McCain's VP Pick?

[u2sarajevo]

continuing..... act as if nothing ever happened.

McCain announced his running mate as Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin!

discuss

[dude1394]

So is Chum a closed koskid? This sort of sounds like what I've been reading out of him lately.

Why? In part because the progs insisted on launching disgusting and indefensible sexual smears at Sarah Palin and her daughter. Level-headed liberals warned against that course of action, but the Kos Krazies insisted that they knew better. They said that the appearance of Palin's family at the GOP convention justified even the most revolting forms of attack.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

So is Chum a closed koskid? This sort of sounds like what I've been reading out of him lately.

I don't read the koskids, dude. What I try to do is to hold feet to the fire. It is my belief that McCain's choice of Palin was nine-tenths, at least, because she is a woman. Some have called that cynical, but I think it's just as reasonable to call it sexist.

[Mavdog]

oh come on chum, it couldn't be 9/10ths...

she was selected because she is a gun toting, anti-abortion creationist who disputes global warming...

I'd say it was only 4/10th because she is a woman.

[chumdawg]

Maybe so, Mavdog. Maybe there were other gun-totin', anti-abortion creationists who dispute global warming who could have been tapped. But the pistol-packin' mama won the day, I think, just because she's a mama.

Witness her smug reaction to the Hillary Clinton question: "I bet he's regrettin' not pickin' 'er now."

[rabbitproof]

Part dos:
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=nHRuVy...67DFF2&index=3

She really is just a bunch of lines and no ideas... vague as hell. Good thing McCain is at the top of ticket given that the Republicans might win. Bad thing he's got only a 2 in 3 shot to making his term through.

[Murphy3]

.... hmm, a democrat accusing Palin as being nothing but a bunch of lines? That really doesn't make alot of sense considering Obama as president will probably work out about as well as Mary trying to use the 'delete' button in the VP thread. Obama's got a big bag of nothing..

[rabbitproof]

I'm not a democrat but thanks. Her method of "reducing spending" is "finding efficiencies"??

okayyyyyy... because prior to 2008, efficiency was so uncool.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

.... hmm, a democrat accusing Palin as being nothing but a bunch of lines? That really doesn't make alot of sense considering Obama as president will probably work out about as well as Mary trying to use the 'delete' button in the VP thread. Obama's got a big bag of nothing..

I have to say, Murph...that's a very, very compelling argument.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

I'm not a democrat but thanks. Her method of "reducing spending" is "finding efficiencies"??

okayyyyyy... because prior to 2008, efficiency was so uncool.

did anyone else get the impression palin wasn't familiar with what phrase "entitlement spending" meant?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

did anyone else get the impression palin wasn't familiar with what phrase "entitlement spending" meant?

What do "voluntary" mean?

Kidding, for the benefit of the locals. Of course she doesn't know anything about "entitlement spending." As she herself said, she's been more concerned with Wassila and Alaska than with other issues.

She paints herself pretty clearly.

[12 Tone Melodies]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

did anyone else get the impression palin wasn't familiar with what phrase "entitlement spending" meant?

And this is a bad thing, how?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 12 Tone Melodies

And this is a bad thing, how?

are you trying to make a joke?

sure it's important. as it's the fastest growing and second largest spending category in the federal budget.

ANY discussion of reducing federal spending must include entitlements, which of course [spending] was the subject of the question palin was answering

[wmbwinn]

In the interest of getting back to Palin, I found this article...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thursday, September 11, 2008

"You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday -- thereby spawning one of those vacuous debates that will consume at least two days of air time on cable news talk shows.

Thank Sen. John McCain's campaign for holding a press call afterward asking Obama to apologize for comparing running mate Sarah Palin to a pig. And then you get instant mindless controversy.

Obama dismissed the gambit as "phony outrage." And: "Nobody actually believes that these folks are offended." No lie. It's why folks call this the silly season.

Obama also had said, "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called 'change;' it's still going to stink after eight years." What next? Will McCain's Navy demand that Obama apologize to old fish, too?

As for Obama, he, too, has climbed on to the fake umbrage platform. Note how the instant anyone criticizes him, Obama decries "Swift boat politics" -- evoking the independent 2004 campaign that took on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's war record and character.

