Friday, August 29, 2008

The plot thickens ...

Anti-choice, pro-gun lobby and a creationist ... what' s not to like?


Two early reactions:

Americans United for Life Action President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest: “With this bold and inspired selection, Sen. McCain has verified his stated commitment to assembling a truly pro-life administration. You can be sure the vice presidential selections will have far-reaching ramifications in this race.”

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese: “Sarah Palin not only supported the 1998 Alaska constitutional amendment banning marriage equality but, in her less than two years as Governor, even expressed the extreme position of supporting stripping away domestic partner benefits for state workers. When you can’t even support giving our community the rights to health insurance and pension benefits, it’s a frightening window into where she stands on equality.”


Let the games begin!


Robert said...

Here is what I had to say as an Alaskan:

Jim of L-Town said...

At least the Republicans saw the importance of putting a woman on the ticket.

I'm in a real quandry here. I think the war in Iraq was handled completely wrong. It seems to be on the mend now, but I was hoping that Obama would stick to his withdrawal theme.

He has backed off his anti-war stance some and Biden (who was a pro-war Democrat) mutes that issue.

When it comes to "experience" McCain trumps his rival and his VP choice also trumps McCain's rival.

Sen. Biden equalizes that some, but he is the VP and not the Presidential candidate.

But I am pro-life so while I was really lukewarm about McCain, that may tip the balance for this voter now.

Either way, the election will make history.

A sinner saved by God's Grace.

Jim of Michigan

Fran said...

What's not to like? Great line!

A friend emailed me saying that McCain had picked "a gun-totin', snow-mobilin' Tina Fey lookalike with a bun."

That feels almost too complimentary.


Let it begin.

JimB said...

Living in Illinois makes this so easy. Thanks to the incredibly incompetent candidacy of Alan Keyes which elected Sen. Obama, we have for all practical purposes no Republican party. Nothing short of Gabriel appearing atop the Chicago Water Tower with a McCain banner is going to move Illinois.

So,,,, I can vote Libertarian in the calm knowledge that it does not matter. And given that I live here, where Sen. Obama is from and where we know he never once in the Illinois general assembly voted no on a tax or spending bill, I am grateful for irrelevancy.

I could not vote for an anti-choice Republican ticket or for a spend crazy Democrat one. I can vote for a third party and shrug. I could and would have voted for Sen. Clinton, but that is no longer an option. ;;sigh;;


seraph said...

Interesting choice of words you use ..."anti choice". I wonder if that is fair or accurate? Wouldn't anti-abortion or anti use of abortion as birth control be a better description?

There are all kinds of choices women can make that I am sure Sarah would support...short of ending the life of a developing and vulnerable human person!

It is also a choice, and a brave one to become a mother, to be responsible in family planning which is widely available in our society! Sarah herself made the choice to become the mother to a special needs child, that is quite admirable!

Sounds like someone who respects life...Christians should have no trouble with that! As for the rest...well nobody is perfect!



uffda51 said...

The conservative agenda boils down to preserving and increasing the wealth and power of the wealthy and powerful. “No new taxes” is about as responsible and nuanced a position as the kid running for eighth grade class president on a platform of “No Homework.”

Conservative policies created the recent mining disasters, the bridge collapse in Minnesota and the Katrina catastrophe. Democratic-favored policies such as unionized miners and basic mine safety practices, infrastructure maintenance (bridges, levees, etc. ) and wetlands protection would have mitigated or prevented most or all of the damage – and the resultant loss of life. Combine this with pre-emptive war and occupation without raising taxes, profiteering, rendition and torture, the death penalty, draconian immigration policy, disdain for the Constitution, and the opposition to sane guns laws, and I have a hard time viewing the Republican party as pro-life. This is not meant as a knock on Jim. I absolutely respect your pro-life position. Certainly many Republicans are pro-life in terms of abortion but the political realties and damage done by conservative policies are another story entirely. I see McCain’s pro-life position as a cynical political ploy which he hopes will get him elected.

As for Obama, I haven't been this hopeful about a candidate since I heard Robert Kennedy speak at a rally in Santa Barbara in 1968.

Elizabeth Kaeton said...

And . . .and. . . and . . . she she has a Trisomy-23 Child whom she COULD have aborted, but, sainted woman that she is, she saw the pregnancy to term and that child is, today, a happy, healthy, much loved child.

And . . and . . and. . . she is known in Alaska as a real "b**l buster" having cleaned out a great deal of corruption in the Republican Party in the 49th State.

