# Palin and the Media double standard



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Am I the only one left scratching my head? When it comes to feminist don't they like women who leave their children home with their husbands for a career? I thought it would create a couple million synchronized orgasms. I mean if stove pipe legs Hillary dancing on the beach with Billy did it for them Palin should have put them in spasms for hours. Oh, I forgot you have to be an ugly woman to be accepted into the fold.

I watched an interview of Susan Estridge a quasi feminist who ran the presidential campaign for ----- was it Mondale? Anyway, she described the attack on Palin's children in many terms, most that I can't remember. Despicable, tasteless, vile, shameful were a few adjective used.

What strikes me most is the double standard the media and the feminists have set. In all honesty I am feeling as confused as I am vindicated, because I have often stated that the media is bias, and I have often stated that the feminist really don't give a rat about women. To be accepted by the feminist you don't have to be a highly educated woman, you don't have to be an intelligent woman, you don't have to have a career, you don't need to be competent, you only need to be for abortion, hate men, be liberal, and it doesn't hurt if you look like your mother had to hang a pork chop around your neck to get the puppy to play with you.

Oh, and for those who thought there was even a remote chance that Palin's last child was actually her daughters ------- Desperate House Wives is not a documentary.

Maybe Ann says it better.



> THE BEST MAN TURNED OUT TO BE A WOMAN
> September 3, 2008
> 
> John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, as his running mate finally gave Republicans a reason to vote for him -- a reason, that is, other than B. Hussein Obama.
> ...


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

good read, the liberal press will be working overtime to diminish the Palin effect.....huge bounce for McCain, coming up, with lots of Regan conservatives, who were holding back, now ready to pledge their financial and auditory support!


----------



## Two Dogs (Nov 1, 2006)

So have you seen the papers and heard the talking heads this morning? "Palin mocks Obama." Funny how she gave examples of her road to the VP nominee and Obamas road to the Pres. nominee and she defends her rise and it is called mocking. I watched the whole speech and the last thing I thought, on that subject, was that she was mocking him. She was DEFENDING herself, but I did find it funny. But the media came to Obamas defense almost immediately.


----------



## GUNSHIP (Jan 18, 2007)

Don't fret about Sarah Barracda. She knows how to take care of business. I can't wait till she debates Bimbobiden.

She'll cut his heart out, if he has one, and hand it back to him.

Best wishes, Bill


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Two Dogs said:


> So have you seen the papers and heard the talking heads this morning? "Palin mocks Obama." Funny how she gave examples of her road to the VP nominee and Obamas road to the Pres. nominee and she defends her rise and it is called mocking. I watched the whole speech and the last thing I thought, on that subject, was that she was mocking him. She was DEFENDING herself, but I did find it funny. But the media came to Obamas defense almost immediately.


The media will always come to Obama's defense, they are unable to help themselves:










huntin1


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Please... they media's all over her not because she's a woman but because 98% of the nation knows nothing about her. It's no different than the "was Obama educated in a madrasa" type stuff from primary season. They're digging up information. It's up to us to decide what to do with it. I couldn't care less about any of her personal stuff, but other people might.



GUNSHIP said:


> Don't fret about Sarah Barracda. She knows how to take care of business. I can't wait till she debates Bimbobiden.
> 
> She'll cut his heart out, if he has one, and hand it back to him.


Yes... who needs actual foreign policy experience when you've got a bachelors in Communications and Journalism from North Idaho College. :roll:


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

Boy, are the liberals missing the point? Palin has little to no Foreign policy. OMG how terrible? But if I'm not mistaken she is running for VP. Let's compare Obama to McCain. No they don't want to do that. Not much to compare with 143 days of experience as opposed to 22 years. Another thing the libs like to do is compare Obama to Bush. I'm sorry the presidential candidate spells his last name M c C a i n. McCain is not Bush nor will he ever be. I personally don't care. I don't like Obama. I don't believe in him and frankly his lack of foreign policy and how he believe he can deal with these terrorist scares the crap out of me. I think he will weaken this country and tax her to death. I think McCain did well last night. I like him a little more than I did a week ago. I'm not completely enamored with him but he'll get my vote (as if in NY that means anything). I really like Palin. But let's get down to brass tax. Let's stop comparing Obama to Palin or Bush or whoever else they can avert attention from the real issue. It's between McCain (the individual) and Obama (the individual).


