Hockey Moms, Pit Bulls, and Lipstick

Last March I was invited to write a guest commentary for You Decide 2008. I sent my first commentary to Michael, who titled it “Women and the Maverick”. The first paragraph read:

“Women are the newest kids on the block when it comes to voting, and that’s a historical fact. Women weren’t given the right to vote in America until almost the mid 20th century, and now in the early 21st century the political arena is replete with women to include a woman running for President, and as my granddaughter might say, how cool is that for our side. As a woman myself, I swell with pride at the very thought of how far we’ve come in such a short time, because we earned it! But I won’t be voting for her – this woman running for President – because my country is about more, a lot more, than pride in my own gender.”

I wasn’t a Hillary supporter. I had problems with her political views and her personal character. I wouldn’t vote for her simply because we were both women. When cries of sexism arose around her, I didn’t buy into it. She was attacked because of her policies, not because she was a mother, or pro-choice, or wore her hair a certain way.

Now comes Sarah Palin on the scene, and she IS being attacked with blatant sexism. She has the audacity to aspire to be more than just a mother, or just a career woman. She can do both and she’s proven it. Her accomplishments at the age of 44 are commendable, if not enviable. She is the proof that our daughters truly can become anything they want – if they can get past the good old boys and anti-feminist women. Oh, they call themselves feminists, but they are liars. They are anti-feminists who, while they want their own right to choose on women’s issues, have no tolerance for any woman who disagrees with them. They have single handedly, in fact, set the women’s movement back to the 1930s in one insane swipe.

Even as they supported Hillary because she stood in favor of abortion – while ignoring her doormat attitude toward an adulterous husband, I might add – they trash Sarah Palin for having the nerve to bring a special needs son into the world. And then they trash her some more for getting up and going to work. When that isn’t enough to satisfy their sick and insatiable need for crucifixion of the woman, they turn their sights on her 17 year old daughter who is ALSO a woman with a right to choose life over abortion. Would they have applauded two abortions from this family? Apparently so. Apparently, these people subscribe to Obama’s theory that women are “punished with a baby”. Apparently, these people aren’t grateful that their own mothers stood on Sarah Palin’s side, or they wouldn’t be here.

The media has taken up the mantle of these barbaric liberals both men and women and used it for fodder, aided by the left wing liberal democrats who are now frightened out of their minds that Obama’s celebrity status has been infringed upon. They’re screaming that McCain has chosen Palin to woo Hillary supporters.

Let me tell you something – Hillary Clinton is no Sarah Palin. Hillary was a firmly entrenched member of the old Washington; Sarah Palin is the reformer we seek in the new Washington. Hillary’s experience was as a First Lady and a Senator, voting or not voting when she pleased and safe in the knowledge that she was in the company of 100 other Senators with as much power as she had. Sarah Palin has executive experience that no one else on either ticket has, to include John McCain. She doesn’t get to vote “present”. She has to make the decision. Hillary was popular among many, but Sarah Palin has over an 80% approval rating as Governor of the state of Alaska, and that’s unprecedented for any Governor. And while Hillary was dodging sniper fire, Sarah was selling off the Governor’s luxury liner on Ebay. No, Sarah Palin is not a substitute of any kind for Hillary Clinton. There is only one Sarah Palin, and Hillary Clinton can’t hold a candle for this Maverick to run by.

It’s been said that the first major decision we look at in our Presidential candidate is their judgment capabilities in choosing their Vice President. Obama, the agent of change and hope, chose a 65 year old Senator who’s been in Congress 10 years longer than McCain. Are you telling me that this hope and change we’ve been seeking has been hiding in a democrat’s chair in Congress for 35 years and we just didn’t know it? That Obama, in his infinite wisdom, has found him for us? That Biden ,after all these years, will now rush forward and be different than he has been in a Congress with the lowest approval rating in history? I think not.

John McCain “the Maverick” has chosen a reformer, an outsider to Washington, a conservative with a good head on her shoulders, and a wonderful support system at home. She just happens to be a woman, and a damn fine one. If this is the first act we are to base our opinion on as to John McCain’s judgment, we’re good to go. And now I can be doubly proud “to vote for John McCain AND to support a fellow woman on my chosen ticket. How ironic that the title of my first commentary has come full circle. “Women and the Maverick” is exactly right ,all the way to the White House.

Babs is a frequent commenter and contributing guest commentary author for


    Well done Babs, always like reading your work! 🙂

  • Frank

    “they trash Sarah Palin for having the nerve to bring a special needs son into the world. And then they trash her some more for getting up and going to work”

    Please give a source for this.

    Let me tell you Babs. You can say much about liberals, leftwingers, or anything the republicans say is bad, but you cannot say they are sexist.

    The only people in the world who think women arent equal to men are religious people.

    Grow up babs, your acting like a black person who thinks every attack on Obama is beceause of the colour of his skin.

  • Frank, your comments are not only asinine, but racist. To say “your acting like a black person” – just exactly what do you mean by that, Frank? I think we’d all like to hear the answer to that.

  • Frank

    “Frank, your comments are not only asinine, but racist. To say “your acting like a black person” – just exactly what do you mean by that, Frank? I think we’d all like to hear the answer to that. ”

    My apologies babs if i sounded racist. But if you read the whole sentence you might understand.

    What i meant to say was that you blame the media’s attacks on Palin on sexism by the same media.
    Im saying that every (VP) candidate who is not very known get a thorough background check from the media.

