It looks like it's going to take the Alaska legislature, the Anchorage newspaper, and the National Enquirer to vet Sarah Palin, since John McCain obviously didn't do it.

Sarah Palin, an ex sports reporter who can read a teleprompter gives a speech and the Rs come out of the woodwork hoping for resurrection. Troopergate is unraveling as the AK legislature is going to subpoena witnesses now, and there is proof that she has lied about her actions in accessing private personnel files, and firing an honorable man who refused to go along with her attempts to use her power to ruin the career of an honorable man because he wouldn't break the law. Today the Anchorage Newspaper wrote an editorial telling her to stop stonewalling the investigation.

Yep, all these family values people, when she goes down, they won't even remember her name. The R's want to fire up the culture wars again to distract us all from the economic meltdown, the debt, and the wars they started. Won't work.. Not this time!

I am mom to 4. I even have a 17 yr old daughter (who I am happy to say is not pregnant and I talk to about everything), and I agree with what you say 100%. Nothing bothers me more then someone to drag around their "values" as better then others, as if they have done so much more for their families, when truth be told her daughter is just as pregnant as any other pregnant 17 yr old is.

The Party of Family Values only cares about regulating OTHER people's lives. They themselves get to do as they wish, whether it's divorce, adultery, perjury, drug abuse, or whatever. And of course their Tremendous Concern For Human Life does not extend to human life outside the womb, where <s>the law of the jungle</s> the magic of free-market capitalism must reign supreme.

And then, of course, there's the aspect of the Family Values crowd that H.L. Mencken so pithily noted decades ago: a terrible, pervasive fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun.

Basically the modern GOP is an alliance of these two forces: the Wall Street Republicans gleefully let the Christo-fascists have their say about social issues, because by so doing, it forces progressives to play defense while the Wall Street crowd gets on with the business of dismantling government and whatever meager safety net this society offers.

" And all of us who sport a uterus are supposed to be able to relate to this woman because...so does she?" Priceless.

Come, git yer family values, courtesy of the Republican Party! http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%E2%80%9Cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%E2%80%9D/

Forget McCain. This is who the Rs want to make the next "dear leader." People who have anything resembling humane, tolerant, civilized values need to mobilize to stop the Republican the extremist far right,represented by Palin and her front man, McCain, from gaining the White House and the Congress.

Evolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain

What have the Republicans turned me into? Formerly I would have never been interested in a story like this and held my nose when speaking of the National Enquirer. Today I was browsing the blogs and read on Wonkette via Andrew Sullivan that Mr. Palin's former business partner, the one whom the NE is investigating for having an extra-marital affair with Sarah Palin, made a motion in court to have his divorce papers sealed. The good news is that the motion was denied. I have a feeling that Karl Rove has sent an army of lawyers and operatives to Alaska to try and keep a lid on all of Palin's misdeeds as well as hypocrisies.

A freaking Men Carla. Sarah Palin either deliberately placed her pregnant, 17-year old daughter directly into this ridiculous media scrutiny--putting her in the position of being eaten alive by the rabid tabloid press--or she didn't know that her child was 5 months pregnant. Neither of those scenarios speaks especially well of Ms. Palin as a "family-values" candidate, in my view. All of this for a high-profile, high-power political job.

I made these similar points on a blog post earlier today calling out Sarah Palin's fraud family values.

http://www.bluetidalwave.com/2008/09/sarah-palins-family-values-shotgun.html

What kind of family values allows their 17 year old daughter, who lives in their home, to get engaged to a high school drop out? How about a baby sitter for the infant?

As for the brewing affair scandals, we covered that on our site as well. 2 different names have been mentioned in reports. Scott Richter tried to close his divorce file this week and it was denied. Brad Hanson is a former business partner and he had a bad falling out with Todd Palin. The rumor is because of Brad's close relationship with Sarah.

http://www.bluetidalwave.com/2008/09/palins-lover-files-to-seal-divorce.html

It has been one week and the leads into scandals are 30 deep! Great Post. I came from the Booman Tribune.

I had heard the rumors about Sarah Palin and the mystery of the birth of her 5th child but when she said her daughter was pregnant, it seemed to end that mystery. But if you read about it (in newspapers, not blogs), it's pretty troubling. You have to ask:

-why would a woman who is expecting her 5th child and is governor of a "major" state not tell anyone until her 7th month (and no one suspected)? -why would a woman who has had 4 kids and is expecting a 5th fly when her water has started leaking? (Women who have more than one child, delivery gets faster each time.) She didn't tell the airline, she could have gone to a hospital in Dallas (where she was to give a speech) and even could have gone to several excellent hospitals in Seattle where she stopped and even could have gone to one in Juneau but no, she waited to get to the hospital in her hometown. -her daughter was pulled out of school for 4-5 months for mono and then transferred to another school right after

It all seems very odd.

Then there's the Troopergate problem AND the issue of the business partner who suddenly tries to seal his divorce records.

I grew up in a small town and one thing you learn; people know a lot about each others' business and some people even talk. I think there's a couple of people who could shed a lot of light on this. And the Reps better get out in front of this soon because it's just a matter of time.

If you are so "progressive", why does it bother you that a 17 year old is pregnant out of wedlock?

Does a legal marriage really matter to you?

If it does, do you support same-sex marriage?

If you do, then your friends can never be legally married in your state, so what do you do when they adopt?

You can't have it both ways.

You chose family-values and stick with your kids through thick-and-thin (though allowing them the natural consequences of their actions...and Bristol is old-enough to say "No Mom. I'm not going on stage" btw)

OR

you chose no moral parameters which means anything goes.

Palin isn't the source of your contention.

Your lack of a moral compass is your foundamental issue.

I guess you need to decide if you have one or not.

Andrea

After listening to her, I wanted to take a shower. She was just dripping with self-righteousness and sarcasm. Lots of cute quips and jeers about an individual who inspires so many people. Imagine this folks, if it were Obama's 17 year old daughter who was pregnant. Could you imagine the squawking, the finger-pointing, the upbraiding from the religious right? But no, if its Palin's daughter, it is perfectly all right. No bad parenting there! Plus, the Republicans seemed to deliberately play up the pregnancy and the idiot boyfriend (learn to use a condom, dude!). What makes Sarah Palin such a great example of an American? I can't think of anything, except she is very ambitious.

There is no issue that the Republicans can discuss with a straight face, since they have led the country so badly for the last eight years. So, they are reduced to insults and funny lines and a newcomer's star power.

Will voters see through this, I wonder?

Gee, Rob, where do you get your numbers?

Not exactly what this says:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110065/Gallup-Daily-Obamas-Lead-Now-Points.aspx

Carla, I am on Dobson's radar too, as I am a godless pagan. You know, sweatlodges, Sundance, Stompdance, general praying for ANYONE including maybe a river in trouble or a denizen of the Axis of Evil betimes; and caring about the natural way of life on this earth... I dislike it when members of my own community speak in any hatred of Christians. But Dobson's quietly-couched ranting against Native religious practices are not based in actual interaction with or study of these ways, but are presented as-if. Frankly, his lack moronic fracas scares me, as his reasonable tone causes those who get their scholarship from third hand religious pamphlets to go right along. Was he not one of the co-creators of such phrases as "pre-born" and "partial birth abortion", along with that dreadful fellow who hijacked Operation Rescue (http://www.operationrescue.org/) after his wife retired from it?

As to jibbering (gibbering is my favorite spelling) and gobsmacked: your music just made my day.

I don't much care to judge Palin's family crisis. I have been believed in and allowed hugely responsible leadership and service roles while my own son was tribulating our home to beat the band... however, I DO deign to judge her crummy reference points.

Well, I guess if we have "new and pre-owned cars", then "pre-born" is just the latest abuse of the language. But then I have no moral compass and see the world in shades of gray instead of black and white.

The latest poll has Sarah Palin's approval rating at 58%.

If that doesn't make us despair about this country and the people in it, what will?

@ Hurria Don't despair, only 40% (ABC News) of the electorate believe Palin is qualified and prepared to be president. It's 60 plus for Biden, not surprisingly. There are a few thinking people around. She's the new kid on the block and the hits are coming so her favorables have peaked and will go down.

Yes Carla, pile on pile on.

You're perfect for demonstrating the blue's morphing of Palin into the monster she is not. Your misperception that more women have trouble with Palin than do admire her is yet another example of your troubled judgement.

I'm glad we can count on you, and yours.

Seriously...keep it coming, Carla. The more vile rumors and innuendo and slander that you keep frothing about, the better it is for us. You will so marginalize yourselves and those that gobble up this crap...you will make an absolute victim out of Palin. Women across America...and no, I don't mean spunky gals like yourself...will bristle at this immature and desperate smearing.

Remember, politics is about multiplication, not division. How many independents and undecideds do you think the Left will win by calling Palin a whore and a hack and a "bad mommy?"

To you, the ends justify the means. Victory at any cost, right? But you will destroy a very dependable constituency in the process. I used to be like you, when I was young. But this hatred will burn you up and leave you with nothing.

The top of the ticket is the only thing that will matter two months from now. That said, the Palin tar baby is working exactly as predicted.

Dan E. is right.

Oh, the victimization! Oh, the media, oh, those hateful liberal bloggers! They are so mean, and Palin is such a holy martyr for the fundamentalist cause.

