John McCain has surprised me. To choose Sarah Palin as his VP choice is brilliant. I've been telling my husband for days that she is the only smart choice that he could make. All of the others had major drawbacks. Palin could only benefit McCain.
She is the youngest governor of Alaska with an 80-90% approval rating. She obviously is a woman, which will draw many disgruntled Democratic women libbers. She is a die-hard Republican, member of the NRA, Pro-Lifer, Christian, and wants marriage defined as between a man and a woman. This will reassure the far Right-Wing base. She is only 44 years old which will help counteract the age issue that McCain has had to deal with. She is a mother of five children. One is a special needs child and another in the military.
She has been compared to Margret Thatcher, but a lot better looking and was even a contestant for Miss Alaska. She will be incredible debating Biden!
Thank God that I can now vote for McCain without a clothes-pin on my nose!
Obama is running on "Change", yet he picks a running mate who has been in Washington for 35 years. Those who actually want change should now vote McCain. Palin has produced change in Alaska and she can do it in Washington.
For more info on Palin, visit
http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/
She is the youngest governor of Alaska with an 80-90% approval rating. She obviously is a woman, which will draw many disgruntled Democratic women libbers. She is a die-hard Republican, member of the NRA, Pro-Lifer, Christian, and wants marriage defined as between a man and a woman. This will reassure the far Right-Wing base. She is only 44 years old which will help counteract the age issue that McCain has had to deal with. She is a mother of five children. One is a special needs child and another in the military.
She has been compared to Margret Thatcher, but a lot better looking and was even a contestant for Miss Alaska. She will be incredible debating Biden!
Thank God that I can now vote for McCain without a clothes-pin on my nose!
Obama is running on "Change", yet he picks a running mate who has been in Washington for 35 years. Those who actually want change should now vote McCain. Palin has produced change in Alaska and she can do it in Washington.
For more info on Palin, visit
http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/
Posts
10 comments:
A "women's libber" is going to have a hard time voting for a solidly anti-choice ticket. Many of us who are thankful never to have faced the horrible situations in which many abortions are considered still believe the only people at the table should be the woman, her partner, her medical team, and her spiritual advisor. An anti-abortion, pro-death penalty position is NOT pro-life!
Tokenism doesn't help those of us who want equal opportunities for all. As with Obama, would a white man with the same credentials have been chosen?
I will not cast my vote based on the crumbs handed down from the old white men still in charge.
Coolhool: The abortion debate is an old tired horse but I think a reasonable person would be able to clearly see that the abortion advocates are doing mental gymnastics in order to fool themselves into a state of belief that this human being we conveniently call a fetus is just some kind of weird tissue. By not calling it what it really is we dehumanize this unwanted “thing”. This makes abortion easier on our conscience if we haven’t forgotten how to use it. Am I to believe that abortion is like getting a hair cut, clipping my toe nails or having my spleen removed? I have never been able to get my brain around this selfish, self-serving conclusion.
I want all women to have equal rights under the law but women are not men and men are not women and thus can never be equal.
I hope that you are damn sure you are right on this point because so far we have murdered 48,589,993 children since 1973. Yep, you should have equal opportunities to kill children.
I don't think that abortion is going to be the major issue. We have hardly heard mention of it so far.
The "women's libber"s are going to be divided into two catagories: 1) those that are die-hard democrats and will vote the party line no matter who the candidate is, and 2) those who's Women's Rights beliefs are stronger than their Democratic leanings.
Many of these in the second group are very angry that Hilllary was not put on the Dem ticket. They want to advance the feminist agenda and may not care what route they must take to do that.
Also, remember that during the August 26 forum at the Dem Convention, Bill Clinton said:
"Whether a government can actually deliver becomes quite important. It becomes, in a way, the question. Suppose, for example, you're a voter, And you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that person can deliver on anything. Candidate Y disagrees with you on half the issues, but you believe that on the other half, the candidate will be able to deliver. For whom will you vote?"
