GRIEGO: Palin pick brings with it a boatload of assumptions
By Tina Griego, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published August 31, 2008 at 10:45 p.m.
My God, the assumptions thickening the air around Sen. John McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate could gag a person.
First comes the idea that her gender alone will draw still-angry Hillary Clinton backers to the Republican ticket. Yes, she appealed directly to those voters in her introductory speech to the country, referenced the 18 million cracks in the hardest, highest ceiling, made the you-go-girl, we're not through, yet, rallying cry.
But no more than three seconds should pass before the obvious hits: Sarah Palin is a hard-right social conservative who represents almost nothing Clinton does. Hillary Clinton stands for far more than being female, and you couldn't look at her on that stage last Tuesday night and not know you were looking at commander-in-chief material. Any Clinton backer who says he or she will now vote for the McCain-Palin ticket was never a Clinton backer at all.
If women want to support the Republican ticket, and specifically Gov. Palin, based on her experience, her record, her defiance of easy categorization, more power to them. I have my disagreements there, but, hey, that's the way democracy works. To make a strictly gender-based assumption is to reduce a woman to a uterus with a vote.
Second, I almost drove off the road laughing at the conservative adulation heaped upon Gov. Palin because she is a woman with five children, one of them a 4-month-old boy with Down syndrome. Don't get me wrong. I'm 44, the same age as Palin. I have a husband and two young children and the work-family balance is an ongoing high-wire act. That Palin, a wife and mother of five, has accomplished all she has - mayor, governor - is admirable. It says much about her discipline and her powers of organization. I give her credit for that.
But, you tell me with a straight face that the same conservative talking heads who are praising Palin for the commitment she has just made would not be the first to bleat and blare into their microphones about the, shudder, scandal of a Democratic mother with a Down syndrome baby working 14-to-16-hour days on the campaign trail.
Assumption: Republican mothers, brimming with virtue, run for their country. Democratic mothers, blinded by ambition, run for themselves.
Third, Palin is an opponent of abortion in all circumstances. As evidence of her commitment to the life of unborn children, I have heard, oh, I don't know, 5,000 times in the past three days how she and her husband knew they were going to have a child with Down syndrome and, hush now, still kept the baby.
"She not only talks the talk," I keep hearing, "she walks the walk."
Because you know now, this assumption goes, those pro-choice women are out there right and left, killing the life within them at the first sign it may not be perfect.
This is such an absolute line of bull, I'd laugh, if it didn't tick me off so much.
I am a supporter of abortion rights. I was pregnant at 37. I had a blood test suggesting possible genetic damage to the child I carried. The docs said I could have an amniocentesis and find out for sure what might be wrong. My husband and I talked about it and decided, thanks, but no thanks. Because the procedure posed a risk - slight as it may have been - to the baby.
Because it did not matter to us that our child might be born with Down syndrome. Because, ultimately, we believe a child has more than a right to life. He or she has a right to love, to security, to opportunity and we could provide all that.
Our son was born and besides his refusal to potty train before he turned 4, he's turned out all right.
I don't pretend, and neither should you, that my husband and I are exceptions because we chose - the operative word here - to forgo further genetic testing because we would not have terminated the pregnancy, anyway. There are thousands of mothers and fathers of children, yes, many of them with Down syndrome and other congenital disabilities, who love their children with all their hearts, who will tell you parenthood is a blessing and who still support the right to abortion.
The difference between Gov. Palin and us is that we believe the choice we made - that she made - was a personal one and that we the people, the state, cannot assume control of another person's body.
We share gender, but gender alone, like race or ethnicity or religion or sexual orientation, guarantees no votes, makes no promises, reveals only glimpses of the whole.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
September 1, 2008
6:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
hogarm writes:
Thank you.
September 1, 2008
7:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
JessSpiz writes:
Just like I wouldn't lump all all pro-choice parents into the category "those pro-choice women are out there right and left, killing the life within them at the first sign it may not be perfect" please don't assume all social conservatives would "bleat and blare into their microphones about the, shudder, scandal of a Democratic mother with a Down syndrome baby working 14-to-16-hour days on the campaign trail." I think there are many variances within each party and you can still be pro-life and a supporter of women's rights.