That liberal media crap may play for the dittoheads, but it isn't selling around the nation. The polling says a majority of Americans don't buy that pile of feces you are selling about Palin about being mistreated. She's going off to hide for two weeks so she can find out what's going on in the world outside Alaska, and try not to be an embarrassment when she goes to the debates. In the meantime they're hiding her from the press. Well, because everyone is so mean to her! Is she really up to this?

Dan, tonight Washington Week was in front of a live audience. One comment got an ovation--from Jeanne Cummings, now of Politico but formerly of the Wall Street Journal.

It was during a discussion of the "E. Media Elite" comments at the convention. http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/ You can find the video/ transcript next week when they get it uploaded, but here is an approximation of what she said,

"John McCain offered, and Palin accepted, a position where this unknown woman could be president in just 60 days. She deserves no sympathy regarding questions---we have no time to fool around. She should answer every question asked because we only have 60 days to find out everything about her so that the public can make an informed decision".

I'm not sure if Palin's remarks on the surge today were her own or if she was reading from a script. I hope someone asks her next week what she thinks of Bob Woodward's new book on the Iraq war; whether she supports both Alaska Senators voting for the GI Bill which McCain was not there to vote on; an explanation of any of her actions as Mayor (incl. trying to ban classic books from the local library--I hear TIME has the list); an explanation of any veto she did as Gov.; any other policy question any reporter asks her.

A friend sent me the You Tube link for Geraldine Ferraro trying to explain her "affirmative action candidate" cracks about Obama--I believe Palin should be questioned equally strongly if anyone (reporter or town hall participant) doesn't like anything Palin says. You can call that hatred if you want to, but anyone on a national ticket (a voluntary action) gives up the right to refuse to answer questions.

And yes, I do believe the above is more important than family questions, but I did hear a woman from a local newspaper say tonight on NewsHour that the women she knows discuss how to balance work and family, so she thinks asking Palin that question is totally within bounds.

I completely agree with what Jeanne Cummings said on "Washington Week." Palin has opened herself up to scrutiny by the national press, since she would have an immensely public position in our country. There is no reason for her play the victim - - the media is not picking on her, they are merely asking questions about her positions and her history. But she is "braying" (I love that term) that the media is being too judgemental. I heard that she will not be giving interviews at all for the time being - - just reading speeches (which she seems to do with great ease).

The strangest aspect of all this is that McCain/Palin are somehow fantasizing that they are the opponent party - - that they are against what is happening every day in Washington D.C. How can they be the opponent party when they belong to the same bunch that screwed up our country so badly? Has McCain not been a senator for all these years? Has he not supported the President in every idiotic endeavor in the last 8 years? And doesn't Palin sound just like every other extremist Republican?

Who are they fooling here? How can they possibly reinvent themselves when it was they themselves standing with Bush/Cheney all these years? We're delving in looking glass country here.

Hi - I'm a first time visitor to your blog. Could you please define the term "progressive' for me, as in "a place for progressive Oregonians to gather"? And what would be an appropriate (polite) descriptor for those who disagree with you? Thanks!

Palin's glorification of her 17-year-old pregnant daughter is so completely in your face: love it or fuck off. Sound republican? No, of course not. They only use CIVIL language and have CIVIL lives and behave in a CIVIL way when they drag out their children as good examples of what they call bad behavior. It reminds me of the Cheney kid's lesbianism at a time of anti-gay referendums: none of your business when we do it. We are emanating love and following God's will, I guess. 'Love it or fuck off.', said the sitting president more than once over the past 8 years.

Sarah Palin either deliberately placed her pregnant, 17-year old daughter directly into this ridiculous media scrutiny--putting her in the position of being eaten alive by the rabid tabloid press--or she didn't know that her child was 5 months pregnant. Neither of those scenarios speaks especially well of Ms. Palin as a "family-values" candidate, in my view. All of this for a high-profile, high-power political job.

This doesn't sit well with me because I can't differentiate between your argument and the rightwing argument that we are fighting against. You're quite clearly judging Palin's personal family decisions and her fitness as a mother and arguing that they don't meet your "family values" criteria. How is this different from Dobson arguing that gay families don't meet his criteria, that mothers working outside of the home don't meet his criteria?

I understand your point that you wouldn't put your daughter through this in order to further your career. I think that's great. Personally, I passed on a promotion two months before my first child was born because I wanted to be there as much as possible, and I knew that I couldn't take the job and still be the father I wanted to be. But I'm not comfortable using my own experience to judge other fathers who decided in a similar circumstance to take the promotion. And I think part of being progressive when it comes to family values (and yes, we need to take that phrase back from the religious right) is not judging others lifestyle choices based solely on our own.

Plus, it's a pretty slippery slope. The reality is that Obama has harmed his daughters by running for president when they are so young. Anyone who is a parent knows that you just can't be absent for that much time and not have a significant negative impact. . . the phone calls and emails just don't cut it. But Obama probably only has one shot at this, and he and Michelle clearly decided the benefit outweighed the cost. I won't second guess their decision, and I'll criticize anyone who does.

But it is my business when Palin is trying to shovel her social conservative agenda down my throat while her own family is clearly in crisis. . . under the guise that her social agenda is better for the families of America.

I'm not sure the validity of one's ideas depends on the strength of one's family. After all, would you really argue that the credibility of someone who argues for comprehensive sex education in public schools would be undermined if her daughter became pregnant? Can someone who has experienced a failed relationship argue in favor of gay marriage? Palin's daughter's pregnancy really has no bearing at all on the public policy argument regarding abstinence. She's was wrong before Bristol's pregnancy, and she's wrong now.

There are lots of valid attacks on Palin that don't involve her personal family decisions. We need to focus on those.

I wonder where Kari is?

He's right. Let's leave the kids out of this.

And doretta and Chris Lowe's aren't quite the serious intellects they fancy themselves to be: Their intellectual limitation was to assert a false framing for what was said, rather than to objectively read and respond to what was written. Gelser had even less to offer in that she responded with stereotypical rhetoric to a caricature of arguments that simply weren't being put forth, which is why she probably will go far as an empty politician.

Of course, what was written, in full knowledge that empty rhetoricians like doretta and Chris would have no interest in honestly engaging other people's arguments was this pivotal point:

3) Do you disagree that for those for which this level of family stress is apparently not very distracting the reasons also vary, but one is a selfish lack of concern for others (including one's children)?

Although several people here insisted on misrepresenting what was said by several people as a justification to spout about their own simplistic and empty ideological viewpoints, my entire argument, when read with studied objectivity, was about Palin's behavior and values: How has she behaved, given the circumstances of her life? Since that is only basis we really can use to judge her, and since we as voters have a right and responsibility to make that judgement, we have a right to know the relevant circumstances of her life.

So as I said:

The bottom line remains that voters have a moral right to know about whatever distractions or other issues may prevent a candidate from performing well in the office, and to judge them for that

In the context of what was written, a fair reading of those other issues would have led a genuine intellect to at least consider the possibility that "those other issues" are precisely to the behavior the candidate in response to distractions that is indicative of that candidate's true values.

Chris really outdid himself: He went so far as to quote that very paragraph and then directly assert he didn't care to be fair to the comment, but instead would substitute his own, presumably because being fair to the actual comment would stop him from going on and on after that as he did:

You have focused specifically on interference with her performance as V.P., e.g. "whatever distractions or other issues may prevent a candidate from performing well in the office," one variant of the "Palin has too much to cope with" argument. But other comments have not responded exclusively to your variant.

Never once was it asserted she had too much to cope with. The argument was unwavering that we had the right to judge HOW she responded to things in her life that might have caused politicians to react differently.

Carla has provided just one example of Palin's dubious values, demonstrated by HOW Plain reacted when, as the circumstances arose, she used her family as political props in a way that is quite indicative of troubling values. I agree with Carla. The fact remains, though, that Carla's argument depends completely on knowledge about Palin's family life. Obama, Gelser, Lowe, doretta, and Kristin irresponsibly tried to turn it into various double-standard arguments, with at least one intent of cynically pandering to the peanut gallery (well doretta apparently has other issues).

Of course, the previous comment is a reference to the previous 150-comment thread that preceded this one about Palin that Kari kicked off with the commented quoted.

Miles also demonstrates the same stunted intellect where he makes an assertion Carla didn't:

You're quite clearly judging Palin's personal family decisions and her fitness as a mother and arguing that they don't meet your "family values" criteria.

Carla is fairly judging what Palin will do to gain power. Using one's family as a tool to gain power tells us something fundamental about a politician's character, as do other tactics to gain power.

What's really amusing is that Gelser, Merkley and several other favorites here have a serious jones for power that makes them much more like Palin than different. Their best qualification as politicians is that they are good at letting Blue Oregon types falsely frame issues in a way that they talk themselves into believing those pols share their values.

Andrea Cockrum, you dumb cluck. Nobody I ever read or heard of is particularly bothered by a pregnant 17-year-old. Try reading it again: it's about how her mother (you know, the one who could be president if McCain won the election and--as is likely, given his age and rotten health, and the stress of the job--died) handled this, and how it reflects on her judgment.

Or more to the point, her utter lack thereof. (And McCain's as well, for selecting this demented extremist.)

Look, if Bristol was my girl, and probably if she were yours, we'd be helping her apply to colleges now. That's what most good parents do if they have middle-class-or-better resources.