Making Palin the VP certainly is delivering the feminist agenda.
comm1: You are clearly anti-choice on the abortion issue, but you are silent on the death penalty. My point is that is disingenuous to describe one's position as "pro-life" if one supports the death penalty. The term pro-life is a marketing gimmick, because it plays better than anti-abortion. I believe abortion should be safe, legal and extremely rare, and ideally, only when the mother's life is in danger. I also believe, however, that the government needs to stay out of it. We also need to recognize the death penalty for what it is - government sanctioned murder. What I ask for is "truth-in-advertising." How many people have been exonerated by DNA after being sentenced to die? How many innocent human beings have we executed in acts of vengeance?
Equal opportunities and equal treatment under the law is what I expect - not complete homogeneity.
misplacedtex: I respectfully disagree that Palin delivers on the feminist agenda, because a key component of the feminst agenda is keeping the government out of decisions on what a woman does with her reproductive system. It is only a generation ago that it was illegal in this country for a woman to use any method of birth control other than the rythm method. It took the supreme court to get the government out of that decision too.
I am intrigued that so many people claim to "know" about the women supporting Clinton, yet few of the speakers are women who supported Clinton.
I am a woman who has supported Hillary Clinton because I still believe she is much better qualified than the other candidates, and because she is a woman. The two issues that concern me the most are the economy and the supreme court. I do not know today how I will vote in November, but it will NOT be based on race or gender. It will be based on who I think will do the least damage regarding my concerns on these issues, in conjunction with the make-up of the House and Senate.
Coolhool: I don't think that our views are all that different. I agree with a lot of what you said.
I don't know when life begins, but I do believe that it begins before the child leaves the womb. I also believe that abortion is murder. Despite that, I don't know what I would do if I were faced with having to make that decision; especially in cases of rape, incest, or my own mortality. I think that under those circumstances, abortion should be an option. I just don't like it being used as a form of birth control.
I do agree with your stance on the death penalty. I have never connected "Pro-Life" with the death penaly. Thanks for helping me see the relationship. I really have no stance on that subject. I think that our legal system is corrupt and VERY flawed.
When I think of "women's libber"s I think of extemists not just someone that supports Hillary Clinton. Most people have brains and don't base their vote (for or against)on race, religion or gender.
I happen to agree with you about the death penalty but l would suspect for very different reasons. The most important of which is that our judicial system is corrupt from the top down so I personally do not believe most of the judgments or rulings coming from our court systems has not been manipulated in some way. The justice system can be easily corrupted by those with inside information, political power, money or other methods; many times these people have good intentions. If you are interested in this topic I would recommend a well documented book entitled “The Tyranny of Good Intentions”. Quick read but will put your head on straight about the current sad condition of the judiciary. Since in my opinion you cannot trust our justice system, I don’t think the death penalty should be used anywhere in the US.
Coolhool:
I don’t see how a thinking person would consider preventing the murder of close to 50 million children anti-choice? Very bazaar manipulation of language I think.
Abortion
Reasons for:
• Rape
• Incest
• Unwanted child
• Inconvenience
• Severe Birth Defects
• Population control
• Parents can’t financially afford
• Women have the right to control their bodies
• Sexual freedom for women
Reasons against:
• Murder of a child.
o Killing an unborn child is murder. This is a simple fact whether you approach this from a religious, scientific or secular perspective. This has nothing to do with religion.
• Victims:
o Child – Brutal and painful death
o Mother – severe guild and remorse. Causes severe psychological problems later on with the mother. Women do not really understand the gravity of their decision until it’s too late.
o Father – Similar to mother. But in addition loss of control. Not part of the decision.
o Grandparents – Similar to Mother and Father.
Solution or How to prevent the slaughter of innocent children:
• Abstain from pre-marital or extra-marital sex
• Know how to use birth control
• Use birth control
• Adoption
misplacedtex: thanks for your follow-up comments. We do seem to agree. I would prefer that abortion not be available as a form of birth control.
