Subscribe by RSS
The word is now out that John McCain has chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential choice. This will be rather momentous as clearly the McCain campaign is attempting to siphon off Hillary Clinton supporters from Obama.
Report from Fox News:
DAYTON, Ohio — John McCain will introduce Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential running mate at an event here at noon Friday, senior campaign sources confirmed to FOX News.
Palin emerged earlier in the day as the hot name in the vice presidential sweepstakes after reports circulated that two short-listers — Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty — were out of the running.
Adding fuel to the Palin candidacy was a report that a charter aircraft from Anchorage owned by a McCain supporter had arrived at a small airport outside Dayton, Ohio, where McCain has scheduled a noon ET rally to announce his choice.
FOX News reported the jet flew to Flagstaff, Ariz., on Thursday before heading landing in Middletown, Ohio.
Palin is considered a rising star in the Republican Party. She is the state’s first female governor, the mother of five — and at 44 is its youngest chief executive.
The choice of Palin was kept under such tight wraps that even Palin’s mother said Friday morning that she had not yet heard from her daughter that she had been selected for the No. 2 spot on the GOP ticket.
The McCain camp issued a statement calling Palin a reformer who can work across the party aisle.
“Governor Palin has challenged the influence of the big oil companies while fighting for the development of new energy resources. She leads a state that matters to every one of us,†the statement said. “In Alaska, Governor Palin challenged a corrupt system and passed a landmark ethics reform bill. She has actually used her veto and cut budgetary spending. She put a stop to the ‘bridge to nowhere’ that would have cost taxpayers $400 million dollars.â€
Informed of the selection, a senior official with Barack Obama campaign questioned Palin’s executive experience,
“After making experience a central issue of the race, McCain picks, on his 72nd birthday, a peron who 3 years ago was the part-time mayor of a city in Alaska with a population of about 8,000 - that’s 1/20th the size of Obama’s state Senate district. That virtually takes the experience argument off the table. She’s also complimented Obama’s energy plan and is under investigation in her own state for pressuring the firing of a relative from the state safety department,†the official said.
Sarah Palin bio if you don’t know too much about here.
Their campaign event in Ohio is underway, I’ll update with video of their first appearance at noon eastern.
Update
Report on the announcement from NBC News and Fox News:
Waiting on video of their appearance and her “acceptance” speech of sorts…
Update
Video of their first campaign appearance including Palin’s opening campaign speech:
In my opinion, this was a major step forward for McCain. In one move he seems to have recaptured some of his conservative losses. Palin represents a historic pick for the GOP as Obama represents a historic pick for the Democrats.
This race just got a whole more interesting, especially the Vice Presidential debates which I’m now eagerly awaiting.
(7 votes, average: 3.86 out of 5)
Loading ...Visit the You Decide 2008 Store »
Great Job JOHN! she spoke great she seems great and i am looking forward to this.
Babs, im guessing this was one of your hopeful longshots??
Oh yeah it was, O_S!!!! I couldn’t be more pleased as a McCain supporter, a Mom, a business owner, and a woman!! And oh yeah, as a member of the NRA!
*WALKING ON THE CEILING, I AM!*
Whoa- what a gamble.
An incredibly aggressive choice as well. Instead of securing his conservative base with a conservative choice, he’s trying to encroach on Obama’s territory.
I’m actually quite impressed- it’s a win on many fronts for McCain. Palin is young, has experience with big oil, is conservative, pro life, a feminist in some respects, and is a Washington outsider. A choice such as this breaks the Democrat’s attack strategy of painting McCain as “more of the same”, makes a greater appeal to Hillary supporters and independents, shows his concern for the energy crisis, doesn’t harm him among conservatives, and strengthens McCain’s image of someone who will change Washington.
Of course, there are flaws in choosing her. It weakens his ability to paint Obama as inexperienced, it’s not going to help him too much with conservatives or on foreign policy, and it’s yet to be seen whether or not she can handle the realm of big politics. McCain might have gained more ground with Romney on economics or Ridge with national security, which also would have bolstered him more than Palin in terms of political experience and conservative base.
I’m anticipating the VP debate a lot more now.
Absolutely awesome !
I can’t wait for the VP debates. Biden is going to look like a nasty old man if he tries to use his attack dog tactics against Palin. Good move John, good move.
My first reaction was, “THIS COULD NOT BE ANY MORE PERFECT!”. This is a very smart move, not just because of the ‘Hillary factor’, but also because it levels the playing field on the historic candidacy quotient. Women eek a majority not only in population, but in voting numbers as well. Placing a woman on his ticket works well on so many different levels. I am impressed with Senator McCain’s choice. It illustrates that he is a progressive thinker and not afraid to shake things up in order to rise to a greater cause.
There are downsides however. Governor Palin can only claim status as a Washington outsider due to the fact that she has ZERO national experience. Her executive career, while bold, is still infantile. Many (such as myself) who criticize Obama on being too unexperienced to lead our nation, will cast the same doubts over Governor Palin. By selecting Governor Palin to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency, he has all but taken the air out of his attack machine against Obama’s lack of experience. I hate to see this happen, as I feel that McCain will win this election if he can successfully convince American voters that Obama is much a much too risky novice who cannot be trusted. He must now be prepared to hear the same charges being leveled against his VP.
Of course the media has already begun their pro Obama spin on Senator McCain’s selection. When Obama, a man with NO national experience ran for office I heard NO ONE in the media question objectively his readiness to lead. Yet, as we just saw in the two videos posted, the mainstream media has already started to question whether or not Governor Palin is qualified to stand behind the President. This is by far the most obvious incarnation of the mainstream media’s obsession with Obama. It is up to people like me and you to call them on their bias and demand fair coverage.
