The libs have to be careful about turning Bristol's pregnancy into a public matter. According to them, Clinton's adultery should have been a private matter between him and Hil. Last time I looked.......adultery was a lot worse than a teen pregnancy.

Well now that she's with child, has she moved past her childhood and into her adultery?

No she's 17. And please JJ get yourself a dictionary. Fornication and adultery are different things.

^ Apparently you've never seen M*A*S*H...

You know, I love the art of Irony. I mean just look at this, and laugh good, my fellow GOPers and Democrats.

McCain fought money on teen pregnancy programs

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080902/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_mccain_teen_pregnancies

Sorry SC. I meant SB.

In addition to myself, someone else posted above that, essentially, Conservatives/Republicans/Evangelicals represent themselves as the paragons of virtue. They are the first to assign blame for a child's transgressions to the home environment, a permissive environment, a relaxation of moral standards, etc. They thus set up the potential for a huge contrast between their standards and what happens in their families. Well, it did happen in the Palin family. What lack of family standards led to the pregnancy of Palin's daughter? Does that pregancy reflect upon her upbringing?

You might also note that Conservatives/Repiblicans/Evangelicals are not commenting on the moral aspects pf her pregancy. Instead, they are engaging in a moral slight of hand that seeks to direct our attention to the loving family into which the child will be born, that the young couple will, post-facto, be married, and how the Palin's are looking forward to being grandparents. Those are echoes of the Chaneys also looking forward to being grandpartents to the child of their Lesbian daughter and ignoring the fact that their Conservatives/Republicans/Evangelical buddies would otherwise stone them all outside the city walls.

^ Now that is epic.

"...Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." The librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire her for not giving "full support" to the mayor."

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html?imw=Y

Wouldn't it have been funny that the book she was trying to ban was FAHRENHEIT 451?

Poor Mary Ellen...

Doesn't that figure? Government efficiency at work.

"You know what an efficient government is? A dictatorship." - Harry Truman.

Evidently Palin supports some wacko political arty that wants Alaska to seceed from the United States.

Who needs a dictionary now?

Honestly, I think both aren't good at all if you ask me.

I think what's worse for Palin is that she's a "Family Values" candidate, and that's what bugs the liberals. You're asking for a bullseye on your skull if something like this leaks out. Hell, remember that scandal from 2006 with Senator Vicker and his hooker problem?

Larry Flint busted him wide open, along with the then-Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives that was prosecuting Clinton.

In short, in all relativity my new religion, all is bullshit in love & war.

It's reported that the Palins were members of the Alaska Independence Party in the 90s. There's no information I've come across that states their current affiliation.

She became a republican when she ran for Mayor of Wasilla (even though it was a "non-partisan" position) but has continued to voice support for the Alaska Independence Party.

I wrote earlier of how Karl Rove called Kerry's 2004 infamous "I voted for the war before I voted against it" gaffte the The Gift that keeps on Giving.

You know, if she proves to be everything against my initial reactions to that pick, then we'll all look back and piss laugh over the blabber.

Palin opposed sex-ed

Q: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

Did I ever tell you all of how conservative East Tennessee is, as one of the focal points of the so-called "Bible Belt," and yet our marriage rate is about what, 60%?

Why am I getting flashbacks to Eagleton in 1972?

or to quote from the terrific novel and Mike Nichols movie PRIMARY COLORS: "I couldn't believe that he picked a lunatic!"

An interesting posting from the blog for The American Conservative magazine:

A Simple Question

There is a great deal of admiration for Sarah Palin among my colleagues, with the notable exception of Clark, which makes me want to ask the simple question: what has really changed since Thursday that makes the GOP ticket any more acceptable than it was last week when it was, I assume, somewhere between loathsome and horrible? As I said in the comments of another post, the choice of Palin will likely mean that, in the event that he wins, McCain believes that he has already bought off conservatives and need do nothing else for them. Palin will become merely a figurehead, dispatched to quell restless conservatives whenever McCain tries to get some foolish immigration legislation passed or when he calls for a deployment to guard the Mongolian frontier against the Russians. Having appeased social conservatives with a symbolic VP nod, he can ignore them even more than he already does. Should the ticket lose, social conservatives are then left holding the bag and legions of East Coast Republican pundits will stream forth to explain that the ticket failed because Palin’s pro-life views were “too extreme” and why the GOP needs to get over talking about abortion. How can we not get behind Palin? Because she has agreed to work for John McCain, that’s how.

Let’s also understand something very important: should McCain-Palin win in ‘08, Palin is not going to be the future of the Republican Party at a national level. Barring some accident or a one-term pledge, should they somehow prevail this time, Palin will likely remain second fiddle to McCain in 2012 as well and will probably then be reduced to the status of Thomas Marshall and, yes, Dan Quayle. Should McCain not seek renomination, Romney, Huckabee and Pawlenty are all going to be waiting to take advantage of discontent with a President McCain, of which there will be plenty.

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/08/31/a-simple-question/

Rumors are starting to float around the internet that Palin may withdraw from the ticket. Where's Sargent Shriver when you need him?

Obama got a big boost in all the polls since the weekend, and went up 4 points since yesterday's CNN's Poll, where they claimed Obama didn't get a convention bounce.

Unless there's something major we're about to find out, there is no reason for her to drop out. And if she does, it's game over for McCain. FWIW, I haven't heard that rumor.

Why would she drop out?

Pressure? I have seen this posted around the net, so I cannot vouch for the accuracy of these rumors.

I would bet it's probably on some extreme leftist's blog.

You can preach to your kids all you want and it still may not matter......Besides, the kid's not the vice-presidential candidate. She probably accidentally got pregnant. Did Slick Willy accidentally committ adultery? And he wasnt just a 17 yr. old kid.

It's disgusting to drag this woman's children into this, but it is also inevitable.

John McCain just pulled his scheduled Larry King interview tonight because he's mad at the way his campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds was treated by CNN's Campbell Brown in an interview. IMO, she grilled him real good, but was not out of line.


Tucker Bounds interview

It looks like McCain will be pulling out of a lot of interviews then.

I saw a different discussion on CNN last night and they pretty much tore apart the Republican spokeswoman who was very ineffective in "defending" McCain's choice of VP.

I have yet to hear a good argument in defense of Palin.

I wonder if the upward swing for Obama is a late result of the Democratic convention OR an early reaction to McCain's choice of running mate.

SC, I believe it's probably a combination of both. Candidates always go up in the polls right after their convention. Although the Republicans had to cancel many speakers, I don't think that not having the president and first lady speak last night is exactly going to hurt McCain. Depending on how the rest of the convention plays out, we may see McCain catch up later in the week.