Here's what a really effed-up excuse for a mother would do: Take your daughter out of school last year--when she wasn't pregnant, saddle her with primary childcare responsibilities for your special needs baby (on the apparent belief that it's okay to foist your responsibilities on others if you're sufficiently pro-life), and force her into a shotgun marriage with some loser while telling everyone who'll listen that it's her choice.

Sorry--this woman is manipulative, mean, and out only for herself. If McCain gets elected,the Secret Service will have to protect him from her, and no, I'm not kidding. She is that crazy, and she is that ambitious.

And she has a vicious, whacked-out Talibangelical agenda, let's remember that.

"stephanie": Depends upon whether you are speaking of the whole person and who you really are in how you live wholistically or just the political aspects of what a person espouses. Personal insight work will tell you if you truly are coherent as follows in your ways of acting, working, thinking, uttering, relating, investing and honoring relationships and social connections:

In the main, it denotes an individual who favors reform... not sure it connotes honorable behaviour on the part of that reformer.

1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.

Carla, did you really, REALLY mean to use gobsmacked as you did? Just wanted to be certain after all.

gobsmacked adj Definition: flabbergasted, astounded, shocked; also written gob-smacked Etymology: from gob 'mouth' + smacked 'clapping hand over in surprise'

With Great Love for Words, RW

Leaving a special needs baby at home at three days old is not the kind of family values that I aspire to. I talk more about this at http://mominfaith.blogspot.com/, but I'll just say, for a mother or father to do that, I just don't respect it.

The reality is, we live in a culture where the media scrutinize. To deliberately put a child in that situation, wrap it up in a "family values" bow and sell it to us in the name of pro-choice is cynical, dubious and ugly. The fact that Palin will attempt to leverage this to further her conservative social political agenda is ridiculous.

Exactly and agreed.

However, just to be clear it is the role of media workers in our culture to scrutinize. We have (or at least claim to aspire to have) a pluralistic, representative democracy which is based on "we the people" individually working hard to fairly and accurately judge who can be trusted with power. Not on media workers or others thinking for us.

Media workers are supposed to be witnesses on our behalf to whatever they can about those whose ask us to entrust them with power. One just has to read political reporting and commentary from the first 150 years of the republic to grasp that when the founders gave us the First Amendment, they had no concept or intent of "fair, accurate, and balanced" media workers. They intended that reporters and commentators be allowed to scrutinize as they feel is appropriate, and for us to exercise mature judgement ourselves, based on whatever is brought to our attention.

Those who make outright, or who make ambiguous arguments inviting clear implicatures (if the shoe fits, own it), what media workers shouldn't report really are trying to control what others think because they are asserting what information media workers shouldn't provide their fellow citizens. (I feel I have to emphatically say I do not read Carla here as doing that since some so blithely misrepresent others to argue their own agendas.) That also differentiates from more principled advocates who don't make ideological arguments what media workers shouldn't scrutinize, but with whom they might superficially agree that media workers should and don't report something.

I agree with all this stuff...

I heard (from tabloids) that Gov Palin has another baby, by an African father, somewhere in Oregon... And on the internet I read that Trig is actually 8 months old, and was delivered in between keynote speeches at some Governors confab on Health issues, delivered by none other than former Oregon Gov Kitz! Not only that, but Todd, her husband moved to Wasilla his Senior year of high school, and before that he dated other women as an underclassman, and he wasn't even on his varsity team his junior year. And one of his other team mates later came by to say hello to Todd, met his wife, the Mayor, and had a quickie affair with him. She should just stay home, barefoot and preggers. And how dare she accuse Obama of being a community organizer, since he was really a community disorganizer, and a successful one at that, if you just go down to Hyde Park, you would know that already. And Obama has many successful bills that he co-sponsored, jointly sponsored and even championed, like ObamaFeingold (campaign finance reform), ObamaKennedy (NCLB), and ObamaSax.

I just want to speak to the family values issue you brought up. I believe the fact that Sarah Palin's daughter brought her pregnancy to her mom, rather than just going for an abortion to get rid of the situation, shows that there are strong family values in the Palin household. Bristol was obviously confident enough in her mother to know that she would love her and support her, even though she (Bristol) made a "mistake". At 18, Bristol is old enough to take responsiblity and she is demonstrating that she is. Why would Sarah Palin have to quit her job or not take a nomination? I believe this also points to strong values. Her daughter is willing to pay the consequences for her actions and take responsiblity for them. Having an open relationship demonstrates a strong family. I'm just not sure I can see how Sarah Palin's decision to run for VP shows a lack of family values. I'm sure you know that you can teach your children all kinds of stuff, but they don't necessarily obey it. That is a reflection on the child, not the mother.

Well, as usual everyone is refracting events through the lens of personal experience and, especially, ideology. Those who want to find reason to slam Palin are finding it; those who want to find reason to praise Palin, ditto.

Meanwhile, I keep wanting to find a copy of that old "Life in Hell" cartoon about Manson Family Values. (First character asks the second what "family values" are, and the second replies with the usual litany of Christofascist talking points, to which the first replies, "Oh, I see: Manson Family Values.") If anyone can help, please....

Well, as usual everyone is refracting events through the lens of personal experience and, especially, ideology. Those who want to find reason to slam Palin are finding it; those who want to find reason to praise Palin, ditto.

Meanwhile, I keep wanting to find a copy of that old "Life in Hell" cartoon about Manson Family Values. (First character asks the second what "family values" are, and the second replies with the usual litany of Christofascist talking points, to which the first replies, "Oh, I see: Manson Family Values.") If anyone can help, please....

I just discovered you website by accident - think it's a keeper! I, too, was surprised the the Sarah Palin pick. In less than a week, there are an awful lot of question marks concerning Troopergate, and/or infidelity issues. Even if any of it goes anywhere, I see few Republicans changing their votes. John McCain doesn't deserve the trust the country may instill upon him for a few reasons, and his judgement of his running mate is the latest.

I've got several favorite reasons why he should not be our President, but the biggest is he supports torture even though he was tortured himself. Of course, according to current US Government policy statements, the prisoners we hold are being 'aggressively interrogated', so I suppose it's inaccurate to say John McCain was tortured, but rather was 'aggressively interrogated.'

It just doesn't matter to the Republicans what their candidates and membership does as long as they are Republican. Wait, I forgot, you can't be gay.

It's unfortunate the Republicans do not put the Constitution and country ahead of their party.

Joel: if you subscribe to there being anything BUT a self-referential lens, you are nuts. You CAN moderate it, but, ultimately, we are all common humans and no matter what, there will always be self-reference in there... this is why, I suppose, I do not stir myself overly to rationalize around this stuff, ehhh... yet, the purely biased blather bores me but good too.

Carla - I got all carried away by the zany music of it (same things happens during ALL of these political speeches, you see... ), then decided to check MY knowledge of your nutty, rhythmical word choice.

:).... We may be kin in this regard.

"Sarah Palin either deliberately placed her pregnant, 17-year old daughter directly into this ridiculous media scrutiny--putting her in the position of being eaten alive by the rabid tabloid press--or she didn't know that her child was 5 months pregnant."

when in doubt, blame the victim? because the media thrives on engaging in personal attacks, it is the fault of the attacked for entering a position where she could be attacked? really?

it's not surprising that the media circus has been having a field day week tearing apart palin's family, but that the progressive blogosphere has been cheering them on and adding to the flames has been a major dissapointment and blunder.

sarah palin is an extremist right-wing politician--so extreme that her political equivalent on the left does not even exist--whose whole political record is a paper trail contradiction of her professed philosophy. she sings the praises of the free market, and governs the state of alaska, which is essentially an socialist oil welfare state. she runs as an anti-porktarian who who built her popularity on bringing home federal pork. she runs as a reformer but governs like dick cheney in a dress. need i go on?

leave the family alone. by making it personal, all she needs to show to prove her attackers wrong is that she is human. and of course she can do that, even dick cheney can do that.

so extreme that her political equivalent on the left does not even exist

It's statements like this that harm your credibility.

Stephanie - Progressive tend to define the meaning literally (forward thinking / change for the better). However, that's because the history of progressives has many warts (Eugenics).

http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/LevyPeartdismal6.html

Progressives find most Democrats to the right of their philosposhies. The further away your political philosophy is to Marxism the further away you are away from being a progressive. DailyKossites and people from the DemocratUnderground also consider themselves progressives.

To a progressive people like Bill Clinton are closer to republicans than progressives.

A good read may be:

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841

"Progressives find most Democrats to the right of their philosposhies. The further away your political philosophy is to Marxism the further away you are away from being a progressive. DailyKossites and people from the DemocratUnderground also consider themselves progressives."

Actually, a friend of mine used to say that liberal was the station you got off at if you didn't want to go all the way to Marxism, and conservatism was the station you got off at if you didn't want to go all the way to fascism.

My reading of Progressive history 100 years ago sees problem solvers and people wanting to help ordinary folk and open up the system rather than favoring the rich and powerful among us.

I believe the fact that Sarah Palin's daughter brought her pregnancy to her mom, rather than just going for an abortion to get rid of the situation, shows that there are strong family values in the Palin household. Bristol was obviously confident enough in her mother to know that she would love her and support her, even though she (Bristol) made a "mistake".

