Comments on: Sarah Palin

By: Maria

Maria — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:42:03 +0000

Now you go about pro-life. Do you know anything else shes for or against?

By: John McCain

John McCain — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:56:37 +0000

SARAH PALIN IS FFFIIIIIINNNNNNEEEEEE!!!!!!

By: Kate Hrabsky

Kate Hrabsky — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 05:13:18 +0000

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?

By: Tylor Bercier

Tylor Bercier — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 06:59:50 +0000

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

By: mary

mary — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:47:42 +0000

sarah is a very good to be the presedent
of the usa

By: Alan Phipps

Alan Phipps — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:17:19 +0000

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 :)

By: Zippy

Zippy — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:45:41 +0000

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.

By: Lydia

Lydia — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 02:59:22 +0000

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.

By: Jeff Culbreath

Jeff Culbreath — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 01:55:41 +0000

“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?”

By: Jeff Culbreath

Jeff Culbreath — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 01:46:32 +0000

Sarah Palin: Homeschooler. How about that!