Really? What? Certainly not ethics. Not honesty (Obama's a terrorist!). Not perseverance, or she'd not have run away from her job that the citizens sent her to do. I'm interested to know what you think those convictions are. Not what Limbaugh told you to think, but what You, think.

Obama's convictions seem to be honesty, integrity, and family to me. What are Sarah's?

This seems to be going in an odd direction. Why are we talking about the president's convictions in a thread about the ex-governor of Alaska? Shouldn't the question of her convictions be more to the point?

ace---read the prince and try again.
you can do it.
catch up with the 16th century.
jesus.

all this disengenous "naivté" now that the conservatism lay in little pieces on the ground...

Just as one example. Family values:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09down.html?_r=1

Palin as an ambitious person with political and career aspiration choose to give birth to Trig.

When, Palin's oldest daughter gave birth to a child outside of marriage. She gave her daughter unconditional love and support. She did not force a marriage. She did not try to hide it. She shouldered the criticism and calls of hypocrisy.

One of the reasons Palin is stepping down as governor is clearly for her family. The building legal bills, the non-stop jokes and lies about her children all warrant a time-out. she has an opportunity to earn money, pay legal bills, and provide financial security for her family.

I admire Palin for the above. I admire her taking the risks and the criticisms for what she believes in, in support of her family. I would do the same.

---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------

I was done here, but then I read several posts seeming to ask for clarification of the issue of convictions. I go with the flow.

---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 PM ----------

I have no clue as to what this means.

It's a Machiavelli reference.

It's confusing that you admire Sarah Palin because her daughter got pregnant and... she didn't force the kid to marry her daughter? It's not the 1950s. Most parents wouldn't force the boy to marry their daughter. Because she loves her daughter? Mothers are biologically hardwired to love their children, most mammals show affection and protection for their young. These seem less like convictions and more like things anyone and everyone would do. Do you think Obama wouldn't do these things? If one of his daughters became pregnant do you think he would suddenly stop loving her or would force her to get married? Of course not. So, based on that, you should admire Obama. But you seem not to based on some vague accusations of dishonesty.

He's not kept all his campaign promises, but I'll bet you a million bucks that had Palin been elected there's no way she would have kept a lot of hers (based on precedent and her personal history). It's perfectly clear that she was caught red handed lying about the Gravina Island Bridge. She lied about Walt Monegan. She lied about rejecting federal stimulus money. She lied about trade missions to Russia. She lied about the Branchflower Report. She lied about improvising after her prompter had failed during her Canton, Ohio speech. There's a long list somewhere, I'm sure I could find it with a google search. So, if Obama is unprincipled or has a lack of convictions for not keeping some of his campaign promises, by that same measure Sarah Palin should also be found to have a lack of convictions.

What exactly are her convictions, how do they differ from general republican positions, and how are they something that Obama lacks?

So she didnt pressure her daughter to marry. Do you think Obama would?

As for the rest, being pro-life and other republican staples have their democratic counter parts. So I don't see how her being pro-life is a demonstration of her convictions, but Obama's pro choice stance is no conviction at all.

ace, is it that her convictions (although now that we've used that word so much, I'm no longer sure quite what it means) are in line with yours? You agree with her convictions? Or simply that she has some?

Let's say I have very strong convictions that you're 100% opposed to. Would you vote for me anyway?

Here is a view from Alaska that I found illuminating:

I found this here, if anyone wants to go back to the source.

I totally buy that she's ambitious, but even watching the video of the debates for Alaska Governor it seems she's not even marginally capable in a debate. She just happened to be up against someone similarly incapable of debate that also happened to be uninteresting. She manages, with the "aww shucks" demeanor, to catch your attention. She seemed more confident, to be sure, but she still spoke in broad generalities and didn't have much of a handle on the facts, instead resting on her likability.

I'm afraid Dennis, the author of the above, is quite wrong when he comes to the conclusion that Sarah Palin is "smart", at least when you compare her to other people in the public eye generally though of as smart. She's not VP Cheney, she's not General Powell, and she's not Newt Gingrich... she's much more like President George W. Bush in intellect.

Yeah, everybody saw the Couric interview. Is there anyone who is seriously going to claim that she sounded like an intelligent, well informed candidate? Because your definition of "intelligent" and "well informed" are completely at odds with any rational person's definition.

The interesting thing about palin supporters as ace might chime in to saysos that they don care that she sounded like that and further that us caring about that only reinforces that we don't understand her appeal as a candidate. it baffles me to be sure but there it is. This whole nonsensical discussion about her convictions shows that. Palin has supporters who think her belief in god or family or small town charm or whatever else trump anything she lacks in intellectual rigor or political knowhow or education.

