Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Sarah Palin for VP!

Patti, just to play devil's advocate for a moment:

As a 'leftist' myself, I could equally complain about all these hard-right conservatives around the place, in universities and business and everywhere, 'poisoning' the minds of young people in favour of right-wing views. It does work both ways.

Whatever you think of communism, and I won't defend it, socialism is not the same thing. It's a perfectly legitimate political philosophy, just as free-market capitalism is, and there are socialist governments in countries not on the US embargo list. Freedom of speech is a right guaranteed in the US constitution, so why shouldn't people with views which diverge from the majority have the right to voice their opinions also?


Wendy

Have you read the Factcheck article on the Ayers connection? Factcheck finds that the accusations of a close relationship are on tenuous ground at best. The conclusion of the article is as follows:

Whatever you may think of Ayers, and I don't know enough to draw my own conclusion, Obama's acquaintance with him appears to be pretty slight. Certainly nothing that would justify the accusation of 'palling around'. Can any politician say that they did not shake the hand of, or were not in the same meeting, or a member of the same organisation, or in the same room at some point as someone they would rather not be associated with?

One thing I found interesting, in last night's post-debate analysis, was the very negative reaction of undecided voters to McCain's pushing of the Ayers issue. It turned them right off McCain at that moment - his negatives shot up. Now, whether they think that Ayers is a distraction from the real issues, or whether it's more to do with undecided voters really hating negative campaigning, I don't know, but it definitely had a huge adverse impact on them.

Wendy

Carol, thanks for your post. I found all that you said very thoughtful and believable.

So let me just say that there is a lot in both Branson and Wasilla to like and admire. And for left-wing people like me, it is good to be reminded about all of those things.

But there are things I would be uncomfortable with in Brandon and Wasilla, which I might describe as an "unforgiveness" about certain things. I believe that these heartland American towns may well resemble the Pentecostalist community of my relatives, who live on an island with a population of circa 3,000. I spent all the summers of the 1960s on that island, although I have grown more and more and more apart from my relatives over the years, and I haven't visited the island for several years.

My relatives were kind, smiling, happy and generous. They loved big get-togethers, and it was easy to be included and feel welcomed at all their parties and festivities. They did a lot of laughing, joking and singing.

But there was this "unforgiveness" about them. For example, my oldest cousin became a father only seven months after getting married. When this embarrassing fact became public knowledge, my cousin was ordered to stand up in church during a packed Sunday service, confess his sin, and ask the congregation to forgive him. And if he didn't do it, he would no longer be welcome in his church. (He didn't do it, by the way, and he left the island and joined another church instead.)

Like I said, I grew up learning about this unforgiveness of the Pentecostalists. And no, they don't treat people who become fathers and mothers only seven months after their wedding like that any more. Today, it is actually possible to be a member of their church even if you are openly living with a person you aren't even married to. But there is still an "unforgiveness" about at least some of the Pentecostalists, although today it is about other things. And like I said, I haven't visited their island for several years.

But it is good for me to be reminded of the warmth, friendliness and generosity of the Pentecostalist community I spent all my childhood summers in. And it is good for me to be reminded that many of the virtues and values I learnt about on the Pentecostalist island are to be found in so many places in heartland America.

Ann

Ann -

To be perfectly honest, I was a bit afraid to open your post for fear that I hadn't been coherent or that you might take issue with something - most likely the abortion thing [don't ask me why except I was most specific there ]. Is abortion legal in the area? Of course. There's just no clinic that currently provides that service. Springfield recently [last year? Two years?] passed or tried to pass an ordinance that said any doctor performing an abortion had to have privileges at a hospital within 50 miles of where it was being performed [so they could admit the patient if needed etc.]. None of the doctors who were providing abortion services at the time were. I believe it was overturned or not passed because it would be overturned, but I forget on what grounds exactly. The doctors who had been traveling once a week or every other week no longer come [though it's possible this has changed since I last heard]. My guess is that the time/cost analysis was not worth it. Women from the area can, of course, travel elsewhere in the state or to surrounding states if they desire [Branson, for instance, is about 5 miles from Arkansas so that's not necessarily the hardship it may sound like].