The other aspect of a McCain Palin ticket that troubles me is the potential smack down that Biden might throw her way during the Vice Presidential debates. Biden is a loud, annoying and alarmist liberal who just so happens to have been in Washington for quite some time. I certainly hope that the GOP sends Palin to political finishing school before she squares off with Biden, as to save the integrity of the McCain campaign.
When all is said and done, I feel that this is a smart choice. Let the fight begin!
Stalin I can always count on you to give the conservative opinion on the site. I love, love, love Sarah!!! This is the first time I have said this on this site, McCain now has my vote! You heard it here first. GOOOOO Sarah, a conservative and a woman, what more could one ask for? I guess her as PRESIDENT!!!.
Now lets bring on the Debates and watch greasy Joe get steam rolled.
(this post originated under “McCain has chosen VP, Friday at noon”)
I really think McCain is off his rocker. He’s spent this entire campaign season making the case that Barack Obama has an unforgivable, fatal flaw - only to choose a VP with that same exact flaw, only worse.
So did he really believe Obama had too little experience to lead this country, or was he just being a huge jerk all this time?
And which one of them has really been making his stances based on political convenience all this time?
Grey, McCain did secure his conservative base by picking Palin. Palin is not a moderate- in any small measure. She is to the far right on guns, abortion, and drilling in Anwar (as well as energy and economic policies). I am not saying this right or wrong, but she is not a moderate or liberal Republican by an stretch of the imagination.
sHE got rid of dirty legislators. We need that temperment in Washington. This experience puts her heads over Obama and dare I say, Biden. She told msnbc that she wants to work but doesn,t think V.P. does any thing. I bet she will, and in four years + she will be our FIRST LADY PRESIDENT……. Unlike a Democrat John Kennedy, who refused to use V.P.,,a superior concenus reacher in Congress. JohnsTon became a great President that accomplish many benefical laws. I see McCain giving Palin a major job that will get done.
Crikey I didn’t see that one coming. Probably like most people I had to wikipedia who she was…LOL Now there’s not a cat in hells chance someone’s going to convince me that McCain didn’t wait to see who Obama picked first before he made his final decision, not a chance.
There’s so many pluses (if you’re a Republican) for this woman I’m kinda stunned and she’s very good looking too, which always helps. Ugly VP’s should be shot or is that ugly VP’s do the shooting? did someone say duck?!?!…LOL
Her son is off to Iraq on September 11th, so she’s not one of these leaders who doesn’t let their kids go off and fight…outstanding. She’s pro-life and has a down syndrome kid. How many Hillary voters is she going to steal? You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.
I got to hand it to McCain, this is a very very savvy pick.
I think Palin is just bait to warm people up to McCain. Right now, I’ll give Palin the benefit of the doubt. But I can see right through McCain’s intentions. He has surrounded himself with some of the most sordid people, such as Phil Gramm, who was part of the pornography vanguard in the 70s and deals with the flow of drugs through Switzerland’s banks. And McCain’s foreign policy adviser came to the US to lobby the American government to attack Russia on behalf of Georgia. And it’s really no secret that he visited the Rothschilds in March. They are, quite literally, more wealthy and thus more powerful than any other people in the world. They made the Rockefellers and J. P. Morgan powerful. And I do not want to see McCain getting the presidency with their full support. Rick Warren’s faith forum and the selection of Sarah Palin have made McCain immensely more popular. It really doesn’t take much to see the Rothschilds’ hand in that shift of public opinion. Besides, the media was forced to release Rev. Wright tapes against its wishes; Obama’s standing was hurt by that and has never recovered. McCain’s has only increased.
Indi,
I can’t help but wonder this, and I tried like crazy tonight to find out why, from a very good friend’s liberal wife. Democrats were/are absolutely silent on the “CHANGE” guy slamming McCain as a old insider and then picking Biden who has been in the senate 5 years longer than McCain but yet now they want to point out McCain has picked someone with little experience in Washington when Obama has ran off the fact he is not a Washington insider? By definition aren’t you inexperienced if you are not a Washington insider ?
Democrats surely didn’t had no problem with experience when they elected Hillary Clinton to the senate just because she had been 1st lady, Palin certainly has better qualifications than did Hillary.
Chris like it or not you can’t be president today without the media and we are bound to get biased viewpoints from those running the networks and the web sites.
I base my support on who is the most likely to accidentally do what I support, as a conservative McCain has the best chance at that for me
Well…
That was unexpected. I have to say I do not agree with her politics (mainly creationism in schools), but I damn sure admire her commitment. There is no better example of social conservative values than Governor Palin. This was a smart move by McCain.
The experience argument, that has been brought up very quickly, I think favors the Republicans in this setting. Gov. Palin may only have a few years experience, but that experience is in executive positions; something that has been sorely lacking in this field of candidates.
I’m not sure the woman factor will be all that important. Hillary and Palin could not be farther apart ideologically, and I hope beyond all hope that people would not vote for McCain simply because Palin is a woman. The only real upswing I see is that woman who would have likely voted for McCain will be more enthusiastic about the campaign now.
I’m looking forward to the VP debates much more now. I’ve seen her speech and am moderately impressed with her charisma. I’m interested to see how she’ll do in a debate.
Obama, Biden and McCain have had plenty of recent experience debating due to the primary races, it’ll be interesting to see how she does under the big spotlight.
Michael, on the issues, Palin is conservative- however, I’m not so sure that picking her as VP would be so palatable with Washington’s Republican conservative base. There are… small oddities about her (such as the fact that she is (or was) somehow involved with labor unions), and she doesn’t strike me as someone with a lot of connections to D.C.
Being the disillusioned American that I am, I can’t help but think that politicians care about more than issues, which is why I’m not completely sure Palin will give him a lot of ground with conservatives.
Todd, it’s been a nasty campaign season for a while now, and I’ve heard Obama slam McCain for a lot of things. But I really never got the sense that Obama was saying that old politicians could not take part in change - although he has enjoyed pointing out the things wrong in washington and how long McCain has been there without changing them. I would think a person would have to be insane to believe that experienced politicians are all standing in the way of positive change, and cannot help.