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

I'm not saying that the foreign policy experience matters as much to the ticket as a whole (McCain's got plenty), but in VP debate it's going to come up. At least Obama picked a running mate who helped his weak point. If he hadn't picked Biden or Richardson, I would've been really concerned. Clinton, W, Reagan, and Carter had little foreign policy experience as governors either. I'm not overly concerned about that as a weak point for either potential ticket as long as somebody's got the experience. However, when it's one-on-one, it's kindof a mismatch in that area. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I agree with both of you I think. There is no comparison between McCain and Obama, and if your talking foreign policy there is little comparison between Biden and Palin.
I think McCain made a wise choice because he solidified the conservative right when he added Palin. He also added a woman which will bring some Hillary Democrats. The conservatives that were so disappointed that they would not even vote will vote now.
I like you Bgunit68 am a little more happy with McCain today than I was a week ago. There was a number of things he said that I liked. He said he would change the do nothing politics and worked for the country not either party. I liked that. He said that He change working for power and self to working for our country. Perhaps one of the things I liked most was when he said he would have judges that did not legislate from the bench. 
I'll go out on a limb and say that the bump Obama got from the DNC would have disappeared to even again with the RNC. With the addition of Palin it will slide further right and I would predict that McCain and Palin will move into about a two point lead by Friday of next week. I know I'm out on a limb, but that's what I see happening. Now it will be fun to watch.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Bgunit68 said:


> Boy, are the liberals missing the point? Palin has little to no Foreign policy. OMG how terrible? But if I'm not mistaken she is running for VP. Let's compare Obama to McCain. No they don't want to do that. Not much to compare with 143 days of experience as opposed to 22 years. Another thing the libs like to do is compare Obama to Bush. I'm sorry the presidential candidate spells his last name M c C a i n. McCain is not Bush nor will he ever be. I personally don't care. I don't like Obama. I don't believe in him and frankly his lack of foreign policy and how he believe he can deal with these terrorist scares the crap out of me. I think he will weaken this country and tax her to death. I think McCain did well last night. I like him a little more than I did a week ago. I'm not completely enamored with him but he'll get my vote (as if in NY that means anything). I really like Palin. But let's get down to brass tax. Let's stop comparing Obama to Palin or Bush or whoever else they can avert attention from the real issue. It's between McCain (the individual) and Obama (the individual).


you forgot one thing.....NO-bama's 130 "present" votes......they don't allow those votes in Alaska! :lol:


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

You can call me Mark, too. I ave had the Big Unit nickname from being a 6'8" softball pitcher. But back on subject I would say I gained a lot more respect for him and ccmpletely agree with you view on Palin.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

From The Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122048406528596987.html

Palin's Faith Is Seen 
In Church Upbringing

By SUZANNE SATALINE
September 4, 2008; Page A6
At the Pentecostal church where Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin worshipped for more than two decades, congregants speak in tongues and are part of a faith that believes humanity is in its "end times" -- the days preceding a world-ending cataclysm bringing Christian redemption and the second coming of Jesus.

The Rev. Ed Kalnins, pastor of the Pentecostal church, Wasilla Assembly of God, says he has told church members that God put President George W. Bush in office and that America is locked in a "holy war" with terrorists.
Mr. Kalnins's views and the teachings of his church provide a glimpse of the religious upbringing of Gov. Palin, 44 years old, whose Christian credentials and antiabortion views have been lauded by social conservatives. Gov. Palin hasn't discussed her personal and spiritual beliefs since she was named to Sen. John McCain's ticket on Friday, and the campaign hasn't been eager to discuss them.
"I am not going to get into that. I think talking about where she worships today and how she characterizes herself speaks for itself about where she is today on this issue," says Maria Comella, a campaign spokeswoman.

As a junior high schooler, Gov. Palin was baptized at Wasilla Assembly of God, where she attended with her family until 2002 before joining another church, which is evangelical and nondenominational, according to Mr. Kalnins, the pastor since 1999. He said the governor has continued to visit his church for meetings and conferences.

