I think we all know what would happen if it were Obama's daughter who was pregnant instead of Palin's daughter.

We'd be hearing scorched earth commentary from the likes of Richard Hobbs, Fred Garvin, "Ruth Kimble", bpr, skyspy and various other bloggers who believe in the mantra "there is no problem so big that cannot be solved via a tax cut to the rich or a stern lecture to the Negro".

We'd be reading thinly veiled race baiting commentary from some or all of the above usual suspects, yet all of them would squeal loudly and longly if you were to call them out on it.

You've not heard me complain about the dispicable coverage of Sarah's daughter. I think its horrible. But I've never said it wasn't relevant, because to be honest, it has some relevance, albeit, more slacious than relevant.

My legal objection would be that the probative value of this information is far outweighed by his irrelevance, but hey, the news can report whatever they want.

The fact is, Sarah professes to be a very good christian person, who believes in abstinence. Abstinence works every time it has been tried. Sarah's daughter apparently let her hormones get the best of her, and now we have a cake in the oven. If you think this can be relevant to the issues before this country, then by all means share that with the American People.

But, I think that it will backfire on you all. What I can't understand is that liberals are so quick to quit. To surrender, to retreat. Because abstinence doesn't always work, then decide we should never try it. Why is that? I mean condoms don't always work, but we don't tell kids not to practice safe sex.

The reason that you guys want to jump on this issue, is because of her belief in a very evangelical type of christian life. Why do you begrudge her for that? That's your right, but how does berating her daughter serve any political purpose?

If you want to know my honest opinion, her daugher's pregnancy is a moot point. But Sarah's belief in teaching creationism, i.e. intelligent design in our schools, (if this is true), calls Sarah's judgment in to question much more than if her daughter made a mistake while in the back seat of a chevy up by the dam.

But hey, you guys keep it up. Because its backfiring on you every time you try to do this.

=====
What I do find disgusting is the cavalier attitude that Michelle Obama takes regarding unwed mothers. She proudly, introduced her husband, he won the U.S. Senate seat a few years ago, as "My BABIES' DADDY!"

If she was joking with friends, fine. But she was actually introducing him to the crowds, knowing it was being filmed for televison. She actually CONDONED unprotected sex by mocking it openly and in public. That one statement made me sick. Making fun of a serious problem in our communities, especially in the black community about unplanned pregnancies by unwed parents is unbelievable, and another example of how Michell Obama would be the worst first lady in history.

abstinence might work and should, indeed, be a part of an overall plan to address unwanted pregnancies. Now can we also agree that handgun control laws might just work and should be part of an overall plan to address unwanted violence? Keep the faith

What gun control laws do you favor?

Wulf

I am for comprehensive background checks that work to keep handguns out of the hands of irresponsible people. I will gladly grant that gun control laws are not perfect, but that is not a valid reason for doing away with them. We should make gun ownership as difficult as possible. Law abiding citizens will always be able to have access to weapons, even if the waiting period is 30-days (just a for instance, not a policy desire). Making it difficult is much better than making it easier. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

What standards should be used to determine if a person is too irresponsible to own a gun?

that would have to be determined though the legislative process. It is not about answers, it is about finding what people reasonable want to have and how they are going to achieve it. Does that make sense?

Democracy is NOT a spectator sport

When people break handgun control laws, then it puts innocent people's lives at risk when the law is broken by criminals.
You see, some people don't think laws should apply to them. That is why you see people driving over the speed limit, running stop signs, and murdering other people with guns.

Innocent lives are not at stake when someone isn't abstinent, unless they are a "pro-choice" liberal that doesn't feel that a baby has the right to live.

“Because abstinence doesn't always work, then decide we should never try it. “

Who ever said we should never try it? Anybody? Anywhere? The problem is that the abstinence program is a hoax that doesn't work. If neither Bristol nor her mother can make it work who can?

The problem is that you conservatives want to ban sex education. Trust me, we liberals are all for your abstinence.