But the notion that giving washington over to an untested, inexperienced candidate is dangerous has been THE CENTRAL attack of the McCain campaign. It’s kind of mind-blowing to think that was all completely insincere, because even as an Obama supporter I felt there was truth to it.
I don’t even honestly know how to respond to this news. Palin is clearly very respectable in a variety of ways, and it’s hard not to be impressed by her. But the idea that she could easily become president paralyzes me with fear as nothing that’s happened this election has.
In 24 hours McCain went from chiding democrats for “rolling the dice” on such an inexperienced candidate to competing with them for the recklessness he so criticized. So now we all have to either agree that Obama and / or Palin are ready to lead, or else hope like hell that a 72 year old, 4 time cancer survivor can keep up his health.
Yesterday I saw this election as a serious gamble vs relative safety. That’s yesterday’s game. Today the game is that we as a nation get to choose which gamble we think has better odds.
Palin not connected to D.c. will get that ticket lots of votes
Strange Pick.. I was expecting Johnny to pick Mitty..
So here we have a Saree..
Interestingly maverick pick.. That’s Johnny character.. which I like..
I haven’t made my mind on that Alaskan Halibut as yet..
In nate’s article their is a bio on Palin.. Have you read it ? It explains some of the issues brought up here. Change in outlook is discussed… Labels are dynamic
Nz I have decided this site is more important to you than me. So instead of being a pain in your side, I am leaving this site.
http://www.americanthinke.....st_at.html
Great article on Sarah’s background, and one that actually presents the facts (as opposed to the media-at-large’s manner of telling you what they want you to know).
Todd wrote:
I base my support on who is the most likely to accidentally do what I support, as a conservative McCain has the best chance at that for me
——–
That’s about how much I look up to our upcoming “leaders”, too. But regardless of whether McCain is MORE conservative than Obama, he is far from one we can trust. He shows no respect for the law when he breaks McCain-Feingold, an unconstitutional law he himself created.
As an amusing and ironic fact, McCain (who was already getting fire for being ancient) has picked a mayor from a state that McCain is ~20 years older than.
Also, the scandal with S. Ted Stevens used to be distant to the McCain campaign, but no longer as Palin may have been on that corruption action as well.
Nyth- Palin removed Stevens from her website after becoming nominated. I do not think she was involved personally, but she has stopped publicly endorsing him.
Nyth,
Let’s stick to the facts. There has been no implication that Palin was/is hooked to Stevenson. There is more evidence that she distanced herself from him and WAS NOT part of his game.
I like it “accidentally do what I support” never quite heard it put that way but it’s true.
Each candidate is making promises and goals that neither one of them could possibly achieve to the full, so who’s likely to achieve the most accidentally or otherwise?
Although I can’t support social conservatism, in general, I do like the pick. I think it might take some wind out of the sails of the experience argument on both sides now.
Perhaps we’ll see more issues-related discussions in the media (yeah, right) and from the campaigns (possibly - hopefully!). I really do look forward to the debates this time, though they often disappoint.
I also very much hope that people vote on issues and not on race or gender. Nobody should vote for McCain-Palin because Palin’s a woman! Equally, nobody should vote for Obama-Biden because Obama’s of African descent. Nor should anyone vote against them for the same reason.
I’m going to be watching the RNC to see if they get nasty or vitriolic or if they stay above the fray and only poke a little at Obama-Biden. I hope the latter, but the Republicans have been rather divisive for quite some time.
The DNC definitely poked at McCain, but I don’t think anything was nasty and they did a good job, IMHO, of honoring his service but attacking his policies.
The “Hilary Factor” is ridiculous. Hilary supporters do not support her simply for the fact that she is a woman. WE support her because of what she stands for. Sara Palin is NOTHING like Hilary and it is insulting that McCain believes he can stick any woman in that spot and we will be fooled!
What people do not seem to understand is that the conservative belief system is just that “conservative”.
When folks try to label conservatives as divisive you fail to understand that in doing that you are being divisive yourselves. If I believe abortion is wrong, that homosexual activity is unusual, that sometimes we, as a, country have to stand up to other countries and that fundamental extremist have to dealt with it’s my belief.
I do not come to those beliefs in order to be divisive I come to them because of my views on world and domestic policy. My version of ethics and my sence of right and wrong is not intended to be divisive it’s intended to be what it is, which is my belief system. Which by the way Liberals’ are unapologetic for having.
When democrats call conservatives “divisive” you are doing exactly what you accuse us of. The message from democrats is that you can get along with everyone but conservatives don’t like anybody who dosen’t believe as you. Well guess what, you can be described the same way-Liberals don’t support conservative views and do what they can to counter them, therefore liberals could be called divisive. You dismiss us as crazy and prejudice and demean our every thought.
So when you talk of divisive politics let’s acknowledge one thing, democrats are just as guilty as divisive tactics as Republican’s. The facts are facts and can be easily proven with one example.
Democrats are being divisive by using the economy and have out right LIED about Bush and the economy. ANY look at the numbers prove it. Bush economic numbers are equal to and in a few cases better then Bill Clinton’s and there wasn’t a democratic concern for it then.
All this democratic yelling about the foreclosure stuff fails to acknowledge one big thing, under Bush home ownership for minorities and whites has been at an all time high and when all is said and done there will still be more people in this country who own homes than there were under Clinton.
Facts are facts, seems democrats forget them just as quick as they accuse Republican’s when they want a vote, which means they are being divisive by implying conservatives don’t care about those without homes.
Another divisive issue
Matter of fact if you look up U.S. Military actions/Historically, you will find that Bill Clinton used the military on 20 occasions. He bombed Sudan, Bosnia, East Timor, & Iraq in doing so.
