The choice of a running mate is interesting but often not much more than that. Few Veeps in history have had the kind of influence that Cheney has had; many just sort of vanish into the administration’s woodwork, becoming noticeable only when attending some event that the President couldn’t make it to, or breaking a tie in the Senate. Palin, on the one hand, seems like a totally symbolic candidate chosen wholly for being a woman (thus appealing, they hope, to Hillary fans and breaking the stereotype of the GOP as the old-fogey boys-club party), but what makes her interesting is precisely the prospect of her acceding to the Presidency in the event of McCain’s demise or inability to perform the duties of the office. One hates to have to depend heavily on such improbable unintended consequences, but it’s the closest thing to a ray of light in the McCain campaign that I can think of.

McCain has to please the base; their support for him is weak.
If not, they’ll stay home; vote for Barr, Baldwin or (write in) a vote for Ron Paul.

Hopefully, the old “maverick” McCain is back. I supported him in 2000.

I am concerned that she lacks experience regarding foreign affairs. However, she appears to be a very intelligent woman and a quick study.

I’m be very interested to see who McCain picks as Secretary of State.

If I thought she had a lot of influence or real control I would change my mind about voting for McCain, but we have seen no indication thus far that she has any at all.  That’s what it all comes down to.

‘Hopefully, the old “maverick” McCain is back. I supported him in 2000.’

McCain 2000 was no better than McCain 2008.

Listen! Half the bloggers on this site would make better Presidents than Obama or biden.

Lacking foreign policy experience is likely a plus. Someone without foreign policy experience might have more reason to wonder why we should care about the conflict between Georgia and Russia, for example.

‘Lacking foreign policy experience is likely a plus. Someone without foreign policy experience might have more reason to wonder why we should care about the conflict between Georgia and Russia, for example.’

Somehow I think McCain will make sure she does care about that conflict.

I saw her speaking on television this afternoon and she was taking the neocon line about poor little democratic Georgia being attacked by big, bad Russia and how McCain had been wise to the Russian threat all along (or something to that effect-I forget her exact words). Now it becomes clearer why the McCain people picked her. She’s acceptable to all of the Republican core constituent groups-pro-lifers, pro-gunners, fiscal conservatives, tax cutters, oil drillers, evangelicals, family values types-and she has a son in the military, comes from outside the elite, her husband is a half-Eskimo blue collar worker, she has history of attacking institutional corruption and she’s a woman who’s kind of cute (relatively speaking). Nothing particularly offensive about her, acceptable to the conservative base with crossover appeal to others. Strategically, she’s an ideal candidate in this regard. And if she’s willing to parrot the neocon line on foreign policy (whether out of ignorance or naivete, sincere conviction or just opportunism), that pretty much seals it.

It will be amusing to watch and see what happens if McCain kicks while in office and leaves her in charge.

“I saw her speaking on television this afternoon and she was taking the neocon line about poor little democratic Georgia being attacked by big, bad Russia and how McCain had been wise to the Russian threat all along (or something to that effect-I forget her exact words).”

That is most unfortunate!

“It will be amusing to watch and see what happens if McCain kicks while in office and leaves her in charge.”

It seems we really are becoming the Roman Empire.  People coming out of nowhere poised to replace the guy who is probably going to die--or at least become incapacitated--before he completes his term.  Before long office holders will be adopting their nephews to insure succession to the right people in the event of childlessness.

Let’s tolerate a Gaius because we might get an Octavian.

I don’t think we’re in Kansas any more.

Palin’s Children:
Track
Bristol
Willow
Piper
Trig.

There is something seriously wrong with her.

She doesn’t sound like much of a Buchananite regarding feminism.  From today’s speech:

PALIN: To serve as vice president beside such a man would be the privilege of a lifetime. And it’s fitting that this trust has been given to me 88 years almost to the day after the women of America first gained the right to vote.

(APPLAUSE)

I think—I think as well today of two other women who came before me in national elections.

I can’t begin this great effort without honoring the achievements of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984…

(APPLAUSE)

... and of course Senator Hillary Clinton, who showed such determination and grace in her presidential campaign.

(APPLAUSE)

It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America…

(APPLAUSE)

... but it turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.

To Peter: I too was taken aback by the names of her children.  Not very traditional, to s ay the least.

