Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

It is ALL about judgement.

Palin first then John:

Judgement one: Getting Pregnant at 43. (intentional or unintentional it was a decision she made)
Getting pregnant at 43 significantly increased the probability of a Downs Syndrome child.

Judgment two: Getting Pregnant while Governor of a State.

Judgement three: Knowing the child is Downs Syndrome and keeping it anyway.

Judgement four: Running for Vice President with a new baby.

As far as Sarah Palin the person is concerned none of the above are too far out or inappropriate except maybe number four.

As far as Sarah Palin the possible President of the United States in the near future is concerned, damn poor judgements indeed.

Picture if you will this lady talking with Putin about nuclear war.

I think John McCain may be in the early stages of dementia. Seriously, it is not just my Democratic propaganda. His shifts in judgements over the past few years remind me a lot of my mother-in-law's shifts in judgement before we understood what was happening to her.

You see age is not the issue, it is what age has done to you that has to be considered.

Now if that is true, how in the hell would America handles this?
 

Kaki tali tonip tala ba to meni un toto nahi yahi mahlo.

That she might speak glossolalia does pose interesting possibilities. However, after examining the picture of the potenital "First Husband" of the United States, I would be more concerned about her pillow talk.
 

I can't help myself - what drlobojo said.

Judgement.

(and you know me and my partisan self - I always have to ask - what would the media be doing with this if the situation were reversed and this was a Dem?)
 

Bravo to her and her husband for keeping their baby.

But really? Just 4 months after having a Downs Syndrome child, a **major*** adjustment for any family, and she's running for VP (possibly P, depending on whether ol' John can drag himself across the finish line.) Really? And she calls herself "pro-family"??

I'm still stumped by this choice, it doesn't make any sense at all.

This inexperience shines an even greater light on McCain's health now, doesn't it?

And dementia? Well, I wouldn't necessarily go there. But, given that he brings it up in nearly every sentence (Noun, verb, POW. Noun, verb, POW.) I think it is appropriate to ask, particularly given his famous temper, if he's ever been evaluated for PTSD. 5 1/2 years in the Hanoi Hilton would be enough really screw up anyone.

With this choice of a complete unknown with virtually no experience, he's opened himself up to questions like this.
 

" I always have to ask - what would the media be doing with this if the situation were reversed and this was a Dem?"

A young, attractive, inexperienced minority? The Dems would run him for President.
 

Running just four months after having a baby? Oh, my!
I guess she should stay in the kitchen like a good little mommy.

You guys really want to go down that sexist pathway?
 

Hey, Doc. I was specific.

I said what would the MEDIA being doing with this.

The Democratic voters chose Obama. That's the democracy thing. McCain chose Palin, a small-town, scandal ridden mayor, now Governor with zero national experience and no foreign policy experience.

There's a difference.

I didn't mention her status as a "minorty" which I'm pretty sure women aren't.
 

Ouch! Busted twice! I'll try again, if I may, with less sloppiness.

"I always have to ask - what would the media be doing with this if the situation were reversed and this was a Dem?"

An attractive, young and inexperienced candidate is already being run by the democrats, for President. If the roles were reversed (which is I assume what you meant by "this"), I suspect the media would do as it has always done and take whatever side most serves it's interest: Fox and Rush, et al, supporting the right and blasting the left, The NYT, and NPR, et al, vice versa.

(As to minority, I was referring to the idea of a woman candidate being a minority in the political arena, but I left that out of my opinion on take two.)

Sarah was chosen by one man to stand, and the voters will get a chance to vote for or against her in November. You are right there is a difference in how they were selected, but I don't think it makes a hill of beans difference in your opinion.

I fail to understand why we look for distractors instead of just a candidate's policy, and platform. This is true of people getting their panties in a knot over Michelle Obama's statements, or Sarah having a baby.
 

Doc - Thanks for the clarification. I would agree with you on the media thing.

And I agree that (sadly) women are the minority on the political state - sadly underrepresented.

And surprisingly, I agree with you on your third point. Though I question McCain's judgment on choosing someone who is so obviously inexperienced after making such a big issue of Obama's experience, I am ultimately opposed to Palin's policies and ideology.

Which brings me back to McCain - if he had to stoke his base, then Palin is a good choice. But I'm curious, for those who really follow the men lead, women follow ideology, how will this play out?
 

This may be a sign of religious bias on my part, but I'd have some reservations about a candidate who spoke in tongues as the Pentecostalists tend to practice it.

I don't find it especially biblical (as practiced) and I find it just a bit nutty. On a par with zombie-ism, being "slain in the Spirit," snake-handling and other more emotion-based practices.

I have plenty of friends and acquaintances who have imbibed in such practices (well, not the snake-handling) and while I love them and support their right to practice their religion as they wish, I wouldn't trust them as any serious elected official.

Again, this may be purely prejudice based on my own anectdotal experiences with some who practice these Pentecostal type hijinks, but that's my thought on that point.

