Palin, Pregnancy, and Principles

by on

I admit it: I was fascinated by the announcement that Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.

It's no surprise that teenagers have sex-even evangelical Christian teenagers, and especially very good looking ones, in Alaska, where there's not much to do but hunting and fishing and…well, you know.

And it's certainly no surprise that sex makes babies.

But when a conservative politician who advocates abstinence education has a very public failure of abstinence in her own family, revealed just a few days after she's announced as the Republican vice-presidential nominee, it's bound to get people talking.

If nothing else, the social and political contours are interesting. Right-wingers admire Palin's principles, but some wish she would put aside her political ambitions to tend to her family. Left-wingers reject this idea as anti-feminist, but they also reject Palin's politics.

Let me make two things very clear.

First, Bristol Palin is not running for office; Sarah Palin is. Bristol Palin, like all expectant mothers, should be wished well-especially since she finds herself pregnant during the frenzy and scrutiny of her mother's vice-presidential campaign. She deserves our compassion, as does her new fiancé.

Second, Sarah Palin is no hypocrite-as some uncharitable commentators have suggested-for embracing her yet-unwed pregnant daughter.

There's no inconsistency in believing both that we should teach abstinence until marriage and that we should support those children who become pregnant anyway. There's no hypocrisy in striving for an ideal that you and your loved ones occasionally fall short of. You don't stop endorsing speed limits just because you (or your kids) sometimes lose track of the speedometer.

The fact is, Sarah Palin's rejection of comprehensive sex education deserves criticism on its own merits. Her family's behavior has nothing to do with it, aside from adding anecdotes to the statistics suggesting that "abstinence only" doesn't achieve what its proponents hope and claim.

For example, abstinence advocates are fond of citing studies by Yale's Hannah Brückner and Columbia's Peter Bearman, who show that adolescents who take abstinence pledges generally delay sex about eighteen months longer than those who don't. What the advocates don't mention is the researchers' finding that only 12 percent of these adolescents keep their pledges, and that when they do have sex, they are far less likely to use protection.

In other words, the failure rate of condoms pales by comparison to the failure rate of abstinence pledges-88 percent, if you believe Brückner and Bearman.

But it's not Sarah Palin's rejection of comprehensive sex education that's bugging me here. What's bugging me is the right-wing reaction, which for the most part boils down to "Nobody's perfect, life happens, but you love and support your children and grandchildren."

That, of course, is the proper reaction.

But it stands in sharp contrast to their usual reaction to gay kids, their rhetoric about "Love in Action" and "Love Win[ning] Out" notwithstanding.

For example, contrast the right-wing reaction to Palin's grandchild with their reaction to Dick Cheney's grandchild Samuel-son of his lesbian daughter Mary. At the time, Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America announced that Mary's pregnancy "repudiates traditional values and sets an appalling example for young people at a time when father absence is the most pressing social problem facing the nation." She was hardly alone in such denunciations.

Now here's the same Crouse on Palin: "We are confident that she and her family will handle this unexpected situation with grace and love. We appreciate the fact that the Palins…are providing loving support to the teenager and her boyfriend."

There are differences in the two cases to be sure. Bristol plans to marry the father, and thus will provide the baby with a "traditional" family (in one sense); Mary won't. Bristol's pregnancy was probably accidental, whereas Mary's was certainly deliberate.

On the other hand, Mary's child arrives in the home of a mature and stable couple; Bristol's in the home of a young and hastily formed one.

But the sharpest difference in the cases is the contrast in right-wingers' compassion. It's the difference in empathy, a trait that's at the core of the Golden Rule.

They tell heterosexuals: abstinence until marriage-and if you fail, we forgive you. For gays, it's abstinence forever-and if you fail, we denounce you.

For heterosexuals, "Nobody's perfect, life happens, but you love and support your children and grandchildren."

For gays, not so much.

30 Comments for “Palin, Pregnancy, and Principles”

  1. posted by Joel on

    Not all conservatives reacted negatively to Mary Cheney’s pregnancy. I imagine that Dick Cheney supported her, as he supported her when she first came out. And the left’s hypocricy in condemning Mary Cheney’s pregnancy is also striking.

    So, what I’m trying to say, is that there are extremists on both sides who make the news and then serve to delegitimize their sides. Argh.