There are Pentacostals like that in this area - and in many areas. The Assemblies of God and Baptists are headquartered here [not HERE but in Springfield]. I think more and more, however, acceptance is the norm. Not necessarily acceptance of whatever behavior, but certainly not like your cousin [rather he would likely be commended for not choosing/pressuring for abortion and taking care of his family]. Support and compassion are generally found instead - at least among those I know/know of. Does that mean the church doesn't... support abstinence rather than premarital sex? Of course not, but once a young lady/couple finds themselves in that situation, they need compassion and care and support in making the decision whether to put the child up for adoption or not [very few would condone abortions, but I would hope continue to love the young woman if she did].

That is one thing that I commend the Palin family for. My understanding is that most [not sure what the percentages are - I want to say over 75%, probably more like 90%] Downs pregnancies are aborted. They have chosen a difficult row to hoe. Bristol Palin's pregnancy was dealt with - afaik - in the manner I described above. Probable disappointment, but love and support as well. Whether you [the ubiquitous you, not you Ann], agree with their beliefs or not, they are living what they believe and that's commendable. They're not saying one thing and doing another on this issue.

Whether she should have accepted the nomination given Bristol's pregnancy is another matter all together.

On a quasi related note...

I did find this opinion piece regarding the facts of the VP debate. I don't know anything about John Lott, but the VP/Constitution stuff seems to line up with what I've read/etc on the VP's role in the Senate. As for the rest, I didn't check his links or anything. It is... slanted towards Palin [defending some of what she said, has been attacked for while take a hard look at what Biden said], but I haven't seen that in any of the other ones I've looked at. [And yes it is on Fox News... Without FoxNews Obama thnks he'd be 3-4 points farther ahead, but I'm sure McCain thinks the same thing about MSNBC ].

Carol [who needs to write before Beth gets back online and they watch NCIS 'together']

I came in here to express exactly what Wendy pointed out about Ayers. I'd like to particularly note the:

"The group was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, started by a $49 million grant from the Annenberg Foundation, which was established by the publisher Walter Annenberg, a prominent Republican whose widow, Leonore, is a contributor to the McCain campaign."

Does this mean that McCain also pals around with terrorist associates? Does that make him frightening and should we consider not voting for him? After all he is taking contributions from "terrorist" supporters.

No of course not.

It is amazing to me how ugly and horrible people have been toward this man. He is very well respected in his field now and has worked to turn his life around and the life of others. He has worked with groups concerning poverty and many other worthwhile organizations. Much more than I would gather other people in this thread have done for underprivelaged children and poverty stricken families. (However I may be wrong. Maybe some of you have done this. It is not my place to assume but I can tell you he has done far more than most people I personally know.)

I was a Christian Studies major in college and I find it appalling how many good Christian people I have seen turn on this man and call him a terrorist with little provocation. Aren't we taught forgiveness and that people can change? This man has shown he has changed and all people want to do is point a finger for crimes from 40 years ago. Crimes he has been atoning for through his service to the community and through his works to make things better for those who don't have the resources to do so.

I'd also like to point out that many quotes attributed to Bill Ayers have been taken out of context (below from wikipedia):

Much of the controversy about Ayers during the decade since 2000 stems from an interview he gave to The New York Times on the occasion of the memoir's publication. The reporter quoted him as saying "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough", and, when asked if he would "do it all again" as saying "I don't want to discount the possibility." Ayers has not denied the quotes, but he protested the interviewer's characterizations in a Letter to the Editor published September 15, 2001: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."

In the ensuing years, Ayers has repeatedly avowed that when he said he had "no regrets" and that "we didn't do enough" he was speaking only in reference to his efforts to stop the United States from waging the Vietnam War, efforts which he has described as ". . . inadequate [as] the war dragged on for a decade." Ayers has maintained that the two statements were not intended to imply a wish they had set more bombs.

The article further goes on to state:

In a letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune, Ayers wrote, "I condemn all forms of terrorism — individual, group and official". He also condemned the September 11 terrorist attacks in that letter. "Today we are witnessing crimes against humanity on our own shores on an unthinkable scale, and I fear that we may soon see more innocent people in other parts of the world dying in response."