Further, should some video come out of her speaking in tongues and I would wager that would be the end of her Veep candidacy. Or perhaps even an admission of doing it and some news shows featuring the practice.

Pentecostals - God bless them - sometimes I just find them a bit nutty.

As they, no doubt, find me.
 

The POW thing is one of the shifts in judgement that I was referring to. Prior to 2000, he let others mentioned it but he seldom if ever used it. A Navy tailhook man would not ever seek that kind of sympathy. Now, he uses it for damn near everything. That's a "victim" mentality.(we see a lot of that in OKC) I don't want to see that shit in my President. Indeed, temper loss, flying off the handle, the lack of "grey" in your relationships, anti-authoritarianism fits, are all primary indicators of PTSD. As someone who has and has lived with PTSD, I don't want that in my President either.
I don't shy away from looking for "dementia" because I've watched it very closely in several people, and John, well, John's pattern of behavior needs to be looked at.

That is why his VP is so important. It is just the math that's all.
 

The question I would have when it comes to Palin's decision not to abort is to wonder why she bothered with testing at all if she was so adamantly anti-abortion? Does it indicate she actually had a sliding scale, some conditions would make an abortion okay while others would not? I've known many women whose principles were flat out "no abortion," and so they told their doctors no tests even when they knew they were high risk for complications of various types, just let the pregnancies progress naturally and let God's will be done. Period.

What actually troubles me most about Palin and the baby is the way she's toting him around like a prop, something to fluff up the photo ops. Down Syndrome babies often have a wide range of other conditions (congenital heart problems, weak lungs, digestive issues, poor immune systems, etc) yet she's dragging the infant all over the country and exposing him to a wide range of germs and allergens. I were going to be judgemental, I'd do some muttering about how she cares a lot more about looking like a loving mother than actually being one.
 

As for the speaking in tongues, as long as she doesn't get photographed handling snakes, I won't question her sanity.
 

Doc wrote, "You guys really want to go down that sexist pathway?"

It is sexist to suggest that 4 months after having a baby, that baby's parents might want to spend time focusing on the baby?? It's sexist to suggest that the demands on family life are even greater for a Downs Syndrome baby? It's sexist to suggest that, even the federal government realizes, though the family and medical leave act, that having both parents taking time off at the birth or adoption of a child is good for the family?

Sorry, but every criticism of this woman is not due to sexism any more than every criticism of Obama is due to racism.
 

Ya'll sound like you are just looking for reasons to dislike her. All the above criticisms are none of your @#$% business! You don't know her any better than the latest SI swimsuit cover model. What makes you think you get to judge based on what a news editor chooses to run about her?

You don't call living between Canada and Russia foreign enough to need some policy?

Get a life.
 

Sick said: "All the above criticisms are none of your @#$% business!"

What the hell are you talking about? The woman wants to be President of the United States, that's what a VP is there for.

"Get a life!"

Right, how about I try to keep the one I have. Palin as President doesn't look like that would happen.

Grow up Mr/Ms Sick, or find a rock to live under where you can be a nation of one, where you opinion matters.
 

Has anyone brought up the fact the McCain has already reached average life expectancy in debates?
 

The Sick is a hoot. Did someone just show her a blog for the first time, and it just happened to be mine?

LOL, I say, and again I say, LOL.

Hey, Sick: Speaking as one of her potential bosses, everything about her abilities and potential distractions IS. MY. BUSINESS.

Ya dadgum goofball. Go play.
 

Billy. Age is defintely an issues. But we're a little shy about just saying it baldly. Palin could force it out into the wide-open open, though.
 

Dan, on tongues and other "gifts of the Spirit."

As one who believes, as the UCC puts it, that "God is still speaking," I can't very well dismiss outright our charismatic brethren's practices or claims -- although I recall once at a Happy Goodman performance at a church in Arkansas, where someone jumped up and spoke in tongues, and someone else jumped up and interpreted -- in King James English! -- and Mama Goodman seemed to grit her teeth and just let the episode pass.

I further admit that I'm sittin' here folding clothes, watching a full-gospel preacher on TV gettin' majorly warned up -- on the chance that he might burst forth in tongues.

Black preacher name of Brother Herman. No idea who he is or where the church is.
 

Ah, this is him:

http://www.fght.org/rev-herman-murray.php
 

And I gotta say I LIKE Brother Herman's preachin' -- what I've seen of it anyway.
 

"Sorry, but every criticism of this woman is not due to sexism any more than every criticism of Obama is due to racism."

As if I suggested that it was, Alan?

I do suggest that to question a woman's integrity for choosing to hold office just four months after delivering a baby is "going down a sexist pathway."

Knock her politics, inexperience and membership in the NRA, I wold not say anything about sexism. Frankly, I don't care if you choose to call her a inuit-humping hussy, I just think that the argument given will be viewed as sexist.

