Or
Stirring the Pot: An Historically and Uniquely American Pastime
(Especially in this "Every Four Year Revolution" we are in the midst of what no one here can argue, was one of the greatest gifts the Creators of America gave us!)
One of the biggest political firestorms to hit our nation is the nomination of conservative Hockey Mom, the Lipstick Pit Bull, Sarah Palin, to the 2008 Republican Party ticket. It has been interesting to hear some of the differing views from both sides of this debate. I wanted to share a few of those with you.
I heard from a long time friend a few days ago who is a traditional republican Soccer Mom! Her take on the new Republican Veep Nominee was that she hoped she would change her mind. When I asked her if she liked Sarah Palin, her stand on this issue was this!
"She is way TOO CUTE for a VP, and what's more (you'll be sorry you asked). She is cool all right, and classy, however, I HAVE HUGE ISSUES with her not taking care of ALL those kids! I think that's where her heart should be ... that's why they need to stay out of Washington. The youngest will NEED HIS MOMMY to be with him and not running the country. I am worried the DEMO'S will tear her apart. If something were to happen to John McCain and she would be president, someone will pay: AMERICA or her family. I vote for her to stay and mother those kids!"
Now that was a political conservative but here is what another friend who works on the Obama campaign said something similar.
"You know, I have a problem with it -- and this is going to sound very judgmental coming from a career woman like me ... but I have lived this in my own life, and balancing a family and work is really tough, even under the best of circumstances. You can't do both full tilt -- either your work suffers or your family suffers. Contrary to popular opinion, we aren't super women.
I think that with a special needs child of four months and what her daughter is going through right now that she should be with her family. It strikes me that the rigors of campaigning and caring for a family in turmoil don't mix very well."
So there you have two views opposing Sarah Palin from two differing political perspectives. So lets take a look at what others might say who support her candidacy.
BUT ... briefly, to lighten up the mood for a moment, here is one view from a Hockey Mom in the Northwest in response to this question:
"How does it feel to have a fellow hockey mom with a chance to be a heart beat away from being the President of the United States?"
She said,
"Hockey moms rule! Jake (her son) once bought me bumper sticker that said 'My hockey mom can beat up your soccer Mom!"
Another view comes from someone associated with a very well known conservative educational institution in the South when asked about that campus's response to the Palin Candidacy.
"Most of what I hear is that every one feels better about voting in this election. Before she was on the Republican ticket the attitude was, "I'll vote against Obama". Now the attitude is, "Wow! I can vote for a lady like Governor Sarah Palin! Maybe she will run for President next term!"
In my opinion, politically speaking, this makes it look like McCain is going to get what he needed, which is, historically the best strategy to be elected ... energizing the base of the Republican party. And ... coming from this historically conservative atmosphere is a pretty good indication that this is true!
Another issue I have heard from some conservatives is whether a woman should run at all. Personally I do not have any problem with it. Since the 19th amendment was passed it would be pretty inconsistent (if not immoral) if we preserved a woman’s right to vote then tried to keep them from running. It also does my American heart good to hear that conservatives (such as the educational institution mentioned above) who have been "accused" of being closed minded are actually energized for a woman candidate as well.
A couple of the BIG problems Palin poses for the liberal elites is that they keep wanting to cite her "motherhood" as a negative when for the past 50 years they have been championing the concept of "Super Moms".
So ... does it make one pause to think when you hear a politician talk about how it would be a shame for this woman to abandon her newborn child to run for Vice President, when they are perfectly willing to support aborting their own unborn children to preserve the freedom to choose?
Now let me add a little fuel to the Democratic side of the debate. Barack Obama's candidacy is truly historic! That an American of African descent is able to secure their parties nomination is an incredible step in the right direction for America, even if you disagree with his politics.
I have another friend who supports Obama and claims she is from a historically "new wing" of the Democratic Party that is trying to open the arms of that party to those who do not support abortion. In fact, she says that the abortion issue itself is one of the energizing issues of this new wing. She challenged me to read a book published a couple of years ago by the name of "Crashing the Gates" by Markos and Jerome.
I have not read it yet but here is a very interesting review from the website,
http://www.crashingthegate.com/
"What Crashing the Gate advocates is essentially a bloodless coup inside the Democratic party: a sidelining of the high-paid consultants who have advised Democrats straight into minority status; an eviction from the party's inner circle of the shrill single-issue advocacy groups (like NARAL Pro-Choice America) that demand absolute fealty to their positions, even if it means losing an election; and an influx of new ideas (and cash) into the party"
Abortion is a very volatile subject that some have compared, historically, to the issue of slavery in the American 19th century. Is this new movement in the Democratic party as another pastoral friend of mine put it,
"A secular movement (although movements like "Kings and Rivers" are in the hand of the Lord) to start a change in the American Heart and Mind that JUST MIGHT save its Soul!"?
Well, have I stirred the pot Americanly enough? Hope so! It is discussions like this that make America great!
11 comments:
...liberal elites is that they keep wanting to site her "motherhood" as a negative...
And that would be? And I think you mean cite.
So ... does it make one pause to think when you hear a politician talk about how it would be a shame for this woman to abandon her newborn child to run for Vice President, when they are perfectly willing to support aborting their own unborn children to preserve the freedom to choose?
Again. Who, what, where, when, why?
...Barak Obama's candidacy is...
Technically it's Barack not Barak.
