Regardless of how you feel about Sarah Palin, are the following things correct to do?

[Greenday]

A huge point I want to make: If Bristol wanted an abortion, could she not have had one? Secretly, behind mom's back? She's seventeen after all. She probably could have done it and no one would have ever known.

Once the media found out she was pregnant, no, she could basically not get one. It would have destroyed her mother's conservative backing.

[jayel]

Of course she couldn't get one once the media knew about the pregnancy- at least not without hurting her mother's image. My point was that the media would never even have had to know, if Bristol herself didn't tell anyone. If she'd really wanted an abortion, she could have done it discreetly, with her privacy protected.

[the_std]

Their town is a small town and, even with the law requiring doctors to keep everything confidential, someone might have seen her go into the clinic, someone might have heard her discuss it... Privacy can be a lot more difficult once one is affiliated with a political figure.

[jayel]

Not denying that it may have been a challenge, but where there's a will there's a way. I wouldn't recognize my governor's kids if they came knocking on my front door with Vote for Jindal Posters, and I live near the capital.

[anriana]

Several states have laws that make it illegal for minors to get abortions without their parents' permission. Perhaps Alaska is one of those.

[Amethyst Hunter]

it's a stretch to equate Palin's personal decision with a declaration of fact that she wants the same for others.

Yet people immediately assume things like when Obama says "I will talk to the leaders of hostile foreign nations to work on a peaceful solution to our problems" it automatically means that he'll hand America over, lock, stock and barrel to said hostilities. Why is this okay, but distrusting Palin's motives isn't?

The biggest difference between Obama and someone like McCain/Palin is that Obama has from my observations proven himself trustworthy (for a politician, of course) and capable of leading a large body of people. Palin hasn't. She seems to find her ignorance amusing (witness her semi-giggly question "what exactly is it that the VP does?"); while I'm sure a lot of us ourselves don't know every nut and bolt of running a government, most of us are more in tune with things than she appears and willful ignorance is the last thing we need at this point. (Obama doesn't strike me as ignorant at all; he's known for his pragmatism and what he isn't fully up to speed on, he either finds out for himself or hires on people who are well-versed in their field - one reason why I think he picked the very-seasoned-in-foreign-deals Joe Biden as VP. So it's obvious he's willing to defer to people who are more skilled than he is, or at least take their recommendations seriously as he forms his policy views, despite whatever gaps - age, etc. - may exist. That to me is someone I could trust to make sensible decisions regarding serious matters) Everything I've read about her, every time I've seen her, she strikes me as one of those two-faced backstabbing types of women. I've known some like that - they'd put on their biggest sweetie smile and bare their teeth at you in a 'barracuda' grin and pretend to be your best friend in public - until you did or said something they didn't like, and then they were all over you like starving piranhas. This isn't friggin' high school or some PTA queen-bee-manship and that kind of crap doesn't belong in government; this is our country and, looking from a worldwide perspective, very likely our world as one given nations' abilities of communication/travel.

McCain has sucked up shamelessly to the Bush camp (the very ones who helped put us into the squeezes we're facing now) and shows no indication that he's willing to work for global peace - unless, of course, you think that browbeating everybody you don't like into submission is a good way to get them to obey/like you. War should always, always be a very last resort, not the first one. In our zeal to protect this country, we've actually created *more* enemies than we would have if we'd just held our tongues, stepped back and taken a deep calming breath and gone "okay, this is what we have to work with, now what kind of optimal solutions can we come up with?"

Regarding someone else's earlier comment about "pro-life being extremist", as a pro-choicer, I'd like to clarify that. There is pro-life that is actually pro-life, and then there is 'pro-life' that is anything but. It is possible to be both pro-choice and pro-life at the same time: you yourself might not agree with or choose abortion, but you respect and don't impede the rights of someone else to make that decision for herself. That, to me, is truly pro-life and I'm cool with that.

Where 'pro-life' becomes extremist is when this view is forced onto people who don't want it - and that's what we've seen in recent years what with the violence/vandalism on women's clinics, attacks on Roe v. Wade and the attempts by pharmacists to deny women their birth control prescriptions on garbage grounds (aka the so-called "conscience" clause, which to date has NOT been used on any other medication except birth control - suspicious, no?), and sneaky would-be laws worded so as to threaten not just abortion but contraception, among other things. The sensible pro-life people (your average American, who tends not to affiliate with the publicized anti-choice groups), while they may not support abortion, usually don't deny the need for birth control either, and many of them would support abortion in cases of rape/incest. That definitely sets them apart from the bunches who try to pass unnecessarily restrictive/total blanket bans on abortion and attack birth control access.

I'm no fan of Obama but even I have corrected quite a few of the false emails friends and family have forwarded my way about him. (sworn in on the Koran - False. Refusing to salute the Flag - False, etc.) And neither candidate have yet to truly explained their idea's of "change" to my satisfaction.