    Besides the ‘can she raise kids’ question here treatment has been exactly like any other candidate would get.

    let me rephrase:
    Grow up babs, your acting like an Obama fan who thinks every attack on Obama is beceause of the colour of his skin.


    Grow up babs, your acting like an Hillary fan who thinks every attack on Hillary is beceause of the fact that she is a woman.

  • Grey

    Always so much contention.

    Babs, no offense, but I always get the vibe you’re unnecessarily caustic to liberals, especially on the Palin issue. It almost comes off as reverse sexism.

    It’s been established that sexism remains ingrained into the mindset of society as a whole (not just liberals mind you). However, instead of screaming foul and berating every little thing that everyone does, couldn’t you instead bear with the ignorance of such critics and place yourself above their level?

    Sarah Palin, in her criticism of Hillary (the one where she calls her a whiner), said exactly this. As someone who esteems Palin so highly, shouldn’t you bear with adversity much in the same way?

    I admire Palin very much- after watching the conventions this week I’m actually very divided in terms of who I’ll vote for. I will say this however- whenever I see her supporters scream and shout about how unfair the media is and banter on and on about sexism, it’s really quite a turn off.

  • Frank

    i just saw the daily show:

    Babs, CG, everybody see the 2nd part of the three (or the whole show ofcourse):

    What about Fox news here?

  • Stalin


    Great Article!!! Really well written. Don’t pay attention to the people on this thread who will try to pick apart your article…especially Frank…I think he’s fried his brain with Mary Jane over there in Holland.

  • Thanks, Stalin, and I agree. Frank’s posts don’t even make sense anymore.

    Grey, this particular treatment of Sarah has nothing to do with politics for me, truly. I’m a mother and a grandmother, and to see the media attack these children and their mother has made me angrier than I have been in a long time. It’s not my fault that the blame for this travesty falls on the liberal media, and you have to admit it does. And the fact that they did it for political reasons also is not my fault. You should know that I am not a hard core feminist just screaming sexism. If I were, I would have done the same with Hillary. I made it very plain I didn’t support that charge with Hillary. And it can’t be considered reverse sexism, because I also made it very plain these are both men and women who have stooped to this level. Before Sarah is a political figure, she is a mother, and that’s what was attacked, and that’s what I stood up for here on the sexism charge.

    Politically, I support Palin because I believe she is a rising star in the kind of new politics and leadership we need for this country. Challenge her political views, she can stand up to that. Don’t challenge the legitimacy of her children or the morals of her children. No one has done that with any other candidate, neither the men or the woman. And that is where the sexism lies. Sarah Palin is a great candidate for Vice President, and she can win on her own merits. Trying to destroy her family in order to force her out of the race goes beyond political bounderies. It reaches to scarring fine young people in our society.

  • While there may be some truth that Sarah Palin is subject to sexism in the media, I think it is just as sexist and offensive that John McCain is using her – simply because of her gender and the attention she can garner because of it – to recapture the spotlight. This is a political pick for political purposes – John McCain has no interest in shattering a glass ceiling or advancing women’s issues. He has looked to create a celebrity in Sarah Palin that will give him more presence in the media – and now is attacking that media for attempting to find out who Sarah Palin the politician is. John McCain would much prefer we just focus on Sarah Palin, the person.

    I wrote a big piece on this, and the implications of it, if anybody is curious to read it:

  • Stalin


    So you don’t think that the Palin pick had anything to do with united the conservative base of the Republican party??? Well it did, and it did it big time. Donations are up from the conservative base, people are excited, don’t be so cynical.

  • Yes, online donations alone totaled $7 million dollars in the 48 hours after McCain’s announcement of Palin.

    wearvot…perhaps if you’re really interested in Palin’s credentials, you’d like to take the time to read this article in the Wallstreet Journal this morning:

    “How Palin Beat Alaska’s Establishment”

    Your opinion is duly noted, but your facts are a bit awry.

  • Frank

    “Frank’s posts don’t even make sense anymore”

    Why not?
    And did you see the part of the daily show?

  • Stalin, the idea of posting an article is so people CAN pick it apart. And it’s hypocritcal you trying to take the high ground when you come out with a xenophobic comment about him frying his brains on marijuana just because he’s from Holland.

    Interesting article Babs despite it being very right leaning and a bit Michael Moore(ish) in one-sided points of views raised. But you did well.

  • Stalin


    Don’t you worry about what I say to Babs. Hypocrite? Xenophobic? When did you lose your sense of humor? Frank has been an antagonist on this site for a while now and has said some pretty bizarre things. A little ribbing won’t kill him.

  • PeoplePower


    This was laced with some venom that isn’t entirely deserved.

    Questions about her family are inevitable as details are scrutinized extremely for any candidate. I didn’t hear the questions being asked about whether she should be running for office when she has a special needs child or a pregnant child who will need parental support. I’ve heard commentary about them happening, but I’d like to know who is saying these things…

    As for picking a V.P. candidate, there are a few goals in mind:
    1. Strengthen the Presidential candidate’s weaknesses
    2. Pull in regions of the country where the Prez is weak
    3. Energize a portion of the electorate who may be luke-warm to the Prez

    I’m sure there are others that I’m missing.

    A V.P.’s job is to be the heartbeat away from the Presidency and to break ties in the Senate. Otherwise, they can be used by the President however (s)he sees fit.

    I think Palin did many of these things for McCain, but I also think there are many more well-qualified people who could have done the same or better.

    Palin’s stances on abortion (never ever, even in the case of rape) and teaching creationism in the school and her background in the Assemblies of God church (an extremely rapture-oriented church) make me shudder to think she may have to step in for McCain.