  2. posted by Jorge on

    Well thank you for not glossing over the differences between the Palins and the Cheneys.

    I know Bristol Palin’s pregnancy is not anybody’s business (just like Sarah Palin deciding to risk having a higher risk of a Down’s Syndrome baby at her advanced age isn’t anyone’s business and her putting her career ahead of her five kids isn’t anyone’s business, riiiight)…

    but why isn’t anyone on the right saying SIN SIN SIN? Bristol Palin is a SINNER. She made a MISTAKE! She’s a baby having a baby. Am I the only one who’s thinking this? What, just because she’s getting married doesn’t make her a slut? I hate to be so resentful, but every time a story comes out about a pregnant teen where I live (NYC), some snob sneers at her, even if she’s still with the guy, when it’s clear she’s doing what she needs to do to be prepared for her baby and keep a stable environment.

  3. posted by Rob on

    There sure are extremists on both sides, Joel. Just look at how Roger Simon’s blog comments ended.

    As for Palin’s private life, I don’t care about it. There’s no problem so long as she doesn’t stand in the way of gay issues such as DOMA and DADT, which unfortunately she potentially could.

  4. posted by Bucky on

    As a liber and a gay parent, I appreciate your argument that Palin’s parenting skills and choices are private and should be off the table for discussion, John. But Sarah Palin personally, along with the entire GOP establishment have for decades questioned my fitness to be a parent. They have no problem making intimate personal decisions for me and my family. They say that they know better than I do what is best for my children, and they pass legislation to give their singular notion of what makes a family the force of law.

    But the minute I might wonder at Palin’s fitness and abilities as a parent everyone is aghast that I might even dare to ask such a question?

    Sorry, but no. This daddy don’t play that way.

  5. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    John, I’m kind of surprised (pleasantly) by your comments here.

    As you and others point out, viciousness can be found at either end of the political spectrum because, for many of them, the end result justifies the means needed to attain that result. I’m not sure Janice Crouse, your example of rightwing, is exactly the same kind of viciousness we’ve witnessed from the farLeft –and the gay farLeft at that. But her comments back then on Mary and Heather were just as out of line as those from the gayLeft.

    I vividly recall the horrible taunts many on DailyKos and MyDD and BlogAmerica had for the newest Cheney grandchild, Sammy –hopes of the child dying from SIDS, prayers that the child would develop life-threatening and lingering medical conditions, pleadings that if any “real” gay “sees Mary or Heather on the street in DC to spit on them and their spawn”.

    It seems strange that political ends justify those kind of mean-spirited, inhumane reactions from people.

    Just like we saw this past week with gayLeft bloggers offering up that Palin tried to drown her Downs Syndrome baby in a hotel bathtub or the baby belonged to Bristol and the family is covering it up.

    You can look to the seeming “lack of rightwing compassion” for gays… but none of that, even in its most extreme, equates to the stuff we all witnessed with Mary & Heather’s child or the Palin Family coming onto center stage USA.

    Frankly, Crouses’ lines are tame in comparison.

    I wish more gaycentrists would step up to the plate and condemn those within our ranks who play these inhumane games and use children as props to advance political agenda. But then, that would mean some gayDemocrats would have to take on GeorgeSoros or JohnAvarosis or MikeRogers and others… and that’s just not ever going to happen.

  6. posted by Bucky on

    Michigan-Matt:

    Your attempt to equate people like Crouse of CWA and a few extreme left bloggers is ridiculous at best. At worst, it is an attempt to excuse and disguise the hateful actions of those on the right, by equating them with extreme words by those on the left, which is usually the goal of people who advance such comparisons.

    The extreme right is on the television and the radio all day every day. Their spokesmen and women are household names. They command meetings with congress and the white house. They have controlled the GOP for decades. They just picked a VP candidate. They have written policies and laws and court opinions that have an actual impact on my life.

    As a parent who is gay, I am fighting to be able to keep my children. And you dare draw some moral equivalence between the people trying to take away my kids and break up my family and some random person who comments on a blog about drowning Mary Cheney’s baby in a bathtub?

    How dare you?

    When the ultra-left is in power and proposing laws to drown babies, let me know. I’ll reconsider your argument then.

  7. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    Bucky asks “How dare you?”