...a historically "new wing" of the Democratic Party that is trying to open the arms of that party to those who do not support abortion.
Some would say that to use the coercive power of the government to force an individual to act against their own best interests, when those interests do no harm to others, is akin to tyranny. Your thoughts? We already have one party fully engaged in eliminating the individual's right to choose.
And no, the evile liberal elitists generally don't support abortion they generally support the choice itself be in the woman's, her families and her doctor's hands, not the legislatures and the courts. There's brute force and then again there's trying to find smart ways to reduce what you don't want. Please name me a time in history when there has been no abortion.
I don't support abortion but I recognize that it's going to happen and would also like to see sane public policies, those dealing with our temporal existence, that would attack the root causes of unwanted pregnancies as best as is humanly possible and keep it safe and above ground when not. Ultimately, that is choice.
Keep stirring, I'll get more spice.
Yes, there has always been and will ever be abortion. Personally I do not think that changing a law will change that. My own personal view is that abortion has been made legal because the Supreme Court determined that it is not "fair or just" to make a woman be more responsible for bearing a child than a man. If men would hold themselves accountable for the life that is generated by pregnancy, we would drastically reduce the "necessity" for abortion whether or not you believed it should be a right!
I guess what I am trying to say is that no woman (in the old fashioned way) has EVER become pregnant without the acquiescence of a male. So if every man would take the (some might say Chivalric) responsibility for his own potential progeny, the burden of pregnancy would be a shared burden. (As much as it can be, I am NOT downplaying or minimizing the effort a mother has to exert). What I am saying is that without the explicit choice a man makes to "assist" in the creation of life, (again referring to old fashioned sex) unwanted, unborn children would become a MUCH rarer thing. AND ... in this sense, we males bear a great responsibility to which our present society does not seem inclined to hold us!
Of course, in the days of the Founding, the laws of nature and nature's God were never thought to be optional, as in a "choice."
McCain certainly got some religious ballast with Palin on the ticket, as Jefferson got with Aaron Burr, the grandson of the fiery preacher Jonathan Edwards.
I suppose if elected, the only questions will be whether Palin shoots and kills a leader of the opposition party, or goes off to try to start her own country.
Burr was acquitted, BTW, although Jefferson wanted his head, and bad. He complained, "It now appears we have no law but the will of the judge."
Which might return us to the question of how much has really changed since the Founding...
.
Hey, Roger.
.
Interesting commentary of attitudes about Palin.
.
Here's the skinny as far as the Christian vote is concerned: V.P. Candidate Palin is an Evangelical Christian who has given her life over to God. God IS the authority in her life. Palin will never make any decision one way or the other. God will be the one making her decisions if she knows it or not. Chances are God will call his son, John McCain home soon after he is elected, so, the Christian Right will vote for God--you can count on it.
.
Roger: "My own personal view is that abortion has been made legal because the Supreme Court determined that it is not "fair or just" to make a woman be more responsible for bearing a child than a man."
I think you are alone in this perspective.
Do you think the man of that day felt guilty for not having to shoulder such a burden and tossed women those metaphorical bone to appease the sentiments of all?
How entirely insulting to everyone :-(
I don't mean to be a spoil sport or anything, but is this really the best forum for this type of post? It just seems a little off topic.
Well, it was NOT meant to be insulting OR disrespectful in any way and I don't think it was "throwing a bone" to ANYone!
I also don't believe that you would find ANY Supreme Court justice that would admit that this was his own logic.
What I AM saying is that if men took responsibility for fathering the children they procreate on a universal basis, we would not HAVE an abortion issue to debate!
I also would tend to think, which is why I started this discussion in the first place, that if our founding fathers knew the state of this issue today, they might indignantly tell us that we have no right to take umbrage with the way they handled the slavery issue!
.
Roger writes, "I guess what I am trying to say is that no woman (in the old fashioned way) has EVER become pregnant without the acquiescence of a male.".
.
Heh heh
.
That was one of the arguments during the debates when Roe v Wade was going up to the Supreme Court. It also was a big one used in rape cases as a defense argument on behalf of the man.
.
As true as that may be, Roger, women often get to be pregnant without their acquiescence.
.
Unless my memory fails me, one of the biggest arguments Americans were making in favor of legalizing abortions had to do with the fact that too many women were dying as a result of illegal back alley coat hanger butcherings. And there were a large number of them. It was common to read about it in the papers.
.
No doubt about the fact that when the illegal operators were caught, they were tried and sent to prison for what they did; but, most of them were never caught. There were no legal birth control medications available at the time, either. Condoms could only be sold as a disease prophylactic. The rhythm method was the only one available. The deck was heavily stacked against a woman ever having a choice.
.
.
Thank you, Ms. Hopkins.
Phil, you're right about the coat hanger stuff, but birth control pills were available around 8-10 years before Roe, and condoms were readily available. I remember the era well: sex, drugs & rock 'n roll, and I was smack in the middle.
AKAGAGA.
.
Nice picture.
.
Birth control pills were very controversial in those early days. Feminism barely held its head above water. In Michigan, condoms were an under the counter item sold for the prevention of disease--not birth control. They were called prophylactics, aka, french safes. The way the associated problems were handled is a commentary that paints an ugly picture of the times.
.
Those days that included the upheavals of the 1960s blew many people away. JFK, MLK, and RFK--unimaginable to people today. My life was changed forever.
.
Post a Comment