gadgetlady

You didn't misunderstand. I was a Political Science major in college and took a course from a former Congressman. His first words were, "To be a successful politician, avoid taking a stand as often as possible. If you do have to take a stand, always be prepared to tell the other side why you had to take that stand but you really don't believe it." Sad words, indeed. Most people don't know that members of Congress have editorial control over the Congressional Record. They can delete things they actually said, or put a whole speech in there that they never uttered a word of. Then they can send out to their constituents, at the taxpayers' expense, a copy of their inspiring "speech" that they "delivered" before Congress.

:thumbup: Well said! A private family "scandal" (which isn't much of a scandal in today's culture) doesn't impact her ability to lead. And I sure do appreciate that, instead of like Obama, she doesn't talk about her grandchild as a "punishment".

Speaking to the question of Obama's "experience", I just found this website. It details the yea, nay, and "NV" (no vote) votes on all issues. This page just happens to be on housing and property issues, but pick any issue. The number of "NV" votes is astonishing. Project Vote Smart - Senator Barack Hussein Obama Jr. - Voting Record

Very true. I have often even found that some so-called "unbiased" sites are still skewed. It's important, though, not to dismiss the facts of an article simply because you don't like 1) the author, or 2) the conclusion. Again, very true -- sadly so. I don't think most people have the time or knowledge and ability to parse the statements of politicians. A case in point: I can't comprehend how some women that are switching over from Hillary to the McCain/Palin ticket because of Palin. It is patently incomprehensible to me, even though it's happening. I wouldn't vote for Hillary simply because of her gender; her positions matter more to me than anything else. Similarly, even though I'm Italian, I wouldn't vote for Giuliani simply because he's Italian; his positions matter more to me than anything else. Not that I'm unhappy that some women are doing this :thumbdown: -- I just don't get it.

No doubt. I think everyone who's dismissing and disparaging her as a "beauty queen" and a "former journalist" and a "PTA mom" is going to be very unhappy when they watch her in action. Furthermore, in so doing all they're accomplishing is lowering expectations of her -- which will make her future success all the more dramatic.

Great website, well put together. Thanks for the link! I'm looking forward to pouring through those lies, truths, and half-truths as well :-)

I agree. Further, if you take a look at Obama's real record, he doesn't have much of a record in the way of anything. He has a great list of job titles and noticably few accomplishments. Here's an interesting article: Israpundit

Just because they don't have links doesn't mean they're not verifiable information. For example, I have read a myraid of discussions over Obama's voting "present" rather than taking positions when he was in the Illinois Senate. What in the article I posted isn't true?

I just found this article as well. I'm posting it even though I haven't had time to research everything; at first glance it appears to be well documented (or commonly known). Obama’s Not Exactlys: - Say Anything: Reader Blogs

I don't think that's unpopular at all. That's what most people have been saying.

Just found this interesting blog, started in Feb of 2007: Draft Sarah Palin For Vice President: FAQ

I know the question wasn't asked of me, but I distinctly remember her name being mentioned as soon as he clinched the nomination. I think it was a surprise because he intended it that way. I don't think it was a last minute or hasty decision for him.

It will never cease to amaze me that Democrats are calling "foul" on the question of experience! Obama has less experience than Palin, and he's not the "heart beat away" candidate, he's the "heart beat" candidate.

ROFL! Um, yeah, if she were a clone of Hillary, McCain wouldn't have selected her! This isn't about gender; it's about values and policy stances.

I read somewhere today that the political landscape of Alaska is littered with the bodies of men who have underestimated her.

She has more experience than Obama, and if he's elected there's no croaking required to have him be in the #1 position. She's the only one on either ticket with any executive experience. She has the highest approval rating of any governor of any state in the union. So no, I'm certainly not worried about her experience -- especially in light of Obama's blinding lack of experience.

I would have been happy with a number of candidates McCain might have chosen (and unhappy with some of them as well, unhappy enough to withhold my vote). But with this choice, I'm thrilled. I heard an interview with her when she was governor and pregnant. When asked if she could handle it, she answered something along the lines of, "Yes, women can work, think, and carry a baby all at the same time." LOVE IT!

LOL! Me, too. I correct the television all the time. Not just the talk shows -- there's one drama in particular that I'm considering offering to proof their scripts before they go into production!

I think the responses to this thread just prove the point that it doesn't matter the race or gender of the candidate. What matters is how the candidate's views align with your own.

Brilliant choice he made.

Carrie, thank you for your thoughtful and insightful approach to this issue. I truly believe education about what abortion does to babies and to their mothers is the most important tool we have to combat abortion.

The baby is not your body. If he or she were, I would agree with you 100%. Do whatever you want with your own body -- and I really mean that. Drive your car over a bridge if that's what you want to do -- but not if there's a passenger in the car.

Unfortunately, it wasn't my decision to make, and he was working on a huge project that couldn't be halted or transferred mid-way through. When the time came to do another similar project, though, I made a strong argument to the team to go elsewhere (and we did). To be honest, both dh and I were in a state of shock when it happened. Neither of us could even fathom how to react because we had never encountered anything like that in our entire lives. I think we sat there with our mouths open for a full 10 minutes, and I don't think there was much conversation around the table afterwards. It would have been a heck of a lot easier to speak up about it if the server hadn't so readily and seemingly happily accepted what he said. It really looked like the server wasn't bothered by it at all (which may be the case if he had heard things like it in the past, or maybe he had just learned to keep his mouth shut? I don't know). Believe me, fast forward 10 years and I wouldn't ever listen to something like that without action, even if the server didn't object! The older I get, the more I learn that if we're quiet when others are oppressed, we are just contributing to the oppression.

I agree. Several years ago my dh and I were visiting Louisiana and we went to dinner with someone who was from there (who we were doing business with). Our server was black, and our "host" went on and on about how there are "good niggers and bad niggers" and how our server was a "good nigger." He then asked for the server's opinion, saying something like, "You're a good nigger, right boy?" and the server nodded his head. I wanted to vomit.

It is a live video of a first trimester abortion. How do you think it was skewed? And, BTW, the abortionist who performed the abortion in that video, after watching the video, never did one again. It was certainly compelling to him, hmmmm? OK, back to basics here. The companion case to 1973's Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, guaranteed the "right" to abortion through the entire nine months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever. To do so, it indicated that the state could not interfere with abortion if the woman's health, in the opinion of one physician, was at stake. The key here is it included mental health in health, and it included the abortionist as the one physician. States have tried for years to outlaw late term (2nd and 3rd trimester) abortions, but have been unsuccessful. The only successes they have had are in outlawing a specific procedure (partial-birth abortion), but not in outlawing late-term abortions themselves. Abortion is legal through 9 months of pregnancy. Don't make me out to be the extremist here because I'm stating the facts. Most people don't like to hear it, don't want to know about it, or try to claim that it never really happens. But that doesn't make it go away. Late term abortion is legal -- and it happens more often than most people would care to admit. Still don't believe it? Go to Abortion Care - George Tiller MD - Wichita, Kansas. This is the website of a doctor who is known for performing late term abortions. Here's what he says (emphasis mine): Kansas law allows for post-viability abortion procedures when continuing the pregnancy is detrimental to the pregnant woman's health. Each person's circumstances are reviewed on a case-by-base basis. Please call so that we can discuss admission criteria with you.