Replies

I questioned her decisions (risk-taking) with her last child. If she can be so casual about her own child, and put politics first, I think my doubt is well founded.

What decision(s) that you have specific knowledge of did she make about her child that you criticize? The decision I know about for sure is that she decided to have the baby, unlike 80% of other mothers in that situation. That wasn't putting politics first, that was putting faith and values first.

She is also a hardline Evangelical Christian and I do not trust people who think they are on a mission from God. That is too Mohammedan for me.

Do you have a specific statement along these lines you strongly object to? Or better yet, do you believe that you are NOT on a mission from God? Kosta, ALL Christians are on a mission from God.

She also spouts Christian values and her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant! If she can't instill Christian values in her own family, then all this "hollier-than-thou" is a label with no substance.

It sounds like you believe that children of good and Godly parents don't make mistakes like this. It sounds like you don't personally know any parent, you know is a good Christian, who has had any moral problems concerning their children like this. That just can't be true because it defies the reality of the world. There are tons of examples in the Bible disproving your assertion. One is that you must think the father of the prodigal son was a terrible father.

I'm afraid you take the far left position on this one by accusing Palin of hypocrisy for what her daughter did. To the shock of the left and the media, Bible believing Christians have come out in force to support the family. No one condones what the daughter did, but everyone recognizes that the family came together and made wise choices afterwards. I just saw this article earlier today explaining why those who would agree with you on this don't understand us: Sarah Palin's Amazing Grace. It's reasonably short and right on point to your statement.

Many people in this country would still consider what happened to her daughter as scandalous. But the Palins seem to be fine with that.

I'm not sure what you think Sarah Palin should have done. Should she have disowned her daughter? The Palins are public personalities. They did not shout this with glee from the mountaintop. When it became clear it was going to come out they hit the issue square on with love and support for their daughter. Many would have secreted her away for an abortion. The Palins did not.

But, all these objections set aside, I based my judgment as a reaction to Karl Rove's conviction that Gov. Kaine of Virginia was unqualified to serve as Vice President even though he was a Governor longer than Palin (twice a long), in a state that has 11 times the population of Alaska, and was a mayor of a city that has one third the population of Alaska, and 21 times the population of Wasilla, AK.

So, you base your judgment of Palin based on something Karl Rove said about someone else??? Well, if you think that's fair, then OK. The fact remains that objectively Sarah Palin is MORE qualified by experience than Obama is. In the voting decision, one looks first to the Presidential candidate. The experience comparison there is embarrassing. So, it is obvious that millions and millions are willing to overlook that lone issue.

But you seem to expect everyone else to be objective with Gov. Palin?!?

I do not think you are being objective. If you used the criterion you just told me about, then you would not be able to vote for any candidate for almost anything. Somewhere, a pundit would have criticized another person with a similar background, and you would be forced to disqualify the first person because of that. IOW, if you were being objective, then you would have to more quickly disqualify Obama on experience and announce that you're not voting for either ticket, which is of course your right.

I can't, because no man to my knowledge has a broken water and risked infection to deliver the speech instead of going to the hospital, as the specialists recommend, let alone take a roundabout way to deliver in Alaska because you don't want your "Alaskan fisherman" to be a "Texan!" (I am assuming you have done your research and are familiar with what I am referring to)

I'm assuming you're referring to a two-paragraph blurb in a liberal Texas newspaper, quoting an Alaskan NBC affiliate. No attribution is given as to sourcing, such as "Her doctors said:". If you have nothing more, then you might as well go right to KOS to get the information you want to use in your arguments. :)

You're assuming that she is good and the other side is bad. So far I have not seen anything concrete to back up your assumptions. You have not quoted one source, just your opinions.

I KNOW the other side is bad because I hear what they tell me about themselves, and I know their voting records. I assume Palin is good from what I have heard so far. I "think" I can source anything I've said about her, so if you have a specific request, go ahead. :) As of today, there is no question that I do NOT know her as well as the others. I want to know more, and I will. So far virtually everything I know I like, so I'm supporting her so far. That's reasonable.

The worst thing is that the press will not go away. Sarah Palin needs the press on her side rather than antagonize the press. Of course, the McCain staff will not let her say anything to the press for a good reason.

AFTER you wrote this I just heard that they are rolling out a media schedule to send her to the wolves. That's good because she MUST show that she can handle herself. I think the first one is going to be with Charlie Gibson on Thursday. I don't blame the campaign at all for taking a few days to bring her up to speed on all of McCain's positions, which it is her main job to defend. That's what VEEPs do. There's no "hiding" of her. She WILL be dealing with the press and I hope she does well.