September 1, 2008
7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
GetaReal writes:
" we the people, the state, cannot assume control of another person's body."
You talking about the baby or the mother?
September 1, 2008
8:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
Griego, you're critique of Palin shows that you are nothing more than a starry-eyed Obamabot.
Gone are the days of UNBIASED journalism! SAD!
September 1, 2008
9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
samsmargolis writes:
Griego is clearly angry that an accomplished woman with more CEO experience than BHO has been tapped for the ticket. She's more interested in the single issue of abortion than overall experience and qualifications. "But, hey, that's the way democracy works."
What Griego won't acknowledge is this: it is harder to be a woman and get elected as either the President or VP than it is for a man of any color. In case you don't get this, Griego - sexism is a bigger issue than racism in this country. I like the fact that Palin has worked hard all her life to get to her current position. I really like the fact that her husband is a common working stiff, like me. I like the fact that they're not multi-millionaires like the rest of the stiffs (of both parties) running in the campaign. And, I particularly am fond of the fact that four years from now, provided she is elected to the VP slot, she can run for the big office when McCain is done and have a legitimate shot at cracking that ceiling, too. I see Palin as more Margaret Thatcher than BHO is JFK - not even a contest.
September 1, 2008
9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Tom writes:
Thank you, Tina. Nice article.
September 1, 2008
11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
If everyone could drop the posturing for a moment, they might see some potential here. We have a problem in this country with infrastructure. Our traditional path of solutions disappeared with Gramm-Rudman. We're behind in replacing bridges, repairing highways, all that. No one disputes that.
Now, everyone reading this, say all together, "it's Bush's fault." Thank you. (Actually, if you want to blame someone for a host of sins, pick on Phil Gramm. Bush's problem is he wasn't paying enough attention to trace it back. He hasn't a clue.)
The Senate of the United States, Democrat, Republican, Democrat again, have avoided infrastructure. Replacing bridges gets little headlines, unlike collapsing bridges, which we'll see more of. That's how Murkowski was able to build a bridge to a small island because the press ignored it until drama intervened, "the bridge to nowwhere." Palin wasn't on the scene, unfortunately. Both parties are avoiding the issue because it's not sexy. Sarah Palin's expertise is infrastructure. This is THE problem of every small town mayor in America. Towns with hundred-year-old water delivery systems need a Palin.
In the end, American government is not about compiling lists of racists, liars and idiots. Monitoring attitudes was the job of the German SS. The closest we have to monitoring attitudes is the racial industry.
You have to really comb these posts to find anything relevant. "Idiot," "racist" and "liar" are repeated mantras, a religion, reflecting only the state of soul of the accusers and no reality whatsoever. And a woman's right to choose is the most unfortunate euphemism the English language. It's surely an insult to all unborn human life. The only complaint they utter is to cry when plucked. Are the cries of an infant lies?
Government is about roads, bridges, levees, water supply, sewerage, border and commerce protections. The timing is right for someone like Palin. I've been hearing the term "racist" for a half century and have yet to meet a racist as defined by my dictionary. The term seems to have grown to anyone who's point of view a liberal dislikes. But I have met failures in dams, streets, bridges, water supply, and drainage. These aren't phantoms, they exist. And as fast as the Denver metro area is growing, water supply is more important than compiling a list of racists.
September 1, 2008
12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
RS writes:
The fact is you and your husband did NOT choose to have the child, only you did. The father has no input to this decision. He might try to influence the decision, but under the law he has zero choice in the matter. The only input the father has is a financial one - to pay for the decision of the mother. Period. End of story. Obama has also made no promise to correct this inequality.
September 1, 2008
12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
raoul writes:
thanks RS. my exact sentiments. real simple solution to fix this inequality you so succinctly describe.
if the sex is consensual than the mother-to-be must get consent from the father.
anything short of that is an unacceptable injustice to the father-to-be.
I hear the naysayers already.
my answer: Shuddup and don't try me on Gringo's page. She's obviously a lib loon and i don't think she's worth more than one 3 cent page hit.
September 1, 2008
1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
dougers writes:
I normally appreciate Tina's perspective but this time, holy cow! From the first two words and through the rest of the column I had to struggle to get past the offensive and close minded tirade!