After 15 minutes of online research and reflection (in no particular order of importance),

Fact: Palin is totally (and obviously) unqualified to lead the empire

Fact: McCain is an ill-tempered, immoral, warmongering idiot and Palin can’t wait to serve him

Fact: Palin smoked dope

Fact: Palin eloped to marry her husband

Fact: Palin has “gay and lesbian friends”

Fact: Palin posed for a photo spread in Vogue that featured and glorified “powerful” women

Fact: Palin worked as a commercial fisherwoman

Fact: Palin gave her kids silly, non-traditional names

Fact: Palin has sought political power at least since the age of 28

Fact: Palin left her baby of 3 days to return to work as governor

Fact: Palin accepted the VP job despite having a baby and kids

Fact: Palin is proud to sacrifice her son for the secular, socialist empire

Fact: Bill Kristol (and the other Trotskyite’s (so-called neocons)) is a Palin enthusiast

Fact: Palin is working “to shatter the glass ceiling” and has publicly thanked Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton for blazing a path for women (see above).

Fact: Palin is a proud member of Feminists For Life (other than opposition to abortion, they appear to be pretty typical, if more moderate sounding, feminists; painful to read the stuff at their website)

Fact: Actions speak louder than words

Easy prediction: If elected, Palin will not govern or act like a conservative

Hard prediction: Palin will “clarify” her stance on abortion

Situation in the great beyond: Washington is sick to his stomach; Marx is ecstatic

Conclusion: If a so-called conservative (McCain) nominating Palin for VP doesn’t seal the triumph of radical politics and finalize the sovietization of the American woman, nothing does.

Question: When are genuine conservatives going to wake up?

Sarah also is commander of the Alaskan national Guard in a state which has more coast line than any state.  It is three times bigger than Texas and its closest neighbor is Russia..

“Fact: Palin is proud to sacrifice her son for the secular, socialist empire “

Joseph wrote this.  I was wondering if someone would bring this up.  So, when the pro-
war candidate DOESN’T have a child in the army, then the people bitch about how he or
she is sending other people’s children to fight and die for them.  Then, when the
pro-war candidate DOES have a child in the army, the people bitch about how he or she
is sending his or her own child to fight and die for them.  Look, you can’t have both
arguments.  IF the war is wrong, it is wrong whether or not they have children in the
military.  IF the war is right, it is right whether or not they have children
in the military.

But I really must roll my eyes when, after hearing so much bullshitting about how
the neocons don’t have family in the military, all of a sudden we hear complaints about
how a candidate does have family in the military.

Palin the Buchaninite, wonderful!
Pat must take her aside and explain the founder’s thoughts on foreign intervention, she is, after all, a “young” person. She’s in the ballpark on the rest and I am very pleased with her “reform” record. It remains to be seen if she has the requisite courage and the will to challenge our “leaders.”

‘Sarah also is commander of the Alaskan national Guard in a state which has more coast line than any state.  It is three times bigger than Texas and its closest neighbor is Russia.’

So? Unless one really believes the most stupid alarmism about Russia, the Kremlin isn’t going to try to reclaim Alaska.

I understand that Palin is a great fan of Flemish painting.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(cue in hysterical laughter)

‘Sarah also is commander of the Alaskan national Guard in a state which has more coast line than any state.  It is three times bigger than Texas and its closest neighbor is Russia.’

It’s closest neighbor is Canada.

We have some non issues here. The Gop and the Dems are in complete agreement about the war and more to come. The illusion that the Dems are not for more wars is much like the illusion that the GOP is Pro Life. It’s called rheteric.

“Your actions speak so loudly that I can’t hear what you say.”

Now, if a third party candidate would choose
a Chinese-American woman confined to a wheelchair.

Palin will have zero influence in a McCain administration other than to be a
pretty face.

Still though its a sign of progress that she was chosen. She’s a very multi-demensional
politician unlike a lot of Republicans.  Clearly she was picked to appeal to those
disgruntled Republicans planning on voting for Bob Barr.

If you want to know what impact Ron Paul has made on the campaign, Sarah Palin is it.

Palin as VP is yet another example of the GOP mainstreaming, ratifying and entrenching what was once part of the radical agenda.  That’s the GOP’s job: slowly normalize what previous generations would have rejected as positively perverse; everyone quickly forgets that it was self-described commies who originally pushed for all this nonsense. 

Anyhow, on what principled grounds will republicans object to minority quotas, given Palins obvious lack of credentials?  On what principled grounds will republicans object to young mothers lusting after traditional male leadership roles?  On what grounds will republicans counsel young mothers to stay home with their children?  On what grounds will republicans object to the state further involving itself in family life and the workplace, given Palins proud membership in feminists for life?  How do you object to mothers deploying for combat when a mother is ordering them into combat?  Then again, maybe republicans don’t really object to these things.  Hey that’s an interesting thought: maybe the GOP isn’t conservative after all – go figure.

