Skip to comments.Sarah Palin's Problem
Posted on 02/23/2009 9:42:53 AM PST by EveningStar
click here to read article
Say it brother....loud and clear.
They said these things about Reagan also... Palin IS GOING TO BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT.
I am hoping too!!
Greta had a SCHEDULED interview with Palin out at the finish line of the Iron Dog. She reported as much on her website that she’d be interviewing Palin there the day before the event; she also reported after the fact that she had NOT expected to see her in the Fairbanks library with Bristol—that was a surprise.
I agree 100%
Hope, pray, work=VICTORY!
Sarah Palin is just the type we need in national politics. How refreshing from the Ted Kennedy, Dodd grab ass methods of the past.
Who I support for President in 2012 depends on the Messiah’s approval ratings in 2011-2012. If his approval ratings are still strong, then I support either Huckabee, Huntsman, or Romney. Let these “undesirables” stimulate the economy with their own money and save the better part of the GOP pool (Sanford, Jindal, Palin) for 2016.
Another hit piece. Nothing to see here, keep moving...
I’ve heard Carol Platt Liebau many times when she subbed for Hugh Hewitt. She is a thoughtful conservative.
I actually was on a panel with a lot of liberal women at a local university, and I defended Palin before the election. I pointed out how she fought corruption in her own party.
I share a lot of Liebau’s reservations about Palin’s current missteps.
I believe Jindal has a better shot at the moment.
She subbed for Hugh the other day. She said talked about part of this article. I detected no rancor or condescension in her voice.
Beware of anyone who makes allegiance to a personality the litmus test of conservatism. Are we a movement rooted in principle or a personality cult?
So...reagan supporters where part of a personality cult?
I clearly said “dislike”..as in “not like” and I clearly said “beware”....as in “to be wary of”...
So yeah....when someone is busy telling me what a staunch conservative they are and how to win an election ,but have to digress into an anti-palin rant post haste I have issue with their street creds...
I take them as serious as I take powell after endorsing obama then deciding that “he thinks he’s still a republican”....
The Rino virus
republicans for choice
log cabin republicans
I’ve noticed that a lot of people on this forum resort to name-calling instead of cogent thought when they are faced with an opinion different from their own.
It’s the easy way out.
Because it should have been private in the first place but media attention made it very public. The Palin haters couldn't stop maligning Bristol for getting pregnant, and deriding Sarah for being Sarah. Their whole family was a target.
There was no end to the viciousness directed towards Sarah Palin and her 17 years old daughter. Late-night comedians were foaming at the mouth calling Bristol all kind of names they could think of, while the audiences laughed. Republicans are regular targets of that kind of derision, while Democrats get a free pass.
I understood what Bristol was saying though in all honesty, I would've preferred she had not given an interview. I understand her desire for wanting to take the opportunity to tell people her side of the story. This was her first chance after months of merciless scorn from the media and their cronies.
I also understood Bristol when she characterized teenage abstinence as "unrealistic." I think what she was saying is that if it was realistic, then the number of teen abortions in the USA would be very low. In fact, more than 33% of all US teen pregnancies end in abortion. Frequently, teens opt for abortions because a new baby often presents a radical change in their status quo, upsetting educational plans and presenting daunting financial problems.
The fact is:
"There were 214,750 abortions among 15-19-year-olds in 2002."
"Twenty-nine percent of pregnancies among 15-19-year-olds ended in abortion in 2002, compared with 21% among all women."
"The reasons teens give most frequently for having an abortion are concern about how having a baby would change their lives, inability to afford a baby now and feeling insufficiently mature to raise a child."
"Thirty-four states (as of August 2006) require that a minor seeking an abortion involve her parents in the decision."
"Six in 10 minors who have abortions do so with at least one parent's knowledge. The great majority of parents support their daughter's decision to have an abortion." link
These numbers tell me that the reality is that there are a great number of teenagers who are sexually active who use contraceptives, and yet there are still many unplanned pregnancies that end in abortion, and other pregnancies that are carried to term (a minority).
It takes a lot of discipline, an incredible amount of strength and will power to maintain oneself in celibacy. And for all those who are able to do it, there is often laughter and jokes for their efforts.
And one more thing: Bristol is an 18 years old adult right now. The media doesn't need Sarah's permission to interview her, and Bristol doesn't need her mother's permission to give an interview.
On the other hand, if Sarah had the power to stop her daughter from giving interviews, she could have easily used that power to stop her from getting pregnant in the first place - that kind of power just isn't very realistic. Obviously, her daughter has a mind of her own.
Thank you for your typically intelligent response, Victoria. :)
Not necessarily. After all, four years is a long ways away. She could do a superb job as governor in the meantime, also learn the ropes in how to do PR and handle the media.
I’ve been reading a lot of legal briefs and Federalist papers and Law of Nations quotes, plus a book full of debate material on when the constitution was ratified by the states.
I have an originalist belief. There are a lot of people who have originalist beliefs. Including some of the Supreme Court judges. What did the words mean when the Constitution was adopted? I support the Constitution and originalist views, and I doubt the Mods would question that.
Post number one from that thread lays it out:
“In regard to the natural born question, I read from the Law of Nations, The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens, and prefaced my remarks with the statement, Whatever the words, natural born, mean, they must mean whatever they meant at the time the Constitution was ratified.
Congress has no enumerated Power to change the meaning of the words, natural born, just as they have no enumerated Power to change the substance of chusing of Electors, and neither do the States. That intrigued the Judge.
Any constitutional question should be prefaced by an understanding that Congress does not have enumerated Power to change the definitions of words appearing in the Constitution unless specifically given such enumeration.
And, on that basis, I believe we won the Judges heart and that of Counsel. We may not prevail in our suit, but weve made the argument that needs to go forward in whatever case comes after. And, Oh, yes! we told the Judge up front that whatever decision he might make in regard to our suit, it would certainly not end the controversy.”
TG, I am so astounded by your courteous [NOT] response. Thinking that you are a male and not a female by your screenname, I can see how you like to badger women. I respond much more favorably to facts and historical research than rudeness.
I never said I had a law degree, I don’t, but I rely upon people who do. Originalists.
I’m an originalist, also, but I don’t think your legal argument holds water in regards to Obama being a natural born citizen. That’s why challenges to it haven’t gone anywhere, and will continue to go nowhere.
I also had no idea you were a woman, for what that’s worth.
I understand what you are saying. Hopelessness doesn’t suit me.
All of this with the challenges to Obama is new territory, untried. The best way to resolve things like that is to debate, present a case, make an argument. If they did have a hearing in court on the merits from both sides, it might be resolved. Just letting it hang there and not hearing the debate isn’t helping. Most who are working on that keep adjusting their strategy. This same thing has happened with other issues like slavery, segregation issues. It sometimes takes a long time to work things out. If we have that luxury.
Most that I’ve read who take a similar position to you don’t bother presenting information or backing it up. There isn’t anything there to change my mind.
Obama is burning the country down and all these people can do is nitpick at Sarah for stupid stuff.
They made their argument in the court paperwork. Suggesting that they didn’t make their case isn’t reflective of how law is practiced.
So much for not presenting evidence or backing it up. Those who tried to make their case did so and failed. It’s not like they were precluded from making their case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.