As an Obama supporter, I thank you for countering the "Evil Muslim" rumors.

As far as Obama's idea of 'change' goes, I think I'll make a separate post later on why I believe he'd be a decent (if not better) President. Stay tuned...

[jayel]

Several states have laws that make it illegal for minors to get abortions without their parents' permission. Perhaps Alaska is one of those.

Nope. It took me less than 60 seconds to learn that in Alaska, girls 17 and up do not need parents permission to have an abortion. Bristol could have learned this herself quite quickly if she was interested.

Please don't forget my other point, that Sarah Palin and her family are not extremists or without common sense just because they have made the decisions they've made. There's nothing wrong with having/ keeping a baby with Down's, or one who wasn't planned.

[Pedersen]

Per this page, Alaska requires the parent to be notified (and consent) in the case of a pre age of majority daughter seeking an abortion, or for said daughter to go through a court to get that same consent.

I do not know if the age of majority is 17 (or younger) in Alaska. If it is 18, then Bristol would have had to file a court case to get that consent without getting her parents involved. In fact, until October 18, 2008, she would have to file that case.

I will also admit that I may have misunderstood the law. One part troubles me, in particular: "A person may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion upon a minor who is known to the person to be ... under 17 years of age". Does this mean that an unmarried 17 year old can get an abortion? It sounds that way to me, but I am not certain.

Bristol finds herself in a bad spot if she wanted/wants an abortion. Due to her position in life, she is effectively unable to get one. Furthermore, she is effectively unable to give the child up for adoption do to her position.

It is very unlikely that she had the time to come to grips with this decision before it hit the local media, at the least. Further research shows that the official statement is that Bristol is 5 months pregnant. That would mean she had ample time before her mom became the VP nominee to have gotten an abortion. In fact, she would have had ample time before her mom could even have been discussing being a VP nominee. So, remove the national media attention from the equation of whether or not that would have influenced Bristol's decision to have an abortion.

Even still, it's unlikely she had time to come to grips with this before the local media found out. If she is like most teenage girls, she would have gone into a panic, and tried talking to people she felt she could trust, possibly even the baby's father. This news would have spread fairly quickly, though, and been able to reach the local news outlets within days, at most. If you doubt that, think about small towns, think about scandals, and then think about what juicy gossip this would be for a small town.

So, that having been said, it's very likely (not 100%, more like >75%) that Bristol did not get a choice in the matter. And, if she did try to assert that she could/would get an abortion, she likely faced some sort of sanctions from her family.

Now, Levi Johnston, the father? By all accounts, he did not actually propose to Bristol until the RNC (actually, unable to find verification of this, only conjecture that he would then). Add in that on his Myspace page he had written that he did not want kids (link). It is extremely easy to believe that Levi Johnston is being pressured into this. Something roughly akin to "Do this, and we won't make your life a living hell."

I'll admit that there's a decent chance that Bristol wants this child, and has wanted it. I'll also admit that there is an equally large chance that Bristol's choice in the matter was effectively removed due to her position. And Levi's choice, as well, was made for him. A choice that should have belonged to both Levi and Bristol has been made into a political statement on both sides.

That, to me, is the real tragedy of what's happened here.

[SuperB]

On Bristol's pregnancy, she was 5 months along by the time her mother made headlines and she was sucked into the media feeding frenzy. By 5 months along you've pretty much made your decision by then so there wouldn't have been any need for her to worry about the media getting hold of an abortion story. And it's been reported that Bristol and her boyfriend had discussed marriage before she became pregnant. I know quite a few people who met at that age and are still together. Their age is no proof that they were forced into anything.


On Obama, I don't see him as particularly trustworthy. I never really did and the recent news confirms it for me, personally. That he received campaign donations from failed Freddie Mac, has advisers on his payroll from Fannie Mae who've hidden income and he violated the 'Logan Act' when he tried to demand a stall on any troop withdrawal while Bush is President while publicly criticizing the Bush administration for not withdrawing any troops (I can only assume Obama went into this wanting any change to be seen as on "his watch"), don't strike me as "trustworthy".


http://www.newsmax.com/smith/obama_l...18/132023.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423701,00.html

His connection (and $800,000 donation) with ACORN (formerly convicted of voter fraud) and his attempt to silence any stations who air severely negative ads about him also do not help him.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po..._obama_ca.html

Yet people immediately assume things like when Obama says "I will talk to the leaders of hostile foreign nations to work on a peaceful solution to our problems" it automatically means that he'll hand America over, lock, stock and barrel to said hostilities. Why is this okay, but distrusting Palin's motives isn't?

