I was going to write an entry here how my support for McCain wasn’t solidified. I still needed to find out more about Palin and I still had misgivings about McCain. Then I read Drudge. It wasn’t the stuff about Bristol Palin. That stuff happens and you deal with it. Still, liberals seemed almost pissed that Bristol didn’t abort the child, thereby making her first communion in the church of socialism/feminism. Even with all the spin and non-sense, I wished to hold off and learn more. Then I went to Drudge Report. Read it yourself. At this point I will not use the word democrat. That would tarnish the traditional meaning of the word. I won’t call them liberals, because I consider myself a classical liberal. I was going to use socialist-feminists, but that is too long. The new word shall be Neo-Coms. Well, the Neo-Coms have shot themselves in the foot with this one. Families should be off limits, but disseminating private, confidential information to the public is a safety concern as well as a privacy rights concern. There should be criminal prosecution of this breech. It doesn’t matter though. It served a purpose beyond the Neo-Coms control. It galvanized the republican party and conservatives with the McCain/Palin ticket in ways that no one on the right could do. This could cost Obama the presidency. It should. I am sure he will come out and condemn it, and I don’t place this situation at his feet, but he will be the one to pay for it. John and Sarah, you have one more vote come November and damn the Neo-Coms.
Thank you for reading this blog.
You also might like:
9 comments:
I agree.
Thank!
The real issue with Palin having her fifht child is that, apparently, she doesn't care about him. He is just 5 months old, and his moom's going to be busy as a VP (maybe a president if McCain dies). So, pro-life and pro-family, but will rather run for VP than take care of her new-born disabled kid. Nice example for moms, right?
As a man that applauded her pro-life decision, I am angry by her selfish decision.
Not to be overly flippant, but if bill clinton can juggle five chicks while being president, including one under the desk, I think she can juggle five kids. May be you don't know your history, but Theodore Roosevelt had six children while in the white house. John Tyler had 15 kids. Both men served their country well enough, and in the case of Roosevelt, very well in some ways indeed. So, my question for you is, why is ok for a man to have so many kids, and hold office, but not a man?
Jim
I don't mean to say she can't take care of 5 kids... Most mothers can do. But four kids and a Down-syndrome newborn child?
If I'd just had a nweborn down-syndrome kid, I'd spend all of my fre time with him... Not campaigning for the most busy public office in the world
I guess, but the ironic thing is the feminists fought for a woman to have the right to do that and now they are condemning her because her ideology is on the wrong side. It is possible too that her husband will stay at home. I just find a duplicity on the part of the left in this case. If she was a democrat and pro-choice, there would be no argument in this country, at least from the media and the politicians.
I agree, she shouldn't be criticized because of her brave decision of giving birth to a child.
However, I will remain criticizing her for favouring her political career instead of her new born child (maybe if she was a democrat, republicans would be criticizing her for that...).
Anyway, thanks for answering. I've really enyoied our arguments.
Yeah, the republicans probably would be doing the same thing. That's what I hate about politics. There's no attempt at ideological consistency.
Héctor, Me he gozado también. Gracias.
Post a Comment