    Whereas, Biden did at least two things for Obama (#1 & #3). His stances are less “Washington-as-usual” as he is being painted (mind the media bias on both sides, it *is* there!). He has an extraordinary record in foreign policy, is a very humble man and a big supporter of the middle class. He would make an excellent stand-in as President if he had to step in for Obama.

    I hope, in both cases, the V.P. never has to be called into duty, but I feel much more comfortable with Biden doing so than with Palin.

    Oh, and the questions about her pregnant daughter are as much fair-game as the questions about her son who enlisted with the military on 9/11/07. Just because one story isn’t good for her image and the other is, does not mean she gets to pick – that or she should stop trumpeting for her son joining the military…

    Lastly, *do* check out the link Frank included in one of his “Holland-daze induced” posts! 😉 (just teasing, Frank)

    It shows the tremendous hypocrisy of the right-wing pundits and is truly worth seeing for yourself.

  • Babs – what facts are awry? I didn’t go into Palin’s record deliberately, as I don’t believe that was the reason she was chosen. If McCain wanted to run with somebody on their record, he wouldn’t have chosen Sarah Palin. I think that’s pretty clear – in fact, we know from leaks within his campaign that his first choices were Lieberman and Ridge.

    Yes – Palin absolutely energizes the base and assists with fundraising. I’m not denying that in the least – in fact, I said the same thing in this post:

    I think choosing Sarah Palin was to appeal to social conservatives. But it doesn’t do much more than that.

  • Stalin


    Have you not been watching the news media this week. The vicous attacks are something that I have never seen before. I find it disturbing that you think if a mother is proud of her adult son for joining the military that it makes it OK to attack her child daughter for being pregnant. You might want to rethink that position.

  • Postscript: Stalin, my position results from the fact that Palin was chosen purely to do what you talked about. If Palin was only chosen based on her biography for fundraising, attention and to energize the base of the party, then THAT is truly cynical.

    If the McCain campaign puts her on the trail and has her do interviews and press conferences, I’ll believe she was chosen because McCain thinks she can handle it. But if not, doesn’t it seem clear that she was chosen simply to draw attention, and not to compete on issues?

  • Babs BRAVO!!! Are you shocked that some of the men on the site can’t handle a woman having an opinion? Grey said “It almost comes off as reverse sexism”, well I say so be it. Its OK for a man to have view points but when a women criticizes Biden for accepting the senate while having to raise two children on his own, or Obama for following his dream and leaving the children and wife at home forget about it, it’s “reverse sexism”. I say too bad. If your gonna dish it out you better be willing to take it!

    We now see the lengths that the liberal mainstream media is willing to go just to stop a CONSERVATIVE from being elected. I personally am having a blast watching the media fall on there face. Babs, as women we have them out numbered. As conservatives, we have them out numbered, and most importantly Mom’s (I’m not one yet but someday) you have them out numbered. If liberal media media hasn’t learned yet, you don’t mess with an angry mother.

    wearevot: like Sarah’s husband said when he introduced Cindy McCain at a luncheon yesterday, “If I had a crystal ball a few years ago, I may have asked a few more questions when Sarah decided to join the P.T.A”.

    This lady climbed the ladder quickly and we should be praising this Washington OUTsider, not blaming John McCain for making a awesome choice for VP. Rush addressed McCain’s VP choice correctly by calling McCain a McGenius!

  • Todd


    I see Obama is calling out Hillary, will you admit he is now a sexist ? Since you think McCain is ?

    He obviously didn’t need her until Palin threatened to take some womens’ votes, did he ?

  • *** Nuked ***

    Note from admin: Please refrain from comments pertaining to certain anatomy in a derogatory manner.

  • Todd, you make a great point and I’m waiting anxiously for wearevotingyes to answer. Obama through Hillary under the bus.

  • Todd: Hillary has always pledged to work for Obama. Don’t you think it is just as likely that Hillary feels threatened by the fact that Palin could upstage her, and Hillary is choosing to hit the trail harder because she sees her legacy and position and the most prominent woman in American politics in jeopardy?

    I don’t think there is an equivalency here at all.

  • Todd: A further thought. The real equivalency that you’re looking for would have been if Obama had chosen a woman that WAS NOT Hillary Clinton for his ticket. If he had done that, it would have been a blatant play for Clinton’s female supporters, who likely would have rejected it out of hand as pandering. I believe most will do the same thing with Sarah Palin.

    I don’t believe that continuing to ask Hillary Clinton to play a part in the general election – something Obama has done throughout the campaign without fail – is sexist at all. I also don’t find it surprising that her involvement is ramping up after the conventions – though I do think Palin may have motivated Clinton to become more involved for the reasons mentioned in the previous post.

  • One last thought: Todd, you’ve posed a question that cannot be answered without the same critique.

    If Obama doesn’t utilize Hillary Clinton, you’d call him sexist. If he does, you’ll still call him sexist.

  • Odonata28

    Babs wrote:
    Would they have applauded two abortions from this family?

    I am pro-choice but I NEVER applaud abortion. I think it’s crazy that the right believes that people actually LIKE the idea of abortion. I think it’s one of the worst aspects of our society. I would never choose it for myself, but I don’t believe it’s my place to choose for another woman.