Suspecting is fair game but the above links are far more physical, and financial, than 'who spoke at a church Palin left years ago' or a statement of how one personally feels. I feel the same but were I in Palins shoes I certainly wouldn't attempt to reverse Roe V Wade. I don't bring up the Ayers connection because there's too much speculation on it and not enough facts other than the opinion most have that they wouldn't have a friend like that.
There are so many misrepresentations and outright lies about Palin, in an extremely short period of time, by people who are just so desperate to find anything to use against her and most of what's being put out there as "fact" has been debunked just as fast as it can be spun. It's being called "Palin Derangement Syndrome" on the blogs and it's reached the 'hysteria' level now that her own email account has been hacked. Honestly they aren't doing their party any good by it since at this point, those fed up with the vitrol aren't even listening when any of them even tries discussing what they find to be wrong with her. I'm getting to that point too and find myself avoiding my usual blog reads because of it.
Luckily, vacation starts soon.

Seriously though, I wish there was a better choice than McCain as well. I do like the idea of Palin and her fresh look on things but this is yet another election year where I'm looking at the least worse choice between two. And this election wins the 'mudslinging' award over any other hands down.

Sorry, didn't mean to be so long winded but I'm sitting here waiting on a call and as I said, vacation starts soon so you won't have to listen to me on this for a while.

[Sylvia727]

Honestly they aren't doing their party any good by it since at this point, those fed up with the vitrol aren't even listening when any of them even tries discussing what they find to be wrong with her.

I'm at that point with both candidates, myself. Still haven't committed to either one, and probably won't for a while, but whatever decision I make will have to be based on what they say their positions are, and convinced I am that they will follow through. I don't like to trust politicians, but this election I think I'll have to because I can't see through the mudslinging to the unbiased analyses.

[Amethyst Hunter]

On Obama, I don't see him as particularly trustworthy. I never really did and the recent news confirms it for me, personally. That he received campaign donations from failed Freddie Mac, has advisers on his payroll from Fannie Mae who've hidden income and he violated the 'Logan Act' when he tried to demand a stall on any troop withdrawal while Bush is President while publicly criticizing the Bush administration for not withdrawing any troops (I can only assume Obama went into this wanting any change to be seen as on "his watch"), don't strike me as "trustworthy".

http://www.newsmax.com/smith/obama_l...18/132023.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423701,00.html

His connection (and $800,000 donation) with ACORN (formerly convicted of voter fraud) and his attempt to silence any stations who air severely negative ads about him also do not help him.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po..._obama_ca.html

I've heard no record of any Obama attempt to stifle free speech. If there was, it'd be trumpeted across the land - the media is nowhere near as liberal as it's accused of being. Likewise, there's been no record of his supposed non-support of our servicepeople - and if there's one group you don't wanna piss off in this country, it's veterans, believe you me. I'm sure if there was something there they'd be calling him on the carpet for it.

I'll agree that the Freddie Mac financial bit is odd, but I don't see where it's highly suspect of anything. Nothing illegal to date has been reported, and Obama himself hasn't been cited for any wrongdoing. Speaking of so-called corruption, remember, his name was brought up during the Tony Rezko trial but there's been no evidence that he had any sort of illegal ties with Rezko; the only thing of note is that his family purchased - legitimately - a piece of property adjoining to Rezko's wife's and the media was prompt to make a mountain out of a molehill.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/01/rezko/

(Around the same time, Rezko was also funding the career of an ambitious young state legislator named Rod Blagojevich, who had been elected to the General Assembly with the help of his ward-boss father-in-law and was aiming for Congress. Over the years, Rezko would donate $117,652 to Blagojevich's campaigns. He was a smart investor in political futures: Blagojevich is now governor. Three of Rezko's associates were appointed to high-ranking positions in Blagojevich's administration. But Rezko's connection to the governor is the source of his current legal troubles: Rezko is going to trial on Feb. 25 on charges he demanded kickbacks from investment firms seeking money from the Illinois Teachers' Retirement Fund. His alleged co-conspirator, who has already pleaded guilty, is Republican fundraiser Stuart Levine. Rezko allegedly used his clout with the Blagojevich administration to help reappoint Levine to the board that controls the fund.)

Rezko was ecumenical in his largesse, doling out hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions. He served as an advisor to now-imprisoned Republican Gov. George Ryan, and co-chaired a reelection fundraiser for President George W. Bush. And, of course, he paid to have his photo taken with Bill and Hillary Clinton. (Chicago receiving lines can be so embarrassing: First lady Rosalynn Carter was once photographed with a precinct captain named John Wayne Gacy.)

