From what I have read on the internet, you are correct on all fronts.
She is all for war, even to the point of after birth abortion by sending her own son to war, as cannon fodder.
Thanks America for bringing her to our notice.
This pistol packing Mother is one of the worst examples of motherhood, so it seems by all reports I have see thus far.
http://4spotmore43.blog-city.com/top_ten_most_disturbing_facts_and_impressions_of_sarah_palin.htm

i love to read 'progressive' rants against the right. as though anybody cared about your opinion...

mccain wants to be president. his support team but dubya in office, twice- evidence of great competence, i suggest. he and they have an opinion about how to do it, involving ms palin. don't dismiss them easily, the process of presidential selection nowadays has more in common with 'american idol' than the lincoln-douglas debates.

of course, the dems may yet get in, polls are suggesting obama remains the favorite. considering what a mess bush has made, the reps are conducting a remarkable campaign, to get within shouting distance. i therefore assume they know what they're doing.

it's not about logic, it's not about good sense. it's not about fair play or justice- the game is the struggle for power, so the tools are emotional- the appeal of a beautiful woman with a strong character.

at least that's one step up from gunfire and poison, be thankful.

That's a lot of assumptions based on reading from the very biased left wing media in the US, who have already had to start backing off their shrill accusations and misinterpretations - e.g. she's not a creationist, but she's open to debate in schools - are you afraid of information? Another example .. please go check, she does not say Global Warming is not a proven phenomema, she says MAN MADE Global Warming is questionable, so like so much of the hysterical left, you pull things out of context to suit your own intolerent point of view.

Where is the evidence she has abused power? Is there proof, no it's just an accusation. What a gutless abusive piece of gutter tripe that is.

The US is a very different place to Australia - she's popular because she gets results and is not just a blowhard (US Expression, think Kevin Rudd, Wayne Swan) who just promises and spins, but oh such pretty speeches (Kevin Rudd, Barack Obama etc).

I guess this just shows how frightened you all are that a woman might make it to the Whitehouse, who is not from the left. Is she the "wrong type of woman", if she gets there before a woman from the left you're all going to be miffed aren't you, because it's not supposed to work like that and you're the great champions of women, except you really aren't, (think Hilary Clinton)

We picked a blowhard here in Australia, the economy is suddenly in a mess, it's everyone else's fault, yes there are world problems, always are and we weathered them before because we had leadership, repent at leisure is what we're doing - do you wish that upon the Americans?

The author's ignorance says it all. He writes 'She’s an evangelical Christian who believes in creationism and thinks this fantasy belongs in the school science curriculum alongside evolution.'

Even our own two bob each way Prime Minister said during the week
'"As you know I'm a believer and I've never pretended not to be and I respect those who have no religious belief - it's a free country,'' Mr Rudd said.For me, it's ultimately the order of the cosmos or what I describe as the creation."

Did you hear that 'what I describe as creation' coming from a Labour Prime Minister. More and more people know that evolution is not science based but a load of crap. This woman is brave enough to say it.
Fred Hoyle says it well

'The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious." (Sir Fred Hoyle) In other words you need to be gullible or willfully ignorant to swallow the evolution myth.

Runner,

I choose to believe in creation, but I have difficulty even as a Christian accepting the 6 days idea. The Bible tells us that light was separated from darkness, thus creating the first day. This day could not have been a day as we know it (ie 24 hours) as God did not create the sun until the fourth day.

The theory of evolution as you know, is exactly that. It is full of problems, but I accept it as a theory (not fact). I like the quote from the movie "The King And I" when Anna said to the King, that the Bible was written by men of faith, who say the Earth was created in 6 days. Men of Science say the world was created in millions of years, but both tell the same remarkable story of the creation of this world.

I do find the mix of liberal causes in this article perplexing. Evangelical Christian creationist: bad. Killing children in the womb: good. Opposing human generated global warming scenario: bad. Drilling for oil in the Antarctic: bad. Sending her son off to war in Iraq: bad.

What strikes me about this list is that it lacks any coherence as an ethical system, it is simply a list of left, right, causes that have become fashionable. War is bad but uterine infanticide is good. This illustrates an ethical confusion because ethics have become the result of competing causes. Freedom of choice in all things competes with an abhorrence of violence. And so we get this mix of causes that looks like a new kind of PC.

Peter Sellick

One would think that Australians don't have enough to worry about with our own dud politicians.

Let Americans concern themselves with the madness of their poltical system, and who they are going to vote for. It's nothing to do with us.

The Australian media coverage of American politics is boring and insulting.

So, no one commenting on this thread has seen fit to engage with the central point of the article? ie the idea Palin is an unfit candidate because of her abuse of power.