Regarding the death penalty - even if our legal system were perfect, it is hard for me to justify the taking of a human life in some situations, not others. These are moral positions for me, and I can imagine a goverment or society with a different viewpoint determining that there are situations in which an individual forfeits his or her life. My biggest issue is around language and what I term intellectual honesty.
I wish I had your optimism that most people use their brains to determine their vote, and not race, gender or religion. I think the dem party nominating process showed us that there are more people voting for or against these criteria than we though possible in the 21st century. Some of them currently in high office. Sad.
comm1: I use the language "anti-choice" because in the absence of a consistent position based on consistent logic, that is how I see it.
You say "Killing an unborn child is murder. This is a simple fact whether you approach this from a religious, scientific or secular perspective. This has nothing to do with religion."
I respectfully disagree that this is a fact from a scientific and secular perspective. Like misplacedtex, I don't know when life begins, but I do believe it is before delivery. But that is not the point. Not everyone believes that, and not everyone accepts the same definition of life. This can go on philosophically into the stratosphere.
At the risk of going too cerebral, the government is faced with deciding at what point the rights of the fetus/unborn child supercede that of the mother. That's very heady stuff, well beyond the capability of most of our elected officials.
You make several statements in your victim section as fact that I beleive are questionable. You state that
"Women do not really understand the gravity of their decision until it’s too late." That is presumptious and condescending to the thousands of women who understood better than anyone the gravity of the situation, but still determined, with the assistance of their partners, doctors and spiritual advisors that an abortion was the best choice in a situation with nothing but bad choices.
You state that fathers are not part of the decision. Poppycock. I am personally acquainted with situations where the father was insistent on the procedure. If a man does not want to be a father HE should abstain from sex or take steps to make sure he does not impregnate a woman. That is truly taking responsibility for his actions and maintaining control of his situation.
I am not saying that everyone connected with a decision to abort is unaffected. On the contrary -I believe everyone is deeply affected. I have known people in my life who have made each decision - abort, carry to term and give up for adoption, carry to term and raise - all have agonized before and after their decisions, often wondering if they made the right one for their situation.
Being "pro-choice" does not mean being "pro-abortion." If I had my choice, there would never be another abortion because:
- hormones wouldn't kick in until after graduate school, so teenagers wouldn't have sex. That way we wouldn't see the boys go on to college sports careers while the girls have to deal with the hard decisions
- parents would do a better job of teaching their children to take responsibility for their own futures by abstaining from sex, or being responsible
- there would never be a straight adult male sexually assaulting a young woman - family or family friend
- men wouldn't need to rape women to feel powerful
- information about birth control, and access to the most reliable methods of birth control would be readily available - as well as the reminder that the only 100% method is abstainence.
Abortion is an ancillary issue here - address these other issues (this list only scratches the surface) and there won't ever be a need for an abortion, making this discussion moot.
Coohool:
"comm1: I use the language "anti-choice" because in the absence of a consistent position based on consistent logic, that is how I see it."
Very convenient term to promote your position. I could use the term pro-life but neither are necessarily accurate. Many laws passed by our congress use the same trick. Like the "fairness doctrine" which is anything but fair.
"You say "Killing an unborn child is murder. This is a simple fact whether you approach this from a religious, scientific or secular perspective. This has nothing to do with religion.""
"I respectfully disagree that this is a fact from a scientific and secular perspective. Like misplacedtex, I don't know when life begins, but I do believe it is before delivery. But that is not the point. Not everyone believes that, and not everyone accepts the same definition of life. This can go on philosophically into the stratosphere."