September 1, 2008
1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
jhous1490 writes:
Wow, what a role model this Palin turns out to be!! She not only kept her Downs syndrome baby, at the tender age of 4 months Palin's gonna hit the campaign trail with 3 kids in tow. Oh and a grandbaby on the way...it's gonna be a busy fall, Sarah. Sure hope you don't decide to have any more kids yourself....the Oval office can't hold them all!!
September 1, 2008
3:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
stevelbg writes:
what were they thinking. Experience!! PTA and the small town mayor. This is going to make a lot of late night host very happy. It is too funny to believe. I can hardly wait to see the SNL shows where Biden and Palin are being quizzed about the school lunches, city garbage pick ups and pot holes. And by the way she did support the bridge to no where and has only recently flip flopped on the issue.
September 1, 2008
9:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"Experience!! PTA and the small town mayor. This is going to make a lot of late night host very happy. It is too funny to believe. I can hardly wait to see the SNL shows where Biden and Palin are being quizzed about the school lunches, city garbage pick ups and pot holes." - stevelbg
I'm going to ignore Griego's boring nonsense and dive right into debating responsive non-paid morons instead of unresponsive paid morons.
stevelbg, is it your position that we should choose our running mates, or our presidential candidates for that matter, based on the approval or disapproval of our national jester crowd? You seem to imply that because idiots in the entertainment industry may poke fun at a candidate, that that is enough reason not to nominate the candidate.
God help us if this country has ceded political control over to dumb comedians.
Shall we look to jesters like Letterman, Stewart, Colbert, and the entire cast of SNL for a Gladiator-like thumbs-up or thumbs-down for our political candidates? If so, perhaps we should apply a similar filter to the national electorate.
September 2, 2008
1:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
Tina you are spot on! McCain's choice of this poor meeskite from Alaska plays right into the arch conservative religious right and fails McCain's so-called maverick persona.
And now with the revelations of her underaged pregnant daughter?! SHEESH! Let's hear it for abstainance, instead of sex education and every other religious right agenda item Palin supports. Maybe if she would have taught her child about abstainance AND condoms she might not be knocked up.
Palin's family choices are certainly HER own...but she does not have the right to impose hers on other women. There are sadly young girls who's mothers are not Governors or VP candidates, without the resources and support as Palin has. Those girls/women should make the choices best for themselves as well.
September 2, 2008
8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sensible writes:
Griego - YOU are the one making a BUTTLOAD of assumptions.
Have you considered that McCain picked Palin for Palin?
There's a thought...
September 2, 2008
9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
Correction.. I meant to write YOUR critique of Palin instead of you're!
September 2, 2008
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
McCain just handed the election to the Democrats.
His obvious pandering by picking his biological opposite (young, female) will backfire.
No matter how the Republicans try to package her, she is still too young and too inexperienced to be the person who is a heartbeat away from the Presidency. And, and aging heartbeat at that.
McCain's policies are weak. So are Obama's. McCain will spend money we don't have continuing to fight an unwinnable war. Obama will spend money we don't have on an expanded federal welfare system.
They both deserve to lose, but only one - McCain - will.
The country deserves better than a choice between an empty suit and a throw-away candidate.
Maybe in 2012 ......
September 2, 2008
11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"McCain will spend money we don't have continuing to fight an unwinnable war." - P_Denver
Which war are you referring to? Do you mean the war in Iraq that we have won? Did you know that the Anbar province has been handed over to Iraqi control? Did you know that we are now negotiating a date for troop withdrawals because we have beat the enemy?
September 2, 2008
11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
dakar writes:
Palin challenged the intrenched Republican party in Alaska - and won. She then went about reducing some taxes in the state for its citizens and she increased taxes on oil companies and got them to agree to her terms without trying to drive them out of the state. -- Ritter could learn a few good lessons from Palin.
She will be on the campaign trail for the next 2 months. Not 2 years like the other candidates. I think Palin can identify with regular working people much more than most. She also pushed legislation in Alaska to help provide easier access to healthcare for people and to make make providers be more open and transparent in their offerings.
September 2, 2008
12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
John II
Yes, I am referring to the war in Iraq.
Just because the enemy is not currently engaging with our troops is not significant. They don't have to. All they need to do is wait for us to leave, then restart hostilities. They know we won't go back in. They will win.
