In it, she talked about finding out she was pregnant at an oil and gas meeting in a different state and how for "a fleeting moment" thought about "changing the circumstances."

Hmm, sounds like she made a choice.

Abortion is certainly a terrible solution. I applaud anyone who raises reverence for life. However, this economy makes life very tough for many single moms.

I've become a friend to a poor single mom who lives across the country which I may never meet, and I've offered her some help over the past year. Others can do the same for poor single moms because government can't do everything and abortion isn't an acceptable answer to economic problems by single moms regardless of how their situation developed.

If this country ever goes so far down the tubes that she's elected to national office, will you demand a teleprompter free administration? It seems to be such an important criterion for many of you all.

Sarah Palin: nice lady with a political image crafted of Elmer's glue and...let's call them "fibs".

Let's give her the Marge Simpson Award for Moxie and call it Good.

I saw this post had 4 comments and thought 2 would be from trolls...

Off by 100%.

Gotta give 'em credit Falze. They might not have anything intelligent or humane to add to this topic, but at least they can recognize a threat when they see one.

"...that demonstrated why the Left in the Democratic party and the media were terrified of her"

Terrified? Terrified maybe of the possibly she could be a heartbeat away from the presidency, but any noise you may have mistaken for fear was really just ridicule and incredulity.

Paul, f*ck the heck does economic circumstances have to do with this discussion? Either it's acceptable or it's not. Suggesting that the general affordability of raising children ought to have some bearing in the moral metrics of pro life vs. pro choice positions is crass at best; and at worst implies that some liberal-minded people might contemplate the practice of abortion as a means towards population control.

No, sorry, Sarah Palin isn't a threat. Much as the far-right idolized her, the only thing she threatened--successfully--was McCain's chances of winning an election in the 2008 political climate.

Liberal bloggers that I read were actually gleeful when she was put on the ticket as it put the nail in the McCain campaign's coffin (in conjunction with McCain's economic ignorance); and it facilitated the election of a guy whose middle name is Hussein.

Please, more Sarah Palin. Bobby Jindal isn't a big enough lunatic to galvanize the moderates against the GOP as Palin so obviously did.

mantis - "Hmm, sounds like she made a choice." (emphasis yours.)

Yeah, based on her belief system, you expected different?

Better check your copy of "Trolling For Dummies," you've done much better in the past.

Yeah, based on her belief system, you expected different?

I'm not commenting on the choice she made, just pointing out that she had options, considered them, and chose one. That's what being pro-choice is all about.

hyper - "No, sorry, Sarah Palin isn't a threat."

No, she wouldn't be, to a Canadian.

hyper - "Liberal bloggers that I read were actually gleeful when she was put on the ticket as it put the nail in the McCain campaign's coffin"

How absolutely shocking!

Liberal bloggers were gleeful. They were gleeful at calling Bush Hitler and Chaney Darth Vader, they're easily entertained. As you are.

The nail in the McCain campaign coffin was self inflicted by suspending his campaign for the banking crisis then voting for the first bailout.

He was leading barack hussein obama at that point and his numbers went in the tank after that stupid-assed stunt.

And besides the dems could have had a ticket comprised of Edgar John Bergen's two dummies Charlie Mcarthy and Mortimer Snerd and would have still won.

Oh wait...

Hyperbolist, the decision of many single women to terminate a pregnancy is often driven by their economics. When men don't take responsibility and step up to take responsibility for what situation they helped to create, then it leaves many pregnant single women looking to abortion as an alternative. Many single women who chose to keep their children can use help financially. That's a fact. They deserve some support from those who don't find abortion as a good alternative.

I would never personally equate Bush with Hitler, but Cheney as Vader is a damned fair comparison.

McCain's coffin was sealed with many nails, and his choice of Palin was responsible for more than a few of them. If you can't recognize that by now, it's time to cut back on the tea-bagging.

Murderers, thieves, rapist, movie directors and investment bankers all make choices. Some are moral choices while others choices fall under other categories. Surely no one is suggesting we allow a murder or rapist get away with a bad choice for the sake of giving them a freedom to make a choice.