    Bucky, or whatever sockpuppet handles you’ve gone by in the past, I DARE because that’s exactly what the gayLeft extremes like you have tried to do –without effect– to Gov Palin for having opinions different than your divinely inspired twaddle… and just like you all tried to do “turncoat” Mary Cheney who dare have a Dad who you despise so you thought “string up the baby” was an adequate attack to blunt her voice in the gay community. It’s not ususual… you guys do it alot.

    Seems to be a trend here, Bucky. Game playing with other people’s kids is ok for gayLefties like MikeRogers, JohnAvarosis, the MyDDingbats, the Daily-kos nuts or all the pack of traitors over at MoveOn… but when someone points that truth out, it’s puff up the ample man tits, push out the weak chin and strut like a peacock for you?

    “How dare I”… yeah, indeed.

    Sorry, Bucky, your gig ain’t playing anywhere but your own mind’s theatre.

  8. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    BTW IGF readers, this isn’t about defending Crouse at CWA. She was wrong in her statements about Sammy Cheney and I pointed it out above.

    But here’s what the bipartisan, highly respected National Press Club says about the evil Mrs Crouse:

    The National Press Club’s compendium of experts describes Dr. Crouse as having “brought insight, keen perception and wisdom to domestic, family, political and women’s issues since the early 1990s as a Presidential speechwriter for Bush 41, United Nations delegate, think tank fellow, television commentator, speaker, author and columnist. Her common sense, refreshing honesty and intriguing perspective on cultural and political issues expose spin to reveal truth in a way that has earned respect and made her a popular cultural analyst. Known for applying her strong intellect and articulating her solid faith with candor and humor, she is a conservative leader who appeals across ideological and religious barriers.”

    It’s gotta hurt guys like Bucky when the people they attack are considered respectable and tolerant by the liberal Washington press elite.

    Could you prove, Bucky, you’re any FARTHER out of sync with reality?

    Probably, you’ve got a few months left before you’ll need to address McCain as President.

  9. posted by Bucky on

    My ample man tits and weak chin are all aquiver, MM, with the power of your argument. I also notice that you have moved on to the second favorite method of debate from the right — personal attacks and name calling.

    Impressive.

    You never actually addressed the substance of my argument — that you were wrong to say that the fringe right and fringe left were at all equal in their power and influence.

    In fact, you seem to have gone out of your way to prove my point that your attempt to find some sort of equivalence between the ACTIONS of Crouse (who you point out is very influential and well respected the powers that be) and the WORDS of some unknown and uninfluential bloggers you dug up on the internet is beyond laughable.

    It isn’t that I disagree with what people like Crouse and friends THINK, it is that I object to what they are DOING to me and my family.

    I would object no less if any of those fringe blog commenters from the extreme left were actually DOING anything to Mary Cheney’s family.

    And I don’t need you to strut like a peacock for me, thank you very much. Your thing, not mine.

  10. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    IGF readers and editors –and especially our resident “reading4comprehension” challenged Richard II, the post at 2:48 isn’t mine.

    More of the limited skills of our sockpuppets and trolls from the gaydemocrat recesses playing their games.

    Hey Bucky, strange that a new handle like your’s should show up here and the troll-posting gayDemocrats suddenly come out to play again.

    Not saying you’re it, but it sure is suspicious to anyone with a brain.

  11. posted by Jorge on

    I also remember the blog comment about hoping Mary Cheney’s child dies of SIDS, and I agree this is much more beyond the pale than what any conservative commentator (save Mike Savage) has ever said. But just about every time I read a story about gay issues on, say, Yahoo! News or AOL news, I can see the same type of comments about gays if I look hard enough. Sodomite sinners are going to tell and all that jazz.

    The real comparison is between Markos Moulitsas (the founder of Daily Kos) vs. conservative commentators, and between Moulitsas and the people who run the internet news services. It’s still a very ugly comparison.

  12. posted by Michigan- Matt on

    Jorge, thanks for having the courageof your convictions to speak the truth to the gayLeft enforcers and bullies here on IGF.

    You’re right, of course.

    The apt comparison is between the Daily-Kos type folks and the more farRight whacko entertainers on radio and TV and on the Net.