That's the problem with an insurrection versus a country-to-country war. Unlike the world wars, you can't make a foreign government "give up" because there is no government to defeat.
September 2, 2008
1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
fatheromalley writes:
Wow.. here comes the anti Palin hype.. right on time:
"Sarah Palin is a hard-right social conservative who represents almost nothing Clinton does. Hillary Clinton stands for far more than being female, and you couldn't look at her on that stage last Tuesday night and not know you were looking at commander-in-chief material. "
Has Hillary, Obama or Bidden ever balanced a state budget where there is no Income Tax (a state size Fairtax fought for by Palin) and pays people to live there?
Have they ever taken on the corrupt in their own party and won?
Oh, that's right, the Democrats have none, sorry..
Have they ever sat across the table in negotiations with big oil about revenue for their state and won but still had the support of the oil industry?
Have they ever successfully guaranteed Native American Fishing rights for their respective states or negotiated international fishing rights with foreign countries?
Aren't their Senate votes always couched with 99 others, so that they could vote against a bill for appearance sake (Iraq) that they know is going to pass anyway?
How many times has Obama voted against the special interests of the Democratic Black Caucus?
How many times has Obama voted against the blame America first theology of his racist "spiritual advisor"?
Has he ever voted against restricting law abiders from arming themselves?
Try these for more than this "white noise" from a collectivist rag:
www.votesmart.org (Think you’re being ‘spun’? Effortlessly find out who your local, state, and federal reps are by your zip. Investigate their “stands” and voting records)
www.fairtax.org (Completely un-tax those in poverty, tax on consumption of New retail goods and services, start nurturing success instead of taxing it.)
www.numbersusa.org (This group was a major player in shutting down the Capitol Hill telephone exchange the day the Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill was defeated by WE THE PEOPLE. Secure our borders and fully enforce Title 8 of our Nationalization Act)
www.grassfire.org (Ramos and Campeon, now serving ten years in solitary confinement for shooting a Mexican drug dealer in the buttocks in a federal high security prison)
www.knowledgepublications.com (Real Science about converting to the Hydrogen Economy from a carbon burning based economy. Develop new carbon sequestering industries that manufacture carbon based durable goods, including tires, building materials that are stronger and lighter than steel)
www.jihadwatch.org (Ignore the white noise propagated by the media, politicians and domestic Islamic special interest groups, walk on the wild side)
Or go to www.fatheormalley.com for click through’s to all the above..
Participate in this grand experiment of individual freedom..
Love to all,
Father O’Malley
September 2, 2008
3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
Father O, et al
It really doesn't matter. McCain's not going to win, so his VP pick is inconsequential. This is an example of his poor decision-making skills. It's obvious pandering, and the voters will see thorough it and either resent it or laugh at it.
The last eight years under Bush have been disasterous for the Republicians. Their choice of McCain this year was based on the (mistaken) assumption that Hillary would win the Dem primaries and be unbeatable in the general election. So we had a throw-away candidate in McCain, and now a throw-away candidate for VP.
We will re-group in four years and have a viable candidate for both President and VP, and try again.
September 2, 2008
3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"Just because the enemy is not currently engaging with our troops is not significant. They don't have to. All they need to do is wait for us to leave, then restart hostilities. They know we won't go back in. They will win." - P_Denver
I see.
So, when things were going badly for us, it was because our presence was causing all of these angry insurgents to fight us. Now that things are going great for us, it is because our presence caused the insurgents to hide.
Therefore, whether violence is increasing or decreasing, either scenario is proof that we lost the war. Brilliant.
September 2, 2008
3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
John II
You are, of course, free to interpret events according to your paradigms. You have your own life events to guide your philosophy.
I never said the part about our presence causing anything. That's your contribution to the post. There are many reasons regarding why the battle began. That's a topic for a different time.
I equate the eventual outcome to the Khemer Rouge, the Viet Cong, the Sandinistas, and other insurgencies. If there is no government to defeat, you need to (a) kill all insurgents, or (b) cut off their funding.
I submit to you for your consideration: we are doing neither. Therefore, in the long run, there is every possibility they will win.