Sure, abstinence is often mocked and considered stupid. You liberals have been so very vocal about how teenagers are just doing what comes natural and we shouldn't try and discourage their natural impulses.

This is just plain silly. We have laws against teenager's drinking, but they still do it, and do it a lot. Should we just stop enforcing that law?

I know that abstinence doesn't work by itself. Its just one means to help encourge kids not to be pressured into sex to early. That its perfectly okay to wait until marriage, or to maturity, before you engage in sex.

Should sex education include abstinence, absolutely. Should it include information about practicing safe sex, absolutely. They are all means to a ends that we all agree is important. But to decry and degrade celebracy as a looney idea brought on by evangelicals, is to politicize one of the tools that can actually help discourage pre-marital or pre-maturity sex. Why denigrate any tool that helps?

Sure, abstinence is often mocked and considered stupid. You liberals have been so very vocal about how teenagers are just doing what comes natural and we shouldn't try and discourage their natural impulses.

Richard, it's not the concept of "abstinence" that is mocked. It is the belief-set of Palin and other fringe extremists that "abstinence ONLY" should be taught in schools, to the exclusion of everything else related to sexuality. That's an important distinction.

Insofar as your second sentence, may we presume that you are of the opinion that sex is unnatural?

This is just plain silly. We have laws against teenager's drinking, but they still do it, and do it a lot. Should we just stop enforcing that law?

Which laws? The ones that criminalize underage sex? I don't know what the age of consent is here in Georgia and I doubt most teens do either. Do you truly believe these laws have any deterrent effect whatsoever? "I better not have sex with Bessie Lou, it's against the law!"

I know that abstinence doesn't work by itself. Its just one means to help encourge kids not to be pressured into sex to early. That its perfectly okay to wait until marriage, or to maturity, before you engage in sex.

At long last, you and I agree on a basic point

Should sex education include abstinence, absolutely.

Good Lord, we're two for two!

Should it include information about practicing safe sex, absolutely.They are all means to a ends that we all agree is important.

Three in a row! Keep it up!

But to decry and degrade celebracy as a looney idea brought on by evangelicals, is to politicize one of the tools that can actually help discourage pre-marital or pre-maturity sex. Why denigrate any tool that helps?
Again, it's not "abstinence" I have trouble with, it's the "abstinence ONLY" concept.

“You liberals have been so very vocal about how ... we shouldn't try and discourage their natural impulses. “

Another assertion you can't back up. It's so easy to argue about what people have not said.

Your position on it as stated above exactly matches Obama's and is diametrically opposed to your Party's and its nominees.

Here is McCain when asked about funding for sex education:

“Let me think about it a little bit ... I don't know if I would use taxpayers' money ... I'm not informed enough on it. Let me find out ... I'm sure I have taken a position on it in the past ... I have to find out my position on it ... I am sure I am opposed to government funding. I am sure I support the president's policy on it."

Here is Palin answering an Eagle Forum questionnaire:

"Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?" Palin: "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

Abstinence didn't work for Palin and it didn't work for her daughter.

Y'all are just in denial. Compare every single European country that teaches real sex education to kids. All of them have lower teen pregnancy and abortion rates.

What have you been smoking down there on Spear Road?

You are really making it easy on me. So let's converse.

You said "Who ever said we should never try it? Anybody?. . . "

Well, why would you or "anybody" ever try it Jeff, when your opinion is that "The problem is that the abstinence program is a hoax that doesn't work." (Did you re-read this before you hit submit?)

Again, this is typical liberal mumbo jumbo. Admit defeat, and retreat whenever the going gets rough. What liberals should learn, is that their particular opinions about sex, doesn't necessarily conform to what most people want taught to their children. Since our children must be schooled in Government Schools, (liberals are opposed to choice, except of course for the wealthy), then I think the people have a right to voice their concerns over what the curriculum is in their children's schools. You may need to pull out your geography book, because America is not communist China or North Korea. We have a right to raise our own children in the manner we see fit.