Tiffanie, if Bristol had wanted an abortion instead, lay this out for me: Exactly where would she have gone for an abortion on her own? Bristol Palin hasn't even been in school for over a year, let alone held a job, so where would she have got the money?

The Rs are trying to spin this as if it were Bristol's choice instead of her mother's. Uh, it's not a choice if you don't have an alternative.

At 18, Bristol is old enough to take responsibility and she is demonstrating that she is. . . . Her daughter is willing to pay the consequences for her actions and take responsibility for them.

Again, it's not clear that she's "willing," so much as forced to go through with it.

And having an abortion when you haven't even finished high school, are not in a position to support a baby yourself and the alternative is a "shotgun" wedding to a high-school boy who clearly--and at his age, reasonably--had other plans of his own, is the responsible thing. That's why responsible women have them, and why responsible parents help their daughters get them.

I'm just not sure I can see how Sarah Palin's decision to run for VP shows a lack of family values.

It doesn't. Sarah Palin's being a lousy mother shows a lack of family values. It also shows a lack of a basic sense of responsibility or priorities.

Did you know that last year, long before Bristol got pregnant, Palin took her out of school? That, having oh-so-nobly chosen to have a special-needs baby, Palin foisted its primary care duties on Bristol? (You know that rumor that the baby was Bristol's? That's where it came from--Bristol was (and is) the one taking care of it.) Would your parents have done that to you? Would you do something like that to your own daughter?

For about the 5 millionth time: No one with a lick of sense cares that a 17-year-old girl had sex.

But they do care that a major political party has been taken over by people whose idea of "morality" (a) begins and ends with their genitals (so things like lying and graft don't register with them quite as much); (b) deal with everything related to sex in the most punitive manner possible; and (c) want to make this attitude the basis of public policy.

The Rs, for all their blather about how much they hate government regulation, have made it clear that they want to be the Party of Government Sticking Its Nose Into Your Bedroom. And Sarah Palin is the standard-bearer for this policy.

Still no mention of Rep. Charley Finagle at BlueOregon?

That must be because he's just some nobody from New York, right?

But if the corrupt Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee was a Republican, I'm guessing it would merit some election year outrage here at the stinky B.O.

While I can seen fascism rearing from the extremes of conservatism and socialism - every time fascism have surfaced in this world it has come from socialist parties.

Ordinary folk is generally conservatives who are NRA members.

And so we arrive back to the discussion on Edwards weeks ago. I reiterate: an associate of mine was recently asked to run for office during this pivotal time. He knows well what will happen if you step in 1. when your life is unsettled in any fundamental way; 2. if you have secrets that will be dragged out and weaponized.

Although it would have been the best thing for ALL of us and nothing at ALL could have been bad about him stepping up to this, he wisely declined. Some people would be bleeding from the ears right now with children as collatoral damage as well. And wholesale astonishment as well as disappointment.

I feel sad for the loss of one of the few people I'd wholly trust with my public service heartstrings. But he'd have brought increased pain and misery into some lives if he had subjected his current life to the deserved/typical scrutiny of campaigns large and small.

Do we like it? Only when it's someone we are "against" and do not approve of. Is it right? Dunno. But it IS.

"Again..more contrived outrage. Palin knew the score when she got into the situation. Whining about it now won't change a thing. She chose to expose her vulnerable, in-crisis child to this...its repulsive and she should be ashamed of herself. And to be defended for it? Even worse."

carla, can we have this conversation without you telling me that i am "contriving outrage"? i am not outraged, i am, like i said, disappointed that the progressive blogosphere has played into this personal attack on her family because it is A) wrong, and B) a huge, huge political blunder. i don't care that she is whining, but i wasn't defending it either. her whining was of course to be expected, in fact, it's even possible they anticipated this happening and the media and the blogs played into the trap.

to summarize, 1) no contrived outrage, only disappointment 2) even if you know you are going to be attacked for doing something, it is still the attackers fault, not yours 3) this whole mistake has created a situation where either it is now conventional wisdom that "sarah palin was unfairly attacked by the media", which means it will be much more difficult for the media to actually report and get traction on the real scandals, and hypocritical political opportunism that that seems to follow palin like rats follow the piper. not only that, but it has help rally the reublican base like nothing else.

idler,

please name me one state level politican; so governer, senator or at large house member--who is as far to the left as palin is to the right.

Posted by: Rebecca Whetstine | Sep 6, 2008 8:50:53 AM

"stephanie": Depends upon whether you are speaking of the whole person and who you really are in how you live wholistically or just the political aspects of what a person espouses. Personal insight work will tell you if you truly are coherent as follows in your ways of acting, working, thinking, uttering, relating, investing and honoring relationships and social connections:

In the main, it denotes an individual who favors reform... not sure it connotes honorable behaviour on the part of that reformer.

1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.

+++

Thank you Rebecca!!!
You have done an amazing service!!!

You have single handedly defined Blue Oregon, in a most excellent way. As a NAV, I am neither Rep nor Dem. I am independent. I hate most of what Sen Smitty is (but I doubt I'll vote for Jeff either, we will see) and am still weighing the pres ticket of Obama and Mc$ame.

<h1>"BlueOregon is a place for progressive Oregonians to gather 'round the water cooler and share news, commentary, and gossip."</h1>

Nowhere in the above statement is the words Democrat (or Democratic) nor Republican. Only progressive Oregonians.

"Progressive: 1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor."

<hr/>

Wow, here is a VERY interesting question.

Does not Mayor (now Gov) Palin, fit the above description?

Did not Palin "favor or advocate progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters:" with respect to the corrupt Republican machine in Alaska?

Did she not push for reform that put many corrupt politicians (Republicans) in jail?

Was not the Mayor of Wasilla a "a progressive mayor'?

I think an honest answer is: Yes!

Progressive political operatives of the World, UNITE! You have only the chains of party labels such as Democrat and Republican to lose!!

I will tell all my Progressive, Reform oriented ex-Republican Palin supporting operatives to join me in the watering hole called Blue Oregon.

<h1>"Can anyone possibly make the argument that Gov. Palin would be able to successfully lead the United States through such troubled waters by January , if necessary ? "</h1>

Of course not!!!

That's a job for: Super Community Organizer!!!

Was not the Mayor of Wasilla a "a progressive mayor'?

No.

But don't take my word for it. Long-time Gov Palin hater and Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny is in a bitter position to speak to it than I am.

====

Ah, yes, always good to hear from some of the corrupt Alaskan Republican politicians, roadkill along the reformer Gov Palin's Alaskan highway.

Maybe your will be sourcing from Abrahamoff (sp) next?

Dena and company, look over on the "let's win this" thread to find all of your reference points in one post, from earlier today.

That letter was dated in August - I must be incredibly behind the times to only have heard of it this week -- but the information is gathered up here on that thread, and I've been finding alternate versions of the email from Kilkenny purporting to be "the" email.

It might be nice to get it straight from Kilkenny at her Hotmail account to be sure we are indeed referencing her correctly. She was vetted - The Nation, The New Yorker, and even some cheesy tabloids - not a bot, a real lady who is spilling her small town's guts to the world.

Heard McCain referencing his "anti-pork barrel" "stance" as "... finance reform" that somehow will also be like CAMPAIGN finance reform? Oy, the game of [word]Twister gets more slicky.

Also, Harry, Dear Harry:

"Progress" is a values-laden word, it is not a neutral term. To my way of thought, "progress" connotes betterment. An example comes to mind - removal of the tribes, marching them across frozen landscapes and through crawling swamps on foot was considered "progress". Ever hear of Manifest Destiny?

Likewise, the word "improvement". Tribes that lived in balance with the land by moving from place to place by the seasons (not in a wandering fashion, but with purpose, history and natural way rhythms) were viewed as "doing nothing" or "not fully using" the land. So they were "responsibly" sequestered away on Reserves so that these lands could be parceled out and "rightly used"... was it really "improvement", the exhaustions and fester that followed?

Please be a little more loving in how you use these words. Examine the fullness of meaning therein. It makes for a more interesting post, don't you think? How old are you, Harry? I am most curious. The word, "callow" comes to mind, but I get the feeling you are older. Therefore, "shallow" is the inevitable read, given your slapdash posting.

Here's a list to educate progressives and to speak truth to power about Palin, family values, etc. Pay particular attention to #28 and 27, & 31.

http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors/

johnnie, That's not fair to Carla. Now she'll have to share that link and rumor debunking with the "LOT of parents that I [she] have spoken".

I'm sure Carla wants only the truth to guide her "friends" voting.

Carla - Interesting contradictory statement of yours:

"I've never accused Palin of the bullets on your list....have you more excuses for Palin's behavior..."

You need to read the list. The topic you list in your article ARE included (book banning, global warming denier, etc.)

Please re-read your article before denying that you haven't accuse Palin of the debunked rumors.

Here's another article that speaks truth to power:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122058255216602625.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

P.S. Sorry the link above doesn't include your "family values" article. I'll try and work with them on seeing your "family values" articles gets billing with the ones listed above.

C -

3 > 0 or 'none'. From your article "... does being an anti-choice, book-banning, global-climate-change denier mean otherwise, no matter what?"

See Martin's site.

Reading your misinterpretation of conservative's family values - see the WSJ article.

J

Here is another progressive's take Palin:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/07/BALU12OCMV.DTL

"The Democrats are in trouble."

