John McCain chooses female running mate. Liberals furious.

That's a headline I wish CNN had the guts to open with.

If Sarah Palin were just in favor of unlimited elective abortions, the same liberals currently castigating her for running for Vice-President would be calling those very same condemnations "hate speech."

This whole thing proves once and for all that the feminists do not really care about women succeeding but rather the right of people to abort their children. It is a single issue movement that needs to go the way of the dinosaur. Utterly incapable of stopping domestic violence or misogyny which are celebrated by musicians, they have shown their mettle now by condemning a working mother trying to become Vice President.

Very rarely do people who disagree with me lose my respect; however, I must say that anyone who thinks that a working mother should not run for Vice President, AND calls themselves a "feminist," is, well, insane.

Pat Buchannan had a great op-ed here about how Palin has energized the right.

From the angered response of the left, including a 'Brian Ross Investigative Report' about her firing the city police chief in Wasilla on GMA, I'd say he hit nail square on the head.

Shiek, I got on here with the intention of making those very points, but you made them better than I ever could. Sarah Palin has been successful without sacrificing her classic femininity, and thus she will never be accepted by the "feminist" Left.

Peggy Noonan on why the Left so despises Palin:

Because she jumbles up so many cultural categories, because she is a feminist not in the Yale Gender Studies sense but the How Do I Reload This Thang way, because she is a woman who in style, history, moxie and femininity is exactly like a normal American feminist and not an Abstract Theory feminist; because she wears makeup and heels and eats mooseburgers and is Alaska Tough, as Time magazine put it; because she is conservative, and pro-2nd Amendment and pro-life; and because conservatives can smell this sort of thing — who is really one of them and who is not — and will fight to the death for one of their beleaguered own; because of all of this she is a real and present danger to the American left, and to the Obama candidacy.

She could become a transformative political presence.

So they are going to have to kill her, and kill her quick.

And, by the way, I agree with the writer Noonan, not the hot-mic Noonan.

So what was your impression of Gov. Palin last night Stephanie?

You know I thought parts of it were fabulous, and some of it I didn't care too much for.

I really liked that she laid out some of her accomplishments as a governor. Her delivery on some of those jabs at Obama was just awesome. I guess she was terrific, I just don't want John McCain for president and I find it difficult to listen to anybody carry on about how much safer we'll be and how much better America will be with him in the White House.

I respect John McCain, I admire John McCain. I think he's a courageous individual. I fear him in the Oval Office.

Our options suck, again. Maybe I should join those anarchists. lol

I'm of a different opinion of John McCain then most do on this subject. I don't fear him as a President at least not as far as starting wars go. I know what he said about 100 years and I saw his song about bombing Iran and for all his tough talk (most of which was taken out of context) I don't think he'll commit us to a needless war.

I think if you want a comparison, look to Ike. He inherited Korea. He quickly stablized the situation and then pulled the US out and any future combat operations. And for the remainder of his Presidency, there were no future combat operations.

The thing is, guys who have been where John McCain have been know what young men go through in war and they have a very different perspective then those who don't.

Personally, I much more trust John McCain's judgement then I do BO's, who I don't trust at all. I can see that loon getting us in a shooting war with Pakistan, committing hundreds of thousands of troops to Afghanistan and possibly starting a shooting war with Russia.

If security is a concern, then McCain is the ONLY choice. I could be wrong but that's the way I see it.

Aaron,

My foreign policy views have evolved a lot over the course of the past few years. I have come to view our intervention in the problems of other nations differently now.

I once thought that we had some sort of obligation to help spread democracy and freedom. I have come to realize that we can't give freedom to any other nation. Instead they have to desire it and struggle for it themselves.

I used to think that when we intervened in conflicts we were doing the right thing. That we would be able to make things better, but that simply isn't true. We need to put America and Americans first and it isn't in our best interests to have bases in 130 countries or to install and prop up regimes. Those behaviors are bleeding us dry and generate a lot of anti-American sentiment.

The only way to further the cause of liberty and freedom is to lead by example, and we've been doing anything but since before I was even born. As a nation we tell others how to live, who should lead, how to run their governments, all in the name of spreading freedom. Meanwhile back home, particularly in the past decade, our government has been chipping away at our liberty, our freedom, our privacy. Our government uses fear and guilt to force us into complacency.

I see John McCain as exactly the type of individual to continue to lead America on this path. He supports almost everything I oppose. He has no intention of heading in a new direction. He has no desire to reduce the size of government or limit government intrusion on our lives. He doesn't think America needs to heal her own ills, and there are many, and lead other nations by example.

John McCain will increase funding to Israel. He will increase troop levels in the Middle East. IMO he is the most likely to launch an attack on Iran, increase troop levels in Afghanistan, and the most likely to increase US involvement in the affairs of other nations across the globe.

McCain has made no mention of, much less provided a plan for, creating a sound monetary policy. He wishes to provide amnesty for illegal aliens encouraging even more to violate our laws and threaten our security.

He has a notoriously bad temper. I don't trust him on abortion. I don't trust him on trade.

I don't trust him and will not vote for him, even with Sarah Palin as a running mate.

First, I'm not going to argue about John McCain's stances on every issue because to be honest, I haven't read all of them all. At some point, I will as I still have to make up my mind as to how I’m going to vote but not right now.

If you want to discuss issues, we can do that.

I was speaking specifically to his military stance, which was brought up in response to Sarah Palin’s speech. I stated my belief in that he will be less likely to start a shooting war then Barrack Obama will. I don’t see him as the third term of GWB. Were I going to compare him to anyone regarding the military, it would be to Ike. Once again, that's my opinion.

