RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Sarah Palin for VP

Also as noted earlier, this election will be a electoral victory for someone, and 10,000 extra votes in a state where you wouldn't have got them could be the difference. Hilary lefties weren't going to vote for McCain before this, this wont hurt him, there is only upside.

presactly. that so many pro-abortionists word it the way they do has never failed to amaze me.

You might be right but, my guess is that most of the undecided women are pro-choice.

And I don't know that you can say that she put the life of Trig ahead of her career. She had the child, she went back to work...just like millions of other women. I think it's cool that she chose to do the right thing and have the baby regardless of the fact that he's a special needs child. I agree that it's inspriring. But don't make her out to be a hero for doing it...not when there are thousands of women who make the same choice every day but, have fewer resources that Gov. Palin.

Now, if she'd quit her job or turned down the VP spot because Trig needs more care, THAT would be putting him ahead of her political ambitions.

To your point, there are some Hill-ites that wouldn't have voted for him. But, I think that quite a few of those would have chosen to stay home and not vote at all rather than vote for Obama.

The Palin choice will motivate them to come out and vote for choice. It'll be like the evangelicals that came out in droves in Ohio in '04 to vote for the constitutional ban on gay marriage. They were the ones that carried the state for Bush. I believe that the issue of choice will carry the election for Obama.

The difference is that most people that support a women's right to choose what to do with her body aren't necessarily FOR abortion.

I don't believe in abortion as a method of birth control. I think that a viable fetus has the same right to life as the rest of us.

I just don't think that the government has the right to legislate what a woman can and cannot do with her body.

but they already have legislated it.

How convenient.

Couldn't one just as easily reason that it's Palin's desire to see politics change into what she views as a more ideal atmosphere for her children that motivates her to run?



Do you do this on purpose? Seriously, I didn't figure you'd go for making the issue more ambiguous by extrapolating the term "choice" so nebulously. You're starting to sound like one of those feminazis.

I'm sure you don't care, but you'd really impress me if you'd actually use terms like, "anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion" instead of "life" and "choice."



So do you think that Martin Short had a right to kill Dennis Quaid since he was in his colon?

I suppose. But the original point was that she chose to have kids and put them ahead of her political ambitions. That's what I was refuting. I don't pretend to know what motivates the woman to do anything so I won't speculate. But since you can tell if a movie's is good or bad by reading part of the script on-line rather than actually seeing it, I'll defer to your superior ability to guess her motivations without the benefit of actually knowing the woman.



Impressing you is not particularly high on my list of things to do. But the fact is simple: I don't use those terms because I am neither for nor against abortion. I stand for the right of a woman to make an educated choice about whether to continue or end a pregnancy without the government forcing a decision one way or another.

I think it would be great if every woman who got pregnant would have no need to choose to end it. It would be awesome if pregnacies only happened when they were convenient and when the parents are together in a loving relationship and emotionally and financially stable enough to provide for the child in the best way possible. But that utopian society hasn't happened yet. The world that I live in needs Roe v. Wade.



Dude. That was a really stupid movie. If you wanted to impress me, you would have chosen Raquel Welch in Fantastic Voyage

Not really. As I understand it, the decision on Roe V. Wade says that the government can't outlaw the option of abortion. It doesn't force a woman to have one or not to have one. It just gives her a credible choice in the matter.

Read it yourself...

http://www.classbrain.com/artteenst/publish/roe_v_wade.shtml

Not exactly. But close enough for this thread.

Either way, I think it's going to be hard for people to attack her for being pro-life. Normally, the dig on someone for being anti-abortion runs along the lines of their being a hypocrite or someone who 'doesn't understand' the tough decision involved.

Palin, however, is committed enough to her belief on this issue that she refused to abort a disabled child. That's going to make attacks on her much more difficult. She is obviously personally aware of the issues involved.

Figured I wasn't exact in my interpretation of the legalese but...close enough for government work or the RKMBs.