Bush on the other hand has used the military 13 times including the invasion of Afghanistan which democrats supported, The invasion of Iraq (which democrats voted for), Hati and a gunship sent to help the Government of Somalia when they were in a battle against extremist
You guys can look all of this stuff up yourselves you don’t have to trust me but remember when we talk about being divisive it cuts both ways, Republican’s do not have a copy right on stating their own beliefs and trying to make the other guy look bad.
BY the way Stacy to say women supported Hillary only because of her beliefs is a flat out lie. YOU may believe that AND MAY INDEED BELIEVE SUPPORT HER FOR HER STAND ON ISSUES but you are also spewing the democratic line. Somehow you have been lead to believe that when a white male votes for a white male it’s gender bias voting while at the same time you have no problem using the word “WE” (which can only mean women) support Hillary b/c of her beliefs. Did you actually talk to all the women in the country? Women have had BIG problems with men over the years for the fact they will not vote for a woman in mass. African Americans’ have absolutely no problem yelling about how white men will not vote for them. Now you are justifying the exact same thing. I guess it’s because Hillary has been a champion of the women’s movement but to imply that women did not vote for Hillary just because she is a woman is ridiculous. To say you will not support Palin is not a surprise either because you would feel like you were abandoning the first woman in U.S. history to get as far as Hillary did and if she told you to vote for Obama that’s what you will do.
Once again another liberal ignores their own actions while doing what they hate. 75 % of the African Americans’ are voting for Obama and 52% of women are voting for Hillary (or doing what she tells them to do) but somehow it’s the 45% of white male conservatives who are bias, Ok glad to see you are fair in your voting, just as fair as in your politics I guess. Those damn Republican’s they re so divisive !
Did it ever occur to you that McCain is trying to get the conservative woman to vote ? Women who may be inclined to stay home and/or would have been happy to see Hillary win because she is a woman. This blind way of ignoring your own tactics is what is funny. When you guys talk about Obama’s chances, on a race basis it’s always what the white males are doing that will cost him, it’s never pointed out that blacks are voting in mass simply because he is black is it? and God forbid a woman actually vote for a Republican because she is conservative or independent ! they would just be turning their back on women all over the world.
Wow, you’ve packed a whole lot into that one Todd. I’m not even going to try and address all of it, but I’d like to address that first bit where you talk about divisive politics.
Politics, in general, is pretty divisive. The two parties are playing tug-o-war over voters, so they are basically doing everything they can to turn the people toward them and away from their opposition. The fact is we have two candidates who are both fierce critics of partisan politics, but it’s an election year, and they’re in it all the way. I guess they feel they have to be.
You did address 4 specific beliefs though - that abortion is wrong, that homosexuality is unusual, that America should stand up for itself, and that fundamental extremism needs to be dealt with. Those are all fair beliefs to have, and I wouldn’t deny you any of them.
But here is how they translate into law:
“I believe that abortion is wrong, so YOU will legally be bound to carry your pregnancy to term”
“I believe that YOUR sexuality is unusual, and so I will not allow YOU to marry the person you love, nor have any of the rights associated with the traditional forms of marriage that I choose to recognize”
As for your third - that America must stand up for itself - this is divisive simply by the implication that others feel differently. I don’t recall anyone (except conservatives) characterizing democratic policy this way. This is an insult, not a difference in belief.
The same is true for your 4th, that fundamental extremism must be dealt with. I don’t recall democratic platforms disagreeing with this belief - in fact I think it’s something most of us can unite behind. But there are distinct stylistic differences in beliefs as to how the situations could most effectively be handled. Your belief itself is not divisive until you ball it up into an insult.
O_S asserted a while back that most of the country is pro-life. I don’t know the statistics, but I AM certain that the vast majority of the country thinks abortion is not a good thing. However, that isn’t the same as saying that most of the country believes pregnant women should be legally bound to carry a pregnancy to term. If I had to guess, I would say that this is where the major disagreement is within the country, not in whether abortion is good or bad.
By framing it this way (for abortion or against) as so many pro-life advocates insist on doing, I do believe you are being extremely divisive, and again, insulting to the moral integrity of others.
On the topic of gay marriage, I also believe the conservative stance is more divisive than the democratic platform. Obama’s stance is that he would like homosexuals to be able to visit their partners in hospitals, and to be granted similar rights as these.
I understand that homosexual relationships themselves are somewhat controversial and divisive, but whether homosexuality should exist is not the debate (sexuality is nonpartisan, and cannot be voted out of existence).
The debate is whether or not others should be granted certain rights and access to the ones they love, and when you deny others these rights - which would not clearly do you any direct harm - I do believe that is divisive.
Like I said, politics is always nasty and divisive. But in those examples you gave, I do feel that the conservative stances are the more divisive ones. Legally restricting others freedoms (as in abortion and homosexual rights) based on your ethical philosophy will always be the more divisive stance to take.
Indi,
I know I spew venom from time to time but you get it from me when democrats do it while claiming to be all inclusive themselves.
I will accept your statement that politics is divisive and I can even accept that Republican tactics can put people off. But to make the argument that republicans’ are divisive for their beliefs is failing to acknowledge or simply ignoring the fact that when a democrat calls a republican divisive it is based on the fact that we do not believe what they believe. Democrats are therefore ignoring our beliefs just as much as they say we exclude theirs.
I know I brought up some hot issues but lets look at them, I may surprise you on one or two.
Abortion—I think something like 92 % of American’s say they are religious, with that said please explain how any can support abortion. Democrats will fight to the death to protect lakes, birds and fish but they cannot bring themselves to protect a baby inside the womb ? Why because it violates a w omens right to have or not to have a baby. Perhaps birth control should be considered an option more than an abortion. I just don’t get it. I wish one Christian, Jew or other “religious” person can explain how they support it and where it is in the good book they follow. The bottom line is they have to be ignoring that book because it ain’t there.
Now here is where I differ from Republican’s. Family planning classes should be mandatory in every school. The proper use of birth control should be part of it.