    What I DON’T applaude is Sarah Palin’s CHOICE to get pregnant at the delicate age of 44 where her chances of having a trisomal 21 baby were a high 1/35. 2 minutes of research on the internet would have told her that. If she wanted a baby so badly, knowing her chances of having a special needs baby, why didn’t she adopt one? What I don’t understand are all these PRO-LIFE people who have baby after baby while unwanted children are being tossed around foster homes. Then they don’t support any programs that help these children once they are born. These children are more likely to grow up and not be productive members of society, unless someone is willing to reach their hand out and help them. Republicans don’t support these types of social programs, but they want to make abortions illegal? It doesn’t add up.

    As an Aunt who is taking care of TWO children who faced that decision, this is a very sensative issue for me. I am not having children because I want to dedicate my life to these two and I want them to grow up knowing they were wanted. And don’t think I don’t look at them everyday and think about the other outcome that could have been. I also mourn the siblings they will never have that DIDN’T survive that decision.

    I also don’t applaude her not taking some time to sit down and talk to her daughter about safe sex. What is wrong here are people who are not willing to look at the facts. Educated people make BETTER decisions. Teaching your child NOT to have sex DOESN’T work. It is a fact that teaching safe sex leads to better decisions about sex, including abstinence. Abstinence only programs DON’T work.

    There are many more documents like this and in fact I was hard pressed to find any report about them being a success.

    I am criticizing her or her daughter for their decisions, I am questioning her ability to look at the facts and do a little research to make an educated. Open her mind and not view everything in black and white. There is more than one solution to the problems of abortion and teen sex/pregnancy. When she shows me she can do that I will consider voting for her, but I don’t want a bulldog with lipstick in the White House. I want someone a little less impulsive.

  • I think some Republicans believe that if you’re pro-choice then you applaud abortions, that’s a ridiculous idea. I’m pro-choice and would dearly love for there to be no abortions, but I aint naive enough to think that’ll ever happen.

    Some people would rather stop the suffering of a child whilst it’s still a fetus and can’t feel pain before the child is subject to a lifetime of pain and suffering due to whatever physical or mental illness it may have. That should be a right as a parent to make that choice. It isn’t easy either way, but ending the suffering in the womb surely is more humane?

    Also what about rape victims. Why should they be made to feel guilty of not wanting to carry an unwanted child?

    I don’t like people using abortions as quick fix solution because of their lack of control or stupidity, but there are circumstances where an abortion is better than the alternative.

    On a side note: I don’t know how strict they are in America with background checks, financial security etc etc etc before you’re able to adopt a child, but here in New Zealand it’s very strict. I’m sure more people would adopt if too many barriers and red tape wasn’t in the way.

  • Grey

    Thanks for that Babs, I think I understand your outrage a little better now. And yes, I can’t deny the sexism that clearly exists in the liberal leaning medias, although I don’t know if it’s just restricted to the fact they’re liberal or that they themselves are just racist *&^%s (I would hope it’s the latter).

    CG, that’s not quite what I meant by reverse sexism. Reverse sexism is the inclination to cry “sexism” when a woman is victimized, for whatever reason.

    I’ll pull an example of this from the reverse racism, the race based equivalent of this. A black guy can call a white guy whatever derogatory term he would wish to and no one would think any worse of him. However, a white guy who does the same, especially the N word, would automatically be branded a racist and probably be thrown into jail.

    And a quick note:

    Todd, sorry, but that argument doesn’t work- Obama has needed Hillary’s help for a long time, and for more than just the women’s vote. The fact he just happens to be asking now means nothing.

  • Dreadsen


    Frank is right.

    If Obama would have yelled Racism every time someone singled him out for the exact same things all the other white guys or women have done or have been doing it would be all over the place.

    Same people where cheerleading the cry for sexism even when it isn’t even warranted had no problem at Obama being singled out.
    This is all partisan politics. Alright for unjust things to happen on the other side but don’t let it happen to us.

    Just imagine it is okay for women to cry this even when it is unjustified. But let a black guy do it. They will be accused of being an Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

  • Dreadsen


    Hilary’s camp said they had this scheduled even before Palin was announced.

  • Todd

    Sexism is sexism glad to see your Ok with it. You lost the experience issue

    so you started talking about her having to raise a family and her pregnant daughter, I don;t think you would have that argument with a man

    Damn Dreadsen, I cannot pin you down ! where do you stand. Give me a politician who shares your viewpoints. I thought it was Paul

  • Odonata28 and nzpudding, let me share with you that Nate and I are staunchly Pro-Life for a number of reasons. The first being that both of our moms were in their 40’s and both women were told by their doctors to have abortions. Thank you to both mothers for not! This may shock you but people have a right to do with their bodies what they see fit. Just b/c Sarah was 44 years of age and pregnant does NOT mean she was trying to become pregnant. Both of our mothers thought their families were complete. But as we like to think, God knew something both families didn’t. As for Nate and my decision to have children, it pains us to think that women would abort before considering adaption. We personally know many couples that have been waiting for years to adopt a child. As a matter of fact Nate and I may be adding our names to that list since the cancer I faced as a teen may have spoiled our chances of conceiving. I’m just blessed to be alive. So before you criticize Sarah for having a baby at 44, remember that women who CHOOSE to have the child are choosing life! Thank God for that.

    Sadly it seems that some people believe Down’s syndrome babies are not worth anything:

  • Your point CG makes no sense. Both myself and Odonata28 are pro-choice, which gives the woman the right to choose what’s best for her. Yet your arguing that a woman should have the right to choose what’s best for her which IS pro-choice.

    And if you look back at what I said, I’m all for adoption and would dearly love for there not to be ANY abortions. But there are certain circumstances where the the woman feels an abortion is better than the alternative.