At Mr. Kalnins's invitation, Gov. Palin appeared on stage in June before a youth group at Wassila Assembly of God, where she reminisced fondly about getting baptized there, before asking the young people to pray for a proposed natural-gas pipeline in Alaska and for American soldiers.
"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country," Gov. Palin said, in a video of the talk posted on the church's Web site. Pray "that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure we're praying for: that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

David Gushee, a Christian ethicist at Mercer University in Atlanta, says he is troubled that a public official might presume that government action could be God's intent. "I would never think it is appropriate to describe the actions of the United States military or the strategies of our commanders as a plan from God," Mr. Gushee says.
Mr. Gushee says Gov. Palin should explain her beliefs concerning the inevitability of a cataclysm and the end of time. "To me, it is highly relevant to someone who potentially has her hand on the nuclear button," he says. "If that is her worldview, I would want to know about that."

The McCain campaign has said Gov. Palin was baptized as an infant in the Catholic Church and that for the last seven years, she and her family have attended the Wasilla Bible Church, a nondenominational church in Wasilla. The church is evangelical, though not Pentecostal or charismatic, and believers don't speak in tongues, said its pastor, the Rev. Larry Kroon. He described the church's teachings as "so normal." Several sermons, posted on the Internet, discuss aspects of common Christian theology, such as the significance of communion.
While in Juneau, the state capital, Gov. Palin attends the Juneau Christian Center, an Assemblies of God church, while in session, said her spokeswoman, Sharon Leighow.

At the Wasilla Assembly of God, Mr. Kalnins's predecessor, the Rev. Tim McGraw, who served until 1998, says Gov. Palin attended a "discipleship class ... to deepen her faith in Christ" and worshipped at the church at least twice a week.
The Wasilla Assembly of God and its parent denomination -- the three-million member General Council of the Assemblies of God -- espouse core beliefs not widely ascribed to by major Christian factions. Many members pray in undecipherable sounds or "tongues." The denomination's Web site says some scholars believe that the "end times" foreshadowing the end of the world was confirmed in 1948, with the founding of the state of Israel, marking the Jews' return to the Holy Land, fulfilling a Biblical prophecy.

The Assemblies of God is part of a Pentecostal movement that numbers 80 million people world-wide.
The Bible, Mr. Kalnins said in an interview, foretells world events. "I don't think it's God's will to have a war," he says. But in Iraq, America is fighting an enemy that has made it a war over beliefs, he said. "I really think it is a holy war. It's a war of gods. ... When someone fights in the name of God, that becomes a holy war."

Mr. Kalnins is an enthusiastic supporter of "Governor Sarah," as he calls her, and of President George W. Bush, who, he believes, was put in office by the hand of the divine. "I believe criticisms come from hell. God has placed this man in authority. ... You criticize the authority, you're literally bringing in hell with the criticism."


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

You're pretty hard up for a story Bob to post that. Actually the pastor she has now was in Lisbon before heading north.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

g/o said:


> You're pretty hard up for a story Bob to post that. Actually the pastor she has now was in Lisbon before heading north.


Ok, so riddle me this:

1. The story comes from a legit source, the newly acquired by Rupert Murdorch Wall Street Journal.

2. The story is about potentially controversial statements by a pastor of Gov. Palin's.

So what is so hard up about it? Sounds Reverend Wright-esque to me. Ironic that the subject of this thread is about double-standards.

*IOKIYAR:*

It's OK If You're a Republican. Explanation for an action or statement by a Republican which, were the responsible person a Democrat, would be cause for a firestorm of outrage. (May also be stated as the converse: INOKIYAD: It's Not OK If You're a Democrat.)


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Robert A. Langager said:


> g/o said:
> 
> 
> > You're pretty hard up for a story Bob to post that. Actually the pastor she has now was in Lisbon before heading north.
> ...


touche' sir.

As is this bit of irony posted recently by the Tennessee Free blog,

*
http://tennesseefree.com/2008/09/04/iokiyar/*

Watch the entire clip. A spot on accurate assessment of the "double standard" many here seem to enjoy trying to employ.

pot meet kettle.

All of this is a friggin' joke. 100% *IOKIYAR*


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

*Sigh*

After looking at what constitutes dribble here amongst all of you falling all over yourselves after having been tricked into drinking the Republican :koolaid: I'll give you a much more objective response to the Palin speech. If you are truly objective that is...