If a mother becomes pregnant and doesn’t want the child it should be law they have to put it up for adoption not kill it. No person should be allowed to adopt OUTSIDE THE U.S. until or unless no babies are available here.
Gay couples should be recognized as a couple (in civil unions)and should be allowed to adopt needy kids or kids which the parents want to abort (love is love). Gay couples should not be married because “marriage” is a religious event. (again show me where homosexual relationships are ACCEPTED in any religion) I know where they are documented but I want to know where it is Ok by any religion. This way both parties can met in the middle and protect kids/babies because killing the innocent is killing the innocent. If Democrats want us out of Iraq because of killing the innocent then they should be able to stop killing babies (ain’t trying to be mean but that’s what abortion is right?)
Extremist—I think you have read many post I have put on her about the real terrorist it is those who I refer to when I make a distinction. Democrats are 100 times more likely to try and talk to those folks as is a Republican. You cannot play nice with religious extremist. Democrats claim Republican’s are imposing religious beliefs on them but yet they want to talk to a religion that wants to kill us, again I don’t understand.
Gay marriage—I covered it a little already but I couldn’t care less if you are gay and want to visit your partner in the hospital and I don’t care if you live together and get a tax benefit what I don’t want is tax money going to sanctify something that is not religious. Listen if we take GODS word and live by it Homosexuality is a sin and as such it can be forgiven but just as stealing and adultery it does not have to be blessed by God.
Ethics —- that is a whole different subject. Ethics is what has gotten us this far. As a conservative I see it as being responsible for our country’s evolution. We turned out better than the Mongrels because we have/had ethics. It was ethics which taught right from wrong it was ethics that taught us not Murder, Rape & Rob. It was ethics and religion that we based our entire criminal justice system upon. What I see Democrats doing is attacking everything that we know is right. We do not have to change the law to allow gay marriage just because the homosexual community wants to be part of that which they apparently hate. We do not have to find a different name for murder just so women can justify and feel good about doing that for which most get counseling for afterward and to “support” their rights.
Democrats cannot even bring themselves to vote for a bill that would require medical treatment be given to that very small % of babies who survived abortion attempts. How far do religious people have to go ? We are the ones being asked to forgo our region so the smaller population can do what they want. IN the case of abortion we are being asked to Ok murder, plan and simple—yet we are the bad guys–I don’t understand it.
I know someone will get on here and try to explain that if you kill before it gets out it’s not a baby but if that’s the case then I don’t guess crime is a problem until it’s committed is it ?
Todd
“Extremist—I think you have read many post I have put on her about the real terrorist it is those who I refer to when I make a distinction. Democrats are 100 times more likely to try and talk to those folks as is a Republican. You cannot play nice with religious extremist. Democrats claim Republican’s are imposing religious beliefs on them but yet they want to talk to a religion that wants to kill us, again I don’t understand.”
Well right now the Bush admin is talking to Iran. And they must know that it is more than that. Bush admin is talking to Iran who the right has attacked Obama for wanting to have diplomacy talks with Iran. Maybe you are talking about the other countries with the exception of Iran. If so then you have to admitt that there have been a lot of attacks on Obama SPECIFICALLY in the case of talking with Iran.
Also i am surprised that YOU of all people make the statement that “they want to talk to a religion that wants to kill us”
I learned from YOU about all the different denominations. To say that the religion itself wants to kill us is grouping all of the denominations together as having one purpose. And all of the 55 predominate Islamic countries as well. One of the denominations teaches Islam with a greek philosophy spin. I wouldn’t say that that branch of Islam wants to kill us.
One more thing
“I know I spew venom from time to time but you get it from me when democrats do it while claiming to be all inclusive themselves.”
That is usually me. You have to admitt there are SOME Republicans here who do the “pot calling kettle” all the time.
Hey Dreasden,
I knew as soon as I posted and realized I used the word Religion that you, Indi or Pudding would get me. I thought about saying “The Wahhabi’s” but I didn’t and for that I am wrong. I was thinking of the Saudi Wahhbi’s not Islam in whole, so your right in responding to what I wrote. I meant the Extreme Islam as practiced by Wahhabi’s.
Now, I also know that you know Hillary was the one who started on Obama for his wanting to talk to Iran when the two were in the mist of there debates and I believe if you think back I was also saying that because of the Iranian people being Shia’s we SHOULD be talking to them and befriending them since we both have to worry about the Wahhabi who are Sunni extremist. But then again if I had typed what I meant you wouldn’t be calling me on it.
So with that said I support Obama’s position on talking to Iran.
Todd, I do think we agree on the fundamentals here - in that I do think ethics are clearly at the heart of this country, and at every good man (and woman) that I’ve known. I can even understand why you might feel that ethics are under attack in some of these matters - but I think that the most frustrating part of discussing them is that often people on both sides refuse to acknowledge the complexity of the issues, and insist on seeing things in black and white.
For instance, in the matter of abortion - I consider myself both pro-choice and anti-abortion. Because I have taken this position, you have already outright questioned my relationship with God, which isn’t very nice, but the loss of human life is an understandably sensitive subject, which is why abortion issues are so difficult to discuss.
So let me just explain my own views. I think that birth is the greatest miracle the you and I get to see on a regular basis. The idea that a little fluid from a man and a few cells in a woman could combine and transform to discern the theory of relativity a few short decades later is truly miraculous. If women were pitri dishes I think most everyone in America would vote unanimously to abolish abortion tomorrow.
Unfortunately for politics, women are humans, and pregnancy is very serious. It is always heavily taxing - mentally and physically - it is often quite risky, and undoubtedly life altering. Her body will never be the same, let alone her mind. In essence, women must give a great part of themselves over to see the new human growing in their womb into existence.