Ann wrote:
By this, I take it to mean that you believe that religious people should accept people just as they are and not try to alter their behavior or lifestyles in any way. But what about a man who likes to have sex with ten-year-old girls? Would you "accept" and "forgive" this man also? What about a pickpocket who went home after every service with two or three wallets which were taken out of others' pockets? Would you "accept" and "forgive" this person also?

You have conveniently forgotten that forgiveness requires something from the one being forgiven. One cannot grant forgiveness to one who hasn't requested it. And a person cannot request forgiveness without admitting that the behavior prompting the request was wrong. "Forgiveness" which requires no admission of wrongdoing is not forgiveness, it is denial and enabling wrong behavior.

I suspect that your cousin already knew - or at least suspected - what the church would require of him if he married a pregnant bride. I also suspect that he was not the only person who was asked to request forgiveness from the congregation for some act. I take no position on whether or not the congregation should or should not have expected a public confession. That is the business of the congregation and I will not meddle.

It seems to me, though, that you are once again bringing in your avowed dislike of organized religion in general and using one incident to illustrate a point only peripherally related to it. I find this especially curious, given that you haven't told us of any personal experience in either Branson or Wasilla. You appear to be condemning the populations of two entire communities without any hard evidence at all. And that's not good. You have no personal knowledge of these towns or the people in them, unless you haven't shared it with us. And your ongoing blanket condemnation of church-going people in general irks me, despite the experiences of which you have told us. While they may justify hard feelings towards the people in that congregation, they do not justify them towards every congregation in the world.

Terry, I think I'm going to regret this. But the incident of my cousin was not the only time I thought that my relatives were unforgiving.

Personally I took pains not to infuriate my relatives, and I realized after a while that not seeing them so much was a good way of staying out of their wrath. There was, however, one incident when I was at the receiving end of Pentecostalist wrath. I was fourteen or fifteen years old and had just finished sewing a missing button onto a blouse, and I was moderately proud of myself, since it was usually my mother who did those things. Just then my grandfather called. We chatted for a bit, and he asked me what I had been doing that day, and I told him about the button. Adn he blew his top. Didn't I realize that it was Sunday? Didn't I know I could go to hell for doing work on a Sunday?

Like I said, I took care not to infuriate my relatives. Well, when I was ten years old, my mother decided that it would be good for me to join a children's theater company. We were going to rehearse and stage plays for kids, such as H.C. Andersen's story about the ugly duckling.

My mother impressed on me that I must never, ever let my relatives know that I was actually performing on stage. Never mind that I was a kid, and that I was performing for other kids, and that it was as innocent as could be.

Let me tell you, Terry, that it made me quite uncomfortable to know that my relatives would condemn me to hell if they knew what I was doing. It made me feel uncomfortable around them. And it wasn't even my own idea to defy them, as it were. It was my mother's.

Let me talk a bit more about my relatives. They though it was a next-to-mortal sin to see a movie in a movie theater. (Seeing a movie on TV was okay.) I remember one occasion when my favorite aunt called me, almost disconsolate because she had seen Sound of Music in a movie theater. She loved that movie. But now she was worried about the fate of her immortal soul.

Why was it such a horrible sin to see a movie in a movie theater? Long after my childhood was over, probably when I was in my forties, my mother told me that it says somewhere in the Bible that those who believe in God are not allowed to "sit down with sinners". Or something like that. And of course, if you go to a movie theater, there will be all those sinners sitting down all around you.

Also, when something bad happened to people who my relatives regarded as sinners, they - my relatives - would indeed sometimes say that the sinners were getting their just rewards by God. Their misery was their richly deserved punishment, inflicted on them by God. That is why somebody had cancer or some other serious condition or disease, or why somebody had become a widow or a widower.

Of course, when a good Pentecostalist came down with a serious disease or lost his or her spouse, that was never regarded as punishment inflicted by God. Pentecostalists were good people, so when something bad happened to them, God was just trying and testing their faith. Pentecostalists suffered not for their sins, but so that God could be even more certain than before that the suffering Pentecostalists were as good as God already knew them to be.

So the thing is, Terry, my relatives really scared me. For all their warmth and smiles and easy laughter, for all their generosity and hospitality, for all their jokes and all their songs, they scared me. Because when you didn't behave the way they wanted you to behave - even if it was about small things like sewing a button on a blouse on a Sunday or seeing a movie in a movie theater instead of on TV, they could condemn you to hell. Because, bottom line, they knew that they were good and other people weren't. They knew that they had God on their side, and if they didn't like you and things turned sour for you, it was God who punished you like they knew he would.