Good to know that the usual OLO ranters have gone off on a creationist/PC/Christianity tangent, completely ignoring the issue at hand. Thanks especially to rpg for a sophisticated analysis of Australian politics.

Initially I was unsure whether her selection was a masterstroke or monstrously stupid. It hasn't taken long for her actions (rather than her views) to make my mind up. I suspect the Republicans will probably have to ditch Palin before the poll.

Steel Mann,

I have never indicated that I believe that six day Creation should be taught as science (though I believe it). What is obvious as you have acknowledged is that evolution is not science. It is a dishonest disproved theory that is taught as fact to kids. In many ways it is the philosophical base for people who want to ease their consciences when murdering the unborn or being sexually immoral. It is a cloak that many hide behind in order to cover the wickedness in man's heart. The bible clearly tells us that Jesus Christ was our Creator. He will be either Saviour or judge for us all depending upon our response to Him. Thankfully many doctors and scientist are honest enough to expose the theory for the fraud it is.

It would be interesting to know on what criteria Sarah Palin was chosen.

She was a member of The Alaskan Independence Party who saught automony.

Her achievement in two years as governor of the small populated state of Alaska, was cutting funding to areas of social services.

She is under investigation regarding government funding.

She has only recently made her first overseas visit outside the USA.

There again she has strong religous beliefs,is anti-abortion, anti-sex education, anti-contraceptive, anti-gay and believes in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those credentials would please the midwest of America, and should John McCain be elected and is unable to fulfill his office, she would become the president of the USA.

Interesting times ahead!

Well Sells.. your eridite post should have confirmed that MIUAUG will take us in any one of a number of diverse and contradictory directions... most of which are contradictory and malfunctional.

I won't hold my breath for deacons Pericles and CJ to admit this though :)

Oh.. I find it inconsistent to speak meaningfully about our faith and at the same time not see how crucial is the real resurrection :)
blessings.

Runner,
You make a foolish case using Hoyle's 747 comment. The 747 evolved from Hargraeve's kites and the Wrights' efforts as people tried adding ideas. Those bits which were worthwhile succeeded and those which weren't were discarded. That is just what happens in evolution. Do some reading FCS and learn something. I suggest Olivia Judson's blogs at the New York Times for a start.
Sells,
Women's rights supporters don't suggest that abortion is a perfect solution to some individual woman's problem but every healthy woman has an opportunity to become pregnant about 350 times in her lifetime. If she thinks the latest opportunity to give birth wasn't the right occasion for her that is a decision for her not some busybody. Women have been making such decisions for generations often at the risk of their own life. If they make such a decision they should be entitled to do so with a minimum of risk. Most can become pregnant again at a time of their choosing.
Surely in an overcrowded planet with diminishing resources population limitation is a sensible aim! Most Roman Catholics in developed countries ignore the Pope's ridiculous views on contraception.
As for the case against the Republican VP nomination there was sufficient smoke for a state investigation to be launched and to have not been aware of the smoke puts John McCain in a poor light.

I made my earlier comment before reading the following remarks from today's Crikey email (4th September)
"How weird that conservative commentary in this country should sense some s-xist, leftist conspiracy behind the quizzical glances that have be thrown toward the Sarah Palin candidacy and the comic little soap opera of home-schooled eccentricity and accidental pregnancy trailing in its wake.

The case is proven, they say, that the liberal left is less inclined to accept strong feminity than are those champions of women's rights on the right. Would the left cock the same snoot if the candidate whose unmarried daughter was due to give birth somewhere this side of the inauguration was a male? Well, if that candidate was a champion of born again (and again!) family values, of abstinence based s-x education, was a figurehead of the party that pillories the collapse of family structure and blames that crumbling edifice on individual rather than social turpitude, then yes, they probably would.

The fact is, that the pregnancy of Palin junior points to the deeper hypocrisy of the proselytizing, moralizing, upright, arrogantly self assertive religious right. Weird indeed."

According to media reports, Sarah Palin:

1. Advocates drilling for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge

2. Enjoys safaris, taking out wolves from low-flying planes

3. Scoffs at "Climate Change"

4. Is a lobbyist for gun rights

5. Found guilty of fishing without a licence

So it appears this woman advocates slaughtering anything that moves except human embryos.

As one former career woman (and mother) to another: "Sarah Palin - you sure do scare the hell out of me!

"Mother Nurture, you ain't!"

I wouldn't be too sure of that, Boaz.