The abortion choice is a moral issue. Not all moral choices need to be legislated. Wither abortion raises to the level that it needs to be legislated is what needs to be discuss and at what level of government that it needs to be decided at. The pro-choice arguments of "freedom to choose" or "it's her body is lame". Using that lame type of logic is like saying a killer should be able to choose to kick someone's head in. After all he should have a right to choose to use his foot anyway he wants.

Nah.
Cheney was behind the curtains. If he was a star wars villian, he's the emperor. Vader was just a tool.

Paul: obviously socio-economics have relevance when speaking about abortion epidemiologically, but in purely moral terms--whether or not the practice is ever justified--it doesn't help to muddy the waters with notions of affordability.

If one considers abortion to be acceptable (ceteris paribus), then it shouldn't matter how much money the person considering the procedure has; and the same goes for the opposite position.

If we were at the point where debate was settled and everyone took the reasonable position that a) abortion is horrible, b) ought to be legal, and c) therefore ought to be done as infrequently and with as little risk to the mother as possible, then yes, socioeconomics would be a necessary component of that conversation. But people clearly aren't there yet. Some people (here, for instance) are still at the baby-murdering stage of the conversation.

Wayne: bad analogy. The debate has more to do with autonomy over one's own body--specifically the uterus--than it does a person's freedom to harm another person/foetus/embryo/baby/pick your word. Don't see any parallels between that and the options that we quite reasonably deny a would-be murderer.

marc: liberal bloggers a) get a lot of things right, b) are funny, and c) are pretty good at raising money for their preferred candidates. So ridicule them all you want, but when Matt Yglesias and Josh Marshall and Duncan Black all find Palin a) hilarious and b) very non-threatening, that means she's a) hilarious and b) very non-threatening. Temporarily galvanizing the right-wing minority fringe against the Democratic ticket was the sum total of her political accomplishments on the national stage. The light of day hasn't been so kind to her.

But seriously, please, do campaign and fundraise for her. It'll totally pay dividends in 2012. Oh, the fear! The trembling!

And no disruptions from a bunch of eco-freak over populationists PAUL EHRLICH type wack jobs

Palin/Jindal 2012!!

Does this woman ever stay home, no wonder her family is dysfunctional, put her on a trashy reality show!

In Sarah Palin's speech she actually makes the Pro Choice case when she shares her feelings about when she first got word about her unborn baby's abnormalities. She said her immediate thought was that she could make it all go away and "get some normalcy" back, that no one but her doctor knew, but she CHOSE to rely on her faith to get her through, to what was ultimately the right decision, for her. It is really great to see that she is, in fact, pro-choice, even if she doesn't realize it. Pro choice advocates are not for abortion, they are for a woman's right to make the decision, like Palin did, to do what is right for them.

hyperbolist
"The debate has more to do with autonomy over one's own body--specifically the uterus--than it does a person's freedom to harm another person/foetus/embryo/baby/pick your word."

I have to disagree with you on that one. In the case of abortion you can't separate the two. If it was just a matter of a female wanting to mangle her uterus, very few would want to outlaw that. Every cell in a person body has the exact DNA makeup (hair, toes, heart, etc). However an embryo has its own distinct DNA therefore making it a unique entity. For the first 9 months it needs a life support system like a biological\ surrogate mother. Then for some years after it need someone to feed and take care of it. At what distinct point does it have a soul? I am not sure. However at no point after fertilization is it simply another part of a woman's body.

Now a woman mangling her uterus is her business unless it harms someone else. A killer breaking his\her foot is his\her business unless it harms someone else.

Personally I believe abortion laws should be left to the states and I would vote for pro-choice option if I saw it on the ballet. Although it makes it difficult to do so when pro-choice advocates make such lame argument because it makes me wonder if they are making an intelligent decision. Very very seldom would I recommend anyone to get an abortion but that is another big can of worms.

hyperbolist
"The debate has more to do with autonomy over one's own body--specifically the uterus--than it does a person's freedom to harm another person/foetus/embryo/baby/pick your word."