Obama just can't help himself. The Democratic nominee brought up the "Swift boat" ads again Wednesday -- undeterred by the left's series of scurrilous personal attacks against GOP vice presidential candidate Palin and her family. It started with a Daily Kos story alleging that Palin was actually the grandmother of her infant son, Trig.

But it didn't end there. The folks at Factcheck.org felt compelled to respond to a flood of falsehoods being spread about Palin. As the organization reported, "She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library."

"She was never a member of the (secessionist) Alaskan Independence Party." And: "Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools." Straight news stories have probed meetings in which Palin, then a rookie mayor, asked Wasilla librarian Mary Ellen Emmons about removing books from the library. Palin never named any specific books. No books were banned. The librarian kept her job. But none of that matters.

In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, Palin said she believed in a "healthy debate" in public schools between creationism and evolution -- and that reasonable view has been contorted into Palin wanting to force her creationist views down others' throats. Actually, it is the side that wants no debate that is intolerant.

Methinks if the media believe in such strict scrutiny of Palin's past, then perhaps reporters might want to look at Obama's association with Bill Ayers, formerly of the bomb-happy radical Weather Underground when Obama was a state legislator. Or is it only permissible to have flirted with your political persuasion's far side only if you are a Democrat?

Yes, Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. Still, she was against it. And try as they might, Team Obama can't erase the fact that Palin stood up to the good old boys in the Alaskan GOP establishment.

The real smear is the insistence of Camp Obama that Palin is patently inexperienced -- an odd claim coming from a campaign whose candidate began running for the White House two years into his first term as a U.S. senator.

Now maybe Palin will stumble and show the country that she is not ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. But the Democrats can't wait for that day, or limit the debate to the issues, because they want so much to destroy this backwoods upstart.

In that spirit, South Carolina Democratic Chairwoman Carol Fowler told Politico.com that Palin's "primary qualification seems to be that she hasn't had an abortion." If I were Obama, I'd stow the Swift boat laments.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...stick_dipstick

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

are you trying to make a joke?

sure it's important. as it's the fastest growing and second largest spending category in the federal budget.

ANY discussion of reducing federal spending must include entitlements, which of course [spending] was the subject of the question palin was answering

Especially when you include that prescription drug bill GW signed...

[u2sarajevo]

I am utterly shocked that the Obama supporters didn't like what Sarah Palin had to say. I'm speechless. I honestly thought she would change your mind.

[wmbwinn]

U2Sarajevo:

I am utterly shocked that the Obama supporters didn't like what Sarah Palin had to say. I'm speechless. I honestly thought she would change your mind.

It is as always a question not of did the far left love Sarah. It is a question of did the moderate, undecided, middle love Sarah....

Note the following article:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...p_resurrection

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

In the past 30 years or so, since presidential conventions no longer actually have decided the nominees, their usual purpose has been to focus and project a positive image of the already chosen candidate (and, of course, disparage the opponent). But last week in St. Paul, Minn., the GOP convention was different. It not only enhanced but also -- at least for the moment -- reversed-fielded the image of the Republican ticket.

In the aftermath of that reversal, the entire presidential contest has been upended. It also hastened (or perhaps even made possible at all) the change of the human image of the GOP from Bush/Cheney to McCain/Palin.

Until last week, Sen. McCain was running as the boring candidate of experience and was unable to substantially replace Bush as the image of the party. With Bush having a 70 percent negative image, he not only was dragging down McCain but also constituted a drowning weight on the buoyancy of Republican candidates at the federal, state and local levels.

But with the addition of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to the ticket, suddenly and spontaneously, McCain the reformer, McCain the maverick stopped being a GOP talking point and became incarnate. It is not only that the Alaska governor is a genuine reformer but also that by every aspect of her being, she is fresh, different, recognizably normal, and thus, the un-Washingtonian. The power of her image has supercharged McCain's image.