I know plenty of women who are just like Palin: gay and lesbian friends; dope smokers; silly, untraditional, unchristian names for their kids; lustful usurpers of worldly male power; untraditional and unchristian child bearing and rearing practices; supportive of house husbands; obsessive about their physical appearance – this is all standard stuff for modern, confused, undereducated lipstick feminists.  Such women have actually deluded themselves into thinking that their BA degrees make them the best educated generation of women in history (you have to see the looks on their faces when I show them letters written by teenage girls during the American founding).  Moreover, they all worship government and would love to extend government power into other areas of life.  To them, government is daddy.  Just listen to their silly and vapid conversations about how wonderful the “gifted and talented program” is at whatever suburban state school little Arden and Boston attend. Interestingly, many of these women oppose abortion – oftentimes for dangerously wrong reasons.  None of them are conservative in any meaningful sense of the term; they would be appalled after reading a few typical posts at Takimag.  I suspect this is Palin’s incoherent world view in a nutshell.  My Italian grandmother was a traditional conservative; Palin is not.  With all of this it’s easy to understand Palin’s past and apparent support for Buchanan: she is irrational.

If Palin is a principled conservative who’s prepared to stand up to a corrupt GOP leadership then (1) she would have supported the only real conservative who was running for president (Ron Paul), (2) Bill Kristol would not be an enthusiastic supporter and (3) she would be loathe to server McCain.  All three are demonstrably false; hence Palin is not a principled conservative who is prepared to stand up to a corrupt GOP leadership.  QED.

She’s cute and different. It will impress a lot of impressionable folks. If I was Biden I would be worried. How do you attack her without sounding avuncular or a misogynist?
If it was me I would keep mentioning her kids’ names. They really say more about her than any Alaskan blog.
Dear oh dear.

Unless somebody can convince me that McCain will drop dead taking the oath of office so we never have to have him President even one day, I will not vote for either of these two clowns running for President.

I may vote for Barr or write in Paul.

Well, I sincerely hope that either party is America still has a base which, like Buchanan, sees the neocons for what they are (old Trots, simply going about it by different means), and says so.

A base which, like Buchanan, is right about family values (strongly shared by Obama’s black base, and by the rural and blue-collar whites who rallied to Clinton), right about strictly limited and strictly legal immigration (strongly shared by Obama’s black base, and by the rural and blue-collar whites who rallied to Clinton), right about “free” trade (strongly shared by Obama’s black base, and by the rural and blue-collar whites who rallied to Clinton), right about constitutional checks and balances (strongly shared by Obama’s black base), right about real national security (strongly shared by the rural and blue-collar whites who rallied to Clinton), right about energy independence (strongly shared by the rural and blue-collar whites who rallied to Clinton), right about real environmental responsibility, right about Second Amendment rights and responsibilities (strongly shared by the rural and blue-collar whites who rallied to Clinton), right about Civil Rights (not “affirmative action”, and in those terms (strongly shared by the rural and blue-collar whites who rallied to Clinton, as well as by a growing number of blacks who see the Hispanics getting AA these days), right about America as an English-speaking country (very, very strongly shared by Obama’s black base, and by the rural and blue-collar whites who rallied to Clinton), right about foreign policy realism, and at least open to the Biblico-Patristic critique of Americanism itself.

But not a base which, like Buchanan, is wrong about the protection of workers and consumers (although he is not terribly badly wrong on that one these days), wrong about fair tax (likewise), wrong about universal health care, wrong about Social Security, and wrong about Civil Rights (in the sense that he still makes occasional rhetorical flourishes towards the remaining George Wallace Tendency, not they are ever going to get anywhere now). And you can’t be a “fiscal conservative” in Alaska. It’s Alaska. Where Palin has also been a good friend of the indigenous peoples.

I’m still backing Obama, but Palin, though certainly not McCain, is looking better and better, not least for the Democratic Party in the long run: it needs to become once again the party that reaches out to, and represents, those who will be and are being attracted to Palin.

, http://davidaslindsay.blogspot.com

“Now, if a third party candidate would choose
a Chinese-American woman confined to a wheelchair.”

Or maybe a 3rd party candidate could choose an inexperienced, under-qualified black
woman for VP.  Oh wait, our hero Pat Buchanan did this in 2000! 