We had that discussion Hyper and you lost. Unless you stating that it is okay for doctors to kill newborns under certain circumstances is your opinion of a win.

hyper - "liberal bloggers a) get a lot of things right, b) are funny, and c) are pretty good at raising money for their preferred candidates. So ridicule them all you want, but when Matt Yglesias and Josh Marshall and Duncan Black all find Palin a) hilarious and b) very non-threatening, that means she's a) hilarious and b) very non-threatening."

You forgot one item, d) Astroturfing.

hyper - "The debate has more to do with autonomy over one's own body--specifically the uterus--than it does a person's freedom to harm another person/foetus/embryo/baby/pick your word."

Do ya think? Tell that to "Killer Tiller" down in Kansas.

Now that Palin is free to travel the lower 48, she will be heard from often over the coming months. Character is what you do when no one is looking, and Palin has more character than any politician out there today. I donate on a regular basis to SarahPAC, and if she choses to run in 2012, I will work for her campaign in any capacity I can.

The extent of the political threat to the Democrat Party is directly proportional to the extent of vitriol directed toward said threat. Sarah Palin is the largest political threat to the Democratic Party.

Wow, look at all the liberals jump out of the closet when a post on the multi talented Palin dares to be posted. Your masculinity or lack thereof is astounding.

We had that discussion Hyper and you lost.

He did?

I love the characterizations of liberals being "terrified" or scared of Palin. It just continues to marginalize you more and more from the rest of thinking America. First liberals knew she was a joke, then moderates figured it out, some conservatives started to come around, and now even Republicans can't escape the conclusion.

Yes, the whole country, of all political leanings, is afraid of Palin! We're so terrified that if she ran again, it would be totally different than the last time she ran, because, well, she couldn't possibly lose twice in a row, could she?!

Booga-booga!

She could not have lost once in a row if not for McCain. And who cares about Republicans?

"marginalized from the rest of thinking America"?

Thats a pretty bold assertion. Or was it a brain fart?

"Booga- booga!"

Next time, cover Your mouth.

Nothing brings out the snarling trolls faster
than a post about Sarah Palin.

Heh.

"If this country ever goes so far down the tubes that she's elected to national office, will you demand a teleprompter free administration"

Listen up sweeties, when you are forced by tax-cheater Timothy Geithner into becoming a radical tax-payer paying the brunt of the taxes, you are going to be using your pitchforks against Kingdom Hollywood for having lied about the misery their teleprompter brought to you.

Suckers are born every minute and they all live in that creepy place called Kingdom
Hollywood, where the tubes rule the stupid.

Sweeties when the time comes and it will, Tom Hanks and Ron Howard will not be coming to your rescue. They will be too busy sucking their teleprompter slavemaster's bling-bling to care about your misery.

As for abortion?

As a woman I often ask myself how I get to chose who is aborted when I am not the human being being aborted?

Which then leads me to my next question, how can I take a bunch of Darwinian apes wearing black robes seriously when all they do is behave like monkeys going bananas?

As stated in the United States Constitution, rights come from the Creator not from Darwinian apes who think they are smart just because they have a Harvard Law degree.

Listen up Darwinian apes, take your bananas to Venezuela and leave Liberty to those who appreciate the Creator's freedom.

As stated in the United States Constitution, rights come from the Creator not from Darwinian apes who think they are smart just because they have a Harvard Law degree.

The Constitution makes no mention of a creator. Stop talking about it if you've never read it. It's embarrassing to the rest of us Americans.

914: "multitalented"? What, she can force her daughter to get engaged to an imbecile while simultaneously executing a disastrous campaign for the vice presidency? Yeah, she's the best.

retired military: No, I didn't lose. There are bullets that one can bite while still maintaining their original position. I can concede certain points to you--e.g., a human dies during abortion--while maintaining that my position is the more morally defensible one--e.g., nobody can tell a rational, autonomous person what they must do with their uterus.

Hey, can I just point out that comments #32 & 33 are (together) probably the stupidest f*cking thing I have ever read on this blog, with apologies to jhow66 and Scrapiron? How can someone who believes that navigate the internet?