I'm waiting to hear what he has to say about US forces launching a raid inside Pakistan. I think he'll excuse it, if not outright applaud it.

I think he will escalate agression in the region. His comments on this will be telling, don't you think?

I don't know. In doing a little research there are links to speeches from years past that I'll have to take a look at. I could be wrong about McCain's comparison to Ike. And I'll also want to hear what he has to say about Pakistan.

We do know that Obama will have no problem going into Pakistan. I think he will try and prove democrats are weak and will use the military much more aggressively then others would and he's the one that just me.

Like I said before, our choices suck again.

As we've done for how long now, Americans will choose between the least of two evils.

From the angered response of the left, including a 'Brian Ross Investigative Report' about her firing the city police chief in Wasilla on GMA, I'd say he hit nail square on the head.

Are you sure you aren't referring to her using her position as Gov. to push some high muckity muck in the Alaska State Troopers to fire her ex- brother and law (a trooper who had been married to her sister).

Perhaps you are referring to her lies on the subject of Ted Stevens' "Bridge to Nowhere".

It is possible she may be under impeachment before the general election.

Her daughter's situation illustrates the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education, anyway.

McCain's first and second wife were in the beauty pageant circuit. Now he picks a running mate with a similar background. Says volumes about his idea of what a woman should be.

Even so, she was a brilliant choice for the republicans and one I saw for VP before McCain even got the nomination.

Any Governor first endorses money spent in her state. She came to her senses.

McCain married two good looking women and chose a popular state governor (historically the office that becomes President) who happens to be good looking at all. Do you suppose he should have found the elephant man?

OMG! She's attractive, she can't possibly be intelligent, talented, and/or capable. Only the ugly girls are smart, right?

You seek to diminish her many accomplishments as a public official because she doesn't share your political ideology. She is a pro-life conservative who does far more than just talk the talk.

If teaching about and providing birth control to teenage girls are as effective as you'd have us believe, why is the teen pregnancy rate still so high? Why are some STD's at epidemic proportions among our youth?

TerryRC wrote:From the angered response of the left, including a 'Brian Ross Investigative Report' about her firing the city police chief in Wasilla on GMA, I'd say he hit nail square on the head.

Are you sure you aren't referring to her using her position as Gov. to push some high muckity muck in the Alaska State Troopers to fire her ex- brother and law (a trooper who had been married to her sister).

The same brother in law who tasered a 13 year old teen age boy!!!

I don't know if that was the reason he was fired but it should have been.

Her daughter's situation illustrates the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education, anyway.

I'm pretty sure she either was educated about sex or managed to figure it out on her own. What's more, I can say with some assurance that she was not practicing abstinence-only, if at all.

I wonder if an unintended pregnancy that didn't end in abortion has ever been so celebrated by the left?

You seek to diminish her many accomplishments as a public official because she doesn't share your political ideology. She is a pro-life conservative who does far more than just talk the talk.

Really? I called them as they lay. I didn't seek to diminish anything. I happen to think "beauty pageants" promote unrealistic expectations in our young girls and society as a whole. That McCain always picks from this crowd is telling.

Don't you remember Keli mocking "democrat women" because most of them he considers to be ugly?

If teaching about and providing birth control to teenage girls are as effective as you'd have us believe, why is the teen pregnancy rate still so high? Why are some STD's at epidemic proportions among our youth?

The rate is high but dropping.

The pregnancies still happen because many parents try and limit access to birth control, thinking it will keep their precious little snowflakes from having sex. Other times turgid teens just go for it without thinking. Many kids in religious chastity youth groups like the various "golden ring" societies will have anal sex because it isn't "really having sex", spreading various STD's.

Ignorance and an abstinence-only education aren't going to solve the problem. Proper sex ed can't make the problem worse.

Why would you assume, Steph, that sex ed should only be for teenage girls?

I wonder if an unintended pregnancy that didn't end in abortion has ever been so celebrated by the left?

Don't take "humor" lessons from Keli, Sheik. It will make you less of a person.

That wasn't a humor lesson, Terry,that was an expression of revulsion at the celebration of a difficult situation by a flock of hypocrites.

That I amused myself in the process does not make me less of a person.

Palin is being asked questions that no liberal would dare ask a Democratic woman, like whether she can be a mother and still work, whether she can have a child with a disability and still work, whether she is a fit parent because her daughter got pregnant, etc.

The same people are hypocrites (those on tv and in office and party, not referring to anyone else). The media glamorizes sex among unmarried people and then pounces when an unmarried girl who is the daughter of a Republican gets pregnant.

That's hypocrisy. And it's mockworthy.

That wasn't a humor lesson, Terry,that was an expression of revulsion at the celebration of a difficult situation by a flock of hypocrites.

That I amused myself in the process does not make me less of a person.

You made a horrible generalization about a whole segment of the population that is likely not true. My wife would never have an abortion but she is pro-choice.

Perhaps you should call her a hypocrite to her face. She would be THRILLED for you to tell her that she revels in abortion.

I'll even be big enough to call the ambulance for you afterward.

Palin is being asked questions that no liberal would dare ask a Democratic woman, like whether she can be a mother and still work, whether she can have a child with a disability and still work, whether she is a fit parent because her daughter got pregnant, etc.

Can she be a mother with small kids and be the possible president? It is valid question and would certainly be asked of ANY candidate in the same position.

As far as her daughter, considering her abstinence-only sex-ed stance, I'd say that a question along those lines is not out of place.

The media pounces on any scandal. That isn't a political thing.