Bristol's Choice

Newsweek Web Exclusive

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 12:09:43 PM

    Hmm, i wonder what the opinion of candidate X would be if child X was impregnated by a rapist (either a stranger or relative)? Because Sarah Palin opposes the right to choose even in the cases of Rape and Incest. So its a private family matter? Thats fine. However, when your politics seeks to intrude into another family's private matter, then you deserve to answer these tough questions in your time of crisis.

    • Posted By: soggy @ 09/09/2008 12:19:11 PM

      The ole abortion in the case of rape saw. This is the hail mary argument for pro-choicers. It is desperation at its best. Rape and incest account for less than one percent of abortions. If you are willing to outlaw the other 99% then we can waste time talking about the .001% cases. There is an old legal saying that "hard cases make bad law". The rape/incest argument focuses on hard cases that make up a microscopic portion of abortions.

      • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 12:25:34 PM

        Where did you get your statistic from, if it was anywhere, please be fair enough to site it. While you are at it, please site a statistic as to what % are late term abortions, what % are abortions to preserve the immediate health of the mothers. You fail to recognize in your post, the precident that overturning roe v wade could prompt. Do we outlaw the day after pill? At that point, do we outlaw birth control, it used to be outlawed. Where do you see the happy median, or are you just unloading your moral judgements onto a society that believes in freedom of individuality?

        • Posted By: soggy @ 09/09/2008 1:00:17 PM

          According the the US Department of Justice there are an estimated 350,00 rapes in America annually based on approximatley 250,000 reported rapes. This reflects the estimated 40% of rapes that go unreported. There were just over 32,000 pregnancies resulting from rape according the census data and reported on www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm. If you assume that every woman who got pregant from rape had an abortion (which we know is not true) and you assume that every woman claiming her pregnancy was the product of rape was telling the truth( also not true) then 32,000 of the 1.3 million abortions in America per year are the result of rape..or .03 percent. The rest of your post is non-sese. Abortion to save the life of the mother has not been illegal in this country and was not the issue in Roe. Birth control is also not the issue. As for moral judgements...every law ever written is based on moral judgements. All laws are the reflection of moral judgements of the society. We beleive in freedom and individuality only to the degree that we dont violate the law and infringe upon another. Killing another is infringing.

          • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 1:24:18 PM

            So i see you did your research after the first post, an honest applaud for being driven enough to do so. That said, the number 32,000 sounds alot more substantial than 3%, which also sounds more substantial than .03. So should these 32,000 women be forced to carry their pregnancies to term? If not in your eyes, you differ from Palin. I brought up Imminent Danger in regards to a womans health, becasue many in the pro-life segment oppose abortions for even this reason. Birth control, does that not inhibit life? The day after pill certianly does by the standards of the far-right; so the contention is at the moment of conception, a group of cells has the constitutional rights of you or I? I hope you do see where im coming from on this, and where i've been going. It's not a condemnation of your opinions, instead a feeling that your opinions should be relegated to making your own decisions, and not intrude upon others. Also, some laws are based on moral judgements, but not all. Tax laws are not based on morality, nor are hunting laws, environmental laws, and the list goes on and on. Im just not sure how outlawing abortion is anything other than tantimount to religious totalitarianism on th topic.

            • Posted By: soggy @ 09/09/2008 1:45:47 PM

              First it is not 3% it is 1/3 of 1% Secondly Tax laws are based upon a moral judgment about who should pay and who should not. environmental laws reflect a moral (maybe not religeous) view of our responibility to the environment and future generations. Hunting laws are also based on moral judgements about our responibilty to manage herds and sustainability as well as or moral views of hunting and self subsistence in general. As whether 32,000 sounds more or less significant than .03% it makes no difference. It is a microscopic percent of the total number of abortions. Outlaw the other 99.07 percent then lets take up the hard cases.

              • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 1:50:01 PM

                Laws are based around hard cases. If you want easy law, go assess traffic court. Why do you think that everyone should have to conform to the views you hold? Thats not a combative statement, but an honest question; i really don't get it.

