Palin Should Withdraw VP Candidacy

"My vetting process was completely thorough and I'm grateful for the results," McCain told reporters in Philadelphia today.

If that's the case, McCain and his cronies are bigger idiots than I thought. The fact that Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter is knocked up is small potatoes compared to what other skeletons are being dug out of her Alaskan closet. The fact that Palin decided to make a statement about her daughter while Hurricane Gustav was devastating parts of the Louisiana coast -- not to mention the three year anniversary of Katrina -- is unforgivable. It shows a basic failure of judgement from the outset. Let's drop this bombshell while the media is focused elsewhere and maybe we'll get a pass. No such luck, Sarah. 
  • Palin now has a private lawyer in a legislative ethics investigation in Alaska into whether she abused her power as governor in dismissing the state’s public safety commissioner. The PSC refused to fire a state trooper, who happened to be in a messy divorce with Palin's sister.
  • In the 1990s she was a member  of the Alaska Independence Party, which promotes the state's secession from America.
  • Her husband was charged with a DUI in the 80s.
  • The New York Times reports that a vetting team was still digging into Palin's background in Alaska AFTER she'd been formally announced as McCain's running mate.
  • Her platform of abstinence and no sex education for school children smacks of hypocrisy in the wake of the announcement that her teenage daughter is pregnant and WILL marry the father and keep the baby. I wonder if the teen father has any say in that? Alaska also has one of the highest teen STD problems in the country. McCain has repeatedly voted against sex education and contraceptive use. 
  • McCain's choice of Palin was a panic selection to try and draw disaffected Hillary voters and independents. The women I know aren't buying it and only the Republican Kool-Aid drinkers and Christian right-wing crazies are supporting her now.
If Palin was smart she would withdraw her candidacy and spare herself and her family any further embarrassment. McCain's selection of Palin is proof positive that his judgement is seriously impaired. This has nothing to do with Palin being a woman; it has everything to do with her being inappropriate and unprepared for the job of vice-president of the United States.

Thanks to Tania for finding this video, which really sums it up.


Rachel Mallino said…
oh, I love it. seriously, the whole entire thing is one big comedic skit.
jaxx said…
you got it right on the money, collin. and thanks for the video, that is a hoot (spoken, of course, as a true vagina american myself).

and we both know that poor babyfather is getting no say about that wedding. no choice for women, no choice for men. it's the palin way.
she needs to take her and her 5,000 kids out into that alaskan wilderness and never come back
Anonymous said…
The Daily Show totally nailed it. I heart Samantha Bee!

ButtonHole said…
She is an insult. She makes me ashamed to be a woman and an American. Way to roll back progress about a hundred years, bitch! She and that slut daughter need to keep their legs shut!

I loathe her.

In case you missed that part.
ButtonHole said…
update on baby daddy:

"fuckin redneck"!! lol indeed. Bet he has an old car on blocks that he's working on set up in the White House driveway. And maybe deer carcass hanging to dry from one of the trees near the Rose Garden.
DeadMule said…
Hilarious, Collin. This campaign is going to get even stupider before November.
Anonymous said…
I cannot believe they flew that redneck babby daddy down to be part of the convention!!!!!! What the hell is Palin thinking?

ButtonHole said…
Thinking? Does that compute?
bookfraud said…
sarah palin seems to have gotten some post-speech traction (a little joke there).

i fear for the republic. the whole thing is insane.
Silly Right Winged Bible Believer said…
Incredible. You liberals really sure know how to hate. My take on your candidate is this: I think Obama is a great guy. I disagree with him across the board on everything. I don't hate him though. I don't hate Him, because that "backward" book called the Bible says that we should Love and not Hate. I think you are the ones who are not progressing but are indeed going backwards. I say that because of your obvious hatred towards people.
Collin said…
^I think your name really just sums it up.
Silly Insignificant Right Winged Bible Believer said…
Collin, are you saying then that you think the concept of love your enemies is silly? Do you hate Palin?

I find it astonishing that so many liberals preach tolerance but yet hate. The Bible goes way past tolerance. The Bible says to love those who are different from you. Love those who think differently than you do.

Collin, I'm not saying that you hate Palin. I'm asking you. Reading some of the comments of others here, I get the impression that she is hated by the left and I find that incredibly ironic.
Collin said…
I don't hate Palin, but I hate everything she represents. Her views and "values" are anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-choice. She and the McCain campaign continue to lie about and distort her record and accomplishments. With McCain's advanced age, there is a possibility she might be president and that scares the shit out of me. Her appeal to the Christian right wing does not reflect the values of this country and those who are swayed by McCain's fear campaign need to wake up.
nutty right wing bible believer said…
I think you expressed your point fairly well (although I disagree with it).

However, I have this issue with your last comment: How is she anti-woman? I get the impression that you are anti-woman or at least have low respect for women with your post referring to Palin as the term used for the female anatomy in this blog.

Maybe you that isn't the case, but that text in your post topic is disrespectful toward women.
Collin said…
I only have low respect for Palin and for McCain for being a patronizing, sexist for selecting her based on her gender, which is exactly what he did. And he skipped over more qualified women to pick Palin because he was the only he could find that was pro-life. So he picked her as VP on ONE issue. That shows a complete lack of judgement and vision for a man who might be president.

Any woman who would stand up and deny another woman a choice or a voice is anti-woman. She's allowing her religious beliefs to dictate how she will govern, which not only throws separation of church and state out the window, but denies millions of women control over their own lives.