>>Well Sells.. your eridite post should have confirmed that MIUAUG will take us in any one of a number of diverse and contradictory directions... most of which are contradictory and malfunctional. I won't hold my breath for deacons Pericles and CJ to admit this though :)<<

But the only admission I have is that Sells rarely leads so beautifully with his chin. He is usually a great deal more careful.

>>What strikes me about this list is that it lacks any coherence as an ethical system, it is simply a list of left, right, causes that have become fashionable. War is bad but uterine infanticide is good. This illustrates an ethical confusion<<

I presume that the point being made is that the Christian position - war is good, abortion is bad - somehow hangs together far more "ethically".

Labelling stuff you disagree with as a "cause", while describing your chosen position as an "ethical system", is pure sophistry.

Political campaigning is itself a moral wasteland. Looking for ethics-based policies would require a powerful microscope.

Perhaps Sells could complete his little homily with a description of the ethics he would like to see in a US presidential candidate, and a quick sketch on the "causes" they espouse that flow from this morality.

The best comment on Palin's endorsement I have seen comes from Spengler in the Asia Times, who says:

"The Democrats were watching the brightest and most articulate presidential candidate they have fielded since John F Kennedy snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And this was before John McCain, in a maneuver worthy of Admiral Chester Nimitz at the Battle of Midway, turned tables on the Democrats' strategy with the choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate."

The full comment can be found at:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JI03Aa02.html

As Spengler says, barring some unforseen event, McCain has it won.

It says volumes about the left that all they could criticise about Palin was that her 17 year old daughter had become pregnant.

I find the USA christian religionists infatuation with guns quite bizarre.

I wonder which gun or how many guns Jesus would recommend or own if he were alive today?
Shotgun?
Single shot?
Semi automatic?
Fully automatic?
Assault rifle?
Bazooka?

Would Jesus wear or carry a gun whilst in church?

Guns in church?

How old should a child in a christian family be, before he/she is introduced to the "culture" of guns. I believe some USA children are given guns while they are still toddlers.

Would Jesus go hunting as a "sporting" activity?
Would Jesus even eat meat?

In my opinion anyone’s apprehensions about whether Palin has the ability and knowledge and experience to take the reins of the White House if something happened to McCain are misplaced. A person’s character and actions, the latter even in a short time span as is the case of Palin’s short tenure as Governor, are immeasurably more important than knowledge in the accreditation of a president. The character of a person cannot be shared with another person, whereas the knowledge of a person or of many others can be shared with another person. And it lies upon the latter’s personality and character how that knowledge is to be used and what decisions will be caused by it. Palin’s tenure as governor of Alaska shows clearly that she can use her knowledge and that of others benignly, decisively, and effectively for the interests of her constituency. Hence she has the character to be an outstanding reformer and a great president. Voila une femme, to paraphrase Napoleon. And yesterday's speech at the Convention clearly demonstrates that Palin will be a capable VP.

http://civcontraislam.typepad.com

Runner it's best if you cover your ears and close your eye when you say things like that. It makes it even easier for you to belive it's true.
By the way you need to start reading for the horse's mouth ratherr then godtube old Prof Fred though that life on earth was seeded from Space. You Fred had some good ideas and some realy bad ones to the point tha he was more famous for his stuff ups then for things he got right. The most famous was his big bang comment.

Now back in the real world...
The truth is we don't vote in the US elections so who cares.Their system is even more stagnet then ours either winner will do pretty much what every other US Prez has done, screw everyone else for the betterment of the US, Just as every other world power has done for all of history.

This woman is eclectic. She seems to have been able to have something in her profile to offend every voter,,,a guntoting creationist....pro war yet anti abortion .... Taking a stance on an issue is good...fantastic...but the stance must be consistent...and that appears to be what is lacking...any formof consistency!

I'm with cornonacob on this one.

>>The truth is we don't vote in the US elections so who cares<<

Over the last few years, the power of the US to influence and direct world events has dwindled enormously.

They still wield massive "hard" power, in the sense that they can mobilize a large and well-equipped military. But its effectiveness against modern tactics - particularly terrorism and guerrilla warfare - has nosedived. Technologically too, their lead over the rest of the world is diminishing by the day.

Their "soft" power has declined even further, and even more quickly. They are increasingly seen as bullies and enforcers, rather than arbitrators and facilitators. While the former is a viable stance when your "hard" power is great, it quickly loses influence when that reduces.

As far as I'm concerned, it makes little difference which side wins. Obama will try to rebuild the US "soft" power, but fail, while McCain will try to rebuild their "hard" power, and fail for the same reason.

I guess that part of me whispers that the world might be a slightly safer place if Obama gets in, if only because he might upset slightly fewer foreign governments.