Sarah Palin better have thanked the baby Jesus for the low expectations of her speech. Prior to her speech (written, BTW, by former George W. Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully) Palin was widely criticized as an unknown quantity-a barely tested, unvetted, small-town mayor and PTA mom with no foreign policy credentials, a history of corruption, and *zero prior presence on the national stage.* Given that setup, if Palin had merely managed to appear composed, human, and literatea few nights ago while reading her prepared remarks to an adoring crowd, the media would have declared her speech a triumph. Hell, if she'd driven onstage in an F350 pickup, *dragging a bloody caribou and waving an Alaskan secession flag*, they would have probably declared it a draw.

Fortunately for Palin, she went above and beyond the media's laughably low expectations. Many found her charismatic, tough, and ball-busting-like, in her own words, "a pit bull in lipstick." She blasted the "elites," the "pollsters and pundits" who said she wasn't qualified-and then, in a mean-spirited, snarling pit bull of a speech, *completely ignored the substance of their accusations*. Instead, Palin focused almost exclusively on Barack Obama, sneering contemptuously that his work as a community organizer involved no "actual responsibilities" (would she say the same thing about, say, MLK?), mocking him for wanting to "read [al Qaeda terrorists] their rights," and identifying him, by association, with "San Francisco" values.

Did it work? *In context, sure.* Palin's speech was directed at the Republican _base_-where "base" is defined as "hard-right, xenophobic white people who want to control what women and gays do with their bodies but are scared Big Guvmint's gonna take their guns away and give 'em to the terrorists."

As for the rest of America, well, if you set aside those aforementioned low expectations, I'm not sure which new supporters Palin was hoping to win over to McCain's cause. Almost every single sentence included at least one tired, generic, circa-1995 Republican catch phrase- to name just a few: "media elite," "profile in courage," "small-town values," "massive tax burden," and "permanent political establishment." (*Like, say, her running mate-a 26-year veteran of Congress?*) If Obama's popularity has demonstrated anything, it's that people are ready for a new plan-and with it, a new rhetoric. Calling Obama a do-nothing, tax-and-spend liberal isn't just wrong; *it isn't interesting*.

And speaking of rhetoric: It's highly ironic that Palin dwelled on Obama's use of rhetoric ("when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot&#8230;What does he actually seek to accomplish after he's done *turning back the waters and healing the planet?"* ((his words)) in a speech almost completely devoid of substance. I'm not just talking about the fact that she didn't talk about policy (and *lied*, as *the AP* and *others have documented, *when she did address it).

I'm talking about the fact that, unlike Obama, _she failed utterly to respond to the widespread, well-documented criticisms of her as a candidate._ Palin's pitch for herself as vice president was a combination of smears and biography-as if knowing your small-town constituents and having a baby with Down Syndrome (or, for that matter, being a prisoner of war) qualified a person to occupy the White House! :eyeroll:

The strength of Obama's speech at the Democratic Convention last week wasn't just that he "turned back the waters," whatever that means; it was that *he acknowledged his opponents' attacks and systematically dismantled them.* Tell me ONE time she did that in her speech? ONE PLEASE? :roll:

Palin may get away with ignoring her opponents' criticisms when she's in front of an adoring audience; but those criticisms aren't going to go away just because she adopts a folksy tone and mocks Obama's comparatively extensive experience. And attacking him on his strengths-community organizing, charisma, and ability to bring people together-isn't going to play among undecided and Republican voters who are thinking of voting for Obama for exactly those qualities. Again, this was the RNC, not a debate-and in the debates she won't be facing Obama, but Joe Biden, a vice-presidential candidate whose Congressional experience can't be dismissed with a cute rhetorical flourish about "actual responsibilities" or "small-town values."

But the biggest reason I think Palin's (and McCain's) fearmongering, don't-let-the-terrorists-win rhetoric won't work is personified in McCain's opponent. Cheesy as I've often found all the hope and change stuff to be, the clear truth is that it resonates with a huge segment of the American population, and not just the longtime Democrats who vote in every national election. *About 21 million people watched* the Republican convention in its first full day-4.3 million fewer people than watched the first day of the Democratic convention, and 600,000 fewer than watched Day 2 of the 2004 convention, which featured the much-less-dramatic renomination of George W. Bush. Those numbers are anecdotal, of course, but I'm hardly going into uncharted waters when I say they speak to a larger trend in American politics. People don't want to be told to be afraid of what they don't know, afraid of a new party in the White House, afraid of change in the economy and the health care system and Iraq. People want to let go of those fears. By playing up the theme of fear-the same fear they've embraced for decades, the fear that if you don't grab yours, *some immigrant/black guy/uppity woman/PC liberal elitist will* just like many of you hear allude to often-_the Republicans are missing the fact that people are actually sick of the politics of resentment, backlash, and recrimination._

Finally, about those Hillary voters you all crow about at every opportunity....