                • Posted By: soggy @ 09/09/2008 2:03:43 PM

                  Well there are some who feel that incest should be legal, some believe that sex with children should be legal, the are even some who believe that they should be allowed to abuse their children and deny proper care. I think we have the right to say these things are immoral and wrong and, yes, even illegal. You may, if you wish, abstain from taking a stance on these matters because you dont want to force people to conform to your views. I have no problem saying that it should be illegal to rape, molest, abuse or murder yours or anyone else's children.

                  • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 2:18:59 PM

                    At this point you are getting silly and i'm sure you are aware of the ridiculous nature of your last post. If you want to engage in some kind of a personal attack exchange with a stranger which you have no frame of refernce on, there are plenty of people on these boards that will engage in one wth you, but i'm not among them. Best of luck with the tit-for-tat.

                    • Posted By: somebunny @ 09/09/2008 8:23:36 PM

                      It doesn't look like a personal attack to me. It's throwing your same argument back at you. You are pro-choice because you don't want to impose your beliefs on someone else - especially a pregnant woman, who has apparent ownership over her dependent fetus. But where does this relative moralism end? There are people who want to engage in polygamy, incest, abuse, theft, murder. Why do we consider these "choices" to be immoral? Becuase they appear to hurt someone else? AH-HA that's the bottom line. You don't believe that a fetus is a someone else....therefore you are doing no harm. Therefore it is not wrong. This is where I disagree. A fetus is a someone - a human - a person. Therefore you are doing harm to another.

                      • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 9:22:39 PM

                        No i get what your saying, and im not advocating partial birth abortion; now come on, a fetus at one month is not the same as a fetus at 8 months. Do you see what i'm saying?

                        • Posted By: somebunny @ 09/10/2008 11:44:24 AM

                          I also get what you're saying. But even with partial-birth abortion, where do you draw the line? After two weeks, after the first trimester, after 8 weeks, after the second, etc. If we don't agree that a fetus is a baby at the moment of conception, then when does it become a baby or a human? I also find it interesting that states have laws on the books to punish when someone kills a fetus inside a women. So when someone else does it it's murder, but when you do it yourself it's a "choice"? I think that we as Americans want to have it both ways too many times.

            • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 1:54:16 PM

              And just for the record, and since math is an exact science, 32,000 as a percentage of 1,300,000 = 2.461538%. That doesnt sound like one third of one percent, or any of the other numbers you were producing.

    • Posted By: plinius_caecilius @ 09/09/2008 12:14:10 PM

      You don't seem to understand that pro-life people see all human life as equal. We see no difference, morally, from a parent killing an unborn child and a parent killing a ten year old or an adult. The state has long been recognized to have a vested interest in protecting human life from crimes of violence and acts of negligence. If you want to argue that an unborn child isn't a human life then that's fine, but your criticism of state intrusion into family matters falls flat when you realize that from the pro-life perspective the intrusion is to prevent what amounts to murder.

      • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 12:19:57 PM

        And you balance this moral hyperbole in regards to the death penalty how? Is it confusion or hypocrasy that allows pro-lifers (not all, but not a minority either) to scream outrage over abortion and then endorse the death penalty, even in cases where a murder hasn't taken place (removing the eye for an eye b.s.)? How do GWB, McCain, and Palin deflect this clear contradiction?

        • Posted By: plinius_caecilius @ 09/09/2008 12:36:01 PM

          I'm against the death penalty, but I'll take this on for the sake of the pro-lifers who are also pro-death penalty. There is a difference between innocent life and those who have committed wrongful acts. When someone commits a sufficiently wrong act, like murder, one can see why society might require their life as punishment, deturrence, and protection from future wrongs. Surely you can see that difference. I mean, I assume you are against false imprisonment and kidnappings too, so unless you're also anti-jail for criminals then you must be a hypocrit by your own logic...

          • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 12:41:06 PM

            But that is a social commentary. I disagree with the death penalty, i feel that it is a much larger punishment to keep someone locked in solitary confeinment for 50 years, and it cost less to the tax payers than the average execution. So where does Christianity ok a death sentence? What about "thou shall not kill" do you find ambiguous? It seems pretty cut and dry.

            • Posted By: liberalist @ 09/09/2008 1:21:49 PM

              The quote from Exodus, the second book of the Bible, actually reads, "Thou shalt not kill". That is of course from the King James version of the Bible, an outdated, error-filled translation to be sure. Modern Biblical scholars correctly translate the text to read, "You are not allowed to MURDER". In some cases, we don't condemn killing in the circumstance of reasonable self defense. The central component of the Pro-Life issue is to protect unborn humans from being "murdered". That capital punishment is murder is a separate issue entirely.

              • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 1:33:53 PM

                Really? So now you are hinging this arguement on translators? The King James Bible is outdated? I'm sory, i just find your assesment cute. I get the idea behind it, but if the constitution is not a living document, than the Bible is certianly not a living document open to interpretation. Also, how is the death penalty a seperate issue? It's either black and white or its grey; and if it's grey, than we dealve into the realm of social commentary, not religious conviction.

                • Posted By: plinius_caecilius @ 09/09/2008 3:11:54 PM

                  I don't think that the Bible does authorize killing, but there is a Christian "just war" theory that killing in self defense, which is what defensive wars and death penalties are reall about, are acceptable. I won't go into the whole debate here, but reasonable people can disagree. It certainly isn't the case that those who support the killing of wrongdoers, but are against killing unborn children are somehow hopeless hypocrits.

  • Posted By: cpalanza @ 09/10/2008 11:16:45 AM

    I think the most disturbing thing about this issue is that fundamentally this country is going to move away from an ideologoy of separation of church and state. While I respect (adamantly disagree) the prolifer's views on abortion and the right to choose, I cannot accept those that would be aganist a womans right to choose in the event of rape. I think its disgusting. There is statistical evidence and studies showing that rape aggressors (ie criminals) that are predisposed to this type of behavior could then pass that genetic predisposition on to the child. The psychological and sociological effectst that a child who is a product of rape will not only financially burden our society but potentially criminally burden it as well. The right side is against government involvement and big government, but limiting choice of women only insures that our government will have to continue to fund social/welfare/psychological/criminal rehab programs to pay for all the children born to women that are not afforded the right to choose. Who else will? we are going to allow all these precious children to be born and then not help a 15 year old mother take care of them? or a 27 year single woman who has a downs baby and needs Respit care, or a woman that is raped who may not be able to care for a child? I am appaled by the extremist approach to this topic in the republican ticket and can only hope for the future sake of this country people will realize, that while the right to choose is our own inherent right as human beings (regardless of constitutional amendments, decisions by Supreme Court and/or legislative body) people should not be infriged upon by government. All the repubicans can go have tons of babies and be happy but dont over burden me because I make the decision not to.

  • Posted By: cpalanza @ 09/10/2008 11:14:36 AM

    I think the most disturbing thing about this issue is that fundamentally this country is going to move away from an ideologoy of separation of church and state. While I respect (adamantly disagree) the prolifer's views on abortion and the right to choose, I cannot accept those that would be aganist a womans right to choose in the event of rape. I think its disgusting. There is statistical evidence and studies showing that rape aggressors (ie criminals) that are predisposed to this type of behavior could then pass that genetic predisposition on to the child. The psychological and sociological effectst that a child who is a product of rape will not only financially burden our society but potentially criminally burden it as well. The right side is against government involvement and big government, but limiting choice of women only insures that our government will have to continue to fund social/welfare/psychological/criminal rehab programs to pay for all the children born to women that are not afforded the right to choose. Who else will? we are going to allow all these precious children to be born and then not help a 15 year old mother take care of them? or a 27 year single woman who has a downs baby and needs Respit care, or a woman that is raped who may not be able to care for a child? I am appaled by the extremist approach to this topic in the republican ticket and can only hope for the future sake of this country people will realize, that while the right to choose is our own inherent right as human beings (regardless of constitutional amendments, decisions by Supreme Court and/or legislative body) people should not be infriged upon by government. All the repubicans can go have tons of babies and be happy but dont over burden me because I make the decision not to.