During his first year in the Senate, flush with the book advance for "The Audacity of Hope," Obama and his wife decided to trade up from a condo to a bigger, more secure home in Kenwood, a South Side neighborhood of turreted, balconied piles popular with University of Chicago econ professors looking to blow their Nobel Prize loot. They found a $1.65 million house with four fireplaces, a wine cellar and a black wrought-iron fence. The doctor who lived there also owned the vacant lot next door and, although the properties were listed separately, wanted to sell both at the same time. Despite their new income, the Obamas could not have afforded both parcels. The Obamas closed on their house in June 2005. On the same day, Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the vacant lot for $625,000. They later sold a portion of the lot to the Obamas, for $104,500, so the family could expand its yard. The Rezkos then paid $14,000 to build a fence along the property line.

After the Chicago Tribune uncovered the land deal, Obama described Rezko as "a supporter of mine since my first race for state Senate" and a friend with whom he occasionally had lunch or dinner. Obama knew that Rezko was under grand jury investigation, but believed that "as long as I operated in an open, up-front fashion, and all the T's were crossed and I's were dotted, that it wouldn't be an issue."

James L. Merriner, an Illinois political expert who has conducted the only interview with Rezko since his indictment, says Obama has done "nothing illegal. It's just unsavory."

As long as Rezko was only under investigation, Obama was willing to do business with him. But then Rezko committed the fixer's biggest sin: He got indicted and got his name in the papers. After that, the friendship cooled. Obama has donated $157,835 in Rezko-linked contributions to charity and has called the real estate deal "boneheaded."

In short: Was this an error of judgment? Yes. Was it illegal? No. And Obama admits his mistake up front:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic...bama05.article

"I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it," Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times.

"With respect to the purchase of my home, I am confident that everything was handled ethically and above board. But I regret that while I tried to pay close attention to the specific requirements of ethical conduct, I misgauged the appearance presented by my purchase of the additional land from Mr. Rezko," Obama said.

"It was simply not good enough that I paid above the appraised value for the strip of land that he sold me. It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor," the senator said. For that reason, I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it. I did however donate campaign contributions from Rezko to charity."

One thing about Illinois politics; they're dirty as hell but once somebody's been sniffed out, believe me, the feds don't waste time in baying for blood. If there had been any real wrongdoing on Obama's part, especially in regards to finances, the feds would've been all over that like piranhas on a bleeding cow and Obama's presidential bid would've gone nowhere. Rezko was basically a bottom-feeder looking for easy opportunity in anyone he came across (he dealt with both Democrats and Republicans, as you can see) and Obama made a simple error of judgment in doing business with him - business that, while not proven illegal, was used by people as "proof" that Obama is supposedly an unsavory character.

Is Obama squeaky-clean? Of course not - he's a human, he's a politician. The difference is that in comparison with other noted ones, his stains are a lot less threatening than the others'. For a politician, I feel reasonably confident about trusting him with the helmship of the Presidency of this country.

As for the Fox (or perhaps I should say Faux) News link, that reads more like an opinion piece than it does anything of substance. FN has a well-known (and deserved) reputation for being little more than a Republican shill piece, so I'm not inclined to trust anything coming from there.

There are so many misrepresentations and outright lies about Palin, in an extremely short period of time, by people who are just so desperate to find anything to use against her and most of what's being put out there as "fact" has been debunked just as fast as it can be spun.

Most of what's been said/is being said about Palin can be backed up by its sources (with the possible exception of DailyKos, but then again, the article that I linked to there was written by a verifiable source independent of Kos, so there you have it). I can't say as I've heard anything truly outrageous about her, and I've been keeping a watch ever since she was announced as VP pick. By contrast, the majority of stuff being spread about Obama has no real basis other than that "ooh, scary new guy who won't do things our way" type of meme (i.e., he's supposedly Muslim and so on).

Nobody I've talked to can give me a valid reason why Obama isn't fit to lead, other than that "He scares me." Well, McCain/Palin scare the shit out of me, but I can list valid reasons why (dominionist support, extremely anti-choice, pro-war). The only person who's come close to giving a semi-valid reason as to why "Obama is scary" is my dad, who explained it as a possible Kennedy scenario all over again (he's in his 60s, so he knows that time; as of right now, he's leaning Obama and he's been an old-school conservative for pretty much most of his life, so that should tell you something right there). But like I told him, that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to turn out that way. History may repeat itself up to a point, but the superficial similarities between Kennedy and Obama are just that, surface bits. They are two very different men from two very different times and backgrounds, and the way I see it, if history does cycle back from time to time, it's because it's giving us a chance to learn from and correct the mistakes of our past. So I see that as a positive aspect.

And this election wins the 'mudslinging' award over any other hands down.

Actually, I'd have to disagree there. I think 2004's was the ugliest one. This one has actually been surprisingly civil, for an election. Of course, it's still a ways to November 4th...

Sorry, didn't mean to be so long winded

There's no such thing as long-winded here. So you're in good company.