We see the first effects of McCain/Palin replacing Bush/Cheney in Monday's USA Today/Gallup Poll, in which 48 percent say they're Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party; 47 percent say they're Republicans or lean to the GOP. That merely 1-point party gap -- the strongest position for Republicans since Bush's second inaugural, at the beginning of 2005 -- had been in double digits only a few weeks ago. Moreover, voters -- by only 48-45 percent -- support the Democratic candidate in their congressional districts, the Democratic Party's narrowest advantage this year. If these numbers hold -- and it is a big if -- Republicans may well lose far fewer seats in the House and Senate in November.

Moreover, in an act of political alchemy, McCain's selection of the nationally inexperienced Gov. Palin only underscored Sen. Obama's own national inexperience. Worse for Obama, Gov. Palin's presence has sucked the oxygen out of Sen. Biden's public statements -- forcing presidential candidate Obama into the unthinkable: He himself must go on the attack against McCain's vice presidential junior partner. Worst of all for Obama, his campaign of a fresh face with new ideas is falling victim to a newer face with newer ideas.
As I predicted in a Feb. 28, 2007, column:

"What does it mean to be a 'fresh face' in a 12-month primary campaign in an Interneted, 24-7 news cycle environment? This, of course, must be a question that Sen. Barack Obama and his people are puzzling over now. He will be as familiar as an old shoe to Democratic Party primary voters by next January (2008) and February (2008). He may still be appealing next year (2008), but he will no longer be fresh. …

"… A new idea put forward a year before primary voting risks not only providing more than sufficient time for an opponent's research team to find and publicize the flaws in the idea … but also runs the risk of becoming stale and, most dangerously, of letting events overtake the proposal.

"Thus is lost one of the great advantages of challengers -- that their ideas are fresh, appealing and plausible, but not public long enough to be measured by events and considered judgment -- which is the inevitable plight of incumbents and their party successors.

"One of the other imponderable challenges to both fresh faces and well-known veteran candidates is how to manage the life expectancy of clever phrases and slogans and even of endearing personality quirks and styles of speech or manner.

"These things tend to get old. …

"I suspect that the insatiable public maw of freshness-hunger will prove a vast challenge to the wordsmith and media shops of all the campaigns. …

"Perhaps this will be the election cycle of the late entries."

And that is exactly what Obama is being forced to deal with. First his startling and lofty rhetoric grew stale from overuse. And now his once engaging (for some) ideas are being overtaken by events. His call for quick retreat from Iraq, overtaken by the surge and the smell of victory, has forced him to reverse field and admit the surge has been an unexpected (by him) success. Then the declining economy forced him this week to back away from his soak-the-rich tax increases for fear of further damaging the economy.

Of course, the perils of Pauline still may threaten Gov. Palin, and two months is time enough for many more strange twists. But one week on from the Republican convention, it is fair to say that never in modern history has a presidential ticket benefited so much from its convention. And never have the hopes and energy of a moribund party risen so quickly or so high.
Tony Blankley is executive vice president of Edelman public relations in Washington.

I took the liberty to bold a few areas...

[Mavdog]

please note (as ststed at the bottom) that the above is an opinion piece penned by a public relations exec who was at the heritage foundation and previously an editorial writer for the washington times.

he is correct in the palin selection energized the repub ticket.

sure it surprised the dems, who would have predicted mccain would reach so far?

mccain rolled the dice and he didn't crap out.

as for if he hit, time will tell.

obama/biden will regroup, get on message with more emphasis on the republicans being the incumbents and not agents of change. expect more "mcsame" rhetoric, a lot of photos of bush with mccain.

and a lot of discussion of palin's past, her not so mainstream views, and then there is the issue of "troopergate" that is unfolding up in alaska. there was a very important vote yesterday by the alaska ethics commission and it did not go the way that mccain/palin campaign hoped for.

[wmbwinn]

Mavdog:

and a lot of discussion of palin's past, her not so mainstream views,...

This is the classic Dem party underestimation.

Truth is that outside of big city USA, Palin's past and views are VERY mainstream. And, within big city, USA, at least 35-40% of the people view her past and her views as VERY mainstream.

Remember what the county red/blue map looked like in Bush vs. Gore???

The majority of the real estate in the USA was red. The majority of big city USA was blue.

You live in big city USA. Your view of "mainstream" is accurate for your environment only.