  • Posted By: Fallenwish43 @ 09/10/2008 10:58:41 AM

    This is a great article. Well said!

  • Posted By: discmen @ 09/09/2008 3:29:14 PM

    What I meant about Roe v Wade is that the finding that abortion was a right guaranteed by the Constiution was legally and intellectually dishonest. There is nothing in the reasoning of the Court that justified the result. The Court believed that protecting the right to abortion was a societal necessity, and did what they had to to reach the result they wanted. Even if Roe was overturned, which it should be, it would only permit states to limit abortion and give the decision back to the voters, where it belongs. If the country wants to pass a Constitutional amendment making abortion a Constitutional right, they can do so.
    states

    • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 3:36:21 PM

      4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      I contend that a womans right to be in control of her womb and make decisious regarding body would fall under the protection of the 4th amendment. If the government decides to lay claim over a womans body, than she cannot be secure in her person; and the government will in essence seize a womans uterus and place it under government domain. Where in the act would violate a womans civil rights to privacy as laid forth in the language of the Bill of Rights.

      • Posted By: liddykitty @ 09/10/2008 10:39:16 AM

        So in your logic if a pregnant woman decides to do drugs during her pregnancy it is her right (since the fetus has no rights). All pregnant crack addicts rejoice your right to party is being upheld by the demacratic party!!!

  • Posted By: FredHait @ 09/10/2008 10:29:30 AM

    Do you know for a fact that Bristol Palin did not herself make the choice to keep the baby and to marry the father?

  • Posted By: PlebianReader @ 09/10/2008 10:21:41 AM

    I find it entertaining that people who oppose this viewpoint do so simply by name-calling (making 'liberal' a dirty word) and accusing pro-choice advocates of trampling on their rights--be it as parents, as evangelicals, or whatnot. If you could give us some hard proof, and better yet, a logically thought-out argument that involves more than accusations and straw-man fallacies, that would be more conducive to progress. But simply insisting on your own viewpoint to the exclusion of anyone else's is pure bigotry.

  • Posted By: Yougottabekidding @ 09/10/2008 10:09:38 AM

    OMG! Could you be any more onesided?! I don't know why I am surprised. In a society where we increasingly have parental rights stripped from us, why not this parental right also. You can't have it both ways people. We either are parents, or we aren't. Let us raise our children as we see fit, and maybe our kids will be better able to make these sorts of decisions - or maybe they won't have to make these sorts of decisions, because we will be teach them safer ways to express/explore their growing sexuality.

  • Posted By: thehappyamerican @ 09/10/2008 9:35:53 AM

    Lithwick does not have a hit-list of names of the children of Liberals on it!
    Well fine!
    Infanticide don't bother Lithwick. why should anything else?

  • Posted By: msmellie @ 09/09/2008 8:33:28 AM

    Just one comment to the Sarah Palin's of this world. "So, how's the abstinence teaching going for you?" You can't be too busy having a career not to take the time to talk frankly about sex and what it's results are with your children. The BIble that the right wing conservatives cling to is very frank about sexual matters and we should not be wussys about it either. Birth control should be used liberally for those who wish not to become pregnant and then the issue of getting an abortion or not would be moot. While I believe abortion is morally wrong, I do believe that the prevention of an unwanted pregnancy should be advocated instead. Planned parenthood has prevented many unwanted pregnancies thereby lowering the welfare roles that support our societies unwanted and uncared for children. Please stop paradeing this pregnant teenager around as a role model, she is a very poor example. I was raised by a politician and to get to the point of being Governor of a large area state with a low population, you will sacrifice marraige and children in the wake. Don't even get me started on that issue. You cannot have cake and eat it too if you want to be skinny. Bristol is more fortunate in that her family has the means and money to support and illegitimate grandchild. Frankly we look at teen pregnancy as the norm and it should be a rarity with the many ways of preventing pregnancy that we have available besides abortion. A life not created in the first place is one less we have to debate over, raise and educate and bury at the expense of any taxpayers.