All that I have said right now describes a small circle of Swedish Pentecostalists in the sixties and seventies on an island with a population of about 3,000.

But I admit that I have no knowledge of what things are like in Wasilla or Brandon. I have certainly never visited them. I suspect that I would be uncomfortable there. But it could very well be that I'm totally wrong about Wasilla and Brandon.

Finally, I don't - I repeat, I so don't want to turn this thread into a mud-slinging smear campaign about religion. And just so that everybody knows, I'm not - I'm not!!!! - saying that all, or most, religious people are ......... (fill in any negative adjective or noun that appeals to you). All I'm saying, really, is that I thought that my Pentecostalist relatives were cruel when they condemned my cousin for becoming a father seven months after his wedding. My goodness, he and his wife are still married after 40+ years. What did the two of them do that was so horrible? How can it be so awful to fall in love, make love, make a baby, get married, and stick by one another and one's children for forty years? I'm not backing down from my position that my relatives were cruel and completely unwilling to follow the example of Jesus when they made my cousin choose between public humiliation and expulsion. My post should be regarded as a reply to Terry's seeming defence of my relatives' treatment of my cousin, not as a general condemnation of religious people. I do hope you all understand that.

Ann

Subsequent to Factcheck’s premature pronouncement that the relationship was “never very close”, CNN reported :

the relationship between Obama and Ayers went deeper, ran longer and was more political than Obama -- and his surrogates -- have revealed, documents and interviews show.

Vicki... if this is the truth. Please show us the actual evidence. Point to something factual and not just something that CNN may have spouted and regurgitated per their normal routine when everyone has a bit of juicy possible news on one of the candidates or their VP candidates.

Think it doesn't happen? Isn't what this whole thread has been about with Palin? I'm pretty sure I've heard CNN make some statements about her that weren't true.

For comedy relief: http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=173522

Just a note -- please bear in mind that FactCheck is connected to the Annenberg Fund, which is connected to Barack Obama. Which does *not* mean they're lying through their teeth, of course. I'm just saying, they may not be as impartial and nonpartisan as they appear. So don't use them as your only source for anything.

PJ

Jojo said:

[Much of the controversy about Ayers during the decade since 2000 stems from an interview he gave to The New York Times on the occasion of the memoir's publication. The reporter quoted him as saying "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough", and, when asked if he would "do it all again" as saying "I don't want to discount the possibility." Ayers has not denied the quotes, but he protested the interviewer's characterizations in a Letter to the Editor published September 15, 2001: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."]

Okay, that does happen sometimes, so I'll grant him the benefit of the doubt. Now, can you find me one single instance *in* context where Ayers and/or his charming bride have expressed any regret or remorse? At all?

PJ

Terry said to Ann:

[And your ongoing blanket condemnation of church-going people in general irks me, despite the experiences of which you have told us. While they may justify hard feelings towards the people in that congregation, they do not justify them towards every congregation in the world.]

Thank you, Terry. Well said. Me, too.

PJ

Ann wrote:
I have no direct knowledge of the people to whom Ann is referring. I don't know any of them personally, nor have I ever spoken to them about their beliefs and practices. Were I to do so, I suspect that I would find areas of both agreement and disagreement.

And I defend Ann's right to be bothered by their actions towards her. If she is relating these incidents accurately - and I have absolutely no doubt that this is her intention - then she has a right to have hard feelings towards them.

My problem is not that she feels the way she does, it is because Ann paints all Christians with the same brush with which she paints her relatives and those in that community. Her very valid negative feelings towards that group of people color her feelings towards people she's never met, like the folks in Branson and Wasilla. This isn't fair to either the folks in those towns or to Ann herself.

I applaud Ann's cousin for remaining married for more than forty years. That's not an easy thing to do in any culture, and both he and his wife are to be highly commended for staying together through all the tough times every married couple goes through, with the added social pressure from that community of Pentecostalists.

