abraham Lincoln-Stephen Douglas debates, Douglas said he did not support outlawing slavery, saying, "I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people favoring slavery, but let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people who favor slavery are civilized, that they bear consciences, and that they are accountable to God and their posterity and not to us. It is for them to decide therefore the moral and religious right of the slavery question for themselves within their own limits."
Just substitute the word abortion every place the word slavery appears, and this statement perfectly defines the pro-choice (i.e., pro-abortion) position in America today.
Lincoln's response to Douglas' pro-choice position on slavery was, "He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When Judge Douglas says whoever, or whatever community, wants slaves, they have a right to them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do a wrong."
Lincoln recognized that there is nothing intrinsically noble about the concept of choice, and that there are choices which a society cannot allow the individual to make.
The fact is, before one can rightly claim that the issue is "choice" or "who decides," he or she must first examine what's being chosen. If it's what color shoes to wear, that's one thing; if it's whether to kill another human being, that's another. Except in self-defense, the decision about whether one human being can kill another one cannot be left up to the individual who wants to do the killing.
Besides, this "who decides, the woman or the state" rhetoric is idiotic on its face. Laws against abortion would not let the state decide who gets abortions any more than laws against rape let the state decide who gets raped. Instead, they establish that certain behaviors are so unacceptable they must be illegal.
Finally, as used by abortion advocates, the term "pro-choice" is both inaccurate and dishonest. In an abortion, at least three people are directly impacted: the mother, the father, and the child. The pro-choice argument is that only one is entitled to a choice. Additionally, it has never been a part of their agenda to protect any choice other than abortion. They don't lobby for women to have the legal right to be prostitutes or use crack cocaine. Yet these laws, and thousands of others, deny women "the right to choose" just as much as laws preventing abortion would.
posted by , at
9/03/2008 11:03 AM
Yes, Anonymous! A woman should and MUST have the right to decide if she wishes to terminate her pregnancy. It is HER body, it is NOT the property of the government nor of any man. Are you so thick you can't even grasp what choice is?
Come out, closet case!
posted by , at
9/03/2008 11:31 AM
It is nonsense to suggest that the law never tells people what they can or cannot do with their bodies. In fact, there are many things which people are not legally allowed to do with their bodies.
Also, statements like this ignore the fact that, by any rational standard, the unborn child is a separate individual from its mother.
In fact, if an unborn child had the ability to commit a crime, it has everything necessary for a forensic expert to identify it in court. Long before the point at which most abortions are done, the unborn child has its own DNA code, its own fingerprints, and its own blood type - none of which match the mother.
The individuality of the unborn was evident in 1999 when a Tennessee surgeon had just completed an operation on an unborn baby and was about to close the incision in the mom's abdomen. Before he could do so, the child punched his arm through the incision and grasped the doctor's finger. A photo of this event ended up on magazine covers and television sets around the world. The question is, who grabbed the doctor's finger?
posted by , at
9/03/2008 2:10 PM
Anonymous, nobody is paying attentiont to you! So do yourself a huge favor, COME OUT!
posted by , at
9/03/2008 2:47 PM
posted by , at
9/03/2008 4:13 PM
posted by , at
9/04/2008 3:03 AM
ショッピング枠 現金化クレジットカードのショッピング枠を高還元率で現金化するなら現金化おまかせウェブへ
テレマーケティングを行うだけでなく「売り方開発」の成功セオリーを貴社と一緒に作っていくことが/fontエムエム総研が他社と大きく違うところです
株式投資アイアンドダブリュー（I&W）は資産運用や株式投資、モチベーション向上方法を提案するコンサルティング会社です
posted by , at
9/18/2008 11:52 PM
當舖或專利或商標或存證信函都歡迎討論。專利或商標或存證信函都很重要。
關鍵字:當舖,專利,專利,商標,商標,存證信函,存證信函,商標設計,自創品牌,關鍵字。
posted by 商標註冊/專利申請達人, at
3/09/2009 3:49 AM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
3/31/2009 10:25 AM
There is a cool range of nike air force 1 available including the latest Classic Cardy Style in Black, mens prada shoes, Oatmeal or Cream. These ugg store are almost impossible to get anywhere in the UK and sold out on the cheap Tiffany website within weeks. They are incredibly popular ugg store and its easy to see why. ugg discount is a really versatile boot UGG Bailey Button boots. The three chunky wooden ugg boots Boots Salep the side mean that you can wear them either buttoned up or down and they look great with buy ugg boots.he ultimate in luxury designer clothing has to still be the online shopping Australia boots. These timeless classics are available in nike shoes, Black and Sand these converse shoes really are the last word in comfort footwear. These ugg discount are made entirely from sheepskin with a light Eva sole there is nothing quite Tiffany earring like the feeling of slipping your feet into a brand new pair of ugg boots! But not only do they feel great cheap ugg they look great ugg discount too and can be worn tall or ugg down to expose the sheepskin fur.If you're looking for wholesale supplier for a special lady,discount af1 shoes sale recommend UGG Suburb Crochet from the prada shoesCollection-they have the qualities of great fashion ugg boots online and practicality combined-along with exquisite comfort. If you want to purchase the Tiffany jewelry, please visit ugg classic our online buy ugg boots shop. Welcome to select and buy ugg store!was shocked. But here was a statement ugg shoes that could be checked against future events retail supplies.
posted by Unknown, at
12/28/2009 4:08 PM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
1/09/2010 10:04 PM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
6/25/2010 5:37 AM
夜世界,情趣用品,情趣,電動按摩棒,按摩棒,AV,充氣娃娃,自慰器,自慰套,電動自慰器,飛機杯,跳蛋,威而柔,潤滑液,情趣睡衣,角色扮演,丁字褲,SM,情趣用具
posted by , at
7/15/2010 2:13 AM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
8/06/2011 9:06 AM
posted by 說妳美美美睫美甲紋繡預約0915551807, at
5/23/2014 7:39 AM
posted by 福爾摩思多益雅思補習班(02) 2365-3288, at
3/28/2015 8:59 PM
posted by 新北接睫毛板橋美睫預約推薦 0915551807, at
5/24/2015 10:39 PM
<< Home