[Mavdog]

sorry william, I grew up in a small town.

and no, i'm not john mellancamp...

her extreme view of a women's right (no right to an abortion in rape/incest), her view on teaching creationism in public schools, her view against climate change...these are far right views imo not held by the vast majority of americans.

to try and portray palin as anywhere close to mainstream is ludicrous.

[jthig32]

I can't speak to other areas of the country, but within the Bible belt her views on abortion and creationism are anything but extreme. They are the norm.

[wmbwinn]

Mavdog:

her extreme view of a women's right (no right to an abortion in rape/incest), her view on teaching creationism in public schools, her view against climate change...these are far right views imo not held by the vast majority of americans.

You are taking this to a silly end.

What matters is the contrast between Obama and Palin.

Obama has never voted contrary to any abortion right. Obama (unless the media is reporting wrongfully) is even in support of infanticide when he apparently voted for the termination of an infant born alive DESPITE an attempt to abort (failed abortion=living child). Obama is in favor of the partial birth abortion.

So, Obama is only "mainstream" to the far left on the abortion issue.

To complain that Sarah is far right and missing a "mainstream" view is too simple an analysis.

You have to look at what is mainstream and then determine which candidate comes closest to the parts of the debate you support.

It may be "mainstream" to favor abortion for rape/incest. I don't know and have never seen a poll on such things that could help us conclude what "mainstream" abortion thought is.

But...

you have to realize that Sarah attracts a large swarm of those who may be "mainstream" and certainly attracts the right.

Sarah is very attractive to small town USA.

[jthig32]

That's a very good point. Obama's views on abortion (or his voting history, his views seem to have "changed" recently) can easily be characterized as further outside the norm than Palin's.

[Murphy3]

Much, much further..
Her views aren't outside the norm at all with about 70-80% of the people that I know.

[Mavdog]

hmm, I don't know anyone who supports teaching creationism in public schools.

so much for our own polls...

actually, I do recall a poll on the subject of teaching creationism a couple of years ago, what was interesting is that a majority of americans beileved in creationism, but only about 1/3 thought it should be taught in public schools. i'll look for it.

a gallop poll found a majority of americans favored the women's right to an abortion, and only about 20% believed that abortions shouldn't be allowed in cases of incest/rape.

so yes, palin's views on these two issues are very much in the extreme for americans.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

hmm, I don't know anyone who supports teaching creationism in public schools.

so much for our own polls...

actually, I do recall a poll on the subject of teaching creationism a couple of years ago, what was interesting is that a majority of americans beileved in creationism, but only about 1/3 thought it should be taught in public schools. i'll look for it.

a gallop poll found a majority of americans favored the women's right to an abortion, and only about 20% believed that abortions shouldn't be allowed in cases of incest/rape.

so yes, palin's views on these two issues are very much in the extreme for americans.

Creationism being taught in schools is closer to extreme, I'll give you that.

What % of americans do you think would be in favor of not providing care to babies born during an abortion procedure? 2%? 5 maybe?

Beyond that, Christians make up a large majority of the pro-life crowd, and the belief that life begin in the womb applies to all babies, no matter the circumstances, so I find the results of the poll you're citing highly suspicious.

[wmbwinn]

If 80 percent of Americans support abortion, then why do the Republicans always pick up voters and swell their ranks whenever abortion moves front and center in national debates?

If you can find that poll or another, I'd like to read it and see exactly what the questions were.

I could see this:

"Do you support a rape victim's access to an abortion?" I could see that going 80/20 in favor.

"Do you support partial birth abortion" Probably 80/20 against

"Do you support killing a baby that survived an abortion and is born alive" Probably 90/10 against.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

If 80 percent of Americans support abortion, then why do the Republicans always pick up voters and swell their ranks whenever abortion moves front and center in national debates?

what? "80% of americans support abortion"???

that in itself is ludicrous.

the right wing wants to frame the abortion issue in such absolutes it borders on the absurd.

if a poll were taken that says "do you approve of abortions?", it would probably be over 90%, heck maybe 95%, saying no.

and shocking as it may be to you rightwingers, I'd predict even the "evil" obama would be in that camp.

newsflash: people can support the right of a woman to have an abortion but still be anti-abortion.

it's just that the majority of americans understand that a woman's right to control her uterus is HER decision, not yours or mine. nor the governments.

so yes, the vast majority of americans support the right of a woman to get an abortion in the case of incest or rape, many americans who oppose a blanket right support these exceptions.

so clearly palin's views denying that right to have an abortion in the case of rape or incest are extreme when looked at versus the vast majority of americans.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Creationism being taught in schools is closer to extreme, I'll give you that.