Likewise, calling Obama "uppity" is going to come across as racist. Calling him inexperienced is not.

Sick of it already,
I find Marisa Miller to be a poor choice for SI's Swimsuit cover. She clearly has dyed her hair, and the Christy Brinkley pose just doesn't work. And topless with hair and jewelry, Puh-lease. Thats so early 90's!
 

I'm just not sure about the relevance of her having a baby with Down's Syndrome. I agree with Alan - there is an issue of judgment here; she is already governor, having a child with special needs physical and intellectual, does she need the hassle of a national political campaign? Is that "pro-family"? I find it hard to fathom the notion this is a "sexist" attack. As a father, were I in this position (and we can all thank our lucky stars I'm not), I would most definitely turn down the offer of a spot on a national ticket.

As to the abortion issue, as ER raises it, he is exactly right. That's the whole point of being "pro-choice". I can't speak for anyone else, so I'll just say that, being pro-choice means just that. Gov. Palin and her husband are to be admired for their decision, even after it was revealed the baby would have Down's, to continue with the pregnancy and add a fifth child at such a late point in their lives. Another couple might have made another choice, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that because I do not live their lives, and cannot make their moral or family choices for them.

Speaking in tongues? I've seen it a couple times and was not impressed. That's the extent of my opinion. If she does it, and believes it, that's her business. As long as she doesn't do a demonstration during a press conference, I'll leave it alone.
 

Indeed Geoffrey. Suggesting that, 4 months after having a baby, a person might want to take a lighter load to care for that baby is not in the least sexist. Both she AND HER HUSBAND should be caring for this baby.

And if she's going to use the baby as some sort of cheap political pawn in the election, I'd say she has such valid criticism coming anyway.
 

I agree with Alan.

Having a baby and hiring a handler for him-her immediately is pretty close to buying a kid a puppy but then boarding it. Or something like that.
 

And now with a Grandchild on the way!

This family NEEDS time to deal with their own issues. And that is not a negative comment, but a compassionate one.

In the wake of B Clinton's adultery, I said the same thing about him: He should step down, he had some family healing to do.

It's not sexist to suggest so.

However, Obama certainly showed some class today by saying people should not politicize this new pregnancy - indeed, they shouldn't. But out of compassion, man, this family needs to have a member elected to the White House like they need a hammer to the thumb.
 

Yep.

Not to be rude, but I've been humming and whistling the theme to "Soap" all day.
 

Suggesting that Sarah could or should choose to spend time with her family is fine. Suggesting that she is a bad mother for not doing so is likely to be viewed as sexist. Millions of women hold down jobs after having children, even those with special needs.

I suggest you ask Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) or any of the several other congresswomen who have had babies while in office, and then went back to work, if they're bad mothers for their choice to continue to work in politics.

Furthermore, it's the vice presidency. Her job as Governor was probably more demanding. Remember John Nance Gardner, VP under FDR, who said, the vice presidency "wasn't worth a warm bucket of spit." (At least that's what the papers wrote that he said.)

If Hillary had just had a kid and went back to work, would you seriously be considering this line of thinking, or would you be looking to pounce on idiot republicans for presenting a similar opinion?
 

One more quote, and I'll retreat to the coffee. This from then Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-CO):
When a colleague asked her how she, a mother of two small children, could be a legislator at the same time, she responded, "I have a brain and a uterus and I use them both."
 

"If Hillary had just had a kid and went back to work, would you seriously be considering this line of thinking, or would you be looking to pounce on idiot republicans for presenting a similar opinion?"

Yup. I may be sexist, but at least I'm a consistent sexist. ;)
 

Me, too.

I remember when a go-getter of a fellow journalist at the paper in Texas had ber bambino -- and I was floored when she was back to work so soon, leaving her infant with a paid caretaker.

I'm sorry, sexist or not, mamas have some specific obligations that we hairy-legged boys do not. I think of it as an extreme, biology-based version of "I'll mow the yard and keep the exterior of the house in good shape, you take care of the inside of the house" to start -- with modifications as life dictates.

Alas, the fact is I'm doing most of what gets done, inside and outside, right now -- because life is so dictating.
 

This isn't about "having a baby". It's about having a fifth child with developmental disabilities late in life. At least, for me it is. On the one hand, I think the context here is important - she is moving from being governor of a large but unpopulous state to being #2 on a national campaign ticket, a whole different ball of wax. I think that while it is indeed an honor to be asked to do something like this, I think she had no idea the kind of s***storm that would erupt, especially as it seems the McCain campaign did zero investigative work on her.

On the other hand, I think there is a good argument that she certainly has the freedom to decide that serving as McCain's running mate is important, and that she can be with her family and be VP at the same time. I don't have a problem with women with small children being candidates for public office. I don't necessarily have a problem with the decision she made to join McCain on the Republican ticket. I just think that, given the entire context, there are legitimate questions to be asked. That's all.
 

It is about the fact that one out of every three VPs eventually become the President.