    Of course, places like BlogAmerica and BlogActive and MyDD –coupled with hate spewing, intolerant gayLeft pron/political sites like DailySlab, JoeMyGawd (what a frickin queent that guy is), Bill-in-Exile and the usual gayLeft blogs that feed at the trough of VictimHood like WayneBensen’s and others… are far, far worse than anything legitimate conservative commenters can or have said about BarryO’Biden, gays in general or the DoNothingDemocratCongress.

    But then, you’ve have to penetrate the incredibly thick skulls and self-serving partisan interests of the gayLeft to get that message past the bitter sneering teeth bared whenever a gay takes issue with the gayLeft creed.

    Like our own new butchboi “Bucky” here… “How dare you” says the playgrounf bully. Quick sisters, let’s hike our skirts and run away because Bucky doesn’t like dissent.

    Thanks Jorge.

  13. posted by urningism.com on

    Welcome to urningism.com find the other half of the same sex

  14. posted by Jorge on

    Far-left enforcers and bullies? Hmm, no, I think they’re far-left enablers. I would not compare them to that man who runs blogactive.com because they are not wielding any power. A drive-by insult on this site means nothing to me because people don’t know me.

    I am not at all happy that the left feels so comfortable with the far-left over their shared goals. It strikes me as Social Democrats allying with facism.

  15. posted by Pat on

    Jorge, I’m not so sure it’s all about that. First of all, many on the left did condemn the outrageous behavior against Mary Cheney and her child. I certainly did. On the other hand, many also don’t feel the need to constantly bring up the obvious, just as many conservatives don’t feel the need to constantly condemn the immoral actions of some of the religious right.

    I also agree with your point of comparing someone who comments on a blog to someone who actually wields power or influence.

    As for the left feeling so comfortable with the extreme left. I don’t know. That’s a tough one. On the one hand, the one positive aspect of the far-left is their consistent support of equality and their willingness to do something about it, and on the other hand, some of the tactics are rather distasteful.

  16. posted by Jordan on

    No, it’s really “For gays, it?s abstinence forever?and if you _succeed_, we _still_ denounce you.”

  17. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    Pat writes: “I also agree with your (Jorge) point of comparing someone who comments on a blog to someone who actually wields power or influence”… either or both, Pat, should be accountable for their actions.

    I know, now we get the “but they’re anonymous” excuse that is always put forward by people who feel uncomfortable standing up in the public square and facing evil thoughts, uncivil bullies and partisanship at the expense of the common good.

    Here’s the rub with the notion there’s a difference between the blog-owning spewers and the people they allow to post ANYthing without restraint… both are enablers. One feed off the other… on the farRight and farLeft.

    The Daily-Kos and HuffPost help miscreant evil in our culture gain a platform on which to speak and then, when unchecked evil like “I hope Cheney’s kid gets SIDS” or the pure evil and malicious intent behind MikeRogers’ outing of gay staffers on Capital Hill… the apologists in our community step back and say “Well, it’s their 1st A right”, “we believe in free speech”.

    The people who spout this evil aren’t practicing free speech; they are destroying the landscape that tolerates free, reasonable speech and they are spitting on the lives given by America to ensure free speech in our land.

    Sorry, but they are no different if they’re sitting in their PJs in Mommie’s basement managing a blog or a regular poster at a couple of blogs or a random commenter.

    Their conduct, Pat and Jorge, is still vile and evil and the inability of some to confront that conduct usually translates into condoning that conduct… silence gives consent.

    There’s no difference between the guy in his Mom’s basement typing in his PJs and people who routinely practice a distribution of evil that ought to coarsen our soul. And by not confronting it, we do coarsen our soul and our common bonds.

    The flat out lies this past week about Sarah Palin –as well as the lies earlier about whether or not BarryO is a muslim in hiding– are evil. Im not talking about the ones concerning policy… I mean the tabloid-like merchants of sleaze enabled by 30+ Democrat lawyers sifting through the Alaska dirt.

    I thought this campaign was supposed to be about changing the way politics is waged… I guess that was just audacity.

  18. posted by Pat on

    Pat writes: “I also agree with your (Jorge) point of comparing someone who comments on a blog to someone who actually wields power or influence”… either or both, Pat, should be accountable for their actions.

    That’s fine, Matt, but I was also talking about a matter of degree.

    Their conduct, Pat and Jorge, is still vile and evil and the inability of some to confront that conduct usually translates into condoning that conduct… silence gives consent.