September 2, 2008
4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Achilles writes:
"I equate the eventual outcome to the Khemer Rouge, the Viet Cong, the Sandinistas, and other insurgencies. If there is no government to defeat, you need to (a) kill all insurgents, or (b) cut off their funding." - P_Denver
And you don't think we are killing a significant number of insurgents or significantly disrupting their funding? Also, are there other options in addition to killing them and cutting their funding? For example, could the establishment of a democratic government persuade folks, like Sadr, to pursue political options rather than violence? Could the insurgents lose the will to fight? Or question what it is they are actually fighting for? And, is it possible that we have sufficiently trained and developed Iraq's army that they can handle any new insurgencies when we leave?
September 2, 2008
5:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
John II
All of those are possibilities. I don't happen to believe it's the case, but I hope you are right and that the conflict will end -- for good -- very soon.
Best regards,
P_Denver
September 2, 2008
10:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
fatheromalley writes:
"The last eight years under Bush have been disasterous for the Republicians. Their choice of McCain this year was based on the (mistaken) assumption that Hillary would win the Dem primaries and be unbeatable in the general election. So we had a throw-away candidate in McCain, and now a throw-away candidate for VP."
Where'd you get all of this "inside" dope.. You know any top notch political advisors to McCain?
Or is it the dailies that give you your ideas?
Sarah solidified McCain's base that had been wavering.. now they have a pitt bull in Sarah..
Do you know the difference between a soccer mom and a pit bull?
Lipstick..
She's the perfect choice. This election might not go the way the pundits predict. In fact the Democrats might not even pick up any seats... they might even lose some...
I think the vast majority of Americans will not want a black president at ANY COST. You really want your first black president to be the right one, and I know that if Obama is elected, history will not be kind..
Socialism, Tyranny, Rebellion, Freedom, Socialism, Tyranny, Rebellion, Freedom does not have to be repeated. We have a chance..
I trust neither Party, but I'd rather put my money towards McCain than a marxist.. sorry, I must not be as embarrassed of America as you..
Love to you,
Father O'Malley
September 3, 2008
7:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
HopiMedicineMan - right on. The insults are a distraction from the real issues. Party trumps person. The reason roads and bridges are falling apart is they don't vote. Social programs bring in the votes from the recipients.
September 3, 2008
7:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
RJS07 writes:
I'm for the life of me still puzzled as to why Hilary is SO qualified. All she's ever actually done is be married to someone and run for office. Is it the pant suit?
And I thought McCain being selected had something to do with the primaries. And that part of why BO was nominated is that he will carry the black vote. And he selected Biden because he's an old white guy to carry some of the white vote.
September 3, 2008
7:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrfxx writes:
T1anda writes: Griego, your critique of Palin shows that you are nothing more than a starry-eyed Obamabot.
Griego is absolutely correct about the fact that the right is notorious for "do as I say not as I do" politicking - heck, they even found fault with the Chelsea Clinton's campaigning for her mother - Chelsea is 28 and has been employed for 5 years - after getting her master's (as opposed to 17, in high school, unwed and pregnant)! And all hell broke loose during the impeachment of Bill Clinton when Larry Flynt requested information on members of the GOP in Congress who were exactly as faithful as Bill was - as I recall, several actually resigned, although more put on a brave face and pointed out that they weren't being impeached for lying about infidelity.
Perhaps, since this article was about Palin's stance on abortion (and her personal decision) T1anda would be happier if Griego had pointed out that when Palin's water broke while Palin was at some convention in Texas, knowing that this was a high-risk pregnancy AND the fact that Trig would be a Down Syndrome child, instead of checking into a hospital in Texas, she CHOSE to hop on planes for 10 hours to go home to Alaska, putting the baby at more risk. How about Gov. Palin's position on teaching anything but abstinence in regards to sex education (which Palin has fought at every turn - and has worked out so very well with her own daughter)?
As for you men out there whining about "the father has no input" and coming up with the absolutely ludicrous remark that sex with men must somehow be proven to be consensual (as if the average man had the integrity to turn down sex, even if he knows the woman is incapable of making that decision) is nuts. Oh - I forgot - men are unable to make the decision to either use a condom or keep their pants zipped - or only have sex when they want to deal with the potential consequences. As someone else pointed out sexism is more prevalant than racism today - they forgot to point out it is more socially acceptable.