As for Palin having the baby, I would think that for someone so committed to the pro-life cause, there would be no need for a decision...it wouldn't have even entered her mind as an option...and if it did, it would have been political suicide for her to abort it. I'm sure she never for one moment considered ending the pregnancy but could you imagine the shitstorm she would have caught if she had...?

I don't think that she'll be attacked on her stance. I think she'll be applauded for it but attacked for wanting to eliminate the option for other women.

Roe V. Wade will never be repealed no matter what any politician says on either side of the aisle.

I don't disagree, but I think the attack will be more difficult than it would've been against a candidate without the same back story.

After all, she's the first pro-life candidate who is a woman. That automatically eliminates that old cliche feminists use of "[the candidate] wouldn't feel that way if [the candidate] was a woman."

As another poster noted, the hard core feminists weren't going to vote for the GOP in any event. Her appeal is going to be to moderates and independents (or conservative democrat women) who wouldn't have otherwise voted Republican.

And, again as noted above, in a close race in a swing state that could decide the election.

If McCain wins and Ginsberg and Stevens can't hold out til a Democrat finally gets in office, I'll bet you 100 hard earned American dollars that Roe won't make it to the end of his first (only?) term.

I think what Sammitch is saying is that the government does already legislate what women, and even men, can do with their bodies. A person can't choose to charge someone else for the act of sex. That's prostitution, and it's illegal.

Honestly, I don't know what Palin brings to the ticket other than shock value and an interesting bio. We'll see how she does in the next couple of months and if she actually brings anything to McCain's campaign.

No arguement from me. My point is that her appeal and mobilization to get out the vote for that group will be much more narrow than the pro choice women who may not have voted for Obama without this type of compelling reason. We'll see who's right in November.

One way or another, Choice is going to decide this election.

I tend to agree with PJP. Supreme Court Justices tend to be very wary of overturning precedent, even if they disagree with it.

Furthermore, as noted on another thread, even if Roe v Wade were overturned, that wouldn't mean that abortion was suddenly illegal, just that it could be legislated in the future.

The battle would shift to where it belongs: the legislature and, I would wager, you would never see it banned completely because most people are moderate on the issue. They oppose some forms of abortion and support others.

Nope. Never. Won't happen. Abortion is an issue that a certain number of people feel passionate about, but for the vast majority of Americans it isn't the issue they decide the presidency upon. Especially since, as noted above, the election of a President will never directly result in making abortions illegal.

Yeah, I thought about that. I chose the more narrow definition to support my arguement. AND because prostitution isn't relevant to the discussion. Besides Prostitution SHOULD be legal. Why is it any different from porn?



Yeah, I hear you. She doesn't really add anything new but she does reinforce his conservative bona fides for those that weren't sure about him.

I don't think that abortion is going to be that big of a factor. I think she'll appeal more to the working class mothers on a personal level with her story than they'll be put off by her pro-life stance. It's one of those things that's not as big an issue as special interest groups and the media tend to make it out to be. Yes, the baseline of each party will vote based on those things; but I think the independent and moderate voters are more concerned with broader issues that affect them on a daily basis like the economy.

I think the porn industry is actually protected by the 1st Amendment, and that's due to the very liberal 9th Court. But I agree that if you're Pro-Choice on abortion, you should be pro-prostitution. The same argument being made by the feminists for Pro-Choice can be made for legalized prostitution; but the feminists happen to see prostitution as degrading for women.

Presactly. People vote on economic and security issues every time.

It's not going to be the key issue but, it will decide the election.

As I said earlier, it'll be like 2004 when the issue was on the ballot to add an amendment to the Ohio Constitution defining marriage. The evangelicals turned out in much larger numbers than normal to vote for it and the vast majority of them voted for Bush while they were there. Those votes carried the state.

In my opinion, choice is going to be that single issue that, as you said, can and will sway a swing state one way or the other. It won't be the sole motivator for most voters but, it will be for enough of them to turn the election, I think, for Obama.