Although my opinion of what should be taught and offered to our children in the schools may vehemently differ from Sarah Palin's, I'm more concerned over the teachings that Liberals have forced upon us, for example, Barack Obama's views. He wants to teach sex education to Kindergarteners. I guess after they finish watching Bert and Ernie, the teacher should bring out a cucumber and show the kids how to practice safe sex with a condom.

My point is that if Barack has the right to force sex education on 5 year olds, then Sarah has the right to encourage juveniles from become sexually active too soon. Abstinence is education.

Re: Sarah's daughter, Bristol, well, that's not argument, only an anecdote. That's a specious way to avoid the facts and to indirectly smear her. Anecdotal retorts might give some of the left bloggers a rise, but it's not substantive argument.

The problem is that you conservatives want to ban sex education. Trust me, we liberals are all for your abstinence.

There you go again. Does everyone on the left have this little angry fire rise up inside them every now and again? Because to wish my non-existence seems a bit angry.

But I'll slam your wish for my non-existence, and I'll give you about 10 million more votes for Barack Obama, that don't exist. Why you might ask? Its because they were never allowed to be born. Yep, its called the Roe Effect. The link is below and it makes a lot of sense. Read it honestly. These statistics remind me of something Ronnie once said, "It occurred to me that the people who are for abortions, have already been born."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_effect

And finally, you comment on how Europe seems to get it right. Sort of like Obama praising China for building Bejing for the Olympics. Strange how liberals only find good in other countries, and only disdain for America.

"Sarah's daughter apparently let her hormones get the best of her, and now we have a cake in the oven."

I used to think you were sort of stable, but now "...we have a cake in the oven" Are you kidding me?? We??? You and Bristol??

You and Bristol got it on 4 months before Momma was named the next VP?

My God man, do the right thing. Marry her. She would love a 50+ lawyer from the South much than that redneck 18-year old stud. Stand up man. Get it together, or if that doesn't work out my sister just moved back from Idaho (near Alaska) and she's available. Full disclosure - she's 42.

My comment speaks to the judgement of Barack and Michelle Obama.

Barack has shown that he lacks good judgement when it comes to his associations. Rezko, Ayers, Phlager, etc.

He's just another crooked politician who has no business setting foot in the White House.

He should go back to being a "community organizer", whatever the heck that is.

Mr. Garvin is going after Rev. Wright and, by indirection, the Obamas, not the children...who are helpless victims. And I believe that "some of the Citizen posters" are going after the Palins rather than their children. At least that is my take on the situation. I could be wrong on both counts. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport

Does that mean that the clown who is stalking me via my Git Real e-mail address and completely outed me on here a couple of months ago because of my opposition to Ballard is justified in trying to send Mrs. Git gay porn and threatening to mail porn to my household while mentioning her name specifically? Or, just because my stalker has a beef with me because I kicked It's butt in an arguement, it is justified that my children's names are mentioned in e-mails in an intimidating manner and telling me when they spot me and daughter in public?

Of all the people on here that I would expect to agree that the kids are off limits it would be you. You surprise me. Lest you're seeking some sort of justification for the vicious attacks targeting Palin's kids.

...what "vicious attacks" on the Palins' kids are you referring to?

Give me a break. (eyes a rollin')

It was a serious question...I mean, I've been part of the discussion of the Palins and while I obviously haven't read every word on these boards I don't recall attacks on the Palin children...

They were inundated with maintream Alaskan politics from daddy's party:

"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag, I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home. And then you get mad. And you say, the hell with them. And you renounce allegiance (to the United States), and you pledge your efforts, your effects, your honor, your life to Alaska."

FREE SARAH PALIN!

made those comments. Weren't they said by someone else? If so, this would be the same as you posting re: Obama and then quoting Rev. Wright without indicating the statements were his rather than Obama's.

I did write they were from "daddy's party" and not from the dad but I can see how it was ambiguous.