    This reminds me of something I read the other week.

    A. The mother of a family of 14 is pregnant again. Her husband — the father of all 14 of these children — has a history of alcohol abuse and mental disorders which frequently causes him to abuse his other children. The mother herself is already worn out from trying to care single-handedly for her large family and doesn’t feel she can care for another child at this point. On top of all this, two sons in the family also have a history of alcohol abuse, one of the children is in a mental institution, and none of the other children have steady, dependable jobs with which to support mom and dad. Abortion or Not?

    B. A poor black family in the South is expecting a fifth child. This family, because of its skin color, already has difficulty receiving help and are already at the bare minimum poverty level. The outlook for their present children does not look bright. Abortion or Not?

    C. A woman is engaged to a man some years older than she; she finds out that she is facing an unplanned pregnancy. The child she is carrying is definitely not the son of her fiancé, and he is worried for her sake and for their repution in their community. This child could put a serious strain on their relationship and on any future children. Abortion or Not?

    Okay, everybody finished? Here are the results:

    A. If you answered Abortion for A, congradulations! You just aborted Ludwig Van Beethoven!

    B. If you answered Abortion for B, again, congradulations! You just aborted Martin Luther King, Jr.

    C. If you answered Abortion for C, YOU WIN THE GRAND PRIZE! You, my friend, have just aborted Jesus of Nazareth.

  • Shame you can’t edit posts, but just to add:

    You won’t find in any of my posts anywhere where I’ve criticized Sarah Palin for having a baby at 44 years of age. You’ll also not find in any of my posts where I’ve said down syndrome babies are not worth having. So please don’t try and twist what isn’t said.

    I have 2 nephews with Muscular Dystrophy, so I have a keen understanding what is a special needs child and you’ll never find me criticizing a parent for having one.

  • Grey

    Sigh… just read all the abortion stuff.

    For myself, I’m a devout Christian who’s more or less pro-life. I don’t think that human beings have either the capacity or the right to determine where life begins and where it ends- the right to life is God’s alone. I’m not completely pro-life: I won’t say that life begins at conception, like all pro-life people seem to. I’m skeptical to say that it does, but I’m absolutely positive that it’s a gray area at best, and the right to life is not something one takes chances on. With regard to all opinions on abortion, those matters in which humans believe that life is subject to their own whimsical opinions, I will forfeit the right to align myself on either side of the spectrum- a right that, as far as I’m concerned, I never had.

    That being said, I think it’s wrong to belittle Sarah and Bristol’s choices with regards to their own pregnancies. To suggest that Sarah is irresponsible because she had a 1/35 chance of birthing a baby with down syndrome is a twisted remark- it subtly devalues the worth of a down syndrome child, although I’m sure you had no intent of suggesting such, Odonata28.

    Nz, your argument for the viability of abortions is fair enough, but I would have to disagree, at least in terms of sparing the fetus of the trials and pain life is bound to bring. You say it’s the right of the parents- who gives them that right? I won’t speculate on the underlying belief that might make you say that, but if you would care to elaborate, I’m all ears.

  • Dan

    All the talk on here seems to be caught up in cries of “sexism!” or “abortion!”. Was some of the coverage unfair? Sure, her daughter shouldn’t have been in the spotlight. But does it reflect poorly on her policy position of abstinence only sex-ed? Absolutely. As for her baby, I’d take their complaints a lot more seriously if the McCain/Palin campaign wasn’t the party constantly showing the baby on TV being passed around like a football and they weren’t using her choice to have the baby as part of her speeches. He’s either part of the campaign or he’s not. Notice that they say she “chose” to have Trig, even though she doesn’t actually believe in choice. So really, they shouldn’t be trumpeting her decision at all because in her mind, she didn’t have a choice.

    But to me, all of that is besides the point. That’s mostly polital back-and-forth between a campaign that’s trying to claw its way back to relevance and a media that’s trying to perform years of background checks in a week. Clashes are to be expected and McCain should know better than to not vet an unknown candidate at all. Also, Palin should know better than to keep lying in the age of YouTube (keep reading).

    The REAL issue here is that while she’s being painted as a “reformer that will take on Washington”, her record SCREAMS the exact opposite. As mayor, she got $27 million dollars in federal earmarks for a town of 7000 people. She hired a lobbyist that worked for Abramhoff for God’s sake! How much more inside do you need to be? Bridge-to-nowhere that she supported before she was against it. The 2nd bridge-to-nowhere that will connect Anchorage and Wasilla that she’s still supporting with a price tag of $450 million to $1.5 billion. She “took on Ted Stevens”, but she actually ran his political action committee during his senate race.

    Her “executive experience as mayor” was to hire a city manager to actually run the city. She worked full time on finding projects to get earmarks for. She left the city $20+ million in debt. How do you do that in a town the size of a large high school while also taking in $27 million in free cash from Uncle Sam? HORRIBLE JUDGEMENT, that’s how. That’s the real issue that needs to be discussed. Not her kids, or her hard-line Christian beliefs. We need to look at the fact that she couldn’t run a small town without a city manager to help, and even with that help she ran it into the ground under massive piles of debt. Even now, Alaska tops the charts for most earmarks from the federal government, even though they have the 3rd smallest population and one of the most insanely high internal revenue streams because of oil and natural gas. The truth is that Sarah wants all the pork she can get because for every dollar she gets from us, she gets to send a dollar to her voters from Alaska’s internal money. It’s no wonder they love her. She keeps sending them money.