Fair point. But, given the emotional resonance of the issue and the zealotry by small groups on both sides, I think it will be enough.

Again, the vast majority of voters aren't going to vote based on a "small" issue like choice but, for some, it will be the ONLY issue that matters.

Based on that anecdote even if abortion were the deciding factor it would decide it in favor of McCain, not Obama.

That's true but, how do you explain the people that don't vote in their economic interests?

Why do undereducated, lower middle class voters tend to vote republican when they typically don't benefit from the economic policies?

Cuz they don't benefit from the Dem's policies either. They'd rather not have to worry about their taxes being raised.

That assumes a fact not in evidence, to wit, that republican policies don't benefit such people.

In my model, the left and even some moderate Republican women will mobilize to uphold Roe . That's why I see it for Obama.

Why would you think that's going to happen this year when it didn't happen in 2000 or 2004, when the overtly pro-life George W. Bush ran for President and won twice?

Well, counselor...I'm not whomod so I'm not going to search all over the interwebs to find articles to support my claims but, I know this much...Many of my in-laws from rural West Virginia voted Republican in the last 2 elections and are now hurting more economically than they were in 2000 and previous...stimulus check be damned. Most of them will be giving the Dems a try this year.

Purely anecdotal and not admissable in court but there you are....

1. The Justices weren't as old and weren't making so much noise about stepping down.

2. 2004 was the election on fear. Abortion wasn't on the radar.

3. Are you really gong to make me say it...? Gore won in 2000.

But even if we accept your anecdote as an example of a broad trend this year, it does not illustrate that the policies "typically" hurt such voters. It only illustrates that they perceive the current policies as hurting them and are considering a change in voting habits for this particular election.

Actually, in both 2000 and 2004 it was predicted that the president elected that year would have the opportunity to make several court appointments. And, if 2004 was decided "on fear" that tends to support my position that security and economic issues are what decide elections.

According to Pat Buchanan on MSNBC, the Reagan Democrats voted for him on social issues rather than economic...simialar to the way they voted for Bush. In 2000, the vote was against Clinton's lack of morality rather than for Bush's great policies. In '04, they didn't want to switch horses in the middle of 2 wars so they settled for Bush again.

This year, they will be voting to their economic interests...or at least voting against the party that has the economy in the toilet. In the end, it boils down to the same thing.

There was speculkation, yes. But Ginsberg has said she's not going to make it throiough tis term so the Dems need to win and Stevens is 88 years old. This president will be mnaking changes to The Court for sure.

Again, no arguement on most people voting the broader issues in an election.

But, as you said yourself, it only takes a small group of voters in a swing state to decide a close election. That small group is usually motivated by some issue outside the "mainstream". Hence my example of the evangelicals in '04. If this election were going to be either candidate in a landslide, I'd concede the point.

But this election, like the last 2, is going to come down to the wire...and the small hot button issue of choice will decide it. It might not directly effect your vote or mine but, I beleve that there are enough people who will vote on that single issue as to effect Ohio. Or Pennsylvania. Or Michigan.

IMHO.

If you tolerate abortion, then you're pro-abortion. There's no halfway. If I'm disgusted by the act of theft or murder and it's happening in my proximity, I'm not going to tolerate it. To do anything less would be an example of personal apathy or endorsement.

You, in particular, feel that people should be empowered by the state to decide whether or not a child lives or dies. That is a form of endorsement reluctant or otherwise.

I'm sure we're all "pro-life." But that doesn't mean "choice" doesn't impede on life.

For the RKMBS, the government advocates killing skrull fetus is close enough.

but the point your missing if is the only issue that matters youll vote Dem if your for baby killing, and GOP if you not for it, so her being for life will not lose McCain voters but likely gain undecided evangelicals, and undecided women. Roe v Wade being settled law makes baby killing supporters less scared of abortion law being legislated, and the assumption is there by many it wont ever be overturned.