"he didn't have to prove she was "of the people." She really is the people."

johnnie, you are pure EVIL!!!

How dare you link to "a progressive's take".

Especially THE PROGRESSIVE, the Man HimSelf, Mr Willie Brown!

And read all the way to the end, where he gives fashion advice to Old Man McCain!! Priceless!

Palin floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee Willie Brown

<h2>Sunday, September 7, 2008</h2>

The Democrats are in trouble. Sarah Palin has totally changed the dynamics of this campaign.

Period.

<hr/>

Palin's speech to the GOP National Convention on Wednesday has set it up so that the Republicans are now on offense and Democrats are on defense. And we don't do well on defense.

Suddenly, Palin and John McCain are the mavericks and Barack Obama and Joe Biden are the status quo, in a year when you don't want to be seen as defending the status quo.

From taxes to oil drilling, Democrats are now going to have to start explaining their positions.

Whenever you start having to explain things, you're on defense.

I actually went back and watched Palin's speech a second time. I didn't go to sleep until 1:30 a.m. I had to make sure I got the lines right.

Her timing was exquisite. She didn't linger with applause, but instead launched into line after line of attack, slipping the knives in with every smile and joke.

And she delivered it like she was just BS-ing on the street with the meter maid.

She didn't have to prove she was "of the people." She really is the people.

There is one thing she should have done: announced when her 17-year-old daughter and the teenage father of the girl's unborn child are getting married and invited all of us to the wedding. It should be like Sunday at church.

As for Palin herself, she is going to be very, very effective on the campaign trail, especially if McCain's people can figure out how to gently keep her from getting into confrontations with the press.

If she can answer questions like she handled herself at the convention, Palin will turn out to be the most interesting person in all of politics, and the press will treat her like they treated Obama when he was first discovered.

<h2>And remember, the Palin bandwagon needs to roll for only two months.</h2>

By the way, a note to John McCain: Get rid of the suits.

McCain is best with an open collar, his sleeves rolled up and in a Western shirt.

He doesn't come off well in suits at all.

They make him look old.

And Cindy - keep the hair up.

Raising a teenage girl is not easy. I had custody of my 16 year old niece for a year. My wife traveled out of town constantly for work and it was not something I could handle alone. We had to have the help of grandmother, cousins, friends, etc.

C: I take it from your comments you are part of the segment that still believes the smears against Palin and don't understand or miscontrue conservative Family Values. Nobody is perfect, which is of course, the point... ( I am sure that will be lost on this crowd much like the (non) bitter and ugly speech was actually rural).

Don't worry, you aren't the only one posting debunked smears

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/03/18/the_speech.php

Debunked and false smears splashed at the checkout stands against a politician (Palin) is a gold mine. (It's called a backlash, which is well under way). However, true but denied facts by a politician splashed at the checkout stands is a career ender (Progressive Edwards).

What do you think was going through Edwards mind when the DNC convention crowd was cheering during Bill Clinton's speech...? The irony wasn't lost on rural Oregon.

H: Its even an article by a Progressive who actually held an elected office.

__

Is this progressive?

"Ensuring that swings have seats and sandboxes are free of glass"

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usobam025598601mar02,1,6933215,full.story

Rural Oregonians do this by themselves, for free and with the need to be organized by community organizers.

For all those who are decrying AK's Independent Party's secession and Todd Palin...

At least Todd didn't vote to allow sececssion like Obama and Biden did with Hawaii:

"Sen. Akaka undermined his own bill last year when he made statements to National Public Radio that the sovereignty granted Native Hawaiians in the bill could eventually lead to secession. "That could be," he said. "As far as what's going to happen at the other end, I'm leaving it up to my grandchildren and great-grandchildren."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110008503

Hawaii (Obama/Biden) good, Alaska (Palin's hubby)Bad.

C: I assumed that you stood behind your article. You state "much of it isn't debunked, in fact", actually they are; the Martin site's list is up to 69 and counting.

I also assumed that the Left doesn't understand family values as the WSJ article points out. Christians, including Evangialists know people in their family and community with a "Bristol." It's part of life and it's how you react as a Christian that matters. Christians can shun and cry hypocrite or love and live the Gospel. Palin's choice is obvious to all conservatives understand "family values."

"I was raised in rural Oregon" is like saying "I have friends/family that are Black." Both statements do not mean one understands the other.

Johnnie, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the movement known as Christianity. However, I have read the Gospels, and if "conservative Christian" family values have any relation to Jesus' message of compassion delivered in the Sermon on the Mount, you could have fooled me.

Johnnie--

obviously you're spinning talking points. In the conservative Christian circles I was raised in, Sarah Palin wouldn't be holding office, much less be nominated for VP, much less be parading her unmarried pregnant daughter and her boyfriend around in front of the media.

Most conservative Christians I know would have the compassion needed to keep their daughter out of the spotlight in a very troubling time.

Gale Sayers said it best, years ago. "Jesus is first, my family is second, and I am third." Right now, it's patently obvious, by all the Christian values I know and understand, from the way I was raised in the Community Church and Church of Christ to the Catholic faith I now practice, that Sarah Palin is putting herself and her own ambitions first, or at least in front of her family's needs and concerns.

Not Christian behavior, in my book. Nor is it an example of anything but dysfunctional family values.

JDW: Please be more detailed. I have seen both conservative and liberal Christian for all denominations and religions live the Gospel.

Although, I am not an evangelical nor anything near a creationist, what I saw at the Saddleback forum was Compassion toward orphans and the poor. Apparently Pastor Ricks passion.

Conservatives (Repubs and Dems) believe that it isn't the US Government's job to live the Gospel nor is it a religion's job to be the Government.

The difference, especially on this site, boils down to Pro-Life/Choice. Because, admit it, the fact that Palin's child was diagnosed DS and she had the child is the real reason for the attacks. What's ironic is that both sides consider the issue a human right's issue, which is telling in itself.

Here is a summary on the topic of trying to live the Gospel and what happens when Roman Catholics transgress from living the Gospel.

<hr/>

Fr. John De Celles, STL, is an associate pastor at Old St. Mary’s Church in Alexandria, Va. This is his homily for the 22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time (Aug. 31, 2008), as prepared for delivery.

In last week’s Gospel we heard Jesus’ words to Peter:

I say to you, you are Peter [Rock], and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

But this week we find the incredible thing that happens right after that, as Jesus tells Peter: “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me.”

How does Peter go from being called the “Rock” of the Church to being compared to “Satan”?

First of all, see how Jesus tells Peter about the keys in response to Peter publicly proclaiming: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” But Jesus chastises Peter after Peter spoke to Him in private; Scripture says: “Then Peter took Jesus aside and began to rebuke him.” The keys relate to Peter’s public proclamation, the rebuke pertains to Peter’s private, personal words to Jesus.

Also, we see that Peter’s public proclamation was about a dogma of faith: that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God. But his private rebuke was about his personal desire for Jesus’ safety: “God forbid [you be killed in Jerusalem].”

And again, when Jesus gives Peter the keys, he blesses Peter for listening to God: “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.” But when he chastises Peter he says: “You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

In all this Jesus teaches us that although many Popes would be less than perfect as individuals He, Christ, would always protect them in the public proclamation of the truths of the Gospel. Because of that all Catholics are bound, by Christ, to follow the definitive teaching of the Popes, And when do not hold ourselves bound by the Pope’s teaching the gates of hell will inevitably prevail against us.

Of course this can mean personal disaster: sin. But it can also mean social disaster.

For example, in the year 1839 in a document called “In Supremo,” Pope Gregory XVI reiterated the Church’s ancient teaching against slavery, specifically reproaching those who:

dare to …reduce to slavery Indians, Blacks or other such peoples…. as if they were not humans but rather mere animals.

Unfortunately, some Catholics, in particular, some American bishops — especially Southern bishops— tried to argue that the doctrine didn’t apply to American slavery, because somehow it was “different.” It seems, caught up in the prevailing attitude of the world around them, these bishops twisted the clear teaching of the popes into something that makes us sick to think of today. They fell into the trap that St. Paul warns against in today’s 2nd reading:

Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God.”

This, shall we say, confusion among the American bishops of course led the laity to be confused as well. And that confusion led to a terrible social disaster just a few years later, when in 1857, a supposedly “devout Catholic” named Roger Taney, writing as the fifth Chief Justice of the United States, wrote the opinion in the Supreme Court case known as Dred Scott, upholding the institution of slavery in the America.

This is what happens when bishops — and priests — fail to clearly teach, or purposefully dissent from the well defined doctrine of the Church, handed on and protected by the office of Peter. The gates of hell prevail in society: slavery, the Civil War, and a 100 more years of racial oppression.

But when Peter is heard and obeyed, wonderful things can happen. Almost exactly a century after the Dred Scott case, in 1956, an American Catholic bishop humbly accepted the teaching of the popes, and even in the face of the mockery and violence, refused to conform himself to the world he lived in — the world of racial segregation of the deep South. His name was Francis Rummel, the Archbishop of New Orleans, and what he did was desegregate the Catholic schools of his archdiocese. And when large groups of Catholic lay people continued try to block his efforts, after ample warning, he excommunicated their leaders.

Imagine if the American Catholic bishops of the mid-1800s had been as obedient and courageous as Archbishop Rummel in implementing the teaching of Pope Gregory: if they had stood united against slavery. Maybe the Dred Scott case would have been decided the same way, but it probably would have been without Roger Taney’s help.