Which, frankly, makes no sense to me.

Your logic escapes me here. I admire Palin because she handled her daughters pregnancy in a manner consistent with her core beliefs. Understanding Palin's core beliefs and her conviction to them illustrates a predictable response. This is a good quality in a person to me, one I deeply respect.


Do you think people are not pressured and forced into marriage? You don't think a parent can persuade a minor your young adult to take an action that the minor or young adult has not thought through?

I don't understand your point here. To me it is as clear as can be how a teenage pregnancy can turn into a disaster without the unconditional love and support of parents.

Many simply don't give a shit.

I am getting the feeling you are in a theoretical "la-la" land. I know people who were teenage parents, parents of teenage mothers, even my sister had a baby before graduating high school. I have personally seen how different people handle this and the affects of their actions from various points of view. the Palin family, no matter how you cut it, gave their daughter unconditional love and support. I respect that, and always will - no matter what she does with her political career. Palin is a hero - so are other parents who walk the talk when it comes to unconditional love and support of their children.

---------- Post added at 09:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ----------

First, with me understand who you are interacting with. I am a person who would have voted for Hilery Clinton in the general election against McCain because I don't think McCain is true to his stated convictions. Even though I disagree with Clinton on most policy issues, I know where she is coming from - with her there would be no surprises. People like McCain/Obama and a few others are simply selling "snake oil" in a quest for power. I don't have a problem with people seeking power, I just have a problem with them being dishonest about it or the approach to getting power.

I believe Obama started his political career by choosing a church based on his political ambition for starters. and it goes on and on from there.

---------- Post added at 09:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 PM ----------

Have you ever had a bad day?

When you first started in a job or in your career did you ever f... something up? Did you recover? Did you become one of the best in that job or career after the f... up? I don't expect perfection from politicians, I expect honesty.

You didn't answer the question. He clearly has certain convictions that are opposites of Palin (pro-life/pro-choice, etc.)

And how in the world can you say that with her there would be no surprises? What is this thread about, after all?

As for her stated convictions that go beyond the basic republican talking points, she has been caught in as many, if not more, lies than Obama and McCain.

---------- Post added at 01:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:28 PM ----------

So what are her core beliefs? Milking it for all its worth?

So you're saying YOU have no convictions.

I'm a computer programmer. You better believe I have bad days and fuck things up. Difference is, when I do that, I don't blame the liberal gotcha computer.

Shifting the blame is one of your core values, I take it? Because she hasn't actually owned up to ANY of the dirt that's been flung at her. And while I admit that there is a pretty fair amount of noise on that channel, there is some stuff, I think, that's pretty legitimate. But rather than respond to it head-on, she blames the messenger, blames the media, blames, blames, blames. THIS is something other than politics-as-usual??

Take the concept of empathy seriously for a few moments. And perhaps re-read some of the things I have written if you really want to better understand. Then add the following:

I am a "protector" by nature. When someone is being unfairly attacked (my perception), my nature is to come to their defense.

I tend to support the "underdog" in a fight.

I love when ordinary people do extra-ordinary things.

I like some flaws or weathering in people. I tend to distrust those who are too polished.

I love individualists and doers. I have a strong bias against academic types and theoreticians.

If a person scores well on those points, I am going to like them no matter what. Then add a few other things: Core values, conviction, principles and I can become a raving fan.

You may note that "intellect" is not referenced above and I did not overlook it. Intellect is way down on my list of what is important. Most people I know who belong to American Mensa are not happier, more successful, more honest, etc., than those who are not.

Just want to throw out that nobody here is anti-Palin because she's a woman. I'm seeing too many hints at that here to not say something...

You are surprised by her decision to step down, I am not. I totally understand her decision, I thought I made that clear.

Wow, 5 pages of absolutely nothing worth anything especially when this thread gets necro'd 2 years from now. More important subjects get less attention, it's amazing!

No, had the situation actually followed Sarah Palin's core beliefs, her daughter learning abstinence only would have prevented the pregnancy. After something she firmly believed in was (for the millionth time) demonstrated to be ineffective, she was already in the public eye. According to what Bristol Palin said in subsequent interviews, Sarah Palin allowed Bristol to make the decision to keep the baby. That's a violation of the pro-life stance that Sarah Palin champions.
Some people are pressured into marriage, but it's not common anymore. As more time passes and society continues to progress, it will likely continue to become less common.

Do you think President Obama would support and love his daughter regardless of what she decided to do if she became pregnant?
Many only means a few in this case. Most parents love their children.
It's called "sociology" and "biology".
If Sarah Palin is a hero for not hating her daughter, you've set the bar for being a hero unbearably low.