...Oh, I get it, it's a liberal trying to make conservatives look stupid by association. Very funny.

Brian, the best part of that article you linked to (@ #29) is this comment:

"Quayle with a ponytail

We just finished eight years with a viciously religious politician who hated facts and relied on gut instinct and voices in his head. We don't need another one. Bible Spice should try being mayor of Wasilla again.

Bible Spice--that's some heavy lolz right there.

Darwinian apes???

"Darwinian apes???"

I prefer court jesters but to each his own.

"she can force her daughter to get engaged to an imbecile while simultaneously executing a disastrous campaign for the vice presidency??"

She really has got You by the balls

# 32 Right on syn

"How can I take a bunch of Darwinian apes wearing black robes seriously when all they do is act like monkeys going bananas?"

They are going bananas with our liberties so it is damn well serious.

I hope that Sarah Palin runs for president... The only reason is because if she does she will just make a fool of herself(again), and the GOP won't stand a chance.

Blair?

Whats the matter? Havent found any steady work since St. Elmos Fire? Dont worry, Osama will make sure it stays that way.

"Right on Syn"

High-fiving a retard doesn't make you not retarded.

I like hearing what Palin has to say.

914:
I've been working just fine. And I'm not quite sure what that has to do with my point that Sarah Palin is a moron.

And referring to Obama as "Osama" only shows how much of a retard you and your party are.

Hyper (whose sport is clubbing dead baby seals) has no idea what he is talking about. In his mind, if you have a faith, whatever it is, is a weakness. If you follow a gut instinct you are incompetent. That explains Hyper to a tee. He is useless in debate. He talks the same trash day after day after day. Although my wishes do not always come true, but I wish he was banned. That is how boring his input is to the discussion. ww

I have no party Blair. Just like You have no clue.

The fact that You are afraid of Sarah says it all.

I'm so very tired of this meme about teleprompters. The press conference teleprompter meme is purely false.

And besides, she made significant use of written notes, which serve the exact same function as teleprompters.

Oh, and let's not forget that she used teleprompters a great deal, like every other candidate, throughout the campaign.

Can we please stop the snarky teleprompter foolishness now?

Just look at these comments. I say again, I have not seen anyone threaten the left this much since Ronald Reagan. The reaction to her by you guys is AMAZING.

"Just look at these comments. I say again, I have not seen anyone threaten the left this much since Ronald Reagan. The reaction to her by you guys is AMAZING."

I'm constantly amazed how deluded the far-right is. When the polls showed Obama was going to beat McCain the far-right said the polls have a liberal bias... that was funny.

Now because we take glee in poinintg out how Palin is well, on the stupid side, we are somehow afraid of her. A woman, whose negative poll numbers are higher than her favorable ones; a lady who justified proximity to russia as Foerign Policy experience. No Pretzel guy we are not afraid of Palin. We just enjoy mocking her and those who are frankly stupid enough to be fans. And just to show you I'm honest about who I would worry about, I'll tell you. Newt.

If the economy is not turned around by 2012,Newt would be a threat. Newt is smart, very smart actually and could articulate the vision conservatives have for economic policy and why he thinks it would work far better than a nitwit such as Palin ever could. I disagree with him on everything and think some of his logic is twisted, but he is something Palin will never be: educated and intelligent. He is also well spoken, and his appeal is something that extends beyond the far-right base of the party.

So there you go. if you don't beleive me though make sure you vote for Palin in the primary. I look forward to more Tina Fey.

jmc: didn't Newt cheat on his dying wife?

Doesn't matter though, "value voters" would still support him.

Willie: 4.5 out of 10 for coherence, 1 out of 10 for poignancy. Not your worst effort, but you could step it up a bit.

As a long time Alaskan who is conservative to the core, I can tell you Sarah Palin is no conservative. She has increased taxes in Alaska by 200% and increased government spending by approximately 35%. She is only about half way through her first term as our governor.