Now, some say if the Catholic bishops and priests in the South had actively opposed slavery they would been both marginalized and actively persecuted. Maybe. But the Prophet Jeremiah records the same problem in today’s 1st reading: “All the day I am an object of laughter; everyone mocks me.” Even so, he felt compelled to proclaim the truth — and did: “I say to myself, I will not mention him, …But then it becomes like fire burning in my heart…”

Some say all southern Catholics would’ve been persecuted, or that southerners would have left the Catholic Church in droves. Maybe. But that sounds a little like Peter, when he “rebuked” Jesus because he was afraid that Jesus might be harmed in Jerusalem. And Jesus told him: “Get behind me Satan.” Didn’t Jesus tells us:

Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me…. ?

I wish I could say this kind of thing is all behind us, but I can’t. Of course slavery is behind us, but unfortunately, many Catholics now accept an even greater social evil. Because while it’s horrible to take away an innocent person’s freedom, it is clearly even worse to take away an innocent person’s life. And so we face the abomination of the 21st century: abortion.

<h1>more</h1>

Yet the popes in our time have taught very clearly on this as well: the Church has constantly and infallibly condemned abortion as a grave evil — a mortal sin. From the first century teaching in the book called the Didache: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.’”To the 20 th century teaching of Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae:

by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors ….I declare that direct abortion… always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.”

Fortunately, virtually all the American bishops see this very clearly. Maybe they don’t all always speak up about it as they might. Still, one wonders if they imitated Archbishop Rummel, acting a bit more forcefully, if there wouldn’t be less confusion among Catholics about this terrible evil.

But the bishops are not silent. This last week I counted at least 13 bishops who, in very strong and unambiguous terms, publicly condemned abortion and corrected those who support abortion.

Unfortunately, or providentially, their hands were forced. They had to react to the public remarks made by a Catholic Politician,Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, as she publicly defended abortion on “Meet the Press” last Sunday. She argued “over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.” and disingenuously sought to defend herself by twisting the teaching of the greatest theologian in the history of the Church, St. Augustine.

For the record, and summarizing the bishops’ responses: this is a load of bunk.

Now, it is true that St. Augustine did wonder when the soul entered the body of the baby, and guessed that that occurred at about 3 months gestation. But 2 things to remember. First, Augustine lived in the 4th century and worked with 4th century biology: he had no clue about the development of the fetus. So he thought the soul entered the baby’s body sometime around the “quickening” — when the mother first feels the baby begin to move. But a careful reading of Augustine shows that he knew he was only guessing and working with limited science, and that if he had today’s science he would have agreed with the clear conclusion of medical science today that the embryo is alive at conception.

Second, even so, Augustine, like all the Fathers, condemned abortion from the first moment of conception, not merely after quickening. It’s true that there was a greater penalty for abortions committed after the quickening, but that was mainly because in those days, before the marvel of ultrasound, the movement of the baby was when there was absolutely certainty that the baby was alive. And with greater certainty comes greater culpability.

Finally, even if there was “a controversy” in the past, which is there was not, there can is no controversy today. Again, turn to Peter, and see the absolutely unambiguous language of John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae that I quoted earlier, and that Pope Benedict XVI quotes over and over again in his writings: “direct abortion…always constitutes a grave moral disorder.” And consider John Paul’s equally unequivocal words later in that same document:

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is … a grave and clear obligation to oppose them … [I]t is therefore never licit to … "take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it.”

In other words: it is always a grave or mortal sin for a politician to support abortion.

Now, some will want to say that these bishops—and I— are crossing the line from Religion into to politics. But it was the Speaker of the House who started this. The bishops, and I, are not crossing into politics; she, and other pro-abortion Catholic politicians, regularly cross over into teaching theology and doctrine, And it’s our job to try clean up their mess.

But there’s something more than that here. On Sunday, before the whole nation, she claimed to be an “ardent, practicing Catholic.” Imagine if someone came in here and said “I’m a mafia hit man and I’m proud of it.” Or “I deal drugs to little children.” Or “I think black people are animals and it’s okay to make them slaves, or at least keep them out of my children’s school.”

Are these “ardent practicing Catholics”?

No, they are not.

And neither is a person who ardently supports and votes to fund killing 1 to 1.5 million unborn babies every single year. Especially if that person is in a position of great power trying to get others to follow her. Someone, for example, like a Catholic Speaker of the House, or a Catholic candidate for Vice President of the United States, or a Catholic senior Senator who is stands as the leading icon his political party. Like the proud and unrepentant murderer or drug dealer, they are not ardent Catholics. They are, in very plain terms, very bad Catholics.

But the reason I say all this is not because I want to embarrass them or even correct them — they’re not even here. It’s because of you. Because back in the 1850’s when Catholic bishops, priests, and politicians were either silent or on the wrong side of the slavery debate, they risked not only their souls, but the souls of every other Catholic they influenced. I cannot do that, and I won’t do that.

Some would say, well Father, what about those people who support the war in Iraq, or the death penalty, or oppose undocumented aliens, Aren’t those just as important, and aren’t Catholic politicians who support those “bad Catholics” too?

Simple answer: no. Not one of those issues, or any other similar issues, except for the attack on traditional marriage is a matter of absolute intrinsic evil in itself. Not all wars are unjust — and good Catholics can disagree on facts and judgments. Same thing with the other issues: facts are debatable, as are solutions to problems.

But some things leave no room for debate. One of these is that it is always gravely evil to enslave human beings as if they were animals. And another is that it is always gravely evil to kill an innocent human life being — particularly the unborn. So, as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to the American bishops just 10 months before he became Pope Benedict XVI:

There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion….

Now, all this is not about bashing a politician, or about politics. And it’s not about telling you how to vote. Its about the truth and the teaching of Christ and his Church. About learning from the terrible mistakes of the past in order not to repeat those mistakes today. It’s about warning you against following those who would lead you to believe that you don’t have to love your neighbor because she’s still in her mother’s womb. It’s about following Christ in perfect union with his Church and his Pope, even when it’s difficult, even when it means picking up your cross.

As we enter more deeply into the mystery of Christ’s Cross and Resurrection in this Holy Mass, let us pray for ourselves, and for one another, and for our leaders in the Church and in public life. That each one of us may never conform ourselves to this age, but may be transformed by the renewal of our minds, always discerning the will of God. That we may be true followers of Christ, and in the most honest sense of the words, “ardent practicing Catholics.”

Wasn't Michael Phelps in the Republican convention crowd? He IS from Minnesota.

----WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? THAT PHELPS IS A REPUBLICAN!!??

No, no ...cool it man (or woman?) - i thought he was in one of those crowd shots!

----YOU'RE LYING!! YOU'RE JUST SAYING THAT BECAUSE HE'S A RECENT AMERICAN SUPERSTAR!!! BACK TO THE ISSUE.

Sorry, i'm saying what i saw. I bet the networks don't want to spin it because he is so popular in America and they don't want to connect the positive high ratings of Phelps 'in the house' with Palin!

-----WILL YOU GET OFF THE PHELP'S 'IN THE HOUSE' BIT. HE WASN'T THERE!!!

practice a little tolerance man. It's funny you speak diversity and tolerance and you 'spitting' all over me!

-----I DIDN'T EVEN MENTION THE WORDS TOLERANCE & DIVERSITY!! WHY AM I EVEN DEBATING WITH YOU! YOU STARTED THE SUBJECT! I'M GONE.... .

i wonder what phelps is going to say (politics) on oprah monday?

------I'M NOT HERE.....

Yeah but there's no doubt that if Phelps was touring with Palin you blues would make a scoundrel out of him too.

But again, let's consider Palin's strident position that creationism should be taught as science. Since there is not a shred of scientific evidence to support creationism as a science, Palin becomes the candidate who worships this false god, the antithesis of truth.

RW: Palin's strident position that creationism should be taught as science."

Please add this to your long list of false accusations from the Left about Palin.

From: Alaska News Daily "she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum."

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html

In fact, she back this up in her two years as Governor.

Really, it's not hard to go to the Alaska Daily News and look at the gubernatorial election to get facts.

Also, there is a televised debate from C-SPAN That put's the debunks the myth of abstinence-only education

PALIN: "I am pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I'm not anti-contraception."

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=193920-1

Also check out:

http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/510378.html

Which includes a list of questions the ADN asked Palin, including questions on Roe v. Wade and Faith Based Organizations

QUESTION: If Roe v. Wade were overturned and states could once again prohibit abortion, in your view, to what extent should abortion be prohibited in Alaska?

PALIN: Under this hypothetical scenario, it would not be up to the governor to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values.

QUESTION: Do you support an increase in state-funded, faith-based initiatives?

PALIN: We see an adequate level of funding for faith-based initiatives today."

<hr/>

There may be disagreements, but for pete's sake don't misrepresent her's position's and track record.

I find it hard to believe that the Left and willing journalists (NYT) are not willfully ignoring the ADN's stories, Palin's debates, and track record.

If I could find them, professional journalists and real bloggers of any political stripe can!

The lack of journalistic ethics we have seen has produced this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Soory Johnnie,

Also from the same Alaska Daily News:

"When asked during a televised debate in 2006 about evolution and creationism, Palin said, according to the Anchorage Daily News: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

In spite of your spin, she DOES advocate teaching creationism in the schools. Sorry. Creationism is not "information". It is religious orthodoxy that has no place in a science class. I am all for scientific debate, but creationism has no scientific basis, nor more than a chariot pulls the sun around the earth. We don't want luddites running our country.