What % of americans do you think would be in favor of not providing care to babies born during an abortion procedure? 2%? 5 maybe?

Beyond that, Christians make up a large majority of the pro-life crowd, and the belief that life begin in the womb applies to all babies, no matter the circumstances, so I find the results of the poll you're citing highly suspicious.

here's the gallup poll I mentioned seeing.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/22222/Rel...-Abortion.aspx

[jthig32]

That doesn't make a bit of sense. Why would you be against abortion if you think of it as nothing more than a woman having the right to "control her uterus". What is there to be against? It'd be like being against appendectomies.

[wmbwinn]

only about 20% believed that abortions shouldn't be allowed in cases of incest/rape.

The above is where I got the 80 percent for abortion stat from. I am just saying that the poll is going to depend on how it is worded.

I'm going to read the gallup poll now and get back.

As to the "No uterus, no opinion" or "it's my uterus" or "it's my choice", those noises in the wind give no voice to the baby...

There should be two sets of rights instead of one.

[wmbwinn]

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- A Gallup analysis of American public opinion on abortion finds that attitudes are strongly related to both religion and politics. Christians have stronger anti-abortion views than non-Christians, and those who frequently attend church have stronger anti-abortion views than those who attend less frequently. These relationships hold up even within partisan groups. While Republicans as a whole are more likely than Democrats to have anti-abortion views, identifiers with both parties who frequently attend church have stronger anti-abortion views than those who attend less frequently.
Most Americans Are Moderate on Abortion

For most of the past 30 years, a majority of Americans have opted for the middle ground in answering Gallup's long-term measure of abortion attitudes: "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" A special analysis of multiple Gallup Polls conducted over the last two years shows that on average, 55% of Americans said they believed abortion should be legal "only under certain circumstances." As is seen throughout Gallup polling on abortion, Americans are ambivalent about abortion, and this illustrates it.

What has changed over time, and what distinguishes some groups of Americans from others, are the percentages holding the two more extreme positions on the issue. Overall, 24% of Americans in the 2004-2005 aggregate think abortion should be legal "under any circumstances" while 20% think it should be "illegal in all circumstances."


It is the balance of opinion at the extremes that shifts when looking at Americans of different religions and religiosity levels.

Abortion Views by Religious Preference

There is a stark difference in views on abortion between Americans who are Christians and those who are not Christians, i.e., those who identify with a non-Christian religion or no religion at all. While just 20% of Christians say abortion should be legal under any circumstances, a majority of non-Christians (54%) and a large segment of those with no religious preference (39%) agree.


Within the broad group of those who identify themselves as Christians, however, there is little difference between Protestants and Catholics on abortion. In both groups, similar proportions say abortion should be "legal under any circumstances" or "illegal in all circumstances." Other Christians (including Greek Orthodox, Mormons, and those who don't specify their religion beyond "Christian") are a bit more likely to say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.


Differences by Frequency of Worship

While attitudes toward abortion are similar among broad categories of Christians, there is a significant difference in abortion views among Christians according to their frequency of church attendance.
The percentage of Christians who say abortion should be legal under any circumstances increases from only 9% among those who attend church services weekly to 29% among those who seldom or never attend. On the other hand, the percentage saying that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances decreases from 39% to 11% along with decreasing frequency of church attendance.



Thus, while the broad type of Christian religion to which one adheres does not seem to affect one's attitude toward abortion, the intensity with which one practices that religion does.
Abortion Attitudes by Party

A majority of both Republicans and Democrats hold moderate views on abortion (saying it should be legal only under certain circumstances), but the balance of attitudes at the extremes between the one partisan group and the other is quite different.