I want to see every fetus born into this world to have the opportunities to succeed and fail as you and I have had. But I do believe that for motherhood to be sacred, the mother must be respected. If a woman does not wish to pay the price and take the risks that come with ushering a new human being into existence, I feel it would be worse than rape to force this miracle on unwilling participants.
If my mother had not willingly given these resources to me, willfully altered her body and voluntarily taken these risks to her health for my sake - if she had been forced by another - I would feel great shame to have been born.
If the conservative ideal was to convince all women not to have abortions, I’d be behind it all the way. But I firmly believe that this is not a matter for the police to solve, and so I am pro-choice. I’m sure that’s not exactly how every pro-choice voter feels, but I hope you see why it is divisive to question my dedication to God.
I will agree with you that in practice the legal debate over this gets headache-inducing. It’s all politics - one law, such as you mentioned, may seem to make obvious sense to pass, but our senators are very fearful of the slippery slope this may lead down. It happens on both sides of the isle - recall Mike Huckabee saying that gay marriage could not be legalized, because it would inevitably lead to men marrying animals? It’s all politics, and it’s dumb, but that’s how it is. They don’t pass one law because they’re afraid of the next 10.
So that was the probably the most complex - and probably the most frustrating issue to discuss. When it comes to extremism I believe what you say is spot on - democrats do tend to favor diplomatic over military solutions where it is possible (although you were the one who pointed out how many democratic presidents in the past really haven’t). But frankly, this isn’t the same thing as saying democrats don’t want to address the problem - they favor different solutions.
Neither diplomacy or military tactics will solve this issue any time soon - and I don’t know of any proposal from any candidate that would even begin to truly solve this global problem. I haven’t heard any objective source reporting back that invasions and bombing has put a dent in global terrorism so far, and so we need another option.
But in any case, my point is that these are mostly stylistic differences between the parties - although if you strongly prefer the conservative style I don’t blame you for not endorsing a democratic candidate.
So far as gay marriage goes, I won’t get too much into it, but if the entire disagreement centers around the use of a particular word - well both parties seem to mostly agree on that (although I know gay marriage is part of the notorious ‘liberal agenda’)
It could be just coincidental but didn’t Obama set a timeline for starting to withdraw troops from Iraq and got lambasted for it now Bush has accepted a timeline for a withdrawl.
http://afp.google.com/art.....4cozHuQynA
And din’t Obama get called niave amongst other names for wanting to negotiate with Iran, yet here we have the Bush administration doing just that.
http://www.nytimes.com/20.....ref=slogin
Either Obama is a bloody good guesser on what the Bush administration is about to do, or the Bush administration is taking pointers from Obama because they make good practical sense….who knows?
Isn’t the world a curious place full of curious people?
Pudding,
Obama wanted to pull out immediately and secondly he said he would talk to Iran without preconditions and believes they are a tiny country that doesnt pose a great threat. Tiny country that wants to destroy Israel not a great threat? I dont know but i believe Obama judgement is wrong on both issues.
Todd,
Dont bring up religion around them or else you get labeled as some crazy religious conservative.
Yeah O_S, that was basically what I was saying, thanks for the summary
jerk
O.S.
Don’t speak for Todd or give him advice. HE has more knowledge, reason and logic in one of his posts than you have had in your entire existence on this board. We have talked about Religion with him plenty of times and I myself admit to actually learning something. Todd is not like YOU. You are lock step with what ever the newest RNC talking point is. You let your party dictate how you should think and you ignore evidence contrary to your devotion to a neo conservative ideology.
YOU are the one who disregards someone’s argument because you are grouping them as being liberal or left wingers. You have never seen me do this. And I am the one who called you out when that was the only thing you kept labeling anyone who opposed your view.
Obama said way back in the primaries that he would start an immediate withdraw but not everyone at one time. He always had a 16 month time table at one to two brigades a month. Which is almost identical to the same time Iraqi prime minister suggested when Obama went over there. So stop with the misinformation.
Indi,
I am going to try to be gentle about this but I do think it is at the core of our differences and goes a long way in determining if you are conservative or liberal.
I went through my entire life thinking I was saved, from 14 to 38. I will not go into the entire story but I was also pro choice because I felt people should handle their on business, but two things happened to me.
First my wife and I had a son. As we monitored his growth it was clear to me that he was alive inside of her. To see him kicking and sucking his thumb on the scans left no question of that. It was during that period that I began educate myself on how a child develops and to question my own view on abortion, that was 14 years ago.
The 2nd issue came along as my wife and I discussed religion at various times and how/who was saved. I was convinced that the “typical” Christian was judgmental and condescending toward my belief’s and me for believing the way I did. Unfortunately this also included my wife and caused major problems for us. I resented being told I risked my salvation and judged by her. We struggled with this for sometime. Now here is the interesting part, I believe I have spoken of my wife’s medical issues, anyway one night lying in bed beside her I began to pray for her in my “wrong minded” religious way. I will not go into the actual prayer but unbeknown to me she was praying that I see the problems in my thought process. The net effect was that we were praying for each other. A feeling came over me that I cannot even hope to describe and after hours of sitting up and crying my eyes out (and didn’t even really know why) I figured it out. It was the presence of God he was near due to the problems in our house AND the fact we were both asking for help. The result of that experience has lead me to try and educate myself in the “word” independent of the religious norms. I have read the entire bible once and have started again. I have tried to explain the feeling I had (and still get emotional about just thinking about it) and I have encountered more self righteous believers who have tried to steer my thoughts than ever before. I have left the church as I have come to see them for what they are, money grabs, who are enriching them selves. I have been criticized for not going to church by Christians (the last one was by a Christian democrat who told me I had no right to be against abortion unless I was in church, ironically they are in church and support it). But most importantly I have seen my faults, it does not preclude me from mistakes and it does not mean I am perfect.