September 3, 2008
8:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
Sarah Palin represents a REAL "change" from the status quo and politics as usual that Obama only promises. It's long been a tradition that the VP nominee is the hired hatchetman for the Presidential nominee. NOT the Governor from Alaska!! Rather than tearing down her opponents. Palin has decided to reinforce the message and agenda of reform from John McCain.
Notice that Palin never mentions Obama or Biden in her speech at all. Contrast that with Biden's introduction in Springfield, Illinois where he took the oppertunity to attack John McCain from all fronts.
This is further proof that John McCain picked Sarah Ppalin from a position of strength and Obama picked Biden from a position of weakness. After going through a well-publicized internal struggle over picking somebody like himself versus picking somebody that fill in his weaknesses, Obama went for the latter and decided that he needed a hatchetman more than enything else. McCain decided to pick a validator, someone who can challenge the "3rd term Bush" attack head on!
I hope the Democrats continue to attack Palin. I hope they continue to underestimate her, because she has been underestimated for her whole political career and has always been told she can't win. She she has proved all of her doubters wrong!
Sarah Palin is a winner!!
She also has what the other three candidates do not have. Executive experience.
September 3, 2008
10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
yaakovwatkins writes:
Tina's thesis that Clinton was not attracting votes because she is a woman is nonsense. Pundits have been full of the Black vs Woman decision the Democrats had to make for months.
As for Palin's age, she is one year older than JFK was when he was elected.
As for her experience, she is a governor. Presidential candidates either come from Congress where they get no managerial experience, or they come as governors with managerial experience but no foreign policy experience.
Tina's experience with her abortion decision, was personal. But we don't allow presidents or vice presidents a personal life. Every thing they have ever done is fair game.
If a woman who truly believes that abortion is murder aborts a Down's baby, she is emotionally guilty of murder. Far too many people are willing to make other people do the right thing, but when they are faced with a hard choice, wimp out. That is why Palin is getting the kudos. She is being consistent with her stated beliefs.
It is not nearly enough to vote for McCain and her. But it's a piece.
September 3, 2008
10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
P_Denver writes:
Father O
If I had insider access I couldn't admit it or I'd lose it.
Like you, I'm an observer. So I'll admit to this being my opinion.
Thanks for your response.
Best regards,
P_Denver
September 3, 2008
10:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
MileHighPatriot writes:
"Because it did not matter to us that our child might be born with Down syndrome. Because, ultimately, we believe a child has more than a right to life. He or she has a right to love, to security, to opportunity and we could provide all that."
If kids have a right to all that, why don't all have it? I think that's a stupid way to go about deciding whether you have an abortion or not.... just cause you might live in the ghetto as opposed to Highlands Ranch, and your ability to 'provide'. What pile of poo.
I'm certainly glad my parents had me instead of aborting me even though they lived in a neighborhood with violence and poverty. We're no longer there, and I might be President some day... who knows?
On the bright side, I like how you, Greigo, don't avoid calling abortion what it is... abortion. Not, "women's rights", or "pro-choice". Also, I'm deeply sorry that you felt you had to abort the kid that was going to be born with genetic defects... the caliber of defect is of course in question. I have a genetic defect: poor eyesight. But of course, that's between you and your husband, and actually don't point the angry finger at you for having done what you did.
I think the abortion issue should be a state to state issue that the PEOPLE vote on. It should be outlawed to be used as contraception, and 'late term' -whatever that is. Everything should be done to preserve the life until there is little to no choice.
September 6, 2008
2:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
The office of President of the United States is not a prize to be awarded like an Oscar or gold watch for public duty. It is also about his voting record, his vision and his agenda for the next four years. And it is also about sound judgment. McCain’s premature poorly vetted decision for VP is as premature as the upcoming impulsive nuptials of Palin’s daughter. And we all know how that happened. Someone did not get all the info, did not listen to the message, and poor choices were made, and they ended up getting screwed. McCain can screw his party, and Bristol her boyfriend. But I won't allow the Beauty and the Beast ticket to screw our country by voting for them.
September 7, 2008
5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
MileHighPatriot writes:
Wow Gladys, tell us how you really feel about screwing. I'm sure with Barack's extensive experience, he can make you proud.... of somthing... what that is, I'm not sure.