You know... they aren't being fooled by the theme "any pair of boobs will do". Palin is on _the wrong side of a majority of America's female population_ on nearly every issue that could be categorized a "women's issue": Abortion rights, abstinence-only education, fair pay, education, and much more. Women aren't stupid.

Most who supported Hillary did so because she was the first progressive, smart, charismatic, Democratic female candidate for president we'd had. Now that she's no longer in the running, the vast, _overwhelming majority_ -including Clinton herself-are supporting Obama-a fact that shouldn't surprise anyone who's been paying even a little attention for the last eight years.

I think alot of you really need to sit down and look at what little substance she actually does have. Sure she may support your views on certain key issues. But we are talking about her overall qualifications to be President should the need arise.

Keep the big picture in focus.

Has anyone noticed today that the McCain campaign is getting peppered with questions about her political positions on a variety of issues, and they keep deflecting the question? They don't want to talk about them. They keep avoiding the questions. Well folks.. those questions aren't going away anytime soon. She'll have to answer them at some point, and the clock will strike midnight, and Cinderella won't be wearing slippers.

After McCain's speech last night, I think he is a very honest man with a ton of conviction. Heck I'd vote for him if it mattered in my state. I think he made a HUGE lapse in judgement trying to select this person as VP. He clearly saw that his campaign needed a huge shock to generate news, as noone was excited about his prospects. I think this went too far though... and so do a LOT of others.

Ryan


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Sarah Palin better have thanked the baby Jesus for the low expectations of her speech.


Whoever wrote that and thought it was humorous just insulted every Christian that reads it including me. I guess mocking Christians is trendy these days though.

As far as the pastor talking about God's plan: Most pastors I know preach from the Bible. In there it says you can not serve two masters, you either serve God or Satan. They think everything we do has an affect, and is not neutral. I would guess every pastor from every denomination in America would agree. If your not familiar with Christianity comments like the above will not be clear to you. It's not like they say we should be fighting this war, it's more like they think it has been started by Islamic terrorists and one of the reasons they hate us is because we are Christian and they hate everyone else also because they are not Muslim.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> 2. The story is about potentially controversial statements by a pastor of Gov. Palin's.
> 
> So what is so hard up about it? Sounds Reverend Wright-esque to me. Ironic that the subject of this thread is about double-standards.


That would be former pastor, unlike Obama's Rev. Wright, since you want to relive that.

I know many of AG church members they are good people religous yes and I guess thats what scares you


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

g/o said:


> That would be former pastor, unlike Obama's Rev. Wright, since you want to relive that.
> 
> I know many of AG church members they are good people religous yes and I guess thats what scares you


First Bob is hard up for posting an article about Gov. Palin. Now I am afraid of religion for pointing out the double standard. You are proving my point. You can go after a Democrat with anything it takes, apply the same to a Republican....................................*IOKIYAR*


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Pastor of 20+ years vs. former pastor, that is beside the point. You can spin it however you want, even into some perceived fear of religion. You are only proving my point. You can go after a Democrat with anything it takes, apply the same to a Republican and you are scared of religion.


A little difference in what they are saying in the pulpit. But nice try anyway Robert :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think the big difference here is on one hand we have a pastor that says GD America and some would compare that to a pastor that thinks we are in our last days. Often we find Christians thinking we are in our last days because things look bad. All Christians believe that at one time that will occur, but I think it's going to get a lot worse than this. So among Christians the only argument is the timing. There is no comparing a pastor that says GD America to a pastor that may have his chronology flawed. One is a political point, the other is just making fun of Christianity.