"Sarah Palin KNEW her in-crisis child was going to be scrutinized by the media. She is personally responsible for allowing it to happen.

If I were to put my child on a defunct carnival ride that was owned by someone else--knowing that my child would be hurt--its MY responsibility. Does the owner have some, too? Yeah. But I'm the parent. Its my responsibility and my job to do the right thing."

i think your analagy here fails, but obviously we disagree on this point, so there's no need to keep going at it. however, i wanted to bring up one more point. you keep referring to bristol as "in-crisis"; i don't know if theres any real basis to assume that bristol or her family view this situation as being a crisis. in fact, it appears to be the opposite, and they are treating it as a celebration. there is no way to know. my sister teaches pregnant teens in high school and more often than not they are pregnant because they wanted a baby, and are quite happy about it.

oh, and Rob Kremer, "Rob Kremer:

I will ask you to kindly refrain from injecting rational and astute analysis into a BlueOregon thread."

thanks, i'll try to make sure these words haunt you at some point. ;)

Bristol is not "in crisis" - just bored and got the way she is becuase she was too bored to do anything else with her idle time on her hands. By making this an issue, it will encourage other teem girls to become pregnant out of boredom.

Sorry RW, read further...

“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum."

Words mean things. In 2006 she said she would NOT push creation-based education and as of 2008 she has lived up to her word.

Here's a good synopsis, if you can read diverse those

You are entitled to your own opinion but don't pull a Rove and convert opinion's into "facts".

Oh, and to be clear, Obama is NOT a Muslim, either.

For your safety and the safety of others, please do not feed the trolls.

Ok, the trolls are fed.

So lets change the subject about Palin's lack of understanding about the workings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"The fact is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers. The McCain-Palin administration will make them smaller and smarter and more effective for homeowners who need help."

Except that this is NOT a fact. The taxpayers have NOT funded these institutions, at least not until today. These have been privately owned. So the question remains, does Palin oppose the Bush plan for todays government takeover. (which, BTW, McCain also supports) or does she not understand how these two institutions have operated before the bailout. So far no taxpayer funds have gone to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. She may be right that they may be "too big", but details on alternatives were not forthcoming from her.

Todays financial markets have embraced todays takeover. To be sure, investors have to take a big loss, but the takeover has been a boon to current and future homeowners. Palin just doesn't get it.

I know there are a lot of posts here already, but I wanted to share my sister's perspective as an Alaskan woman. Oregon needs to remember our progressive values and that we set the bar for the rest of the country in many ways...

The Alaska Women I Know

I don’t know about you all, but this past week I’ve received numerous emails, especially from folks from Outside, asking the question: “So, what do you think of Sarah Palin?” Well, this is what I think. Sarah Palin does not represent the Alaska women I know.

The women I know believe that a woman has the fundamental right to decide what happens to her own body. We believe that families are blessings, but they are not job qualifications. We believe that talking openly and supportively about gender and human sexuality is the best way to avoid sexism and children having children. We believe that marriage is a sacred union and should be enjoyed by all women, including our homosexual sisters (and brothers for that matter).

We believe that a healthy environment is key to a healthy economy. We call Alaska’s wild salmon our ‘Red Gold.’ Women I know work hard—we wear yellow, fish slime-covered rain gear with pride and dig the dirt from our fingernails at the end of the day with satisfaction. Alaskans don’t escape from work, we escape through work. For so many of us, our jobs are not just how we make a living, but how we live, and that labor links us directly to the place we love. We believe in saving polar bears, not suing those responsible for protecting them. We recognize that the support of one’s community is a necessity for cultural, social, and personal survival in Alaska, whether it’s an entire village working together at fishcamp or a lone trapper’s promise that his log cabin will remain open and fully stocked for use by a perfect stranger. We respect our elders, our traditions, our land, animals, and fish, and we honor those whose footsteps blazed the trail before us.

We believe that higher education leads to more than just jobs; that it provides the foundation for an innovative, participatory, democratic society. We have faith in a variety of religions, but agree that none should be taught as science in the classroom.
Rather than supporting leaders who characterize themselves as “fighters,” we put our trust in leaders who emphasize words like “equality” “dialogue” “unity” and “respect”— both at home and abroad. We lament a crisis in American leadership when those with the most power belittle those who threaten their own political ambitions, rather than stand up to those who threaten the little guy. A true leader brings out the best in us, not the worst, and they always inspire us to dream.

We are proud to be strong, independent, loving Alaska women. We are Black, White, Latina, Asian, and Alaska Native. We too go from XTRA-TUFs to high heels, but we don't need a shotgun to prove how tough we are, nor do we need Vogue magazine to validate our beauty. Our strength derives from the beautiful home from which we come, the unique people we call Alaskans, and we will do anything to ensure that those things that make Alaska the best place to live in the world are left intact to our children. These are the Alaska women I know, what about you?

Katherine Johnson Ringsmuth Eagle River, Alaska

RW: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) issued a devastating report on F&F corruption. The OFHEO report says. “[The] achievements were illusions deliberately and systematically created by [Fannie Mae’s] senior management with the aid of inappropriate accounting and improper earnings management.”

Here's the Senior Management: Raines ($90M in 6 years), Gorelick ($24M in 6 years) and Johnson. Each became wealthier than corrupt Ken Lay, but they get bailed out. Why.....? Because they lobbied their friends and former bosses. Top recipients of Fannie/Freddie donations:

#1 Chris Dodd
#2 John Kerry
#3 Barack Obama
#4 HIllary Clinton

Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html

Palin's point was obviously that 1. Fannie and Freddie have always been a huge liability for taxpayers, because 2. everyone knew that the government would bail them out if they failed, and 3. a McCain-Palin administration would use the government's new authority over Fannie and Freddie to shrink these beasts down to size and protect taxpayers in the future.

Obama was paid to prop up F&F. Palin wasn't. Could that be why Washington is perplexed about Palin? She'll help take away their political enrichment schemes just like Republican's and Democrats have done for years? I hope so...but, I am skeptical.

It would be nice to have the American People hold all parties accountable and follow through with consequences.

Please expand your reading circle beyond the HuffPost.

People who read beyond the HuffPost have known Fannie and Freddie (Government Supported Enterprises, or GSE's) have ALWAYS been an increasing liability to taxpayers, and economists have been warning for YEARS that they have become too big and too expensive for taxpayers to hold that liability. (Does that last sentence sound familiar?)

Think about it, in one weekend, two GSE's now rival the tax burden for taxpayers of the entire Iraq War.

If gaffe's were a hindered to Veep's then Biden should be gone by now. But it's not. At least she didn't say, it's above my pay grade.

sidney is correct about the facts that, "1. Fannie and Freddie have always been a huge liability for taxpayers, because 2. everyone knew that the government would bail them out if they failed". But he should have noted from his link that "In the 2006 election cycle, Fannie Mae was giving 53 percent of its total $1.3 million in contributions to Republicans, who controlled Congress at that time. This cycle, with Democrats in control, they've reversed course..."

Our economy is a bipartisan exercise for the enrichment of the already rich with socialized costs and risks for the rest of us. The bailout is meant to prevent foreign investors from losing their money, not to protect home owners. Danny Schecter (http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/dannyschechter) says, "Close to collapse, these institutions were kept alive in part through foreign investments. As everyone knew, they were too big to fail not only in terms of their domestic impact but because their failure would undermine global confidence in the U.S. economy. Ie. stop the inflow of big bucks. Watch what happens: foreign investors will be protected one way or the other even as American shareholders take a bath. The question is: what will happen to American homeowners. So far they have been the last to be helped."

Well the today's "revelation of the day" is Palin's expense reports as gov.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26616212

HR,

I should have pointed that out but tried to be brief. This is a Washington problem that in this case is skewed towards the Democrats. The Republican's have issues skewed towards themselves and have been well documented in 2006.

I think this is scary - "Consider the experience of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan,...who decided in the 1990s that Fan and Fred needed more supervision. As he held town hall meetings in his district, he soon noticed a man in a well-tailored suit hanging out amid the John Deere caps and street clothes. Mr. Ryan was being stalked by a Fannie lobbyist monitoring his every word."

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121677050160675397.html

Sid

It's always valuable to do your research first.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

RW: This is too easy...

A 30-second google search (http://fin.admin.state.ak.us/dof/ak_admin_manual/resource/60t.pdf) shows that she did not inappropriately or illegally claim per diems:


M&IE
Meals and incidental expense allowance. The portion of per diem that reimburses travelers for the cost of meals and necessary incidental expenses including tips, laundry expenses, and other personal costs of travel.

The per diem consists of two parts, meals and incidental expenses, and lodging.

Per Diem
Per diem allowance is a daily payment instead of reimbursement for actual expenses for lodging, meals, and incidental expenses. It is separate from transportation expenses and other miscellaneous expenses.