If you say so.

Are you saying the complaints she has made about the attacks are without any basis? There is no truth in what see has said about the media? Again, the media treated Clinton inappropriately too, and the Clinton's had some clout with the media. Palin, did not even have total support from the people McCain hired to help her.

You are wrong. And it is clear that you are not willing to see the otherside of this issue.

To be clear. There is a greater the 50% probability that Palin will never run for President. She knows that. There is almost 100% chance that she will never be governor again. She has shown no interest in Congress or the Senate. She is not going to be a Federal Judge or candidate for the Supreme Court. She is unlikely to be picked as a cabinet member on some future administration. There is a good probability that her political career is over and that she will go back to living her life in Alaska. I think she would be fine with that. I will be fine with that too, and still be one of her biggest fans.

You mistake me for someone who thinks that Obama is unique. I can tell you some of the convictions he voiced during the election that spoke to me.

My point is, you may be able to account for her convictions now. You cannot speak for her once she is in office. The nature of democratic politics is compromise - there is no escaping it for a politician. And often they are very great, painful compromises for the people who support them. George W. Bush compromised (just ask the religious right). Barack Obama compromises. Sarah Palin will compromise...in the unlikely event that she is ever elected president. Where the naivete comes in is this candy-coated sentimentality that believes she will be any different than the ones who came before her.

If you want to find people with real, uncompromisable convictions you need to look outside of politics - perhaps in the fields of political activism or philanthropy. At this point, why anyone isn't totally disillusioned with the ability of American politics to promote and safeguard their ideals (unless 'they' are GE or Lockheed Martin) I simply do not understand.

---------- Post added at 05:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 PM ----------

wow, i didn't realize there was a whole other page...

sorry, I'm tired. I really should qualify this better.

I'm amazed this is still discussion worthy. She's not been elected, she's doesn't seem like she's got a shot in hell at the presidency and if she did, it will be a very big long shot, come 2012 election season. She's stepped down from the elected office she's held.

Seems to me like there's no real reason to talk about her any longer. She has no reason to exist in the media any longer.

Come on Will. Let's not be silly. Palin's daughter is a unique individual on this earth, and she makes her own choices.

I wish someone else would tell you how your argument is coming across. I know a guy getting married and he doesn't even remember proposing.

I remember him making a comment about an unwanted pregnancy being the biggest mistake his daughter could make in her life. Imagine how she would approach him if she actually got pregnant after hearing that- she wouldn't!!!!

Imagine Obama's grandchild watching a You tube video were his grand-father suggests that the grandchild ruined his mother's life.

Empathy?!?

---------- Post added at 10:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ----------

I disagree. A person's convictions takes them to who they really are, under pressure or stress is when you can asses someone's true convictions. I have seen Palin under pressure and in stressful situations, I have read accounts of the same. Certainly, I could be wrong and can mis-read a person - but when I think I am right about a person, I would literally bet my life on it.

I got married the first time when I was 22. I did not really know her and she did not know me, even though we dated for about 3 years. We were different. We found out the hard way. My current wife and I got married when I was 35, our core values and convictions are the same. We can disagree on many things, but she knows my core and I know hers. There are no surprises and will be no surprises between us. I am not talking about romantic surprises, I am talking about how she or I would respond in situations of stress and pressure. When I say a person has "no convictions", it can be misleading to state it that way. Some people hide them or are deceitful about their convictions - that is the foundation of problems.

So you're admitting that the cause of abstinence only, championed by Bush, Palin, and a plethora of other conservatives, is wrong?
As people like to remind me, the "I know a guy" arguments really don't mean much. Do you have any statistics?
Here's what he said:
I think you may have missed the overall message.

---------- Post added at 03:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:21 PM ----------

There's a good possibility that she could end up hosting a conservative political talk show or even a Fox News program, based on what we know about her. I'm not convinced that this is the last we'll see of Sarah Palin.

It is not realistic.

I support sex education. However, I think the morality of sex should be taught by parents. The biology of sex should be taught in the schools, age appropriate. I do not support public funding for condoms/birth control/abortions/etc.

No. Don't even know how they would measure that, that is why I would hope some others would jump in to give you some different view points. Perhaps, in your circle people don't get pressured into marriage.

---------- Post added at 10:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 PM ----------

I don't think babies are punishment.

Fantastic. You're aware that as Governor Sarah Palin backed abstinence-only education during her 2006 gubernatorial race, yes?
I can't find any statistics on it either. We'll probably just have to say "some people are pressured to marry, and others aren't". Your position, that Sarah Palin not pressuring her daughter to get married (which, honestly, we can't verify because we're not privy to their private conversations) representing something admirable, may or may not be true.