So, Buchananites, if you’re critical of picking a woman for VP, you’ll have to be
critical of Buchanan himself.  Likewise, if you’re critical of women with children
playing untraditional roles and entering the professional workforce, look no further
than Bay Buchanan.  She’s actually a *single* mom (though she admits that this is not
the ideal or even the normative situation).  I don’t object to the criticism, I just
wish that it would be applied equally to everyone to whom it applies.

I love the web; these pictures are priceless,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022579.html

Look how easy it is to be a great mother and governor; it’s so much fun!  I be it’s even easier to be a great mother and vice president.  Funny stuff.

If her husband is half Eskimo, it must be the lower half; the picture of him in the paper portrays a rather standard, moderately good-looking Caucasian. The only things about this woman that I don’t like (so far) are the silly names of her children (Todd, Piper, Willow, Bristol, Trig).

. Not a Christian name in the bunch - just these bizarre monikers that sound more like what one would have named a pet in the old days. Sigh!

Yeah, her kids names are ridiculous. 

But Joseph, if you are going to deny your support to national politicians based on the silly names they give their kids, or on whether or not they’ve smoked dope (which Palin did when it was legal in Alaska, and purportedly “didn’t like"), or because of their half baked feminist sentiments, then you might as well give up politics altogether. 

I mean this is 2008, and few Americans under fifty are now going to please you.  Besides, you do know that it is the libertarian line (and Dr. Ron Paul’s incidentally) that drugs be unregulated?

Politics in pluralistic society man, it’s the art of the possible.  If we start excommunicating people because they oppose abortion for “for dangerously wrong reasons” (Whatever could those be, by the way? You can’t be serious?)
Then we will very shortly be without allies, and unable to accomplish anything good. 

It’s like I say to my Mt. Athos loving Orthodox friends: if you insist on explicit orthodoxy from everyone you deign to commune with, then you will very shortly be alone in a cave on cliff, and be of little use to, or influence on anyone.

I mean, we baptized the Slav and Frankish barbarian hordes under Vladimir and Clovis, right?

It seems to me that sometimes we gotta risk openness, interaction and cooperation with folks that don’t always accept all of our mores. 

Which why I may be voting for Sarah Palin this fall.  I mean, she may have named her last Down’s Syndrome son Trig, but damn, isn’t just and simply a beautiful thing that she named him anything at all?

Charles,

All good points worthy of serious consideration.  Briefly, a bad argument in the service of a good conclusion is a dangerous thing; Aquinas himself warned against bad arguments for the faith; trust me, I’ve suffered through many bad arguments against abortion – arguments that would make opposition to abortion / stem cell research / cloning look ridiculous to scientifically informed people.  Anyhow, my more basic point still stands: one can oppose abortion (even for the right reasons) and still not be a conservative.  I’m not totally sure that’s the case with Palin but I have my suspicions. (for example, names are important things; your name is one of the most fundamental things about you and is loaded with significance; names should connect us to our ancestors and to God and I worry about trendy folks who are so cavalier about such important things).

I’m actually a pretty tolerant guy and am all for decriminalizing dope; I certainly wouldn’t base my vote on a candidate’s youthful flirtation with marijuana.  Having said all that, her dope smoking is relevant and I am concerned that conservatives are going to fall for the same old GOP tricks and happily and thankfully eat the crumbs left for them.  After so many years of betrayal you’d think we’d be a little more skeptical and demanding.  Someone has to ask hard questions, point out uncomfortable facts, and challenge the GOP establishment and their VP pick.  We shouldn’t just line up and salute – right?  And I have serious reservations about voting for McCain because he’s selected a 44 yr old, inexperienced, undereducated, unconventional, self-described feminist as his running mate – even if she likes to eat Moose burgers and is solid on abortion. 

Finally, the art of the compromise in a fundamentally christian constitutional republic is one thing; the art of the compromise in decadent post-christian America is an entirely different matter; I would welcome the opportunity to choose between Washington and Madison; I despair at choosing between Obama and McCain.  As counterintuitive as it sounds, maybe total withdrawal from politics is the answer; why legitimize an electoral process that is so lacking in legitimacy?

Joseph, as for the “inexperience”, I will reference another commentator, Red Phillips: what experience is truly necessary to be a “paleo-President”?  Simply the common sense knowledge of the workings of the United States Constitution will do.  It shouldn’t be all that difficult to be President of the United States of America.  If you read the Constitution, the bulk of the “heavy lifting” is done by the House of Representatives and Senate.

You should be more worried about you two Senators and your Representative in the House than you are the President!