Residence
The residence of a traveler is the location, or within 50 miles thereof, where the traveler maintains the primary dwelling.  If a traveler maintains multiple residences, the commissioner of the department shall designate the residence that bears the most logical relationship to the traveler's duty station as the traveler's primary residence. Factors to be considered in determining the primary residence include: the time ordinarily spent performing duties at each location; the degree of business activity at each location; the relative amount of state wages earned at each location. Agencies may also contact the Division of Finance for assistance.  [NOTE - obviously the governor of Alaska's duty station is not Wasilla, and so her primary residence is the gov's mansion]

M&IE Rules for Specific Situations
...If a traveler maintains a dwelling at their destination and it is available to them [NOTE - think Wasilla], they will be entitled to only an M&IE allowance for normal workdays. [NOTE - which is what she claimed] An M&IE allowance for other than normal workdays is not allowed.

Alaska Administrative Manual - Accounting Travel 60.28
If a traveler is temporarily returned to the traveler’s duty station while on a long-term assignment and is continuing to receive a long-term lodging per diem, the traveler is not entitled to any M&IE allowance while at the duty station. [NOTE - she did not claim per diem while at governor's mansion]

The document cited by the WaPost clearly shows she did not claim lodging while staying at her Wasilla house.

Perhaps the washington post ought to do some reporting rather than disseminating Obama's talking points.  Or maybe they are acting "like a heroin addict" like MSNBC  I mean seriously, why isn't the headline, "Sarah Palin Followed Alaska's Per Diem Policy"

Again, McCain will win if this is the best that Team Obama can do.

Stay Classy...

<hr/>

Buried in the Post's Article:

Gov. Palin has spent far less on her personal travel than her predecessor: $93,000 on airfare in 2007, compared with $463,000 spent the year before by her predecessor, Frank Murkowski. He traveled often in an executive jet that Palin called an extravagance during her campaign. She sold it after she was sworn into office.

"She flies coach and encourages her cabinet to fly coach as well," said Garnero, whose job is equivalent to state controller. "Some do, some don't."

Leighow said that the governor's staff has tallied the travel expenses charged by Murkowski's wife: $35,675 in 2006, $43,659 in 2005, $13,607 in 2004 and $29,608 in 2003. Associates of Murkowski said the former governor was moose hunting and could not be reached to comment.

<hr/>

The state capital, Juneau, (which is cut off from the rest of the state) is over 800 miles from Wasilla. I would very much like to see Democrats finger-wag at Palin's desire to maintain her family life while working.

<hr/>

Who pays for Binden's daily trips between Delware and DC? Answer at:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/expend_detail.php?cid=N00001669&excode=A10&cycle=2008&page=8

<hr/>

Let the hate go guys...it fogs your research abilities.

High School students working on Yearbooks do a better job of journalistic research than DC journalists and liberal blogger's lately.

There have only been 1,000,000 posts saying that those evangelical xtian patriotic scum are not an aberration. They are death on the hoof. Obama started his campaign with a well-known televangelist. All complete crooks and social evil on a comprehensive stage only recently accomplished by the Nazis. I just came back from a golfing trip in South Africa. Xtians there got to Nelson Mandela and changed his policies. The estimate is that over 2.5 million people have died as a direct result (not just SA). Black and colored people. White Xtians. White Xtians that promised they would kill blacks and coloreds if they ever ran the government as equals. Xtians in South Africa have used AIDS policy to carry out their threat and have succeeded. Palin has espoused specific programs in South Africa as a "working model". Take her at her word and stop giving her a bye for being dingy. She's saying that she likes the way those Xtians co-opted the government and killed 2.5 million uppity niggers. From this we can infer the kind of work should would choose on our behalf. McCain would no doubt make major show of neutering the Veep, but no doubt, the office will continue to gush brain damaged policy initiatives for some time to come.

The Nazi comparison was conscious. They are not funny and fringe any more than early associatiations with Hitler and Charlie Chaplin were accurate. They are sordid vermin and need to be exterminated. I would not fight an Arab I have never met, but I would march a Xtian bank executive out to a waiting jury and the gallows!

Next time something gets you up the butt really good, take the time to find all the causal associations instead of making casual associations. Every time you'll find an evangelical at the start of the chain, consciously trying to make your life a living hell. Someone throws something on your car and you're ready to fight. Xtians consciously try to ruin your life every day, succeed, and you do nothing.

That kind of brain washing starts at the cradle. Would you lecture your 3 year old niece on Dem politics? They do. How about just looking at what they do everyday and dealing with it as the unacceptable behavior that it is. You don't have to respect anyone that's just blowing, and doesn't even know their own principals. This Pauline cum Kapitalista krap that is called Xtianity has about as much to do with what an isolated rabbi, named Yeshua ben Yesef who thought he was the reincarnation of Isaiah was doing, as Jane Goodall does with a minimum wage cage-tech at the Oregon Primate lab.

Ok, Johnnie, if you want to talk about hate, how about Palin's "Sambo beat the Bitch" comment?

RW:

You are kidding right?

You are citing a woman with no last name, an unknown restaurant and no supporting witnesses?

Even the Kos piece, titled "So Sambo Beat The Bitch’ - Sarah Palin...", is now gone, erased, doesn't exist.

Palin's sure go people in a tizzy they are willing to believe anything! It's almost as bad as Clinton Derangement Syndrome that took over the Right in the early 90's. Back then it was Clinton was dispatching Black helicopters...

<quote>"I have no idea what Sarah Palin's relationship is with her kids and its none of my business. "</quote>

Will someone explain this to me? Call it the reverse Kantian moral imperative, but doesn't it make sense that if a politician is engaging in a behavior that wouldn't be sustainable if everyone else did it, it's an issue. Particularly if the issue is The Issue. Or will global warming not be the biggest issue of the generation? If we all have family practices as hers, we could not make any goal and would foul our nest hopelessly. How can it not be an issue when her biggest "trust me" promise is that she would deal with big energy in a progressive, sustainable manner. How can the fact that her family choices are not sustainable not be an issue? How can she be credible saying that she will not be cowed by the men of big oil, just because it's big, when she bases her sexual behavior on the instructions of an elderly bachelor, whose organization has been convicted in US court of harboring paedophiles? It is very much the heart of the issue.

Obviously you know this. I can only conclude that the PC-correct value of not questioning breeding behavior trumps policy. And we must not question breeding behavior. Generates most discretionary spending.

Yeah, let's leave the kids out of this. I have had 8 kids after age 40 and I'm tired of hearing that I'm not there to raise them, they'll be societies prob after I'm gone, or that their lives will suck do to overpopulation.

Being American means being able to make that choice, and knowing that it doesn't hurt anyone except a few sweaty hippies.

I live in Detroit. I see stupid parents everyday, but they're not white Republicans!

Galveston,Texas needs bottled water and ice !Search and Rescue teams on go !We called the Salvation Army !

For emergency support have we reminded our older citizens to have a whistle ? Galveston,Texas ! Bottled water and ice needed ! Search and Rescue Teams on go ! Also,there was a train wreck in LA and rescue teams are there ! We called the Salvation Army but they aren't in on Sunday's and you can't leave a message. We'll call again tomorrow ! Is Mayor Thomas okay in Galveston,Texas !She got a lot of people out of there !Go fast ! Bottled water and ice !

What do you make of this story?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457_pf.html

If it is founded, why is the media selecting a moment in the Palin interview and replaying it as a byte when it will ultimately harm the Obama effort once fully-researched? Does this 4th estate so disrespect the electorate's understanding or willingness to expend energy to educate itself that it will select a shaky point to play out of an interview rich with weaknesses?

I am not versed enough in the Bush Doctrine to assess this article for bias.

Dead Horse & Stick Time: front and center on the dreaded Drudge - Sarah Palin's ankles, calves and chic, slightly-hotter than not black pumps..... and that's all. This on the way to looking over the latest WSJ, NYT etc blares on the campaign.

(disclaimer [do an auditory paste of your big brother bleating out "Playboy... the interviews... " as your mother burns his stash]: I cruise DrudgeReport for the LINKS to international news resources, not the shot of Sarah Palin's ankles in a pair of heels worthy of a BDSM QUEEN! Really!)

So: would anybody care to discuss the sex business running around under the rubric of gender and womanhood like a little wormy red thread in the campaign?

Regarding the Palin family situation, family values are healthy and strong.

While clearly a set of family values we all want our kids to live by--no premarital sex--failed to prevent Palin's daughter from making a foolish decision which will impact the rest of her life, let's stop pretending that kids won't be kids. They will do the stupid things of life IN SPITE of what their parents have told them otherwise. I for one won't be so hypocrital as to suggest that just because my parents told me not to do certain things that I didn't go right out and do them--whether it was to not cross a street, not sit on someone's handle bars, not drink or smoke, not sneak out at night, not have sex, whatever. I know for a fact I disobeyed them and went against their word more often that I'd like to admit. But I got lucky, and didn't have to suffer the consequences of most of those mistakes.

Palin's daughter isn't so lucky. It's unfortunate that Palin's daughter has to learn at such an early age that with decisions come consequences, and consequences that she must own up to. But don't be so quick to translate the daughter's decision to go against her mother's word as a failure of family values, a failure of the candidate, or a failure of the party. Owning up to and embracing the situation is the ultimate example of family values at play here--she is keeping the baby and she is marrying the young man with whom she will raise the child--and for that, what we are witnessing first hand is the triumph of family values over moral relativism.

Luckily, I'm not seeing any reports, good or bad, on the children of any of the candidates.

And frankly, that's great and noble. Children deserve to be protected.