But here's the kicker, Ann. All of these bad experiences do not mean that every Believer in the world is like those folks. It does not mean that the church-going population in Brandon and Wasilla is like them. It doesn't even mean that every believer signed onto these boards is like them. You are doing the very same thing you rightly condemn in their actions, Ann - you are condemning others for believing and acting differently from you.

Maybe you would be uncomfortable in either of those towns. Maybe you wouldn't. Neither of us will ever know unless you have the opportunity to visit them and get to know the people there. I ask only that you not pre-judge people and allow them to unfold themselves before you without any preconceptions on your part.

Actually, that's pretty good advice for all of us. I think I'll try to take it myself.

Well, Terry, you offer no quotes to prove your point, so I can neither defend myself nor, if you could convince me that I should do so, apologize. But I said that I'm not going to try to turn this thread into a general discussion about religion. I'm also not going to turn it into a general discussion about me or my views on religion, either. The rest of you are free to hold such a discussion, of course, at least if the moderators don't stop you, but I'm not going to participate. Personally, I don't appreciate it.

I'm not going to participate in a general discussion about Brandon or Wasilla, either, since indeed I know so extremely little about those places.

I think it might be fair to hold a general discussion about Sarah Palin's religious views, except that I know little about them, too. I know that Sarah Palin is a religious conservative, but I haven't heard her make any specific statements and back them up with religious arguments. So again, I have little to comment on. I know that she is against abortions, but many Americans are against abortions, and I'm not sure that all of them reject abortions on religious grounds. In any case, I'm not going to take part in a general discussion about abortions here.

No, I think that all I'm going to say for now is that I agree with Carol, who pointed out that Sarah Palin chose to keep her youngest child instead of aborting it, even though she knew that the baby would have Down's syndrome. I agree with Carol that I admire Palin for sticking to her beliefs and choosing not to have an abortion for herself, even though she knew that her baby was going to be handicapped.

Ann

Even if this is true...

... it sounds kind of like McCain's relationship with G. Gordon Liddy. People in glass houses and all that...

Pam, here is a blog entry from Ayer's own blog.

http://billayers.wordpress.com/2008...-letter-to-the-new-york-times-9-15-2001/

I do not see him expressing regret or remorse over the bombs he planted. I do not see an apology. I see justification for his actions - he was living in a culture of violence with "structures of racism." His choices were complex, extreme and desperate. They were not wrong.

He focuses the attention on America's responsibility, - for the murder of innocents in Vietnam, for racism, for his own anger. He never once mentions his own personal responsibility.

He condemns terrorism, but is careful to define it as violence that is "indisrcriminate," "clean", and "distant". Can't you see what he is doing? - To Ayers, the 911 highjackers and America are the terrorists. He remains totally unrepentant.

I posted a link to the actual CNN article. In the article they document their evidence.

If that does not satisfy, I recommend a few minutes with Google. The evidence is overwhelming.

try googling word combinations such as:
juvenile Ayers Obama
rules radicals Alynski Obama
Sidley Austin Obama Dohrn
Woods Foundation Obama Dohrn

Happy hunting.

You can read into his statements what you will. Others have and we will just have to agree to disagree.

I choose to read them how he explains them. That he is remorseful for many things among them bombs (as he points out he has no love for bombs) but he wasn't not remorseful for being against the war and the terrible things that were going on. I don't condone what he did so many years ago... but as I have pointed out he is remorseful for them and has done MANY things for the Chicago community to help make it a better place. The mayor of Chicago has even stepped up to defend him as well many many scholars in the academia. All of them say the same thing, they don't condone his past but he is a respectable figure now that he has turned his life around to better pursuits and they would stand by him and vouch for him.

I could go on, but it is obvious that those of you who feel this is something more will continue to believe this. Nothing I write here is going to change that.

And you know what? That's okay. It the beauty of our nation that we can all have an opinion and that on November 4th we can put those opinions to good use.

He is playing word games with you. Having no love of bombs is not the same as being remorseful over using them. He did nothing he needs to apologize for. If anything, America should apologize to him! What he did was totally justified in his own mind. America *made* him do it.

Read what he posted on his blog :

I've never advocated terrorism, never participated in it, never defended it. The U.S. government, by contrast, does it routinely and defends the use of it in its own cause consistently.

I repeat: