It’s the day we play “uterus politics”!
Apparently, since the left can’t really go after Palin on her experience (Obama has equal or less, and he’s running for the TOP job, not the bottom) or her record, which seems very appealing to a reform-minded electorate, the left has settled on the uterine comings-and-goings of not just Sarah Palin but of one of her “witchy-named” daughters, too.
Yes, the washerwomen are whispering and what they’re whispering is imaginative: According to them, Little Trig, (aka “that seriously disabled” Down Syndrome Baby that should have been aborted) whom Palin seems to have taken to the office and breastfed is not Palin’s son but her grandson. One of her daughters, you see, is the actual mother, and oh yes…some of these whisperers even suggest that the baby has an extra chromosome because of…wait for it…incest.
I trust you ladies out there in progressive land are taking notes?
Women being bashed for their right to choose having a family and a career with the support of their spouse.
Women being called sluts, bimbos and brood mares.
Women having their appearance dissected and witchhunts for compromising photos.
Innocent young girls being slandered with rumors & innuendos.
Via Maxed Out Mama – “This stuff really, really convinces women that Democrats are for women:”
Some of us have been pointing this out for a while, you know.
“equal pay for equal work”
Most jobs in the private sector are negotiated and payed on an individual basis; therefore, negotiation is a large factor on how much an individual will be paid. I have read that women typically will accept the first offer of an employer. I think some of the pay inequity issue boils down to girls not being given the tools that are often passed on to boys from their fathers.
I spent many years in retail and a common sight was the father showing the son how to get a deal. I can also count on one hand how many women attempted to dicker with me on a ticket price(1 in 10 yrs). To her credit she walked and took her buisness elsewhere, good for her.
http://www.womendontask.com/stats.html
Hey Paul
You think the high energy relentless 24/7 intensity of a modern politcal campaign leaves lotsa quality time for a four month old baby, huh?
And the 17 year old daughter of a ‘social conservative’ getting pregnant with no wedding bells – no contradiction there, right?
You guys don’t even have the integrity to remain true to your discredited ideology.
Opportunists, each and every one.
Haven’t dropped in here for awhile. Looks like this Canadian site has been over run by President Obama bashers. I kind of liked the CWB bashing better and is more in line with what you would expect from a Saskatchewan farm girl.
Hey real – can you pull off this trick you’re so painfully striving to affect (hoisting the Palins on the petard of what you percieve “social conservative” values to be) without sounding like such a prig?
I mean, you obviously don’t have any time for the more rigid values of the past, so why are you trying to damn the Palins with them? Is it possible – here, just entertain the thought for a second – that religious conservatives might be prepared to live with the challenges and complications of the modern world as well? Like teenagers who have sex and the likelihood that women might value their careers as much as men? Can you walk straight after twisting yourself into such a pretzel to make your point?
Actually, mccarthur, your bashing is very much in line with CNN, Daily Kos and other leftist. It’s personal, malicious and totally, utterly bereft of logic. Ah well. Such is the nature of the leftist.
real- your opinions are without merit. You see, you aren’t being ‘real’. You aren’t a realist. Being a conservative and a realist means that IF your daughter becomes pregnant, you don’t bury them in the sand and kill them by stoning; you don’t insist that they ‘choose’ an abortion. Instead, you accept reality; you acknowledge a new life and you support your daughter in enabling that new life.
Being ‘real’ means that you can, as a father,go back to work. You can also go back to work if you are a mother. A child needs both parents, and the two months of a campaign when that child is four months old, won’t harm him.
indianahomez – nice comment. Very accurate.
And I wonder if Obama’s people are behind the Bash and Smash Palin campaign. He can declare he’s squeaky clean but the left, which is his base, is currently showing its true colours: malicious, vicious slander. That’s the left.
Real,
A little sexist are you? So answer this, how can Obama be a father and run for president at the same time? I thought that this is what the left has been fighting for, or does it only apply to people with your same political views?
Real: Clearly, you have no idea of what “social conservatives” stand for … nor those of us who are not social conservatives. Worse yet, you can’t fathom the size of tent that conservatives have erected … for it is much larger and more inclusive than the ever shrinking shack that the left is struggling to maintain.
Again, your bigoted, ignorant, sexist, and ill-informed comments only serve to diminish those on the left who still believe in tolerance.
Rick
I’m not ‘damning’ the Palins at all. Merely showing how the values of the brethren here are entirely situational.
Palin’s baby is put forth as a solid credential for her candidacy among the social conservatives. Therefore it’s entirely appropriate to wonder how that same baby is to be cared for when the mother has committed herself to the mad intensity of a modern knock-down drag-out campaign for the next two months.
It’s also appropriate to wonder what the mother was doing travelling by plane in her 3rd trimester — and taking an eight hour plane ride after her water broke.
As well, since Palin has designated herself as opposed to sex education and in favour only of ‘abstinence only’ education, it really isn’t priggish to point out that the ‘priggish’ advice she would dole out to other people’s children came up empty with her own daughter.
What’s really entertaining is seeing the pretzels you guys are twisting youselves into trying to justify McCain’s preposterous choice. You must be dreading what tomorrow’s news will bring.
But then he could have nominated a ham sandwich and you guys would be frothing at the mouth defending it. Good little lemmings in lockstep!
Paul
“you can’t fathom the size of the tent that conservatives have erected”
I’ll abstain, thanks! 🙂
And I wonder if Obama’s people are behind the Bash and Smash Palin campaign.
I haven’t really studied it, but Charles Johnson (Little Green Footballs) has done some sleuthing and found that the source of some of those smear sites was the Obama campaign itself.
Obama is a communist thug, pure and simple, and therefore any MO will be acceptable, following the dictum that “eggs must be broken to make an omelet”. He has set himself the task of “transforming America” so Palin is a very small sacrifice for such a noble task.
And did we notice the narcissisitc basis for his announcement to back off: that his own mother had him when she was 18. Self-referential ad nauseum, eh?
Posted by: batb “dizzy: Do you have a link for Obama’s telling people to back off”
I cribbed it from some blog — it’s all over. But here is a Reuters report —
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/09/01/media-should-back-off-bristol-palin-obama-says/
Real: 🙂
“You think the high energy relentless 24/7 intensity of a modern politcal campaign leaves lotsa quality time for a four month old baby, huh?”
Well, the child does have a father and is part of good family structure. They will help take care of the baby while the mother is busy working. In case you didn’t know, women are allowed to have jobs now.
“And the 17 year old daughter of a ‘social conservative’ getting pregnant with no wedding bells – no contradiction there, right?”
So, shit happens. Kids don’t always listen to their parents and sometimes make stupid decisions. How they deal with the consequences is more important. And how are they dealing with it in this situation?
“You guys don’t even have the integrity to remain true to your discredited ideology.”
Accountability and not allowing our race/gender to be our main defining characteristic is one of the main parts of our ideology here. Please show us how that has been discredited?
I’ve observed that the rules of sex apply ONLY to other people, NEVER to so-cons. As long as you PRETEND to believe their crap, you’ll be forgiven anything, even held up as a hero.
A liberal’s daughter who has a baby out of wedlock is a slut and a tramp. A so-con’s daugnter who does it is a little hero who chose to give the gift of life.
Get real, real. BTW, what’s with denial the Dems seem to have that Palin is a currently serving state governor. Obama just put his foot in his mouth (on CNN which seems to have completely abandoned any pretense of impartiality), where, remarking about Palin’s experiencenoted as a small town mayor,had 50 staff while his campaign currently “employs” 2500 people.
Pardon? Having a mostly volunteer organization, running for office, is the same as being the GOVERNOR OF A US STATE?
As a friend pointed out, please bring it on, Joe and Mary Sixpack will see it for what it is, gutter politics. They are losing it.
Imagine if HRC’s daughter was pregnant. Work that one through in your mind. Are they actually arguing that having a pregnant daughter and downs child makes a woman unacceptable for executive office. How misogynist is that folks.
I wonder when the Democrats will wake up from their self-induced nightmare.
Real, the only pretzel I see is your attempt to pretend that conservatives and liberals live not only in different countries, but different eras in history. As a parent, I’d have wished that Palin’s daughter had thought first and kept her knees together, but young people aren’t famous for that – hey, my mother was about Bristol Palin’s age when she had me, and didn’t get married to the guy, but family helped out, and here I am, quite unable to damn a young girl for making a dumb mistake.
What’s your excuse?
Rove and Real are the sort of pinch-faced Pecksniffs that one dreads having as neighbours or even sitting next to on a long bus trip.
Who, aside from her family, has the right to give a flying F if Palin’s daughter is pregnant? It’s 2008 folks. We don’t brand womens’ foreheads any more. If Palin performs as well as Veep as she has in the Governor’s chair, I doubt that the average citizen will care if Bristol has a litter.
Speaking of living in the 21st century, women are now free to hold down responsible, executive positions and to make highly personal decisions about their family arrangements without having to justify themselves to busybody jerks.
(For the record, Zog is of the male persuasion and old enough to remember the days when a working wife was considered to be a family disgrace.)
“uterus politics”
You should copyright that one, Kate.
Rick
I’ll make the assumption that you’re reasonably intelligent and assume your comment that I’m ‘damning’ the girl for her pregnancy is a conscious misrepresentation rather than a display of your denseness.
I couldn’t care less that young Palin is pregnant. It is relevant only insofar that her mother would deny sex education and information about birth control to young woman while preaching ‘abstinence only’ to them.
It is relevant to point out that a politician speaks of enforcing rules and values on others that they are incapable of enforcing in their own household.
Whether or not conservatives live in a ‘different era in history’ or not, conservatives like Palin attempt to enforce rules from a different era in history on others – in their own households, though, not so much. Aside from the obvious hypocrisy, it almost makes one question the relevance of such rules and values, eh what?
Hey Zog
Speaking of Pecknsniffs, it’s the woman all you guys are defending who’s all “no sex education, only ‘abstinenceonly’ can be taught” — she’s the one who wants to interfere in people’s lives with her anti-choice position. The plight ofher daughter wouldn’t even be relevant if it didn’t display the mother’s hypocrisy.
As well, your little observation that it’s the 21st century now and “woman can make highly personal decisons about family arrangements without having to justify themselves to busybody jerks” would be impressive were it not that Palin with her anti-choice views specifically does want to interfere with womens’ right to make those decisions.
Cheers.
Thanks so terribly much for giving me the benefit of the doubt, real.
Thas was sarcasm, by the way. Hey – two can play this game, right?
You sound like an ad hominem liberal when you throw around this image of Palin as some sort of Puritan agent of state interference. You might want to do a bit of research (I know – that’s hard), which might turn up this little tidbit from the 2006 Alaska gubernatorial race:
“In 2002, when she was running for lieutenant governor, Palin sent an e-mail to the anti-abortion Alaska Right to Life Board saying she was as ‘pro-life as any candidate can be’ and has ‘adamantly supported our cause since I first understood, as a child, the atrocity of abortion.'”
“Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She is pro-contraception and said she’s a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life”
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/governor06/story/8049298p-7942233c.html
You throw around the term “anti-choice” like a brickbat, but you don’t seem to understand the full meaning of the word choice. A parent raises a child according to rules that they consider wise, with the full knowledge of their own fallibility, and the likelihood that mistakes will be made. They choose how they’ll raise their kids, and hopefully educate their children that decisions have consequences; if you don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex. I don’t have to define the word “abstain” for you, do I?
If you roll the dice and don’t get the result you wanted – discounting the likelihood, slim as it might be, that Palin’s daughter might have wanted to get pregnant; once again, choice – then you deal with the consequences. If you consider life to be sacred – as Palin and her family obviously do – you have to embrace the consequences of that choice.
Choices have consequences, and if Palin and her husband decided to raise their children with a preference for abstinence over contraception, that was their choice – a personal one whose consequences they were doubtless aware of, and I’m assuming they made their children aware of the same. Choices were made, consequencs followed, and as far as I can tell the Palins are dealing with them. The principled stand that Sarah Palin and her family have taken is that abortion is not an option. It’s what I also believe, so I see no hypocrisy here.
Why would I have a problem with that? Why do you?
Real Said: It is relevant to point out that a politician speaks of enforcing rules and values on others that they are incapable of enforcing in their own household.
What rules and values are you talking about? Enforcing laws … like murder and robbery sanctions … or controlling the social lives of 17 year olds? What nutty vision do have of so-con households … using terms like enforce? And since when, does any so-con “enforce” abstinence values of their 17 year old children? Chastity belts? Locking them up in their rooms? What planet are you on … and what monstrous vision do you have floating around in your cranium of the average so-con household?
Are you really that daft?
Posted by Real “she’s the one who wants to interfere in people’s lives with her anti-choice position.”
There it is, Real demands personal freedom so that he can be part of a socialist society where personal freedom’s are subordinate to collective.
Incompatible. And these people are supposed to be bright?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hyuk hyuk gurgle snort.
Kate I am glad that this post came up.
As I stated in a reply to Bill all decisions have consequence’s that will affect present and future implications.
Palin is pro-life with a job. Here discussion to represent the people in her family by working as a business owner, joining the PTA, rep on town council, running for LG of Alaska, rep Alaska people in the energy industry, fighting the crooks that were in place already, running for governor and wining, rep the people from Alaska as governor to the US and the rest of world. Then being asked to rep the republican party as “VP” and accepted the job.
One and many questions that the people are asking is how did she do it.
COMMON SENSE APPROUCH: Do people really think that she had no discussion with “FIRST DUDE” and “FAMILY” before any of this happened. I think this women would put her family values first and everything else second. If the young lady wanted an abortion it would have happened. It would have been discussed and run around the tree “WITH ALL INVOLVED PARTIES” but in the end she would have put their child’s decision ahead of her beliefs.
This is where the left is still out of the loop. They want the decision left with the clinics and government running the system.
There are so many examples out there of where the system is falling apart from discipline, justice, immigration, politics, charities just to name some.
For years the MSM has had it so easy just to print the headlines with a few misleading words and getting away with it. Now people are just getting started to where this is going and now they holding the MSM misleading quotes to be responsible about objective.
I believe this presidential campaign is opening the eyes of the America ordinary people to actually open their eyes and ears and to see what is happening.
AND IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN CANADA WHEN PMSH CALLS THE ELECTION.
SARAH PALIN IS THE BEST THING THAT HAPPENED TO US POLITICS IN 28YRS.
NOTICE THE LEFT IN CANADA, MABEY YOU SHOULD PUT SOME DECENT ARGRUMENTS ON TABLE ABOUT THE POLITICAL AGENDA THAT YOU SUPPORT, INSTEAD OF SPEWING THE ONELINE COMMENT AND EXPECT THE REST OF US TO SUPPORT YOUR ACTIONS.
IN THE END “ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER THAN WORD”.
Define “so-con”. I am still struggling with “neo-con” as it originally referred to a liberal who now has moved to the right.
The following is from the hate-mongers at the Daily Kos in response to the squemish among them that balk at wallowing in s**t.
NoodleyAppendage (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-30-08 10:26
122. What many here don’t understand. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. RUMOR IS TRUTH.
The modern laws of media hype and political warfare have a useful tenet:
Repeat ANYTHING or raise false concern over ANYTHING and it is likely to be planted in the conscious/subconscious of many voters.
If people start to think that there might be something fishy with Palin’s last kid (if hers), then that’s FINE. One more doubt (whether tied to reality or not) is another hesitation at the ballot box.
GET WITH THE PROGRAM PEOPLE. The “rising above it” bullshit has served us so well in the past, hasn’t it?
If you have problems with the story, then STFU and get out of the way of Dems who are engaged in MODERN POLITICAL WARFARE. Go tend your garden or some other pedestrian task, because the “concern trolls” are not helping shape the message.
Rick,
A great post at 9:09am. The word choice, like progressive and liberal, has been co-opted by those on the left to mean precisely the opposite of their real intent.
In particular, I liked the way you have tried to outline to real (sic) the connection between choices and consequences. Unfortunately people like real will not make the connection, they are still too busy looking for more rights as long as they don’t come with any responsibilities.
You can try and teach your children as much as you want about abstinence, drugs etc. but the CHOICE ultimately remains theirs.
DBH, the KOS thing you cited there reminds me of the strategy of the Big Lie invented by Josef Goebbels, Hitler’s propagandist.
And the comment by “Noodley Appendage” is evidence that Leftists/progressives/liberals do indeed conspire to spread malicious, hurtful, hateful falsehoods about their political/ideological counterparts as a means to win power by cheating, by being unethical and immoral. This is the nature of the Leftist/liberal/progressive. Once in a while they’ll expose the whole strategy/plot, unable to bite their tongue, needing to brag, to show off. Loose lips, ships, you know. They’re that nasty and undisciplined. This is how they transform the perceptions of the population- by relentlessly inundating them with deliberate lies over and over again, harnessing the power of the mainstream media, most members of which share their ideology and lack of conscience/ethics/morality… It’s a form of hypnotic suggestion that affects the subconscious.
Leftists/liberals/progressives are unethical and immoral and will do pretty much anything to win. They have no conscience, are usually atheist and believe that their selfish ends justify any means whatsoever.
This is why we cannot ever trust/believe a leftist/liberal/progressive, particularly the spin doctors and politicians amongst them. Then there’s the leftists who dominate the mainstream media… can’t trust them, either.
Hey Rick
My sarcasm was in response to your deliberate misrepresentation of my view by saying I “damn” the young Palin for her unwed pregnancy. I’ll leave aside your calling me a ‘prig’ in your first post directed at me, as well as the slights contained in your last post. I’m used to the fact that your ilk can’t discuss an issue without trash talking your opponent. Guess you think it makes your argument (and you?) look stronger.
Another characteristic I’ve noted in your ilk is the habit of constantly opening up false arguments to divert attention from the fact that you can’t defend your central argument. Your new straw man is to claim that I have a problem with young Palin not aborting her child.
I don’t; I don’t have a problem with anything she does. I don’t care.
However, I believe it’s relevant to point out that her mother would ban all explicit sex education for young women of her daughter’s age and insist on abstinence teaching ONLY. It’s relevant to point out that the philosophy she would impose on others failed completely in her own household.
The ‘principled stand’ the Palins are taking (way to spin this into a ‘positive’, Rick!) that abortion is “not an option”, which is so admired by you, would not be possible in the America Palin would seek to create – because the State would make that decision for them. It is odd that you praise their moral fibre (for not aborting a baby? – low bar!), while you defend their worldview which states that all such moral decisions should be made by the State.
The term ‘anti-choice’ may be used as a brickbat but your term ‘pro-life’ has pretty much lost all meaning since you and the others here signed on to blow innocent Iraqi babies to pieces based on obviously flimsy evidence simply because it was proffered by the guy “on your side”. Not much concern for innocent life there, was there?
But the real main argument, which you scurry around trying to avoid with all your diversions is this: a woman who would deny young women sex education, who would enforce abstinence only education on them, and then deny them choices in their own health and pregancy … that same woman’s daughter is in the very dilemma that ‘abstinence only’ education is supposed to prevent.
Hey, if someone’s seeking to impose their own morality on others, how ’bout they practise it in their own household? Maybe they can even provide us with a display of how it works, since they’ve decided how good it is for everyone else. That’s the point. Words are fine, but actions are nice too. Sometimes you have to walk the walk, and that hasn’t happened here.
Also: Sarah must really think the country’s in dire need of her unique skills, since she decided to subject her daughter to intense worldwide scrutiny at this crisis moment in her young life. Thanks, Mom!
“Good little lemmings in lockstep!”
I would rather be in lockstep defending a woman’s honor from scurilous attacks than be in lockstep attacking a woman’s honor because I want to win an election.
Sexual harassment of the help in the governor’s mansion and the WH is “personal” and “nobody’s business” but a woman’s own choices she makes about her own body? Down’s syndrome risk increases greatly for women like Palin who have children late in life. It is a genetic abnormality. No amount of bad prenatal car is going to alter a child’s genetic makeup. I can’t believe I even have to say this. What a piece of crap you are, really.
“since she decided to subject her daughter to intense worldwide scrutiny at this crisis moment in her young life. Thanks, Mom! ”
Maybe her error in judgement was underestimating how many scumbags there are on the left who have extended the politics of personal destruction to the whole family of a candidate?
Stupid, ignorant trash talk, Real. You can feel the anger and the spitting all the way over here. Scrutiny, the family can take. Trash from you social neanderthals is what they’re getting.
Have you even read what she said about sex-ed?: “The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support,” she wrote in a 2006 questionnaire distributed among gubernatorial candidates.
Now, Real, in your rush to be a complete idiot, do you actually know what she’s talking about? Explicit sex-ed programs are a new approach that is embroiled in controversy all over the States. Its not sex-ed as most people think of it. Its a field-trip hands-on type of program that a LOT of American school systems are not comfortable with. Neither is she. Big deal. If a local school wants to do it, they’ll have to pay for it themselves. Big deal.
Some reason why leftist parents (all one of them) can’t teach their own kids about sex, or does the school system have to teach them too? What a knob.
“The ‘principled stand’ the Palins are taking (way to spin this into a ‘positive’, Rick!) that abortion is “not an option”, which is so admired by you, would not be possible in the America Palin would seek to create – because the State would make that decision for them. It is odd that you praise their moral fibre (for not aborting a baby? – low bar!), while you defend their worldview which states that all such moral decisions should be made by the State.”
Wow. Amazing. A more total case of poor reading comprehension I have never seen. I can’t even contemplate responding to you, real, because it’s obvious you can’t even parse out the meaning of words in sequential order. I’d love to find out just how, precisely, anything I’ve written translated into that complete farrago of nonsense.
Hey Rick, sure:
I’m presuming you support and agree with Palin, yes? You’re certainly using a lot of energy to defend her.
Palin is against abortion under any circumstance. If it were up to her, Roe vs. Wade would be overturned.
Ergo, if her worldview were enacted, there would be no choice, no legal choice, a young pregnant woman would have but to bring her pregnancy to term. The State would have made that choice for her, at Palin’s – and your – say-so.
I was merely noting that it was ironic that the choice the Palin’s made, that you so admire, would have been impossible in the state Palin would seek to create.
Anything else?
There’s no ‘stupid ignorant trash talking’, Skip. I’m merely pointing out how the actions of Palin and her family differ from the ideals she would preach to the rest of us – the same way that the Right has noticed Al Gore’s mile-long house as he’s preached about global warming, or Edward’s 600 dollar haircut as he preached about poverty.
Yes, these actions are important in what they tell us about the candidates’ sincerty, left or right. And the fact is that the McCain campaign made the story of Palin’s Down syndrome child into a major part of her image – it was a selling point. In using Palin’s family – and the abortion issue – as a positive for the campaign they have laid themselves open to it also being a negative.
Palin is an advocate of abstinence only education. As far as your trash-talking personal insults go, I’ll say the same as I did to McGinnis: they really don’t make your argument stronger. They only make you look juvenile.
Real, you’re not worth the time.
Oh and Rick, Skip?
Word is that Palin used her line item veto as governor to slash funding for a shelter where new teen moms – who have no place to go – could live.
Gosh, that isn’t very supportive for those teen-age girls who decide not to abort their pregnancies is it? She’s really not honouring their ‘principled stand’, is she, Rick? Almost like she’s one of those anti-choice people who insist on no abortion under any cirucmstance but as for the inevitable result of such a policy – well, you’re on your own, kid! What Christianity!
Rick? Skip? Where’d y’all go?
Real, you are hopelessly clueless.
Real said: “Word is that Palin used her line item veto as governor to slash funding for a shelter where new teen moms – who have no place to go – could live.”
As one observer who actually checked it out says:
“…if you think expanding a program by $3.9 million instead of $5 million counts as cutting funds, you’re qualified to work for one of America’s most esteemed newspapers.”
[hint] the paper in question would be…WaPo!
Really, if you want to play in the world of the big dogs, at least take the time to learn which end you sniff.
Real, since you are digitally challenged, here is the real story (note, not from WaPo):
“The answer is that Covenant House is expanding. The plans are described in the 2009 Alaska capital budget proposal…
State funding will assist Covenant House to relocate, and construct a new Crisis Center for Covenant House in downtown Anchorage.
$22 million is needed to complete the expansion. Covenant House asked the Alaska legislature to provide $10 million, the legislature answered with $5 million in the 2009 budget. Governor Palin cut the figure back to $3.9 million — for this year. This likely doesn’t stop the expansion; Covenant House will either have to get more from the state in a future year and/or increase the amount from private donations to make it happen. But no existing program that helps teenage mothers or the children of teenage mothers has been affected by this budget decision, and calling a one-time infusion of $3.9 million added by the state on top of normal operating expenses a “cut” only makes sense if you can’t do math, if you don’t understand the difference between a capital outlay and an operating outlay, or if you hate Republicans.”
The internet is your friend (Andrew Sullivan is not, now go away and learn how to use it. This thread is done.
No matter how you slice it, Skip, Palin cut funding for the expansion of a centre that helps young unmarried mothers. The legislature was willing to offer the money – she cut it back. It obviously isn’t a priority for her.
Now according to the McCain campaign her anti-choice stance is a BIG priority for her. That’s the reason they made so much of her having a Downs syndrome baby. Her anti-choice stance is so radical that she has declared she wouldn’t allow her daughters to have abortions even if they were raped.
But actually helping to care for young mothers and their babies after they’ve chosen the ‘principled stance’ of having their babies? Well, not much of a priority at all.