Indi I did not mean to question your relationship with God. That is a personal thing between you and him, What I sincerely am asking though is how can any religious person support abortion–I mean is there scripture that I don’t know about ? Without being condescending, what allows us to support it, from a biblical position ? I am just trying to figure it out from that perspective. I ask this because of my experience and because I once thought the same way but when I finally “knew” God and held my son I felt like I had been misunderstanding something. I just want to know how anyone of a religious background and faith can support it in order to provide a woman a choice. It just seems to me that we are circumventing what we know is right or ethical to fit a human need. Let’s be honest abortion is not just used in medical matters or rape cases it is used by thousands of teens and young adults each year simply because they didn’t mean to get pregnant. Two of my best friends made that choice when we were growing up. I was there for them and supported them but they did it simply because they both wanted to head off to college and not be tied down as young as they were. This again leads me to the question-is that a valid reason to allow it ? On a completely faith based basis–is it ever justified in God’s eyes ? If not, which I have come to believe, then I need to ask for forgiveness for my support of it and I need to now be against it.
To be straight forward I feel like I convinced myself without much thought that simply believing God existed was me being saved. Now I believe it is much more than that. It comes in stages also. I once thought Homosexuals were condemned but a very good Christian friend asked me one day why I felt this. My answer was that it was against God’s wishes–He quickly pointed out that it was up to God to judge them not me and he asked a very good question ; what have I done that is against God’s belief’s and does that mean I am condemned.
See it is not the act that is the real problem it is the failure to recognize that it is not moral or right that is the problem. Stealing, cussing (which I still do), homosexual activity, and Murder are all spoken against in the bible and since we must ask for forgiveness and repent for doing it I don’t understand how people of religion can continue to support abortion and act like it’s a normal and a right thing for humans’ to do. The way I now see it is we are turning our backs on what we know is wrong and in doing so encouraging more of it by convening that it is Ok.
If you want to see the theory in action laugh the next time you see a child do something wrong, I promise they will do it again.
By the way O.S. thanks for the warning but I believe we must talk about the issues that have us at each others throats. This includes religion, race and any other thing that causes us to argue. As long as we avoid pointed conversations we will never get what the other side is saying–the inability to say “the N word” is a perfect example. We expect to make race relations better but we cannot even say the word that is most hurtful ? How do our kids know which word not to say if we don’t tell them and then talk about it with them ?
Todd,
I believe we should talk about things to but the one problem is most people, when they see religion brought up think the wrong things most times. I believe my faith has helped me choose my party and my ideas on the issues(NOT RNC TALKING POINTS). The problem is, we live in a country of free speech but when someone brings up religion so many people are turned off and have the wrong impression. Liberals always talk about how conservatives are crazy religious nuts, when really I believe that maybe we have a stronger faith than them in something, just because my faith helps guide my life doesn’t make me some crazy religious conservative. Does it?
No O.S. it doesn’t but we should at least try to explain why we feel the way we do. If we yell it they will point fingers and say we are not what we preach. So we must try to explain our logic.
Most people are religious and since that is the case I believe they can relate to a logic or belief if it is simply explained.
Now some of the post on the site itself are purely political and I have my share of them but I believe the main difference in all politics is born out of our religion. I believe this b/c we mark lines in the sand and dare the other view to cross it.
Those who have not experienced a religious conversion, so to speak, don’t understand our view. Those who are not religious do not feel compelled to follow certain religious perspectives.
All the other stuff is based on that.
Lets’ take some examples.
Taxes—generally conservatives believe that a person should work hard for what they get up until they can’t. If they can move they should work–liberals seem more likely to want to give those same people help before we think they should get it and hold government responsible for getting them a job, the result is we believe they are encouraging dependency and lazy applications to life and they think we are hypocrites for not helping them sooner since we invoke God so much.
War/criminal justice—our since of punitive action comes from the fact that in almost every book of the bible and generally speaking the entire bible itself tells us that there is a price to pay for doing wrong. We see this as meaning you must go to jail or a country must pay for doing us wrong—liberals look and see what society did that brought the act on and look to sympathize with the wrongful person and talk it through, we just see a need to punish. And see it as there fault they did wrong as free willed adults.
Abortion–we look at taking INNOCENT life as murder, an immoral act against what is right and ethical–liberals look at it as wrong to dictate to others what they do with their bodies and see the baby as part of the woman’s body just as her kidney is–they believe if you have to take the kidney to live you take the kidney. We see it as you sacrifice your own body to get the baby born healthy. Liberals don’t get it when we say someone should be executed or that a war should be fought because they see us yelling about killing babies and then wanting to kill adults–they don’t understand that to us adults have to be held responsible and it is our responsibility to protect babies/children from those who know better.
Then there is a combination of factors at play :
Race/religion/partisan politics
As I said before I have a very good friend, he is African American. We have been able to discuss every issue we face as a people although he is liberal and I am conservative. I mean race, Bush, conservative, liberal-abortion, taxes, right and wrong, Katrina everything. When I told him I would not vote for Obama b/c of his view on abortion (mainly) and taxes He understood and agreed with me on taxes. He told his wife that I was voting for McCain, she then called me upset and hit me with the war thing and Bush has ruined our economy. I got frustrated when she told me she thought it was ridiculous that Republican’s yell about abortion and then send troops to Iraq to get killed. My response was this and it demonstrates how I draw the difference.