Living tissues are alive and have life. I have no problem removing a tumor, a bad kidney or stepping on a nasty bug in my house. I believe that all these things are alive. I also have no problem removing a stone from my shoe which we can hopefully all agree that the stone is not alive. I don’t think trying to determine the exact moment life begins promotes our understanding or moves the debate forward if we choose to focus on own our individual opinions as to when we “believe” life begins. I don't think this can be determined in any event so is a waste of time. Scientist debate to this day whether or not a virus is alive since it doesn’t even have DNA. The virus has RNA and can’t reproduce without a DNA host. The bacterium is alive however because of its potential to reproduce. Maybe we could use these standards for the fetus / child.
I think you would agree that the fetus (yet to be born child) is unlike any other organ in kind. Its purpose is not to cleanse the blood or to enrich with oxygen, etc. It has an entirely different purpose and that purpose is to become a separate human and should be afforded the same human rights as the person on whom he/she depends aka mother. When we step on the slippery slope of marginalizing early life or aging life we as a society are making a philosophical statement that has profound implementations for all of us as a society and decreases part of what I view as our humanness. Our compassion for others; our conscience and our ability to care for others less fortunate. You can see the effects of this line of logic carried out a few steps further in China where abortion can be carried out even after a fully healthy birth.
"At the risk of going too cerebral, the government is faced with deciding at what point the rights of the fetus/unborn child supercede that of the mother. That's very heady stuff, well beyond the capability of most of our elected officials."
Couldn’t agree more here.
"You make several statements in your victim section as fact that I believe are questionable. You state that
"Women do not really understand the gravity of their decision until it’s too late." That is presumptious and condescending to the thousands of women who understood better than anyone the gravity of the situation, but still determined, with the assistance of their partners, doctors and spiritual advisors that an abortion was the best choice in a situation with nothing but bad choices."
I agree here too. I was too hasty with my words. I should have stated many women; I did not mean all women. My statement was based on personal experience I gained when teaching several divorce recovery workshops to groups of up to 40 women at a time. I learned much more than I taught. I learned about the emotional scars years after the abortions were performed. The remembering of birthdays that would never be, the guilt, etc. Pretty heady stuff. Even women who started out profoundly pro-abortion in later years just couldn’t think their way out of the reality of what they had done. They couldn’t shake the guilt; some people have little or no guilt. I would suspect the Caylee's Mother Casey Anthony may not have any remorse other than the fact she is in jail.
"You state that fathers are not part of the decision. Poppycock. I am personally acquainted with situations where the father was insistent on the procedure. If a man does not want to be a father HE should abstain from sex or take steps to make sure he does not impregnate a woman. That is truly taking responsibility for his actions and maintaining control of his situation."
Again I was too terse in my comments. I should have qualified that statement with many men / fathers are not part of the decision.
"I am not saying that everyone connected with a decision to abort is unaffected. On the contrary -I believe everyone is deeply affected. I have known people in my life who have made each decision - abort, carry to term and give up for adoption, carry to term and raise - all have agonized before and after their decisions, often wondering if they made the right one for their situation.
Being "pro-choice" does not mean being "pro-abortion." If I had my choice, there would never be another abortion because:
- hormones wouldn't kick in until after graduate school, so teenagers wouldn't have sex. That way we wouldn't see the boys go on to college sports careers while the girls have to deal with the hard decisions
- parents would do a better job of teaching their children to take responsibility for their own futures by abstaining from sex, or being responsible
- there would never be a straight adult male sexually assaulting a young woman - family or family friend
- men wouldn't need to rape women to feel powerful
- information about birth control, and access to the most reliable methods of birth control would be readily available - as well as the reminder that the only 100% method is abstainence."
"Abortion is an ancillary issue here - address these other issues (this list only scratches the surface) and there won't ever be a need for an abortion, making this discussion moot."
Abortion may be a result of a cause but it is not and cannot be my responsibility to stand in place and solve others responsibility issues. Abortion is the result of flawed thinking and a lack of personal responsibility promoted by our modern-day me first, pleasure culture. There are consequences to our poor decisions and these consequences have cost the lives of millions of innocent children in these united states of America.
Post a Comment