But as far as Palin is concerned (didn't she make a great speech, by the way?), I have to say that frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

Demos you are sexist and what have here kids life choices to do with her life choices. Doh imbecile.

Johnj I doubt it! she'll win more male votes than femle votes.

Kipp Wrong Todd was the member of that party.
Wrong She turned Alaskan politics on it's head and has an 80% approval rating.
Wrong She is under investigation by an ethics body over the sacking of the state trooper who used his trooper issue taser to taser discipline his stepson ... her nephew.
Her beliefs will win John McCain the presidency.

Foyle You are a touting gossip...shame on you.

Dickie Any courageous person would scare the hell out of you. You are a little scared cat. And sexist.

Foyle You are touting sexist bias against women... shame on you.

Keith. Sarah Palins beliefs, will put America even furthur back into the 19th century.

In the 21st century, you cannot run a country on religous bigotry!

I'm just loving watching the loony-left get themselves into a tizzy regarding Sarah Palin. She is a living affront to the so-called progressive way of life, and as such MUST BE DESTROYED.

Her lack of experience is regularly noted, Yet she at least has had a responsible role where the buck stopped with her. Her time as Govenor of Alaska has seen her butt heads with the Republican party machine and win 80% approval rating among electors( the highest in the US). Obama has not had any of this. After all, he is a first term senator. Palin was spot on when she identified Obama's self absorbtion and his fascination with personal development, two memoirs already and NO real policy achievments. What a shameless self promoter. She really nailed it with her line "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organiser', except that you have actual responsibilities."

Her religous outlook too, is often mentioned. Loony-lefters seem to willfully ignore the fact that in this respect she is totally representative of her electorate. She also has something in common with Obama, who is also a regular churchgoer, although his church of choice preaches "God Damn America". Not really a fitting place to worship for a man who wants to lead the country.

The loony-left hate that she has guns and shoots them. But large swathes of America also value gun owner ship and hunting. So What? This is another example of the loony-left being tolerant of other people's way of life as long as they meet predetermined limits. They can tolerate the bigotry of Islam, or the oppression of the communists, but not the way of life of a huge proportion of average americans. Thats elitism in all its hypocritical glory.

Many commentators have had the bad taste to bring up her daughter's pregnancy. As if that is a reflection on the candidate. Even OBama has had the good sense to stay away from that one. Someone even criticised her because she has a son who will serve in Iraq soon?? ?? ?? WTF

Kipp

1. Why?

2. Why not?

Keith. If I have to explain, then I can only assume you are of the religous right. My beliefs are in humanity and reality,this has boded me well through my life and anything or anybody who dictates how anyone lives their lives, has not truely experienced the reality of life.
Life is a journey and after that you are dead and gone, remaining a loving memory for those who miss you!

"Dickie Any courageous person would scare the hell out of you. You are a little scared cat. And sexist."

Really Keith? And what evidence do you have to substantiate such unmitigated swill?

Rather than resorting to ad hominems and setting yourself up as an expert on MY gender, of which you know zilch, why not add something intelligent to the debate?

Kipp

You just copped out. Of course I expect you to explain.

I have difficulty in a belief in a God let alone adhering to any man made belief system.

Can you explain your reality I'm sure it's quite unique as would be your belief in your 'humanity '.
I think religion merely is a conglomerate of people with the same ideas ... just like people who share your views of your 'humanity'. With a thorough probing I'm likely to find, just like religion, it has it's flaws as well.

And Kipp ... I've found one flaw in most belief systems ... like me ... they too are judgemental.

Life might just be parrt of the destination to be enjoyed and not a journey to be stressed over. Can you give me proof it's over with death?

As for loving memories most of those who might miss you might already be dead ... well you work it out.

Dickie,

The term Mother Nurture is loaded with sexism.

I've come to a conclusion, through life experience, all attributes or characteristics used to define people, exist not as absolutes, but scaled as on a continium. I think most people have nurturing abilities some very pronounced and some less so. I don't think only women, as your choice of phrase suggests, are strongly nurturing. Think I'm wrong? Well I raised two youngsters from quite tender ages and I surprisingly found not only did I enjoy nurturing but I was far better or more effective at it than many mothers... No-one ever refered to me as 'Father Nurture'... sadly.

Now Dickie you've said Sarah Palin

'1. Advocates drilling for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge

2. Enjoys safaris, taking out wolves from low-flying planes

3. Scoffs at "Climate Change"

4. Is a lobbyist for gun rights

5. Found guilty of fishing without a licence'

and then drawn the conclusion that

'this woman advocates slaughtering anything that moves except human embryos.'

Not only is it an exaggeration but your choices and reasoning show you not only disagree with her choices but that those choices actually offend you and because of that you've judged her as scary as hell and lacking in nurturing ... to your standard.

For you to be consistant then you'd have to admit anyone who aligns themselves with Sarah's attitudes and activities would also scare the hell out of you.
Today, and in light of your pronouncements, to indulge in Sarah's preferences draws the wrath and ire of many people. You'd have to agree that to stand up to that wrath and ire requires great courage.
I know many people of courage who share Palin's life choices.

Therefore ... well you're cleverer than me ... so you work it out.

Personal experience tells me that the criticisms and the judgements of people often tell me more about them than the people they are criticising or judging.

thought

"Personal experience tells me that the criticisms and the judgements of people often tell me more about them than the people they are criticising or judging."

Indeed yes Keith and how could I, a mere "pleb," reject your innate words of wisdom when you offer such resounding and revelatory counsel:

"Dickie Any courageous person would scare the hell out of you. You are a little scared cat. And sexist."

So run along now dear boy and wipe the dribble from your bib - your stopcock's sprung a leak!

Dickie,

You heaped personal criticism on Palin.
I put a little criticisn on you.
You heaped personal criticism on me.
I justified my criticism of you ... when asked.
You heaped personal criticism on me.

Is this a pattern?

Good to see you accept the sexist argument and the justification of the scared cat criticism though... an up and down acknowledgement of error rather than a rueful silence would have been much better though.

Keith, On Friday you commented;
Foyle You are a touting gossip...shame on you.
Foyle You are touting sexist bias against women... shame on you.
In the second of my two earlier posting on this item I repeated an editorial comment that day from Crikey for the benefit of those who had not seen it. In the earlier posting, for runner's and Sells' benefit I summarised my comments from a letter I wrote many years ago on the subject of abortion and women's rights when those matters were hot issues. My letter made the lead position at the SMH on the day it was published. Not one of my four daughters, all in or near middle age, would accept that I am in any way biased against women or against women's rights. They and their brothers may believe just the opposite.
Part of my SMH letter read, "Over her reproductive period every woman produces about 350 eggs each capable of being fertilised. In the prime of her life, almost in every case, an aborted pregnancy can be replaced by a new pregnancy at some later date.
Overpopulation rather than underpopulation is now a human problem. My humanist belief system convinces me that early in a pregnancy a woman has the right to decide if a baby is the best decision for her,
particularly if the potential child is genetically defective or the pregnancy is an 'accident'. Similarly a terminally ill person should be able to determine the time and place of his or her last breath. Religious bigots have no rights over another adult’s life and we do not need politicians of the busybody ilk.

Foyle,

Tell me exactly how the life choices of a candidate's teenagers are relevant to determining the policy and performance of a candidate.

'The fact is, that the pregnancy of Palin junior points to the deeper hypocrisy of the proselytizing, moralizing, upright, arrogantly self assertive religious right.'

BS it is private family business being continually raised as relevant to the political debate by angry and disaffected leftie gossips especially those who dispute Palin's right hold opinions different to them.

And you appear to be one.

I think rather than obfuscate with the fanciful idea lefties would not criticise a liberal left male candidate in similar circumstance, you would need to consider whether the left would raise any questions about Palin if she held liberal/left views, was their nominee and her daughter had an abortion or even more appropriately had decided to keep and raise the child with Palin's wholehearted motherly support? They wouldn't talk about it and it would not reach anywhere near the level of current discussion.

Keith. The point is that Palin takes the high moral ground, yet it appears she has poor communication or direction regarding her own children.

The high moral ground is taken by those on the left. It is total hypocrisy that they preach moral relativism (justifying any behaviour)and then judge people who live by that standard. At least Sarah had the humility and dignity to admit her failures unlike the godless earth worshipers.

Runner. You are just too, too, Precious

Keith and runner.
The religious right's policies on sexual education, such as abstinence and opposition to condoms, has been an abject failure. Compare the statistics on teenage pregnancy and STDs for the USA with say Holland (or other countries with similar enlightened and sensible sex education policies).
The incidence of STDs in the USA is a significant multiple of the Holland incidence and a similar situation is the case with teenage pregnancies.
Failure to provide sensible sex education is to condemn a significantly higher percentage of a country's youth to ill health and sometimes an early death via AIDS or other STDs. The evidence is readily available. Just read it and understand it.
VP candidate Palin supports the current USA policies and her daughter may have avoided her predicament had that policy not been in place.
I do not criticise Bristol Palin for her choices. It is just a pity that she wasn't educated to avoid the trap. Sex is a normal aspect of life but for some strange reason some people, mainly on the religious right, treat it as sinful.