Patrick,

If that were only the case.  Unfortunately, we no longer live in a constitutional republic.  In contemporary America, the president (and the VP in the case of Cheney) is the single most powerful person on the planet and that’s why presidential elections matter.

Anyhow, what’s the evidence that Palin has “the common sense knowledge of the workings of the United States Constitution” or that her primary concern is to restore constitutional government to America?  Given that she longs to serve McCain and given the enthusiasm for her candidacy from neocon hacks, I have my doubts about her constitutional convictions.  Time will tell but I for one will not be surprised if she turns out to be a total disappointment.  Anyhow, what’s wrong with asking questions and voicing some legitimate concerns? 

Finally, I suspect the founders themselves would disagree with you regarding the importance of experience in a president if for no other reason than that the president must inspire, lead and command others in reverence for and the implementation of the constitution.  By your logic, a bright high school kid is qualified to be president.  One wonders why the founders bothered with an age requirement for the presidency.

And yes, I know Palin at 44 satisfies the age requirement for president.  But my basic point stands: experience matters and the founders recognized this (and common sense testifies to its importance too).

What in the world could possibly be wrong with Mrs. Palin being a commerical fisherwoman?  She lives in Alaska, after all.  I am a fisherwoman but not commericial, just sport.  I also like camping and while not a hunter, can shoot a gun.  If this doesn’t meet some test for frilly helpless femininity, too bad. 

And eloping to marry her husband?  Well, she’s not into all that Bridezilla nonsense then.  Bully for her in my book.

I suspect that women politicians can more succesfully tend to children and their jobs than the average woman who is a secretary or a Wal Mart clerk.  They can have the kids in their office with them or have the money to hire nannies and such. 

OK, the kid’s names are weird but that’s her and her husband’s business. 

Still not going to vote for McInsane but I like Sarah.  She’s solid on guns and abortion.  Her husband is a dogsled champion.  He is a hunk and she is a babe.  She once supported Pat B. and had good things to say about Ron Paul. What’s not to like?  Except for accepting the job as McInsane’s VP that is. 

I guess if God had meant for us to vote, He would have given us candidates!

Marty,

Palin had as many kind words for Dr. Paul as she does for Clinton and Ferraro.  If she’s such a Ron Paul fan, why didn’t she openly and publicly support or endorse Dr. Paul during his bid for the presidency?  I can’t wait to see her distance herself from poor Pat.

It seems to me that Palin is, well, a feminist that’s good on abortion and I suspect that’s how she would describe her self (she is, after all, a member of Feminists for Life who is looking to shatter glass ceilings and all; go visit their website and read about the great Mary Wellstone Craft – not exactly a conservative hero ).  I fear that the Palin choice will further embolden and legitimize the neo-Marxist feminist revolution in America: conservatives embracing a mother of five young children whose main ambition in life is to break through glass ceilings; as recently as the 60’s, only self-described commies talked and acted like this.  What else could the enemies of civilization ask for?

(For the record, I’m not opposed to female political leadership in principle; but that’s a long story that starts with the woman in question being exceptionally well qualified, with the right intentions, and without young children to care for, etc.).

Anyhow, I fear that the Palin nomination will seal the erroneous idea that sex-determined, natural roles are fictional and that it’s all a matter of subjective preference: the traditional womanly virtues for me, drinking beer and burping with the guys for the gal down the street –what’s the big deal.  It will mainstream the erroneous idea that women can have it all: powerful and tough yet feminine and beautiful; works harder than any man yet is a devoted and caring mother.  If conservatives get behind Palin prematurely, they might unwittingly surrender their ability to oppose the feminist agenda in a principled and effective manner.  Maybe I’m wrong about all of this but that’s my concern.  Another concern is that this is a GOP trap and we’re falling right into it; it’s only been a few days and folks are already flocking to board the McCain bus where only a few days back most of us were loath to vote for the man.

PS I have no problem with a woman fishing, so long as she does it in a way that is not destructive of her essential femininity (as I’m sure you do!).

Well, I’m not getting on the bus.  And I’m not sure how one fishes without compromising one’s essential feminity.  It would seem to be a rather gender neutral activity.  I guess this would involve not cussing or chewing tobacco or something whilst fishing.  As we have never seen Mrs. Palin in action fishing we can’t tell whether she was able to fish without compromising her femininity. 

As far as women in leadership not having kids to care for, what about Isabella of Castile?  She had 12 children all while expelling the Moors from Spain, uniting Castile & Aragon (with Ferdinand’s help of course) and helping Columbus on his voyage.  Of course, being a queen and all, she had governesses and tutors to raise her children. 