The data confirm what has become conventional political wisdom. Among Republicans, more tend to believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances than say it should be legal in all circumstances. Among Democrats, more tend to believe it should be legal in all circumstances.


Republicans are more likely to attend church frequently than are Democrats. (Half of Republicans, 51%, attend religious services weekly or nearly weekly, compared with 37% of Democrats.) This fact (that Republicans are on average more religious than Democrats, as measured by church attendance) helps explain at least in part why Republicans have stronger anti-abortion attitudes than Democrats.
But the question remains: Is there still a relationship between religiosity (church attendance) and abortion attitudes within the population of both Republicans and Democrats in this country today?

The answer is a resounding "yes."

Religiously devout members of both parties -- those who attend their places of worship every week -- are much more likely to be opposed to abortion than are less religious members of their own party.

Thus, nearly half of religiously devout Republicans are opposed to abortion in all circumstances, while at the other extreme, only 8% of Democrats who seldom or never attend church are opposed to abortion in all circumstances. The "net legal" index (the percentage saying abortion should be legal in all circumstances minus the percentage saying abortion should be illegal in all circumstances) stretches from -43 points for devout Republicans to +34 points among Democrats who seldom or never attend church.

In short, knowing an individual's frequency of church attendance helps predict his or her attitude toward abortion, above and beyond what can be predicted by knowing that individual's partisan affiliation. Republicans who attend church regularly are the most likely to be anti-abortion, while Democrats who seldom or never attend church are the least likely to be anti-abortion. Both variables are important in understanding the nature of abortion attitudes in America today.

Survey Methods

These results are based on an aggregate of 4,015 national adults interviewed across four nationally representative surveys conducted in 2004 and 2005. The interview dates for these were May 2-4, 2004; March 21-23, 2005; May 2-5, 2005; and June 24-26, 2005. For results based on the total combined sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±2 percentage points. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You will have to use the link provided above by Mavdog to see the graphs. I haven't learned yet how to get a graphic image like a graph into the board.

So, I am a Church attending Republican. And, I am debating abortion with a Democrat and I don't know if Mavdog goes to church.

Anyway, let's look at the two extremes represented by Palin and Obama:

Obama: infanticide, partial birth abortions, all abortions legal under all circumstances. Moderated in part by Biden who is Catholic and (I think although I'd like someone to correct me if wrong) opposed to partial birth abortion and infanticide

Palin: opposed to all abortions. Moderated by McCain minimally because McCain has a long history of abortion opposition. The only moderation is that McCain doesn't talk about it much and doesn't carry a Down's syndrome baby onto the stage...

Most Americans are in the middle. So... which extreme view is more shocking and more likely to push Middle America away? I think the partial birth abortion and infanticide are shocking enough to most Americans for this debate to push more of the swing vote to the Rep ticket.

Perhaps when I said that Mavdog's "mainstream" America was a result of her environment, I hit the mark in general but missed the target specifically. Perhaps Mavdog's environment is more influenced by politics and abscence of church? Just guessing.

I would also add that if 37% of Dems go to church frequently and have moderate or right leaning abortion views, then that is ripe picking for the McCain/Palin ticket possibly due to the matter of the extremes between the two choices and due to the horror most Americans see with partial birth abortions and infanticide...

[wmbwinn]

On the issue of Creationism taught at school debate:

Personally, I'm opposed to teaching Creationism at school. If you are a Christian and want to teach Creationism, then you should teach that at home. And, you should teach the rest of your religion at home.

To me (and I am a Christian), it is the same issue as teaching sex education at school.
Sex education should not be taught at school. It is too divisive and belongs at home. What you want to teach your children about the mores of the world is your choice.