  • Odonata28

    Grey, I would never devalue the life of a child with Down Syndrome. They are wonderful people, and I know several who have it and I regard them with love and respect. However, I would not consider getting pregnant at a delicate age due to the risks. I would never intentionally put that life onto someone and getting pregnant that late in life is taking a huge risk. To me it’s similar to drinking while pregnant, it’s a risk I would not be willing to take.

    That being said, if I was married, had a couple of children and didn’t want to have any more, living in the 21st century there are many options to not taking that risk. I just can’t seem to wrap my head around why steralization and contraception is so hard for some people to understand. See your doctor, get a prescription, have a little surgery. What’s the big deal? Oh, I am going to hear something about that aren’t I?

    Perhaps it is hard for me to understand because as it turns out I have a medical condition that prevents me from having children (and by the way I am morally against invitro because I know there are needy children out there and why force my body when I can help one of them?). I just don’t understand why the issue isn’t getting rid of that red tape that prevents people from adopting rather than getting rid of abortions. Making them illegal is not going to work.

    Okay, Grey, here is my argument. People are not going to stop having abortions if we make it illegal. Women will still seek them out and put their lives at risk to have them. I am not going to judge a woman for having to make that decision, but I cannot tell her not to. What I can do is help women understand and become educated about sex and help more women learn how to not get pregnant. Why can’t we put our energy into education and knowledge about it and lower the rate of unwanted pregnancies. This is not about abortion, it’s about getting pregnant to begin with.

    Who gives them the right? God gives them the right, and they will be judged in the end for the decision they make. Each case is different, and I believe God will see it that way. In the case of my sister who practiced unsafe sex and has had more than one abortion, and carried 2 to term, I don’t know. I am not the one to judge it. I do think about the childen like my nephew born of drug addicted mothers who have no other family. Born addicted to herion or crack (thank God my nephew was not), who have no family to hold them when their mother is strung out. God may be there, but that’s not enough for a child who is crying because he is hungry and his mom is so high she can’t do anything about it.

    Can’t we put our enegry into helping those children before we worry about the unborn ones?

  • Grey, I’m a Father of 3 and it’s my responsibilty along with my wife to give the best that we can give to our children. It’s also our responsibility to try and make sure they don’t suffer in any way. Had any of our children been diagnosed with any physical or mental life suffering illnesses whilst still in the womb and at a reasonable time of gestation (there has to be a cut off) then we’d have terminated the pregnancy. That’s our right as a parent to do that, it’s not Gods, it’s ours. You can probably guess I’m not religious.

    Could I love a mentally or physically challenged child the same as any other? the answer is yes, but could I watch them suffering through their illness day in day out?, the answer is no. Which I why I personally would want the pregnancy terminated. Obviously if one of our children had been born with some sort of defect that wasn’t diagnosed in the womb, then we’d have to cross that bridge if we came to it.

    I’ve mentioned it before that I have 2 nephews with Muscular Dystrophy and they’ll be lucky to live out their teens. Kristian is now 17 and Connor is 15, so you can imagine the stress and strain placed on the family knowing the inevitable is just around the corner. No parent should live longer than their kids.

    I respect the fact that some people would have a mentally or physically challenged child and that they could watch them do whatever they do day in day out, but that’s not for me.

    To reiterate though. NO ONE, especially me, has belittled Sarah or Bristols decision for having their babies. I don’t know why people are saying that they have been belittled, because it’s simply not true.

    People are saying that it would’ve been better for Sarah to talk through fully with Bristol the virtues of contraception. But it’s hardly effective shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

    I respect Sarah’s decision for having a child at 44, but with the child being Down Syndrome it will require more care and attention from both parents than say if the child was born normal (what’s normal?) and all people are doing is questioning Sarah’s decision to run for VP which would greatly diminish a hands on approach to looking after her baby.

    No one has ever said that Bristol or Sarah should’ve aborted, that’s just simply ludicrous.

  • Odonata28


    Thank you for your reply. You are right this is not specifically about one issue or the other. What is about are all the issues put together and it is obvious that Palin has poor judgement on many issues that affect our lives. She is not fit to lead our country and that is that.

    By the way, I did watch the Daily Show from last week (they are all on the website) and the hyporisy (heehee, I almost wrote hypocrazy, which would probably be more accurate) of the Republicans these days is immesurable. I am ashamed of them for using Abraham Lincoln as one of their icons and then not even listening to what he had to say. I think he would be ashamed of them too. If he were alive today he would be a Democrat!

  • Michael

    Babs, it is striking how it came around full circle. Let me ask you the same question I asked you months ago: by what standards do you not consider yourself a Republican?

    And, as for the hypocrisy… instead of giving a link as people have already done, here is the wonderful clip of the sexism gone astray:

  • wearevotingyes-

    “If McCain wanted to run with somebody on their record, he wouldn’t have chosen Sarah Palin. I think that’s pretty clear – in fact, we know from leaks within his campaign that his first choices were Lieberman and Ridge.”

    Actually, this is false. Sarah Palin’s record and John McCain’s record are very similar on principle. Secondly, I’d be interested to know who “we” are that can atest to “leaks within his campaign”. You see, I work for 2 different factions of the McCain campaign, and the only “leaks” we got was when McCain made his VP choice, a WEEK before announcing it. I’d be curious to see a source for your “leaks”.

