Posted on 03/05/2009 7:42:22 PM PST by ASOC
It was either this woman or an Environmentalist freak, who would be hell bent on destroying any chances of Alaska becoming an energy producing state. Geez these were the best choices they could give to Sarah..that’s like saying “Who would you want to share an apartment with, OJ Simpson or Scott Peterson?” Sucks these were the only choices Alaska had to offer
Smith is more than an environmentalist, although that is where he made a name for himself, he is a radical leftist on par with Ayers.. it is odd this so called pro-life group promoted him considering he is very, very pro-abortion, with no question about it unlike Christen whose connection is very vague..
Murkowski asked for additional names and was rebuffed-—it ended up being a large political embarrassment for him. The process is set by the Constitution...period.
PP was not advocating abortions when Christen was on the board. Reports are now surfacing that, from the additional information received by Palin, she discovered that Christen was primarily an advocate for adoption while on the PP board.
Is there any more info on whether Christen in pro-life or pro-choice (I read that she is a strong proponent of adoption).
I think also because the other 'article' wasn't actually a news article but one person posting a vanity question about it..
She is strong on adoption. It is Smith who is very very pro abortion, in fact, he is even worse then that. Christian was the better choice, she may not be perfect, but considering the other choice available, she is the better pick
good. :)
I can’t find more than what I posted on the other thread on that, which was an article by a Catholic publication saying she was ‘pro life on everything but birth control’.. for Catholics that could be anything from RU486 to the pill or condoms as they consider the latter not acceptable either.
That may be technically correct but all buts are off that she’s pro-life.
Is this news reporting or what?
” Former Gov. Frank Murkowski once rejected all three nominees sent to him, then, when the council wouldn’t send him more names, appointed from the list.”
“No vacancies came up during Murkowski’s single term.”
Yeah I read that Sarah got info about Christian that she was for adoption while on the board, Sarah received info about both candidates and Christian was the better choice. That Smith guy sounds pure evil, no wonder she didn’t go with him. Also, when Murkowski asked for additional names he ended up looking like a fool, no way did Sarah want to go down the same road as Murkowski. This is why the media has not reported on this, because this can in no way harm Sarah, if the media thought for a second this was something that could be used to smear her they would talk about it
Why are 'all buts off', the entire issue is based on this one charge, if there is a question if that group was even pro abortion when she was there, it challenges the initial assumption until another source of information.. right now it is an unknown..
:D
This was the lesser of two evils as far as Sarah was concerned. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was done on purpose to pin Sarah into a corner..either pick the pro-choice chick or the environmental, pro abortion to the core, William Ayers wannabe. I would have gone with Christian too..what other choice was there..how about “none of the above” LOL
LOL - all bets off, I meant. She may have been the better of the two but if so that would be a pretty bad field still. Right now it’s not clear yet what is what. The first I heard of it was when it come over Greta as breaking - and it ‘came over’ like a ton of bricks. We shall see.
You can no more ban abortion than you can ban guns.
That’s an excuse.
Well, we all know Sarah is as pro-life as they come. When people actually read who the two choices were I’d say she was backed into a corner, and I think she knew it too, she knows every decision she makes will be criticized, so this one will be too. I think most people will read up on the guy she passed up on and see that he was even worse
Gotcha, I thought you meant the issue is closed.. I think there is a big mystery going on here.. Why did the so called pro-life group who are bringing these charges up (all of this is based on one e-mail sent from this group) promote the pro-abortion Smith?
I think there is something ugly under the surface about this whole thing.. if anything, the reporting stinks..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.