I see you've gone from silly to nutty, that's not hopeful.
ignorant right wing bible believer said…
I'm glad that you noticed the labels given to me by condescending liberals. That's beside the point though.

McCain selected her because he needed to solidify the base of the Republican party which includes an overlapping of many issues:

#1: pro life
#2: pro 2nd amendment / pro gun
#3: fiscal conservatism
#4: social conservatism (for the so called religious right)
#5: states rights / small federal government (a true Constitution frame of reference) I refer to the 10th amendment in the Bill of Rights.

there are more reasons I'm sure, that's what comes to mind.

It was very wise of McCain to pick a person who is a governor also. It was deviously cunning of McCain to pick a woman to pull independent women his direction. Like it or not, that's why he did it and that's causing Liberals to scream foul.

My next question to you is where did the phrase 'separation of church and state' come from?

Also, why is it wrong for someone to govern from their religious views? That's part of the package of electing someone. Everybody governs from some kind of world view. Everybody has a fountain from within from where they make their decisions. Everybody has a frame of reference from where they interpret their environment. Just because someone is an atheist or agnostic does not make them better at governing than someone who is a muslim or christian. In fact, I would be more distrustful of the agnostic, because he or she is already saying that "they don't know". So, there's a variable of uncertainty of how that person will behave. With the "religious" person, that particular variable does not exist.

But this last point that I've given is really purely hypothetical.

Because, coming back to Palin and other Religious Right politicians. You are quite mistaken. They do not govern by their religious views. Contrary to how leftest politicians govern, these "religious right" folk govern straight from the Constitution. I find it quite interesting how the left wants to take this country down a path contrary to the Constitution of the US which is a contract between the states, the federal government and the people; and the right and the "religious right" want to keep us governing by the Constitution. Yet the left screams we're governing by religion.

And how is she denying a voice to women? Is she going to take away their right to vote?

I've thrown several questions your way.
stoppalinnow said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Collin said…
I wish those commenting on the issues (like the idiot I just deleted) would have the balls to sign their names and identify themselves. It's so easy to hide behind the computer and spout rhetoric. If you're going to take a stance, at least have the nerve and courtesy to name yourself.

The last time I checked, there was nothing in the Constitution about women's reproductive rights, scientific study, gay rights, etc. These are not issues in the constitution but social issues being used as platforms by the religious right. The judges being added to the Supreme Court are decided based on their religious views and opinions. I call that governing by religion.

I don't care what religion anyone else practices, but don't use your religion to decide on social issues. What the Christian right preaches and tries to forward is no different than the radical Islamic religion who fosters terrorists and hatred.
simple minded right wing bible believer said…
This is not a reproductive issue and its definitely not a theological issue either. Evidence of that is the fact that there are atheist and agnostics a like who are pro life. This is a basic human rights issue. People who are pro-life consider the killing of an unborn child murder.

So, how will Palin deny a voice to women? Not only will she give a voice to millions of women, but to millions who can not speak for themselves nor defend themselves against the cruel instruments of death used by the abortion technician.

So, the left spins this as a "religious issue". The Bible says "thou shalt not kill". Because the Bible says not to kill, does that mean we should do the opposite because its from "religious" material?

Where in the Constitution does it give us the right to take the life of an innocent individual? We on the pro life side understand this to be a basic human right issue, not a religious issue.

Another concern by the right wing is the ever expanding size of the Federal government. The 10th amendment of the Constitution prohibits that; but no one really reads that any more:

10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Concerning the Constitution, what part of the Constitution has the clause "Separation of Church and State" in it?
Collin said…
Not only will she give a voice to millions of women, but to millions who can not speak for themselves nor defend themselves against the cruel instruments of death used by the abortion technician.

You're next fake name should be "deluded right wing Christian crazy."

We're done here.
out of touch constitutionaly based bible believer said…
Your comment on how judges are selected is incorrect. The judges are not picked based on their religion or religious views or religious opinions. There is not a religious right litmus test, nor has there ever been one, nor should there ever be one. When Bush selected Elito and Roberts, he picked them based in their track records that they would not come to the High Court with an agenda, but would in fact interpret the Constitution for what it is and not make up new law on the fly to support their beliefs or agenda. There are 2 types of judges who sit on the Supreme Court: Good and Evil. I know "Evil" is a strong word, so bear with me.

A Good judge when presented a case will indeed look at the Constitution and decide the case based on the Constitution itself. The Constitution is a contract between the Federal Government, the States and the People. A bad judge will use current European law as basis for his or her decision also (for example).

Suppose you had a contract to buy a piece of property. Before the close of the deal you and the seller have some serious disagreements so you end up before a judge. This judge would be Evil if he started inventing things that weren't in your contract just to support some agenda that he had. This would be especially Evil if it effected you negatively. So it is with those judges on the High Court who make up law from the bench. The Supreme Court is not a Constitutional Convention.

So there you go. We don't encourage the President to select judges who use the Bible to interpret laws. Our contract is the Constitution period.

Look at Libertarians. They have pretty much no religion and they agree with the religious right in that judges should not interpret law based on a personal agenda.
misunderstood sincere bible believer said…
You're next fake name should be "deluded right wing Christian crazy."

We're done here.

If I offended you, please believe me that was not my intentions. I've enjoyed the open debate and I think that's how we should do things in America.

I want my country to change. I believe the best way to make that change is for me to be your friend.

A friend has more influence on another friend than a despot on a threatened populace.
Collin said…
I think debate is fine, but when two people are so diametrically opposed in viewpoint, there really is no reason to keep debating. We'll just have to agree to disagree and may the best candidate win.

Popular Posts