Her gas line policies have done nothing but stop progress on our gas line. Even though she claimed last summer at the Republican convention that Alaska was building a $40 billion gas line to the lower 48, we are years away from moving the first shovel full of dirt on that project. Her gas line plan (called AGIA) is only serving to delay the project.

Her last appointment to the Alaska Supreme Court was a former Planned Parenthood board member. She did nothing for 18 months after the Supreme Court overturned a law passed by the legislature requiring parental notification for abortions for girls as young as 13 years old. I am sure you all know what she has said about this issue. Her actions and her talk don't match up.

Don't beat me up, I'm only the messenger. If you want to learn more about how she is not what she seems do your own research. I have seen enough to know without a doubt she is not qualified for national office at any level.

hyperbolist
"I can concede certain points to you--e.g., a human dies during abortion"
"nobody can tell a rational, autonomous person what they must do with their uterus"

So you admit that what she is doing with her body is resulting in harm to another person. That was my point and that a person can do pretty much what they want with their body as long as it doesn't hurt someone else which in an abortion case they do. Exceptions to "they can do about anything to their body" are those who are determine to be a danger to themselves. Of course like many liberals you can ignore what you said or any facts that don't fit your agenda.

Wayne: glad that you admit that your agenda depends on the ability of the State to dictate what a woman can and cannot do with her uterus. I'm personally less comfortable telling people what their bodily obligations are--seems like a pretty unjustifiable infringement on a rational actor's autonomy.

Thankfully the Supreme Court of the United States--and pretty much every other developed country--shares my views. Nobody--not even a creepy freak like Rick Santorum--would seriously suggest that a woman who aborts a fetus in her uterus should be charged with murder, which is the logical corollary of outlawing the practice. So I guess you should think more about how to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, rather than trying to restrict access to a medical procedure that would be performed whether or not it's legally sanctioned. Research shows that people who care about reducing the number of abortions should advocate for honest sexual education and readily available birth control. Anybody who disagrees is tacitly admitting that for them, it's not about abortion--it's about punishing unmarried girls for having sex.

Hyper
You miss the point once again. I'm not arguing if abortion should or should not be legal. My point is your argument that a person should be able to do whatever they want with their body regardless if it hurts someone else is not valid and you have already admitted that a human dies during abortion. There are many court cases that prove you wrong on someone can do whatever with their bodies. I suppose you think it should be legal for a woman to put razor blades in her vagina then seduce men for the purpose of inflicting harm? Or a man to put small razor cuts in his penis in order to infect his aids on unsuspecting women?

"--would seriously suggest that a woman who aborts a fetus in her uterus should be charged with murder"

Yet if someone hits a pregnant woman in the stomach and kills not the mother but the fetus, it is considered murder. Where is the consistency in that?

...your argument that a person should be able to do whatever they want with their body regardless if it hurts someone else...

I never said that. There are lots of things you shouldn't be allowed to do with your body: murder, rape, etc.. Abortion isn't murder because if it was, then women who choose to abort their fetuses would be murderers and subject to such a penalty as the law sees fit for the crime of murder. That's a) unjust and b) politically impossible, and so the distinction is made.

And I fully support prosecuting someone with murder when they terminate someone else's fetus without that person's consent.

You agree that abortions are killing of a fetus regardless of who does it. Because the law says it is not murder for the woman to do it but is if someone does it against her will does not make it necessary right. That is why many are trying to change the law. If they succeed, I doubt that you will change your mind and say "debate over the law says it murder". If there was a law saying it wasn't murder to kill any minority that steps into an all white café, doesn't make the law or act right. Also remember there were laws outlawing abortions at one time.

Considering it murder when someone else terminates a fetus without the mothers consents show a lack of consistency on your part. To me it should both be one way or the other. Not that there can't be a law against it but to call it murder or serve equal time as murder is being inconsistent.

All of which distract from the issue being debated which was the pro-choice argument of "they can do whatever they want with their body" being a valid argument. I have shown it to be false by showing they often can't if it harms someone else and in an abortion it does. Does that mean abortion should be outlaw? Not necessarily only that argument doesn't hold water.