She is an emergency 911 dispatcher, her husband, my friend, was a fireman & paramedic and now is a cop, I told her since she felt that the Republican’s were sending troops to their death against their will she should consider that they volunteered for the service they provide, I told her there was no draft and that they knew there was a chance of war when they joined which was very different than Obama’s pro choice position of allowing babies who are innocent to be killed. After being told by her that she would pray for me (a Christian who supports abortion felt the need to ignore the fact she supports abortion or human choice over God’s word and pray for my soul, b/c of my war stance) I simply told her this : When you go to work tonight and the 911 call comes in for an unknown disturbance you should refuse to dispatch a police officer, fireman or paramedic because you are sending all of them into danger a danger which may cost one of them their life. She responded that it was their job and what they do. She said they have to go no matter what the danger because that’s what they signed on to do. With that said I respectfully said goodbye. I don’t know if she realizes that she just said what I was saying or not but she will still vote for Obama. By the way I asked her why she supported Obama she said b/c it’s changed Todd ! she didn’t know what kind but she is impressed by the fact that it is change. My belief is that her vote is based on race I could be wrong but it is what I believe. She is part of the 75 % of African Americans’, some of whom will vote for Obama based on his race. It doesn’t matter what he represents nor what he stands for even if he stands against their own morals and ethics. They will vote for him b/c they see someone who they believe will represent them as African American’s despite the fact he is the total opposite than them on many issue’s.
We must talk and explain our positions if we are seriously looking for change—Obama nor McCain or any other politicians will do it—we will, all of us if we try.
Todd,
When I wrote of Republican divisiveness, I was speaking of people who make generalized statements that imply things such as “Democrats are traitors or cowards”. The Karl Rove way of politics has filled our heads with this sort of talk for years, and it’s happened from others before him. Accusations fly whenever a Democratic leader or candidate (at any level) address diplomacy as a realistic option - they get painted as appeasers, which is much different than what is meant by diplomacy and *very* divisive.
I *should* have said *some* Republicans, for which I apologize. And, yes, there certainly are Democrats who use divisive language to refer to Republicans. That neither makes it right nor invalidates my point.
You are clearly a thoughtful individual who isn’t terribly far off of my viewpoints in a lot of things. We simply hold different shades of grey for the solutions.
However, to say “75% of African Americans are voting for Obama due to his race” seems pretty brazen. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I think it has been very common to see such a high percentage of African Americans vote for Democrats in general. Certainly, there will always be people who will vote for a candidate based on shared race, gender or whatnot. As there will also be people who vote against them for similar reasons.
It is extremely common, and human, to go with the familiar when making a choice. We, by our nature, tend to choose based upon our “common tribe.” It takes rational thought, which we thankfully have but *need* to use, to overcome the automatic choice of the familiar, as that is not always the best choice. So, certainly some women may vote for McCain-Palin simply because there’s a woman on their ticket, but rational thought will (or at least should) prevent Progressive-minded women from doing so; just as Conservative-minded African Americans very likely wouldn’t vote for Obama-Biden…
The issues you, Indi and the others have been tackling are all very difficult, nuanced issues that can only be resolved by seeking a common solution by reasonable people. Relying on politicians to do so often won’t work - though if Obama or McCain stick to their guns of “working across the aisle” we have a real chance to find that middle ground. Though, Palin as a pick scares me due to some of her views (Creationism, Pro-Life, etc.).
Common solutions typically mean that nobody is entirely happy, but they work to better society as a whole. I’ve been saying for years that the word Marriage should only be a religious term and be taken completely out of the Government records as an officially recognized institution. ALL Marriages would then be referred to as Civil Unions as it relates to the laws of the Nation, State or whatnot. Then, if a particular couple want to include the religious ceremony of marriage - they simply go to their church, synagogue, temple, mosque, etc. for the added desire to sanctify their union under their God.
It works this way right now (basically) as a couple cannot get married with our a “Marriage License”. At least not an officially State-recognized marriage.
Oh, and as for gay couples getting married, it would then become a matter between them and their church. We have hundreds of denominations of all of the world’s religions in this country (as well as a few of our own special ones). Those religions can decide for themselves to allow or not allow gay marriages. It makes no difference whatsoever in regards to the laws of the land and *everyone* then gets equal rights. This is an important thing to note - the Government could not step in and force a church to allow gay marriage (or not), as that would be stepping on the separation of church and state - but it would also be wholly unnecessary because the government is only concerned about the Civil Union part.
Problem solved, in my opinion…
Ugh - I just noticed the time! Gotta run, despite having much more to say!
I’m not religious and probably never will be. There’s so many double standards in the Bible and what people do in the name of religion it’s mind-boggling. Wasn’t Hitler a Christian and Stalin too? You don’t need to be religious to be good and not all religious people do good things.
As for abortions, I’m pro-choice. I wish they didn’t happen, but I’m convinced that bringing an unwanted child into the world of suffering and neglect isn’t in the best interest of that child in the long term. Not many of these so-called pro-life advocates actually adopt an orphan, how about stopping the suffering of the children that are born first rather than the ones that are not?
Rick Claro wrote - George W. Bush will protect your unborn fetus, then send your grown child to die in war.
Todd, I agree with your premise, as I did before - abortions are awful. They should not be supported, and I do not support them. I agree with you that many abortions committed today may be by people who I wish would give more consideration to their situation. But when you ask how a religious person could support this, I must again state that I do not support abortion at all. I have not once in my life supported one. I simply hold the sort of libertarian philosophy that there are some matters the government has no place in regulating - and I don’t believe that this is a matter for the police to intervene.
To my mind, the path forward here should be through reason and discussion, not legal force. Talking someone out of an abortion may be more difficult, but it’s not really about providing a woman a choice as you say. It’s about allowing her to maintain control over her own body, the only thing any of us really own in life.
I could never see arresting a woman for the decisions she chooses to make with her own body, even if it harms or kills another individual who is dependent on her body. It’s still HER body, not up for government regulation. That’s her domain, not mine and not the US government’s. The moment that line blurs is the moment we take a great step toward a totalitarian state.
But to be clear, I respect and even agree with the reasons behind your philosophy. I simply think the method of preventing abortions through legal force has a terrible flaw.
PP,
I said some of the 75% are voting for him b/c of his race.
But I do believe that African American’s vote for democrats b/c that’s just what they have always done.
Pudding-Indi I will put it to you this way so I don’t sound so disrespectful to your positions.
If I like Coke and think drinking Pepsi is wrong how can I really be against Pepsi if I say it’s Ok for you to drink it ?