    Yes, I agree, the conduct is still vile and evil. It’s not an inability to confront, at least not on my part. I’ve stated a couple of times that, except under certain circumstances, I stay out of it, and let the webmasters handle it. When the imposter used your identity (which was one of those circumstances), I was sure that the editors would have posted themselves about the conduct and stated how reprehensible those specific actions were. I’m sorry to say it wasn’t done. So I’ll personally state now that the imposter’s actions were reprehensible.

    About a month ago or so, I was at a gay conservative website where a poster (a conservative) slandered another poster. I called out the slander. Aside from one other poster (another conservative) saying that there must have been a logical reason for the person to make the (slanderous) remark, everyone else was silent. Instead of apologizing for the slander after he was called out, the offender continued to defend his remark. Again, just silence. So did the other posters by their silence condone the conduct? Maybe so. But it could have been the case that most of the persons were thinking, “I normally agree with this guy, but what this poster did was indefensible” and decided that addressing it would further sidetrack the topic and figured that other people themselves can easily see how unacceptable those actions were.

    So my silence does not mean that I condone behavior. There are many times that I bite my tongue when I really want to lash out at what I consider bad behavior. But these threads get sidetracked enough, and frankly, when I have spoken up, unfortunately, it hasn’t done a bit of good.

  19. posted by Pat on

    I thought this campaign was supposed to be about changing the way politics is waged… I guess that was just audacity.

    When candidates say they want to change the way politics is waged, it really means (1) they want to keep the status quo, (2) they want to set the bar even lower.

  20. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    Pat, fair enough. Thanks for the response.

    I do recall that you were one of the few who stood up to former IGF flamer, Charles Wilson, when he was attacking commenters here with a passion usually reserved for cornered dogs.

    I thanked you and the others back then.

    I would encourage others here & elsewhere to stand-up to our community’s own playground bullies on the internet. I think the hate from the gayLeft for non-complying gays is almost as bad as the gayLeft feels is directed at them by some on the religious farRight.

    Kind of like the Oslo Syndrome (no, RichardJ, I still have my nordic capitals correct -wink) for gayLefties.

    Whether you think it does good or not, I can tell you it does and I’d submit, since this is a thread authored by our community’s Ethics & Morality writer J Corvino, we have an obligation to stand up to evil and intolerance.

  21. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    BTW, Pat, I asked the IGF editors to remove a post in this thread that was at 2:48 and it was posted by the very troll who’s been playing hijinks with Michigan-Matt handle.

    The IGF editors did.

    I also asked the IGF editors to keep the remark and disclaimer that was in an earlier thread in which the troll-writer made bigoted and racist remarks under my name.

    They did.

    I think the IGF editors have been fair and forthright when asked to act.

    I know some of the irritable gayLeft and gayDemocrat posters (and their sockpuppet variations) have been miffed by my dissent to the OneTrueCreed. They’ve asked the IGF editors to block, ban, bar or blacklist me… to post my email address and IP address so they can take the “fight” –as they see it– to a more personal level.

    Needless to say, the IGF editors aren’t buying it. I give the IGF editors a lot of credit but it’s still incumbent on all of us, with a strong moral compass, to resist evil in our midst and speak out against it. Civil rights are a privilege earned, not granted.

    Rev King would expect no less. Nelson Mandela would expect no less. Del Martin would expect no less. Mark Segal would expect no less.

  22. posted by Drew on

    You are taking a leap in saying Bristol was ignorant of contraception. Being the oldest daughter of a successful mom, I am betting she was simply willing to take the risk of getting pregnant, knowing what the outcome would be if she got pregnant. Why else would we hear about her engaged to be married?

  23. posted by Jorge on

    As for the left feeling so comfortable with the extreme left. I don’t know. That’s a tough one. On the one hand, the one positive aspect of the far-left is their consistent support of equality and their willingness to do something about it…

    Yeah, I do have to agree with that.

    You know, I used to believe that if liberals were just more active, if they were just able to speak out and get people to listen to them, they would convince people of the truth of this unjust society and everyone would stand behind them for the cause. It’s a belief that lends itself to supporting radicals even if one isn’t oneself. Obviously, I don’t believe that anymore.