---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

They're not just punishment, but the fact that most pro-life people are hesitant to suggest a woman carry a rapist's baby to term communicates their position is more about a woman being responsible and less about the fetus being alive. Taking that into consideration, pro-life laws would be about punishing women for getting pregnant.

So you're saying that you know and trust Sarah Palin just as much as you do your wife? I don't see how that's possible unless you are in a position to know her that well.

Plus, I wouldn't be so sure that you would find no surprises in your wife if her obligations became as estranged and convoluted as those one finds when they become the president of an entire country.

Dunno if Rat is, but I am. How exactly is the media supposed to treat someone who, over and over, clearly demonstrates her shocking lack of knowledge about the governmental system to which she aspired to be 2nd from the top?

no, that darn librul media isn't making crap up about her. Hell even if we were of a mind to, which we aren't, we wouldn't have the chance. She keeps doing stupid shit faster than we could invent more stupid shit for her to have done.

The media was inappropriate with regards to Clinton not because they went after him, but because they went after him for the wrong thing. Who the hell cares that he ejaculated on Monica's dress when his real failing is that bin Laden attacked the WTC under his watch and he didn't do jack about it? That's what they should have been hounding him on. Instead he got away with sleeping on the job because the media was more concerned with whom he was sleeping.

That, should maybe tell you something.

Come on folks.


I did mean it when I said to stop the threadjacking.
-shakran

She's been pulling a Palin so long she now has her own entry in the Urban Dictionary-

Link here

how can she complain about the media so much when the person behind her nomination is a member of that media (Kristol), she has the unwavering support of the most watched cable news network, the biggest media mogul in the world (Rupert) throws dinners in her honor, and her daughter appears in every magazine and tv show she wants being lobbed softballs?

Look, let's just take one example that has been held up as emblematic of the whole thing: the Couric interview. There were LOADS of softball questions in there--questions designed to explore her as a person, give her an opportunity to introduce herself to America, let them see the kind of leader she'd likely be. I think she came INTO that interview unprepared and adversarial.

"What magazines and periodicals do you read?" is a big old mushball of a question. Anybody who's not had their head entirely up their ass can hear that it's meant to give the interviewee an opportunity to yammer some, open up to the interviewer, present themselves however they want. BIG open-ended question.

What came back was pure defensiveness, and deer-in-headlights. "Oh, you know, I read all sorts of things. Whatever's lying around." And it's like.... C'mon, dumbass. She's trying to HELP you, and you keep HURTING yourself.

So the question is, did Couric "gotcha" Palin, or did Palin "gotcha" herself?

Now: Charlie Gibson testing her knowledge of the Bush Doctrine... That was a set-up. I think Gibson knew exactly what was likely to happen there. Was it unfair? I don't think so. You don't get to be Vice President without knowing about the biggest shift in military doctrine in the history of our country. Was it politically motivated? I like to think it wasn't--I like to think that if Obama had fielded such a woefully unprepared VP candidate, he or she would have been tested the same way. What you might call (and Palin did call) "liberal gotcha journalism", I call actual journalism.

Does that mean all the stuff that's been thrown at her--particularly since November--has been fair? No. There has been a bit of a pigpile on her since losing the election. But even so, she's got this "the media is unfair to me" trope (which you hardly EVER saw Hillary play) that is her ultimate get out of jail free card.

I think there is confusion based on the way people ask the question. Schools should not be responsible for teaching the morality of sex. Schools should not be in a position were they advocate/endorse/teach/promote, sexual activity to children or anyone under the legal age of consent. Until a child is "legal" the official position of the schools should be neutral on the subject or they should error on the side of advocating/endorsing/teaching/promoting children to abstain from sex. We know teenagers are going to have sex and we know some parents are not going to educate their children. In my view when the question is asked in school, I think the first response should be - you (teenagers) should abstain from sex, however these are the scientifically proven method to reduce the risk of... - you should discuss this with your parents, doctor, guardian, pastor/rabbi/priest/monk/etc. And, here are the legal implications of you (teenagers) having sex, i.e. - statutory rape, rape, sexual harassment, child support, etc.

You think Gibson knew she didn't understand what "Bush Doctrine" meant? I was totally caught off guard when she started acting like a child in response. "Whatdaya mean, Charlie?" with that forced smile.

What really got me was when she basically lost her footing in reality in response to the question about the bailout:
It was like she was giving the wrong answers to a half dozen questions that Katie Couric didn't ask. I could have probably forgiven her the fact she didn't really understand the bailout, a lot of elected officials don't seem to get it, but holy crap.