Obama got asked repeatedly about Wright's words. Let's see what Palin and her husband say about this. They were members of the party after all and Palin has spoken at their convention and send video greetings when she could not attend.

This whole blog column is silly. Fred wants to know how Obama children have been brainwashed? Puleeze. Its just a diversion because the Republicans won't talk issues. I was just playing along. What I'd really like is to hear them talk about the economy or Iran or Pakistan or the environment or health care or energy or something, anything.

If we are to go that route, that Obama's children (both very young)are or have been brainwashed by attending Rev. Wright's church then we would have to say that every child who went to any church whose doctrines differed from someone else's was brainwashed, every teacher in every class is brainwashing every child, etc. At the ages of those two little girls, they may absorb a tiny bit about what he is saying but mostly they are sitting there squirming, messing with their hair, playing with their shoes and socks, picking their noses and if they don't fall asleep, anxiously awaiting the end of the service.

Having said that, I have to again point out that though you felt the blog silly, you did have to interject that: "after all they were members and Palin has spoken at the conference and sent video greetings when she could not attend." I guess you could equate this with Obama attending a church for twenty years and quoting the Reverend time and again and proclaiming him his mentor. I don't know how long Palin was a member----but, as to the speech and the video greetings--I think you would find that at least three fourths or more of our elected officials have attended meetings and sent greetings to organizations they later wished they hadn't if they were ever to be nominated for a higher office. I think that is called "politicking."
I feel the same way about that that I do about the politicians running for high office who suddenly attend African-American churches they never attended before, speak to Veterans's groups when they ignored them before, and on and on. I think that too is called politics and I find it hypocrital and totally self-serving but I doubt if it will ever change. I guess I have a cynical attitude with politics as I think any decent, caring, idealistic politican who sticks to his/her total beliefs will be left by the wayside-it's totally a case of scratch my back and I will scratch yours. It doesn't matter if that bill they want to pass is needed and beneficial to a large group of citizens, unless they are willing to give their vote to some pork-barrel bill from some politician with clout their bill will fail. The idealistic politician either gives up and drops out of politics or learns early that you have to go along to get along. Wish with all my heart that it was different.
For these reasons, and many more, I try to listen beyond the rhetoric, beyond the baby-kissing, beyond the opponent bashing and look for the person I hope will do the best and most importantly, do the least harm. So, in reality, it boils down to voting for the lesser of two evils regardless of party and that is a sad commentary on our wonderful country.

I am equating it with Wright. If Obama has to explain Wright why doesn't Palin have to explain Volger and his hate America group. Palin's husband was a member since 1996 at least. And if they're going to campaign with a group like AIP, the KKK or the Aryan Nation their political philosophy is certainly open for questioning.

Why do you think they're hiding her from the press?

Are you saying that Sarah Palin's daddy said that about the American Government, or was it Sarah, who some say was for that same group a few years ago?

I intend to vote for John McCain, still, but for Joe Biden as VP!

Why can't I do that? The VP is a constitutional office also, and nothing says that the VP and President must be the same party!

Fred was wondering about the kids. It was Palin's husband, the kids daddy, who was a member of the Hate America Party that Fred apparently is carrying water for.

FREE SARAH PALIN. LET HER SPEAK!

Sarah should speak as soon as Barack agrees to a "townhall" style debate, sans teleprompter and pre-written speech.

"Obama has offered to meet McCain in five joint appearances between now and the Nov. 4 election, but only one of those would be town hall-style and it would be on the July 4th Independence Day holiday, when few Americans would be watching. McCain called the offer “a very disappointing response.”

I suspect that she'll be doing townhall type meetings and taking questions from the audience instead of reporters for starters. If I were the McCain camp that's what I would do. She'll look good answering pre-approved questions and the TV will show her being in good form. No law says she has to sit down with the national press and answer questions. She probably needs to be eased into it. Of course Obama won't be there with McCain's VP pick but so what? She doesn't need a debating opponent to do a townhall meeting.

I'd have her doing local press too. They're not as vicious and probing as the big time media.