That explains the pained look on McCain's face whenever he stands near her.

I understand that, while Obama sent out text messages and emails announcing his VEEP, McCain used smoke and mirrors, saying, "It's less important that we triumph technology and more important that we get the message to our constituency."


seraph -- I stick with "anti-choice" as both fair AND accurate.

Governor Palin (just a note: one customarily waits permission to refer to folks by their given name so "Sarah" seems a little -- well -- "familiar") is not just anti-abortion ... she is opposed to a woman having the right to choose abortion as an option in cases of rape or incest.

I can absolutely respect the choices she has made for herself and her family ... and wish them all the best.

What I can absolutely NOT respect or support are efforts to impose your own theological perspective on women through reversing Roe v. Wade and turning back the clock on a woman's right to chosse.

uffda51 said...

I am reminded that Archbishop Tutu voted for the first time when he was, I believe, 62. I doubt if he thought any vote, anywhere, anytime, was irrelevant. Look what the Nader voters did to us in 2000. This is a 2-horse race. Period.

The Republicans always brand the Democrats as "tax and spend." The fact is the Bush/Cheney war machine administration is "don't tax and spend." The Clinton years produced surpluses. Bush/Cheney has produced hugh deficits which our grandchildren will have to deal with, somehow.

seraph said...

Dear Rev Russell:

Thank you for the ettiquette lesson! I will try to remember it if and when I see Governor Palin.

Women have a lot of choices in our society when it comes to family planning. It seems the only ones left without one when it comes to many cases of abortion are God, fathers and the children about anti-choice!

Roe is not Scripture, is it not an infallible pronouncement, it is not the Gospel. It is not without its own theological and philosophical underpinnings! It is merely a human attempt to address a wrong in our society, and has created others. Christians, wether conservative or liberals, do not have to be beholden to it as an unchangeable!

Maybe we need to be working to advance the clock to a society where life is valued , affirmed...and there are no outcasts.

Many blesings to you


crystal said...

From what I've read of Gov. Palin, I find her pretty scary on issues of the environment, abortion, guns, and gay rights.

JCF said...

Roe is not Scripture, is it not an infallible pronouncement, it is not the Gospel.

Rather ironic, Seraph: it's those who OPPOSE Roe, who usually claim to be on the (ONLY ones on the side of) Scripture, infallible pronouncement, and the Gospel!

To stop me from supporting abortion rights---morally, financially, prayerfully---you'll have to, proverbially, (to paraphrase Charleton "Moses" Heston) "pry it from my cold, dead hands". Legally, or if (God forbid!) it comes to that, illegally, too.

Holy Spirit, illumine the hearts of all people. Bless and protect those who provide abortions, and the women who choose them. And reorder our education and social priorities, towards the end that there may be NO pregnancies that aren't wanted, and that all wanted pregnancies may receive necessary support for mother and child. Amen!

Rev. David Justin Lynch said...

The only thing I like about Sarah is her hair. I think Hillary would have had a better chance if her hair were long. Like it or not, sex appeal is important in politics--whether it should be doesn't matter. Men are more likely to vote for an attractive woman and women are more likely to vote for an attractive man. More than one female I know has described Barack Obama to me in positive sexual terms.

Other than her hair, however, Sarah is not my preference as a leader of this country. While she is certainly entitled to produce all the children she wishes, as long as she is not seeking to have the taxpayers support them, she has no business enshrining her anti-choice views into law. In my view, each individual woman owns her body and is entitled to produce a child if she wishes, or to remain childfree, as my wife has.

RonF said...

Susan, as a note I find that most papers refer to a government official as [Title] [last_name] in their first reference and [last_name} after that. Sen. Clinton presented a bit of a quandary because referring to her by last name often raised up the mental image of her husband rather than her, but referring to her by first name alone seems to demean her when all the men were being referred to by last name. The issue became moot, however, as the campaign progressed and the mental image presented by "Clinton" changed.

RonF said...

I'm curious as to what people find objectionable with her attitude towards guns.

First - don't forget that bears can be found rooting through garbage pails in the Alaska state capitol, never mind what you can encounter elsewhere. Packing a gun is not such a bad idea.

Second - do people here have a problem with the general idea of hunting?

Third - the Supreme Court has (correctly) confirmed that it was the intent of the writers of the Second Amendment that citizens have general access to both own and carry firearms. So what's the problem with supporting both the letter and the intent of the Constitution?