So, compromise. Get rid of Creationism and Sex Ed at school.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Anyway, let's look at the two extremes represented by Palin and Obama:

Obama: infanticide, partial birth abortions, all abortions legal under all circumstances. Moderated in part by Biden who is Catholic and (I think although I'd like someone to correct me if wrong) opposed to partial birth abortion and infanticide

Palin: opposed to all abortions. Moderated by McCain minimally because McCain has a long history of abortion opposition. The only moderation is that McCain doesn't talk about it much and doesn't carry a Down's syndrome baby onto the stage...

it's frustrating to read such out and out misinformation....or, as obama puts it well, those "trying to score cheap political points".

here, I'll go out of character and show how people can "score cheap political points" on palin:
sarah palin wants to punish women who are violently attacked by criminals with palin forcing these women to carry to full term the daily reminder of their abuse, palin does so by not allowing these victims to terminate a pregnancy caused by the horrendous act that they were subjected to. sarah palin is sentencing these victims of crimes to not only mental anguish on a daily basis, but also the possibility of health problems that many times are associated with the pregnancy. sarah palin is comfortable sacrificing the mother. how evil she is!

do you like them apples? that's exactly how you distort obama's position.

barack obama is not in favor of "infanticide", and has stated his position on partial birth abortions clearly:

On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.

Part of the reason they didn't have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.

As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don't think that's any Republican out there who I've worked with who would say that I don't listen to them, I don't respect their ideas, I don't understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.

Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008

so yes, obama and biden are very much in the mainstream of what americans have said is their position regarding abortion rights.

sarah palin on the other hand is not.

[wmbwinn]

it's frustrating to read such out and out misinformation....or, as obama puts it well, those "trying to score cheap political points".

here, I'll go out of character and show how people can "score cheap political points" on palin:
sarah palin wants to punish women who are violently attacked by criminals with palin forcing these women to carry to full term the daily reminder of their abuse, palin does so by not allowing these victims to terminate a pregnancy caused by the horrendous act that they were subjected to. sarah palin is sentencing these victims of crimes to not only mental anguish on a daily basis, but also the possibility of health problems that many times are associated with the pregnancy. sarah palin is comfortable sacrificing the mother. how evil she is!

do you like them apples? that's exactly how you distort obama's position.

barack obama is not in favor of "infanticide", and has stated his position on partial birth abortions clearly:

On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.

Part of the reason they didn't have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.

As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don't think that's any Republican out there who I've worked with who would say that I don't listen to them, I don't respect their ideas, I don't understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.

Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008

Now you are opening a whole can of worms. I am a doctor and as such am well aware that every abortion done in this country has a medical record that says "For the psychological health of the mother... the procedure was done"

That is the problem. I agree with you that it makes sense to leave a clause in the law for the "health of the mother". There are definitely times when the mother is absolutely going to die and the awful choice comes up...
I do not have a problem with that.

But, the clause "for the health of the mother" is the very clause that is so abused. So, that is why us evil Republicans appear to be so evil about hating that clause...

I don't disagree with you Mavdog. But, I do disagree with how the clause "for the health of the mother" is actually used. That is the political problem. And, the left extreme group just loves to parade around and use the sort of attack that evil Republicans would let a mother die rather than seek an abortion.

I really liked OB/Gyn as a student in school. I loved delivering babies. But, because of the issues of abortion and frivolous lawsuits (every child not born perfectly healthy must be the doctor's fault, lets sue), I chose another specialty.

Now, back to Obama. Unless the media has been unfair, the report is that Obama has never voted against any abortion law. He has a perfect score from the Pro-Choice Special interest groups. He is their hero as much as Palin is their enemy.

I do not disagree with you Mavdog one iota in the details of your abortion stance as far as you have spelled out so far. I would be a moderate also.

But, let us review what the clause "medically necessary due to the health of the mother" means with a late term partial birth abortion. At that point, killing the baby does not help the mother's physical health at all for any reason. And, I literally can think of absolutely no physical health concern at that late stage in pregnancy where there would be a reason for the health of the mother to abort. There just is no advantage to a dead full term baby over a live full term baby... except for the "psychological health of the mother" who just found out that she hates the father because he is having sex with someone else...

In my opinion, that issue does warrant the "for the health of the mother" clause.

I have no personal problem with a lady who has been raped or undergone incest (rape also) having an abortion. Now, many women have chosen to give birth and put the baby up for adoption. I think that is noble but I would not look down on a rape victim whose pregnancy is due to rape having an abortion.

But, this is like the gunshow loophole we talked about. The aborted rape babies are a small fraction of the total. The legitimate "for the health of the mother" abortions are small fraction of the total.