Besides, have you seen the latest polls? Looks like its over. The liberal Democrat lost and the moderate Democrat won.

Oh, well.

You've apparently begun to see the tremendous swing in the voters.

Why? Well look back at the many posts I've written in the past and you'll see the answer: KNOWLEDGE

Barry was more fun, when all he did was to read from the teleprompter and then have his Hollywood friends put it to music on Youtube. Remember the tingle you had go up your spine, when you first heard the words, "Yes, We Can!". Well, the American people get bored easily, and you know, picking an American President should be based upon more than what Barbara Streisand and George Clooney think.

So, America is now paying attention, and although, we have 7 more weeks, and they have several more debates, we are going to see the truth come out very clearly. Because experience and judgment can't be faked. Barack's handling of the Surge Issue, and his comments about Russia and Georgia, show his lack of those qualities.

Add to that his recent decision to forego his new tax increases and you have somebody who has no experience, who can't make up their mind, and whose recent decisions make no sense.

Oh, and I love how everyone is attacking Sarah. Sure, she isn't experienced enough to be president, IMHO, but she's as experienced as OBAMA, if not moreso. So keep picking on her, that just proves that running a multi-million dollar campaign doesn't mean you are ready for the White House.

Now, lets start talking about which Democrats will serve on his administration.

Lieberman? Secretary of State, no, maybe Joe Biden, since Biden loves McCain.

But seriously Jeff, I know you were giving us a TIC comment, but I do feel for you. I know how it felt to almost lose in 2000 and in 2004. I can't imagine how its going to feel to lose in 2008 when the economy is going down the toilet and every news agency, other than Fox, has already tried to crown him King. But hey, blame that on the American's people's short attention span.

I'll have a party on Nov 4th. You'll be invited to come and drown your sorrows. We can watch redstate updates and shoot the breeze about how great it is to have a real American in the White house that puts Country first, ahead of party.

Obama's comments about Russia and Georgia shows he has no judgment? Have you seen McCain's idiotic comments about bringing Georgia into NATO? And then what? Are you prepared to go to war with Russia over its invasion of Georgia? If not then what would McCain do? I don't know and neither does he. Let's hear from the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in the Bering Straits. Maybe she's got a plan.

I'm still waiting for your electoral college analysis that gives the election to McCain. He's pulling out of Minnesota. He'll probably pull out of Iowa next. If he's still contesting Missouri in October he's in serious, serious trouble.

Richard Nixon said it many years ago, when dealing with the Soviet Union, you had to make them think you were crazy enough to push the button.

If McCain is President, I sincerely believe the Russians will consider him to be someone that they will have a difficulty pushing around.

Barack is another story. With his peace rallies, his unilateral decisions to eliminate nuclear weapons, and with him riding that rainbow colored unicorn sprinkling his "change we can believe in" message all over the world, I really doubt they think he would lift a finger to stop them in any military decision they should make.

Oh, did you hear that Barack just now remembered, since he never mentioned it in two of his books, that he was considering joining the military in 1979. But he didn't want to because he couldn't kill anyone. (He said no military conflict was happening, so he decided not to join. i.e. He can't fight so why join?)

The electoral college is where the election is being fought, there and with the GOTV. Oh, and the illegal voting that the Dems will be using across the country. And if anyone knows something about illegal voting, its Barack. Just look at his first State Senate Seat election, he trounced his competition by challenging their ballots at every turn. He caught them cheating, because he knows how to to it, without getting caught.

Its still a horse race, but again, America knows John McCain, they are still getting to know the Boy King, and what they are learning ain't getting him any more votes.

Is that you are ready to threaten Russia and possibly with nuclear weapons?

Then I agree that you and McCain are crazy.

BTW: Did you see where Palin charged per diem for 317 days while she stayed at her own house? And had the state of Alaska pay for her kids travel? And didn't know Freddie and Fannie were not tax payer funded?

Oops. It starts.

Amen to all that!

You vote for John you get Sarah. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.