Sarah Palin
AFAIK Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin were the best possible pro-life picks for VP. Jindal refused, and this morning McCain has announced that it’s Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska. Some are saying that she’s Catholic; others say that she is an Evangelical Protestant. In any case she’s an admirable woman: mother of five, a strong pro-life record given her short political career, and she’s real easy on the eyes (quite a bonus there).
The FSSP parish in Maple Hill, Kansas, has printed a set of Catholic voting principles that would rule out a vote for McCain. Zippy and Lydia would undoubtedly concur. In light of the Palin selection, however, I’m going to be thinking it over …
21 Comments »
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
Having done a little more homework, it seems pretty clear from most sources that Governor Palin is a protestant, affiliated with the Assemblies of God denomination.
Palin’s also a feminist:
“I can’t begin this great effort without honoring the achievement of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and of course, Hillary Clinton, who showed determination in her presidential campaign,” Palin said. “It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America. But it turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.”
How tiresome. I’m ready to smash the glass ceiling just so the feminists will quit whining.
First Steve complaining about a Governor being ambitious, and now you complaining about a woman Governor being a feminist. What on earth do you expect? Be glad she’s pro-life and pro-freedom. Don’t ask for perfection. Your wife isn’t going to run.
Believe it or not, I think it is quite possible for a female governor not to be an ideological feminist. But I’m not asking for perfection, just noticing some problems. For the most part I really like this lady.
Me too. If I thought there was any real chance she’d make a difference, I’d vote for them. I’d vote for her in a heartbeat.
About Palin making a difference, here’s another red flag:
“Gov. Sarah Palin vetoed a bill Thursday that sought to block the state from giving public employee benefits such as health insurance to same-sex couples.
In the first veto of an administration that isn’t yet a month old, Palin said she rejected the bill despite her disagreement with a state Supreme Court order earlier this month that directed the state to offer benefits to same-sex partners of state employees.
Advice from her new attorney general said the bill passed by the Legislature was unconstitutional, she said.
‘Signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office,’ Palin said in a prepared statement released by her administration Thursday night.”
OK, so what’s she going to do when the SCOTUS declares that same-sex marriage is the law of the land, the Senate votes on a law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and she’s called to break the tie?
No, no, let’s use a more pertinent example. What will she do when the Senate votes on a bill that limits abortion, and she’s called to break the tie? Sometimes the courts need to be challenged, and legislation is the best way to do that.
Mrs. Culbreath would NEVER seek any kind of public office. Mrs. Culbreath is far from perfect. Mrs. Culbreath will NOT vote for any woman simply because she is a woman.
LeXuan
Tiresome, but not unexpected? I find it difficult to muster any enthusiasm for Sen. McCain’s choice, even if others can point to all sorts of reasons why this is a good pick, or reinforces his “conservative credentials” or “conversion” as it were…
Thank you, Mrs. Culbreath! Not that I had any doubts! I disagree with you on one thing, however: you are not very far from perfect. :-)
And I just have to say that the Palins have a mighty handsome family. Mighty handsome. That last photo is says it all. Like I said over at Steve’s place, if this becomes the “poster family” of the executive office it could start a new trend and reverse our country’s declining birthrate. One can dream …
I’m super excited for her. By “feminist”, perhaps she is using the true definition, which is that women do indeed have the same rights as men, and can go to work and vote and run for office if that is what they choose to do. Since women worked rather hard for the chance to vote, I agree with that part of feminism. I disagree with NOW and other so-called women’s organizations very, very strongly. It depends on what you mean by feminist. Don’t forget about her pro-life stance and the fact that her youngest has Down’s and is less than two years old. Considering that 80% of people abort when they find that out, she and her husband obviously put their money where their mouths are.
Did you also see she sold the former governor’s jet on Ebay? I loved that. It looks like she really does believe in less government spending and favors for your buddies. I also have a friend who has met her, and says she thinks she’s great.
Palin is the best news I’ve heard all year.
:)
“Don’t forget about her pro-life stance and the fact that her youngest has Down’s and is less than two years old.”
I don’t forget. I might vote for her as President, even, but not for McCain because he picked her as VP. And, dare I say it, I think she probably should be at home with at least her special-needs baby and her little girl, not to mention the thirteen-year-old. Even 13-year-olds need their mothers around a lot. I realize this makes me sound like a cranky old grouch, and Mrs. Palin does sound like a very lovable lady with a lot of great political credentials. And as I say, from what I know so far, and if she weren’t joined at the hip to John McCain, there might be circumstances in which I would vote for her. But there was a time in America’s history when everyone would have expected the question, in light of such a situation, “Isn’t it a little unwomanly to have your children taken care of most of the time by someone else, including a tiny baby, while you run for and hold down a political office?” I’m still old-fashioned enough to say it.
Sarah Palin: Homeschooler.
How about that!
“But there was a time in America’s history when everyone would have expected the question, in light of such a situation, ‘Isn’t it a little unwomanly to have your children taken care of most of the time by someone else, including a tiny baby, while you run for and hold down a political office?’ I’m still old-fashioned enough to say it.”
For the majority of people, yes, a mother should be physically present to her young children most of the time. But there have always been exceptions. Female monarchs and other high-born ladies often had their children taken care of by others. Some sainted women even left their children in the care of relatives while they embarked upon religious vocations. So I don’t see anything intrinsically scandalous here. It might be that she has an exceptional vocation – I don’t know – and that her family arrangements will depart from what should be the norm.
Of course, this is hard to justify in an egalitarian society where our leaders are supposed to have “the common touch”. We want them to be just like us, but different. So the message could be: “hey, if the VP can do this, why shouldn’t I?”
But actually, the reason so few people are raising the point I raised is because people think of it just the opposite. Women’s having careers outside the home is the norm. The idea is that every woman can do both–be outside of the home and be a mother–and Mrs. Palin is just a typical American in that regard.
She’s pretty interesting. While I agree with Lydia’s point, there is an “only Nixon could go to China” quality in modern politics that she fits perfectly. As an image thing she – without doing a thing – makes Obama look like a snotty elitist political operator, and she is likely the only veep pick who could have done that. Her inexperience in Washington politics and principled nature are almost certainly advantages. If she were the presidential candidate I would have to re-think sitting out for the first time since I started sitting out.
More on Sarah Palin’s denominational affiliation (or actually lack thereof) from John Allen:
Sarah Palin and Christian post-denominationalism
Yes, it’s NCR. Just read Allen’s article – don’t go anywhere else :)
sarah is a very good to be the presedent
of the usa
wow, seriously just because she is a woman doesnt mean she is a good choice, im liberal by choice, and yet i even step back and look at the liberal side of things from the conservative and most of the time i see that the liberal side is right but some times its the opposite, but just because she is a woman and her “pro-life” stance doesnt make her any better than Bush who will most likely go down in history as our worst president ever
Sarah Palin has lied, and worse lied about her core credentials. (Anti-pork, conservative gov, she didn’t even back her stance on gay marriage when she had the chance)
Isn’t it a sin to lie?
Isn’t it worse if you are lying about the very things you are claiming make you worthy of office?
SARAH PALIN IS FFFIIIIIINNNNNNEEEEEE!!!!!!
Now you go about pro-life. Do you know anything else shes for or against?