If abortion was rare and restricted for true "for the health/life of the mother" and the rape/incest victim, then we would not be debating this like we are.

Sad thing is that you and I agree with each other on the details I think. At least, we are close on our personal views.

The issues I was debating had nothing to do with my personal thoughts. I was debating whether a moderate would be more attracted to Obama or Palin.

I would say the actual votes on the matter at this point demonstrate a shift to Palin.

[wmbwinn]

Now, as to Obama and infanticide, look at this link and you can find the multiple other links to study that one out in your own mind...

http://www.catholicleague.org/obama&infanticide.php

[wmbwinn]

In March 2001, a bill was introduced in the Illinois Senate, where Obama was then serving, that stated in part: “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.”

The bill came following an investigation of a Chicago-area hospital that left babies born alive to die without medical care.

“This bill was not an abortion law,” Freddoso writes. “It did not confer any right or legal status upon any baby not yet born. This bill had no legal conflicts with Roe v. Wade … Born and living survivors of abortion would be unambiguously considered ‘persons.’ Medically, scientifically, empirically, they were no different from the many premature babies who are born in American hospitals each year.”

Nevertheless, Sen. Obama spoke against the bill on the Senate floor.

He was the only senator to do so.

Arguing against the bill, Obama declared: “This is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to … a nine-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination, then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place … This would be an anti-abortion statute.”

According to Freddoso, Obama’s stance disregarded language in the bill that clearly stated it applied only to babies that have already been born.

Obama voted “present” on the bill. It passed the Senate, but later died in a House committee.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/o...26/124988.html

[wmbwinn]

In an interview with David Brody of CBN on Saturday, Barack Obama leveled a startling charge at the National Right to Life Committee.

Brody brought up the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, noting "there was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And they're basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill."

"Let me clarify this right now," said Obama.

"Because it's getting a lot of play," said Brody.


"Well, and because they have not been telling the truth," said Obama. "And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported -- which was to say -- that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born -- even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade."

http://townhall.com/Columnists/Teren...pro-life_liars

[wmbwinn]

In 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first piece of legislation that he would sign as president. The act would not only codify Roe v. Wade, but wipe out all current federal, state and local restrictions on abortion that pass muster under Roe, including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion. This is not the legislative priority of a man keenly attuned to the moral implications of abortion.

At Saddleback, Obama said determining when a baby gets rights is "above his pay grade." Leave aside that presidents usually have an opinion about who deserves legal rights. If Obama is willing to permit any abortions in any circumstances, he'd better possess an absolute certainty about the absolute moral nullity of the fetus.

He told Warren that he favors "limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother's health." But the exception he wants is so broad it makes the restriction meaningless. Obama opposed the partial-birth bill that passed the House and the Senate, 281-142 and 64-34 respectively, and has criticized the Supreme Court for upholding the law.

It's not just partial-birth abortion where Obama is outside the mainstream, but on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act -- the occasion for his televised accusation of lying.

In 2000, Congress took up legislation to make it clear that infants born alive after abortions are persons under the law. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League opposed the bill as an assault on Roe, but it passed the House 380-15. Back in the Illinois state Senate in 2001, Obama spoke out against and voted "present" -- effectively "no" -- on a similar bill, aligning himself with the tiny pro-abortion rump of 15 congressmen.

In 2002, Congress considered the legislation again, this time adding a "neutrality clause" specifying that it didn't affect Roe one way or another. The bill passed without any dissenting votes in the House or the Senate and was signed into law. In 2003 in Illinois, Obama still opposed a state version of the law. He long claimed that he voted against it because it didn't have the same "neutrality clause" as the federal version. But the National Right to Life Committee has unearthed documents showing that the Illinois bill was amended to include such a clause, and Obama voted to kill it anyway.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._extremis.html

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by jthig32

I can't speak to other areas of the country, but within the Bible belt her views on abortion and creationism are anything but extreme. They are the norm.

and certainly suspicion about global warming isn't a "far right" issue either. The certainty of it and wanting to reduce our standard of living is a "far LEFT" position however.