    Michael, I don’t consider myself a Republican because I simply don’t believe I should restricted to one view or another on the issues. I also don’t consider myself a Democrat, although I am registered as such on the county rolls. The standard is just what I’ve stated, I’m enough of a liberal at heart (not necessarily a political liberal, just a liberal minded person in general) that I don’t accept being put into a “box”, so to speak, for one party or the other. I’m a woman, but I don’t put myself into that “box” either, I’m an intelligent human being who has the ability and the right to choose as I please on any given issue. I won’t be told how I should think, and I’ll color outside the lines if I please. Does that explain it? 😉

    It’s ironic as well that this thread has turned largely into an open debate over abortion. I recall a few months ago on another thread here that the subject was touched on in a news report, Stalin, I believe it was you that said you didn’t think abortion would be an issue in this campaign – in fact we agreed on that, saying most people were not generally comfortable with the subject. That it was more or less the elephant in the room that no one was going to touch. Looks like we were wrong – with the choice of Sarah Palin for VP it seems it may become a very big issue in this campaign.

    Out of curiosity, I strolled over to the Planned Parenthood site to see what they thought of Sarah. Interestingly enough, they don’t refer to her as Pro-Life, but rather “anti-choice”. Here’s some words for you to disect, Michael. Instead of saying pro-life, which indicates positive connotations, they say anti-choice, and anything “anti” of course gives negative connotations. Again, “don’t tell me words don’t matter”. If I strolled over to a pro-life organizations site, do you think they call Pro-Choice people “anti-life”? Whoa, that sounds REALLY bad, doesn’t it? 😉

  • Babs, I’m not shocked by anything Planned Parenthood does any more. There the lowest of low and it takes a cold hard B*&^% to work there. I know a lot of you will jump on me for saying that, but it’s my opinion so live with it.

    A few months back I was reading a fashion magazine that at the time did not have a reputation for being liberal. It was a brand new publication and the last thing I thought I would find well reading about spring colors for my wardrobe was a letter from the CEO of the company that expressed her outreach from the company to plan parenthood. Explaining that these were woman’s issues and should be of importance to every woman, therefore she hoped everyone would support Planned Parenthood. Hold the phone, was I actually reading this? I wrote letters to the company, to the CEO’s desk and I even filled out two surveys on the website voicing my concern, not one response in return. Go Figure!

  • I will never understand why they call themselves “pro-choice” as if that’s an exclusive club of those who support abortion. The decision not to have an abortion is ALSO a choice, so in that way, every woman in the world is pro-choice. Choice means having more than one option, and that’s what every woman has. It almost reminds me of the stereotypes in high school where we had cheerleaders – and everyone else.

    I just got an email from one of the Hillary supporters. They are asking everyone to turn the USWeekly Edition with Sarah on the cover around on every newstand you found it on in protest of the cover. She asked me to post the directive on all of my websites, blogs, etc. Don’t tell me Hillary supporters aren’t standing up for Sarah. 😉

  • Oh Babs I have to share this with you! Nate and I were in the grocery store yesterday and at the check out line where the tabloids taunt you was the USweekly that you speak of “Babies, Lies and Scandal” and right next to it was OK magazine which reads “Sarah Palins painful choice and Family drama” and if you flip it over it was a Cover with Obama entitled “Life with my girls”. Nate was so embarrassed, I flipped them both on every checkout aisle that we walked by.

  • Good for you, CG! I hear USWeekly is catching a lot of flack in the form of poor sales and canceled subscriptions = revenue.

    Yesterday, tackled the Palin rumors in an article called “Sliming Palin”. Good read, and they address the ISSUES, passing over the slime, which I appreciated.

    I checked out the article after hearing a segment about it on Fox & Friends. Whoever Kilkenny is, she’s not going to win any popularity contests this year. 😉

  • Odonata28


    Exclusive club????? As is the Pro-life people aren’t? The self righteous Republicans and deemed themselves the “culture of life” as if Democrats go around killing babies and old people and as many in between as possible. It seems to me the only people Republicans really want to protect are fetuses and people on life-support. When it comes to anyone in between they give them the middle finger. Have either of you CG or Babs adopted or are taking care of a child who would otherwise not have breathed their first breath? No? Oh, but you don’t respect a woman for choosing to go to Planned Parenthood to make an educated decision about their bodies. I realize this is hard to believe but the purpose of Planned Parenthood is to help women not become pregnant in the first place using contraceptives.

    No word from either of you about education of girls about safe sex. No word of either of you about how to improve this situation. No word about getting rid of the red tape to make adoption easier so we can help the children of this country find good homes. Nothing. You should both be ASHAMED of yourself. All you can do is whine and moan about how horrible abortion is (which I AGREE with you, BTW, and MOST IF NOT ALL sane people would including Democrats).

    It’s not making abortion illegal, it’s making it history. There is a difference. Making it illegal will only make it illegal. What are those arguments for gun control? Would making guns illegal solve the problem of gun crimes? BTW I don’t believe in making guns illegal either.

    I suppose you won’t read this whole thing or you will look at the arguments with your typical veil of denial. Fine.

    Listening to Fox and Friends isn’t going to give you a balance view of the Kilkenny thing, by the way. That open letter is pretty insightful. Sure she was a Mayor, but in order for that to count don’t you have to be a good one who got some good stuff done for your community. Putting a surplus town into debt doesn’t sound very appealing to me.

  • Odonata28, I absolutely read your whole post, why wouldn’t I?

    I have nothing to be ashamed of. My point was – and still is – that whether you believe in abortion or not your are still pro-choice. Having one or not having one are both choices, there shouldn’t be a division like this among women. Planned Parenthood promotes a division among women with their statements and actions that shouldn’t be there. We are all pro-choice, whatever we choose. They are wrong to draw a line in the sand with this issue. It constitutes disrespect for those women who CHOOSE not to abort.