Since these two things are entirely different I don't see the double standard. The only connection is two pastors. One without question hates America. The other I think is interpreting wrong, but that isn't vicious like pastor Wright. The viciousness in this case is ridiculing a man for his religious concepts not his political view. Granted he has managed to link the two and I think he is wrong there. I find the way the authors went about denigrating the pastor was also mocked Christianity, and the context in which they presented it was as offensive as pastor Wright himself. I'm not going to take a political position on this. It's more important for me to defend Christians, who although differ from what I think, are painted as fools.

I guess what I am saying is attack the pastor if you want, but don't attack religion. Attack Palin if you want, but Christianity??? Statements like Palin better thank baby Jesus is, well --------


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> I think the big difference here is on one hand we have a pastor that says GD America and some would compare that to a pastor that thinks we are in our last days. Often we find Christians thinking we are in our last days because things look bad. All Christians believe that at one time that will occur, but I think it's going to get a lot worse than this. So among Christians the only argument is the timing. There is no comparing a pastor that says GD America to a pastor that may have his chronology flawed. One is a political point, the other is just making fun of Christianity.
> 
> Since these two things are entirely different I don't see the double standard. The only connection is two pastors. One without question hates America. The other I think is interpreting wrong, but that isn't vicious like pastor Wright. The viciousness in this case is ridiculing a man for his religious concepts not his political view. Granted he has managed to link the two and I think he is wrong there. I find the way the authors went about denigrating the pastor was also mocked Christianity, and the context in which they presented it was as offensive as pastor Wright himself. I'm not going to take a political position on this. It's more important for me to defend Christians, who although differ from what I think, are painted as fools.
> 
> I guess what I am saying is attack the pastor if you want, but don't attack religion. Attack Palin if you want, but Christianity??? Statements like Palin better thank baby Jesus is, well --------


If anyone watches that movie clip I posted prior to my long post, and fails to see any "double standards", I have no words.... It is patently obvious.

So much so that noone here could possibly refute any of it. It is black and white, words and video of people who decidedly are full of shiat. Every last one of them.

Further... if all anyone got out of my long post was the fact that my tongue in cheek comment about baby Jesus was a dig against religion it was not. It was more of a general mockery of the fact that this woman with her ultra radical religious views could potentially be President of this country. There is no way she is fit for office, given her proven propensity to bully people into cowing to her demands that are clearly shaped by the teachings of her church. This country was founded by people who did NOT want religion interfering with the workings of government. This nation was not founded under CHRISTIAN ideals, but rather religious freedom in totality, including the right to not practice any religion if a person so chooses.

In Palin, we have a candidate who is so Christianly devout that it completely clouds her ability to form objective common sense policy decisions (that aren't overtly influenced by religious dogma). Palin is _clearly_ showing a conflict of interest in that regard. She is essentially Pat Robertson in heels. But I digress, I'm done with that sidebar and wont comment on it again.

My long post above was spot on accurate. Whether or not you choose to believe it, that is how the average citizen in America viewed it as.

It is only a matter of time before she is yanked off the ticket...

Have you all noticed that unlike Obama/Biden who are making solo independent visits to different places to speak, that the John McCain team isn't allowing the "Pitbull with lipstick" off the leash yet? Nope. They want her right by McCain's side so that she doesn't go "off message" too soon, or worse, get caught being quizzed on something "too sensitive" that might throw the McCain train into backpedal mode.

It's glaringly obvious why....

Someone has to spend extra time doing their homework on topics they know nothing about and have no experience discussing. It's only going to take 1 or maybe 2 glaring faux pas for everyone to wake up from the fairy tale.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> ultra radical religious views


They really are not that far out of line.



> This nation was not founded under CHRISTIAN ideals,


Actually it was.



> including the right to not practice any religion if a person so chooses


That's true, but they thought religion and freedom of speech was so important they combined them in the first amendment.



> so Christianly devout that it completely clouds her ability to form objective common sense policy decisions


I wouldn't know about that. Do you have some examples that made you form that opinion?



> My long post above was spot on accurate. Whether or not you choose to believe it, that is how the average citizen in America viewed it as.


I don't think that is correct at all. Look at how many people like her. On TV today I heard many liberals say good things about her. Her approval rating in Alaska is 80%. Today, one report was that about 60% of people so far like her. That makes the statement that the average person doesn't like her incorrect.



> It is only a matter of time before she is yanked off the ticket...


I don't gamble at all or I would love to take your money on that one. Anyone else out there want a sure bet?


----------