I really respect Katie Couric for not laughing, to be honest.

---------- Post added at 08:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 AM ----------

Sex education should only be factual, teaching that a child should be abstinent is teaching morality. There's a huge difference between, "Abstinence is an effective method of preventing the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies", and, "You should try to be abstinent". The former is informative, the latter is teaching the morality of sex, as you call it.

Sex ed when I was in school was 100% factual, and it worked just fine. I've never caught an STD, I've never had a legitimate pregnancy scare, and I'm confident I'll be clean until the day I die.

Yes.

I don't do shades of trust. I either trust or I don't trust.

I am not confused about what I think and what I believe. If I turn out to be wrong, which is always possible, I will deal with that. But, I don't know how people live with the level of uncertainty I think I am detecting in your comments.

To give an example using Obama and Palin - on the issue of an unplanned teen pregnancy.

Obama talks about empathy. But in a unplanned moment he says what he really believes - that an unplanned teen pregnancy is punishment. Imagine the child living under the fog of being considered punishment. I conclude Obama's talk about empathy is bullshit.

Palin does not talk about empathy. But in a unplanned moment she says what she really believes - that her daughters baby is a blessing - that her down syndrome baby is a blessing. Imagine the child living under the belief that they are a blessing. I conclude Palin's talk about family has real meaning.

I trust Palin on the subject of Family with 100% certainty. I am not saying that she would never make a flawed judgment on an issue that may come across her desk as a politician, but in my view there is no doubt that she would truly be empathetic to the baby and teenage mother involved. I trust my wife in the same way. Obama does not have my trust - I am not sure what his motivations would be. Perhaps you do, but I don't.

---------- Post added at 03:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------

Is teaching a teenager not to drink and drive teaching morality? Or, is it teaching the law? Why do you think we have laws defining the age for sexual consent? Are you sure we are both talking about children K-12th grade?

It's both. Is sex between two 16 year olds illegal? No, so the comparison doesn't work.
We have ages of consent to prevent children from being taken advantage of by adults.

Sex Ed should be purely factual:

Abstience is the only sure way to prevent the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancy.
Condom's prevent X% of unwanted pregnancies and X% of STDs.
Birth control prevents X% of unwanted pregnancies and 0% of STDs.

etc.

That is purely factual and does not tell the child to have sex or not have sex. Instead it educates them on their options letting their parents teach them the morality while equipping them to make educated decisions about their own sex life.

---------- Post added at 05:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:06 PM ----------

Now back to Palin's resignation:

It looks like it might be because she is for sale!

Levi Johnston: Palin's Resignation About Personal Finances - Political News - FOXNews.com

I would hate to have a president who would sell out America. Money is a great conviction!

I am not clear on your position on this subject. What would you have the schools teach the 16 year-old about the decision to have sex or not? In my view the answer should be 16 year old children should abstain from having sex. I do not have a problem with 16 year old's being taught how to avoid pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease. Perhaps there is a small distinction between your view and mine. But, in my view the emphasis is on abstaining until reaching the age of legal consent.

In my view there are legal ages of consent because, as a society, we do not believe people under that age have the capacity to make an informed choice. I always thought the age of consent was as it states, regardless of the age of the partner, under the age of consent the child can not have "legal" sex with anyone. I think statutory rape applies to adults have sex with people under the age of consent. I guess in some states the age of consent is actually 16, but I think that is too young.

---------- Post added at 05:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:45 PM ----------

Interesting choice of words. When Bill Clinton gets a million dollar book deal and makes $8 million a year on speaking engagements no one says he is "for sale"! when Michele Obama got a patronage job in Chicago at an inflated salary no one said she was for sale! When Al Gore make a movie full of hyperbole and invests in carbon off-sets, no one says he is "for sale"! So why would you use those words to describe Palin going out and making some money?

none of them quit the job they were elected to and took an oath to perform. Palin sold out her state for money...

---------- Post added at 06:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 PM ----------

Palin ran for the office of governor. In the process she pledged to serve the state and perform the duties of governor. When she was elected she took an oath saying she would do just that.

Now all the sudden an offer for more money comes along and she quits her duties she swore under oath to perform.

I'm sure some people are saying well hey politicians do that all the time. For example when Barak resigned his senate seat to become president. The different is the people that Barak swore to serve voted him into a different position. He had the will of the people asking him to take a higher office in order to better serve them.

In Palin's case the higher calling is greed.

You haven't really stated Palin's convictions that you are so fond of but here is a few of them that I can tell.

Palin has a conviction for dishonesty.
Palin has a conviction for greed.
Palin does not have a conviction for loyalty.

She looks like a great person to be in charge of a company but not a country.