    Perhaps you didn’t read my whole post. The source I sited on Kilkenny was, not Fox. To call it “insightful”, I assume you got the email and fell for it. I highly recommend you follow the above link to, where you can see what was fact and what was fiction in that.

    If you’d like to have a discussion on sex education, that’s great. We were talking about abortion, but we can switch gears if you like.

    Oh, and not that its germaine to the discussion, but yes, we have several adopted children in our family.

  • Odonata28

    LOL. Well I guess my point is whether or not you believes it’s a woman’s choice to have an abortion, you are pro-life. So, we are saying the same thing in a different way. I think if more people sat down and had intelligent conversations instead of blowing up clinics or protesting the issue would be solved. I believe education and abortion are one and the same. I think developing good education would significantly reduce the abortion rate. It’s been shown to work.

    I did go onto faqcheck. It is also insightful, but didn’t change my mind about the letter. I also uses, but it didn’t give much info beyond the letters in this case. There are still issues I have concerns with. I just don’t feel she represents my values. I don’t blindly follow everything I hear or read. I just feel the Republican party wants less government in that they don’t want to have any social programs, but they want more control over peoples lives. To me that feels like more government and less freedom.

    Babs, I enjoy intelligent conversations with people who feel differently than I do. Hey, you never know, minds can be changed. I have felt stongly on issues before and have opened my mind to other possibilities and changed my views.

    Thanks to your family for adopting children. After seeing my nephew in a daycare with 30+ other children with drug addicted mothers and only 2 with other family they could depend on, it means a lot to know others who are out there helping those little ones.

  • Babs

    Odonata28, I think the biggest conversation we could have about adoption is just what you’ve mentioned here. The level of difficulty in adopting is wrong, and I’ve seen a lot of broken hearts over the years because of it – including mine. In the late 70’s, adoption was so difficult that people were turning to private adoptions, essentially buying a baby from its mother at the hospital. The problem with that was that the mother had one year to change her mind, and I’ve seen that happen to an adoptive mother of an 8 month old. She was unable to adopt through conventional methods because she was the wife of a soldier, and somehow the thinking of agencies was that military families were not a stable environment because of their gregarious nature. Ridiculous. So this woman had her heart broken several times over through this process. One of the things I really have respected in McCain is that he feels the adoption process is too stiff also, and obviously supports adoption as he has an adopted daughter of his own.

    Also, unless the laws have recently changed, foster parents are not allowed to adopt foster children they care for. In other words, if you foster a child in your home as your own for say 2 years, and that child’s parent then gives them up for adoption, that child will be ripped away from you to another stranger no matter how badly you want to adopt the child yourself. Having raised and nurtured the child in your home and your heart disqualifies you from becoming their legal parent. This should be outlawed. It is not only wrong, but dissuades people from becoming foster parents in the first place.

  • Odonata28

    Babs, I really agree. Coming from opposite ends here we have found a common ground through converstation. I think that could happen more if people just took the time. There should be more on this subject. I think improving something like the adoption process would have a ripple effect and improve other situations.

    My parents didn’t want my nephew to spend 1 minute in a foster home. I don’t think they were worried about the foster family wanting to adopt him, they just didn’t want to let him live with strangers while our house-hold was assesed. I think what you said would make me think twice about being a foster parent. It is too much for the heart to take. I respect those who can do it.

    What can be done to change these situations? Why aren’t these things being talked about and being changed? It just doesn’t make sense to me. I feel so stongly that if more peope found something to fight for that can make a different we could take real positive steps forward. Standing around with a sign does nothing. Why can’t people see that?

  • Babs

    Agreed, Odonata28. I think these things aren’t being addressed because we’ve allowed the federal government to make the rules, and once they have, they’re no longer listening. I’m in complete agreement with smaller government, booting them out of business they have no right to dictate. And I think that this is one of those issues that should be left to real people, and not the Federal Government. Americans are quite capable on their own of organizing and running a decent system in this country for displaced children, and the people who want to care for them. The Lobbyists that people are so strong about complaining about, though, are the very people in Washington that affect change for situations like these. Are all lobbyists good? No, some are out for themselves to line their own pockets. But lobbyists that tackle issues like this are needed in Washington, and I hope to see a lot more of them banging on the doors of Congress come January. 😉

  • Struglndad

    It is very interesting that the issue of adoption is being discussed in this forum. My family and I would love another child and would love to adopt however we can barely afford a tank of gas let alone another child. This economy has to be fixed in some way before everybody can bring all of these children into the world and I’m not ashamed to say it. Am I pro-choice? Yes I am and for anybody to be other than pro-choice in todays financially strained America is out of touch with real people in this country. Wondering how you are going to pay your light bill working thre jobs with a college degree in this day in age is a reality that myself and many others are facing and I need somebody that understands that reality. If you are anti sex education and pro life you cant possibly understand the average persons daily decisions in this country. Here is a decision for you and one I deal with on a bi-weekly basis (right before my check comes). “Do I eat real food today or do I make sure my child has enough food for the next three days?” You know what the answer is? I eat friggin potato chips and vitamins. My son is my life, but I couldn’t afford another one right now and that is something i learned in sex education. McCain and Palins views on abortion and sex education and gun control (having been robbed at gunpoint before and having 2 good friends shot) are so far from my reality that I cant identify with them.