    Michican-Matt, I do make a distinction between conduct that is “vile and evil” and conduct that is against free speech. Not that I’m really interested in defending it, but people have a right to make personal smears against public figures. Even private figures sometimes. What they do not have a right to do is deprive them of their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and this is something that I think the actual bloggers (as opposed to random posters) are able to do very easily.

    As for what you’re saying about people on this site impersonating you and trying to get you banned from the site? I haven’t really been paying attention to that. It’s reprehensible.

    I think you should get only what you dish out.

  24. posted by Pat on

    I think the IGF editors have been fair and forthright when asked to act.

    Okay, Matt. I just think a clear post from the editors stating what had happened would have been helpful.

    Needless to say, the IGF editors aren’t buying it. I give the IGF editors a lot of credit but it’s still incumbent on all of us, with a strong moral compass, to resist evil in our midst and speak out against it. Civil rights are a privilege earned, not granted.

    That’s fine. But I think the best way for one to do this is to be sure to post in a completely civil tone, even when faced with a poster who is not civil. I’m not saying I’m perfect in that regard, but it is a worthy goal to pursue.

    I think you should get only what you dish out.

    That would work well in theory, Jorge. I think most times posters think they are dishing out what they are getting, but that they are getting back more than what they dish out. Then things spiral out of control, and flame war ensues.

    There are ways to respond to disagreements without the deriding, insults, cutesy or noncutesy namecalling, demonizing, unwarranted and unproved accusations, imposter posting, and sockpuppetry.

  25. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    Actaully Pat, the gayLeft and gayDemocrats here have long used imposter postings and sockpuppets to appear to gain some endorsement or leverage in their bare-knuckles, no stone left on the ground trashing of dissenting opinions at IGF.

    StephenMiller has been the brunt and butt of much of that stone-tossing nonsense. Frankly, it heralds right back to BillClinton’s campaign strategy of engaging the politics of personal destruction (PPD) of your “foes”. Bush41 certainly got it when, during the 1992 race inside DC and NYC media the rumors about SlickWilly’s sexual exploits started to spread beyond the leftMedia. At that time, Clinton campaigners started to leak rumors that Bush41 had a mistress in Europe he was dallying with… complete with fictionalized calendar and verbatim conversations that looked like CIA or SS-Treas tape renditions.

    Scummy.

    And then, of course, SlickWilly turned the PPD folk onto Monica… and that resulted in the stalker stories… until SlickWilly had to fess up.

    Sorry, but I don’t see any equivalance in the PPD strategy and anything happening to BarryO’Biden. BarryO’s doing a hatchet job on himself most days… he doesn’t need the GOP ruining anything for him.

    Some of the stunts here make it look like the posters and imposters are taking to heart SlickWilly’s PPD playbook and running for the end zone.

  26. posted by brucely on

    Hi this is brucely. This forum contains a very attractive features. But add some more options so we can access easily.

    =========

    brucely

    [url=”http://www.superbabyguide.com”]SuperBabyGuide[/url]

  27. posted by brucely on

    Hi this is brucely. This forum contains a very attractive features. But add some more options so we can access easily.

    =========

    brucely

    SuperBabyGuide

  28. posted by David Skidmore on

    Leaving aside she and her husband calling their children names like Bristol, Willow, Chewie, Missile, Debris (or whatever) and the fact that Bristol (or is it Dogger?) who’s up the duff, the main problem with this Elaine impersonator is that she’s a creationist. I’d as soon as vote for a flat earth proponent or a gravity denier.

  29. posted by Michigan-Matt on

    David, you make the practice of gayLeft intolerance of others a new art form all itself. Wow, move over Rev Meeks. Move over Rev Wright. Move over bigoted and sexist BarryO… David Skidmore is in the house and proving intolerance is a gay family value.

    Thank you David. Now, crawl back under the rock.

  30. posted by David Skidmore on

    “Elaine” Palin’s debate with Joe Biden was so-so (ie: no huge stuff ups) but you can’t help thinking how fundamentally dishonest the woman is. The fake attempts at being folksy (use of the word ‘darn’ – spare me please!), the omission of what she actually believes in and the fact that if she actually becomes VP most of what she says on the campaign trail will not translate into action. That is because she is running as VP and not President but also because she is therer simply to get Christian fundamentalists to get off their capacious backsides and vote in November. After that, Palin has no further use.

Comments are closed.