I believe Margaret Thatcher’s twins were rather young when she started her climb to power. 

I think women in leadership positions have more resources to care for their children than the average working class woman.  Those are the women who need to and want to stay home with the kids but can’t afford to.  Not talking about giving up the 2nd car or private school for the kids like with yuppie career women; often talking about paying the electric bill. 

It sounds like you think it’s ok for men to just be qualified but a woman in public life has to be exceptionally well qualified.  So in other words, a woman has to be much better than a man to enter the public realm.  Judging by the quality of some of the male politicians we have, that probably would not be hard.

Of course, Palin didn’t support Ron Paul or McCain wouldn’t have picked her I suppose but considering how much contempt and ridicule the other Republican candidates heaped on him, I note when someone at least has something positive to say about him.  The only other candidate that seemed to engage Paul’s arguments without laughing and sneering was Huckabee.  Even though Huckabee was wrong in his argument, he at least seemed to admit that Iraq was a mistake but that as a country we should stand together on it.  I probably could have voted for him and wonder why if McCain wanted to make the conservative base happy why he didn’t pick Huckabee. 

I think McCain really wanted Joe Lieberman, realized that dog wouldn’t hunt, and probably was turned down by Huckabee and Romney, if he even asked them.  If he gets elected, we will probably see Lieberman as Sec of State.  And we though Condi Rice was bad!!

The only thing much I can say about McCain is at least he’s not as vile and contemptible as Rudy Giuiliani. 

I also would note that if the Vice President would actually stick to the duties of the job as enumerated in the Constitution, a mother of young children who is Vice President would have all the time in the world to care for them!

Spencer,

Why do you bother writing? Taki humors you and you think you know how to write?

The Palin pick matters more than it normally does, because John McInsane is clearly dying.  Earlier today, I saw phootage of him at the 2000 Republican National Convention; the guy looked 20-25 years younger than he does today.  I’d be surprised if he lasts two years as President.  Could President Palin govern as a Buchananite?  Would she seal our Southern Border?  Maybe.  But I’m frankly not willing to risk the chance that McInsane might start a nuclear war with Russia and/or China before he kicks the proverbial bucket (and possibly takes a majority of the American citizenry with him).  So I’ll be voting for Bob Barr* (since I don’t live in a swing state), and hoping for an Obama victory.

*Chuck Baldwin actually comes closer to my views than Barr, but Barr seems to have a shot at spoiling a close election for McInsane, and thus boosting the fortunes of the libertarian right.  If Baldwin starts showing up in the polls, I’ll switch my support to him.

“Palin’s Children:
Track
Bristol
Willow
Piper
Trig.”

Are those the names of her children, or perhaps her sled dog team?

Whenever I hear of someone naming their child “Piper,” I wonder if they’re secretly part of some Lovecraftian cult of The Great Olde Ones.  Maybe Bristol will name her kid “Shub?”

So, Buchananites, if you’re critical of picking a woman for VP, you’ll have to be critical of Buchanan himself.

Many of us were--vocally.  Of course, we also realized that Pat wasn’t going to be elected, so the silly symbolic move meant little.  That’s not true of McCain/Palin.

Likewise, if you’re critical of women with children playing untraditional roles and entering the professional workforce, look no further than Bay Buchanan.

And?  She’s also an apostate, having converted to Mormonism.  Again, I’ve heard (and engaged in) plenty of criticism of Bay on these points.  Why assume, Tobias, that people who are critical of McCain’s pick are only critical because it was McCain who picked her?

I thought, surely, the people who were taken in by McCain would see the light with Palin.  Now I am truly frightened.  To think that after it’s been exposed she covered her daughter’s pregnancy, first by claiming the child as her own and now saying, “She’s five months pregnant, she can’t be his mother!” What next?  A miscarriage or an eleven month prenancy, it will have to be one or the other.  She wrongly fired employee(s), supported Buchanan and Stevenson, opposes birth control & condoms within MARRIAGE & much, much more. Now she wants in MY BEDROOM.  Where does it end?  No wonder she supported Buchanan, they’re both Nazi’s.  I am so thankful there are still 60+ days for her lies to unravel or the USA is in real trouble.  It is certain McCain won’t live through the next four years. If Alaska thinks Palin is so swell, let’s send her back where she belongs.  I don’t condemn her daughter, I feel desperately sorry for.  How sad to live under the reign of Palin.  Renea Wayne