Why It Matters
I’m really trying not to get too involved in the frenzy over Sarah Palin, but I think this pretty well sums up why her daughter’s pregnancy is a relevant issue. Her mother MADE it an issue. It’s part of her platform, right along with teaching Creationism in public schools, banning books from the public library, calling the Iraq War “God’s Will”, and all of her other equally odious positions. Sure, the daughter is entitled to a degree of privacy, but she remains an object lesson of her mother’s hypocrisy as a political figure, and it raises questions about her suitability to hold public office. Let the girl alone, but the candidate needs to be called on the carpet.
In a similar vein, I also liked this editorial cartoon:
which rather deftly skewers the Republicans for their own two-faced approach to morality.
Sarah Palin HAS managed to do one thing for me — she’s almost made me change my mind about voting for Obama. I will still probably cast my vote for Kucinich come November, but the cynical pandering of McCain and the fundie freakshow fascism of Palin make BarryO look better and better by the second.
September 4th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
You could always take my husband’s approach and vote for Dave Barry. I was tempted to do that last time out, when we were asked to choose between Frankenstein and a chimpanzee.
September 4th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Ah, chill. Be glad the age of consent is 16 in AK, otherwise we’d be talking about rape.
Dah Dah Dummmmmm.
September 4th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I personally think that Obama will still need every vote…and if he doesn’t get elected then I’ll be stinking mad at those who threw their votes away like the idiots who cast for Nadar ballots. I’m still mad about that.
And…I think Bristol’s pregnancy is relevant only because it demontrates the logical consequences of her mother’s stupid preachy policies…but Bristol should not be attacked or injured by any outsider. She’s still a kid…preggers, but still a kid with big problems.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Karan:
I not voting for McCain because referred to his wife with vile slur - and suggested she would win a topless beauty pageant… and not voting for Obama because he lied about running his campaign on public money.
My vote isn’t wasted. I’m not an idiot if I don’t vote for the two major candidates.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
The only “thrown away” vote is the one not cast.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Palin slashed funding for teen pregnancy programs by 20%, including shelters and transitional housing for teen mothers and educational programs.
Now THAT’s compassionate conservatism!
September 5th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
It’s true, a vote cast isn’t really a wasted vote but sometimes taking the moral high ground and not voting for someone “less” evil results in the more evil person taking the election…hello George “why isn’t he impeached?” Bush.
September 5th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Why Nader did not cost Gore the 2000 election.
September 7th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I think the Green Party analysis might be construed as a bit self-serving. I’m going to hunt around for other reviews and get back to you in a while…I am interested to know the truth in this.
September 7th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
That could very well be, but Florida was decided by just over 500 votes. Anyone voting for any candidate other than Al Gore or George Bush could have been the deciding factor, and that report shows literally tens of thousands of people voting for a broad spectrum of third parties. You could just as easily blame the Libertarians or the Reform Party, both of whom garnered more than 10,000 votes in Florida. In fact, the only people you can’t blame are the 40 people who wrote in candidates.
Should no one vote for any candidate other than the Democrat and Republican choices?
September 7th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
No…I absolutely do not think that only republican and democratic candidates should be vote gatherers…but what I do think is that if you want your vote to county as something more than symbolic, you should choose to either vote for or against one of the two who actually stand a chance of winning…especially in a tight race.
In 1980, I voted for John Anderson for a couple of reasons…one, before our west coast voting booths were closed, Jimmy Carter had conceeded and Ronald Reagan had already been declared the victor and I cast my ballot for Anderson- not because I was sure we could turn the vote around but in protest of the universal message that we westies didn’t count - and two…I’m not sure this is accurate…but to give him a chance at getting some of those mystery matching funds.
As to blaming the Libertarians and the Reform Parties…you bet I do blame them, although the libertarians not so much because I think they are are just another flavor of republican.
I find this whole Spoiler Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect) very interesting. FairVote claims to have a solution: http://www.fairvote.org/?page=752
BTW…In the 2000 election, John Anderson endorsed Ralph Nadar and now strongly supports Barack Obama.
September 7th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
So you’re saying it’s only okay to vote for third-party candidates when there’s no chance of really influencing the outcome.
How is that different than saying people should only be allowed to vote for one of the two major parties? You’re basically buying into the assertion that the two major parties are the only ones who should be allowed to share political power, which is the argument that has brought us to this terrible choice between Bad and Worse in the first place. Anything else, by this reasoning, is symbolic or futile. But you are even going a step further to say that when the race between Bad and Worse is tight, one should vote for Bad, even though the outcome will still be undesirable.
I offer you two cups of poison: one which will kill you quickly but agonzingly, and one that will kill you slowly but painlessly. Which one will you drink?