    • Posted By: dartagnansblade @ 09/09/2008 8:40:38 AM

      She is against "extreme sexual education" and not an advocate of abstinence only education. Look it up!

      • Posted By: fccFH @ 09/09/2008 3:11:44 PM

        Extreme sexual education has not been properly defined- it reads like an abstinence only program.

        • Posted By: dartagnansblade @ 09/10/2008 7:35:17 AM

          Masturbation techniques, oral sex, fantasy, homosexuality and allowing students as young as 13 to put condoms on banannas....fact as written by the AMA. Not required in school to be taught but can be taught idf the teacher wants to.

      • Posted By: MoJabar @ 09/09/2008 9:30:45 AM

        What is "extreme sexual education?" S&M lessons? Bondage techniques? Study and practice of the positions of the Kama Sutra? Sex in outer space in deep sea or on a roller coaster, while sky diving? What does Palin mean by "extreme?" Like those Mt. Dew kids doing the Dew?

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 09/09/2008 8:57:59 AM

        She doesn't agree with abortion in any case other than a threat to the mother's life--not even rape or incest. Cindy McCain even disagrees with her on this. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hW9DgefdzDY24fe3O9gJ5MvkhS9gD92VTI180

      • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 09/09/2008 8:54:57 AM

        condoms aren't extreme nor is birth control

  • Posted By: Cate75 @ 09/10/2008 3:00:13 AM

    So many of these gun happy people want to protect the right to bear arms. Yet guns only serve the purpose of killing things. Yet, they are up in arms regarding abortion because they believe it is murder. Something is not right with this picture. PLEASE TELL ME WHY OUR SOLDIER's SUICIDE RATE IS THE HIGHER THAN OUR OWN COUNTRY's RATE? YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT PROTECTING GUNS AND ABORTION??!!
    WAKE UP AND REAL:IZE WHAT IS IMPORTANT NOW!!!!!

  • Posted By: Cate75 @ 09/10/2008 2:51:26 AM

    Dear Happy American:

    SHE HAS PLENTY TO TALK ABOUT BECAUSE SHE WAS RECITING A SPEECH BY A BUSH SPEECH WRITER. IF SHE HAS SO MUCH TO DISCUSS, THEN WHY IS SHE BEING TRAINED IN A HILTON ON FOREIGN POLICY BY MCCAIN's STAFF???? SHE DOES NOT GIVE INTERVIEWS BECAUSE SHE WILL PUT HER FOOT IN HER MOUTH!!!!! WHAT ARE GUNS FOR? TO KILL THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    GIVE ME ONE OTHER EXPLANATION OF WHAT THEY ARE FOR???!!!

  • Posted By: Cate75 @ 09/09/2008 11:35:48 PM

    I am so sick of these people not being outraged by all the lives that are taken by gun violence and AIDS, yet these same people are so upset about the issue of abortion. IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS WHAT I DO WITH MY BODY! If you want to do something productive, then educate young women on how to NOT get pregnant and prevent diseases. We have a much bigger problem with AIDS and gun violence in this country than abortion. MAYBE YOU SHOULD FOCUS YOUR ATTENTION ON SOME ISSUES WORTH FOCUSING ON!

    • Posted By: thehappyamerican @ 09/10/2008 1:01:11 AM

      maybe you are not sick and angry enough about the decades old discrimination campaign the DNC and liberal press wages against firearms owners.
      Most Americans dislike discrimination campaigns and identify with the targewts of them!
      When you hear "reasonable" gun control it is a "reasonable" defined by the discrimination campaign it's self... not facts. Not truth. not REASON!
      Repetition is another key give away of a discrimination campaign!
      The DNC runs this discrimination campaign with the news media, with other discrimination campaigns attacking other Americans in an Americans Suck First campaign. THAT should make you want to puke!
      Perhaps the one thing that most upset liberals about Palin was she gave a major speech before Americans and didn't slam gun owners, Christians, Achievers, Military professionals or police. Yet she had plenty to talk about!
      She clearly doesn't believe Americans suck first!
      Americans are great! America is great!

    • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/10/2008 12:41:19 AM

      The problem isn't in your reasoning, which i agree with; the problem lies in interpretation of what a life is. An average of 81 people die by firearm each day in the US, and just over 14,000 people died of AIDS. While, on average, over 1.3 million abortions are performed in the US each year; so im sure how you can see where the furvor from the pro-life advocates, seeing as they view each abortion as murder. To them, each year is tantimount to a genocide. It's foolishly shortsighted and extreme in my opinion, but its what they believe none-the-less.

  • Posted By: beefy @ 09/09/2008 10:16:51 PM

    Too bad the Confederacy did not have propagandists like Dahlia Lithwick to proclaim that ???Lincoln wants to take away slave owners??? right to choose.???

    Existence is not a f---ing crime!

  • Posted By: beefy @ 09/09/2008 10:15:55 PM

    Too bad the Confederacy did not have propagandists like Dahlia Lithwick to proclaim that ???Lincoln wants to take away slave owners??? right to choose.???

    Existence is not a f---ing crime!

  • Posted By: lizzybrown65 @ 09/09/2008 9:35:45 PM

    It really is irrelevant whether or not doctor's believe that abortion has trauma-related effects. Let's ask the millions of post-abortive women themselves; many of them who long to wind back the hands of time and make a different choice other than abortion - yes, even women who were pregnant by rape, incest or those with genetic -related problems. To all the media outlets: Where are these stories?? Yes, it convenient to relegate everything to "choice" but what of those who suffer silently day in and day out because they ignored or were ignorant that yes, indeed, their choice would have consequences?! I am one of those silent who has suffered. Choice, in the end, did nothing for my life accept to perpetuate the lie that abortion is without consequences. No, overturning Roe is not the answer; the real change will happen when the post-abortive being to speak out. God knows I would give anything to turn back the time and be in Bristol Palin's shoes with the support of her loving family. Thank God she will never have to know the ugliness of abortion which warps those whom it touches. Let's face it folks - mistakes are made - but there are two ways to deal with them: one leads to life and the other to death. That's the real truth of the choice.

  • Posted By: lizzybrown65 @ 09/09/2008 9:19:52 PM

    It doesn't matter what doctor's , who perform abortions, believe or do not believe about the effects of an abortion on women; let's listen to the post-abortive women tell us. Those stories are the untold stories that the media refuses to give coverage.. The reality is that not only was the child's life destroyed but the mother's too. It takes hard work and many years to recover from abortion. I should know as I am just one of the countless silent suffers who thought abortion without consequences was possible. Now I know what a lie that was and that, yes, most DO NOT know what is best for women!

  • Posted By: mista_milla78 @ 09/09/2008 7:42:36 PM

    Rail against her all you want, attack her on whatever canned liberal script topic you can find, drum up whatever false or misleading criticism out there...your gnashing of teeth only exposes how much she scares you and how much the left has NO answer.

  • Posted By: discmen @ 09/09/2008 3:24:54 PM

    Limiting abortion has nothing to do with the mother. And Roe v. Wade has nothing to do with whether abortion will be legal or not. If the fetus is a human being, then the mother's desire to kill it has nothing to do with her rights, and everything to do with the rights of a sseparate and distinct individual. As far as Roe is concerned, talk to attorneys about whether the decision is legally justified. Almost all will say it wasn't.

    • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 3:34:06 PM

      The word "if" is the epicenter of this topic. Is the fetus a human covered under the rule of U.S. law? "if" so, at what point? That "if" is disputed and argued by both sides. So you contend it is. Others contend it's not. Who's right? Should we even be looking at it in such a black and white scope, and not a shade of the broad section of grey that exists in society?

      • Posted By: copysizzle @ 09/09/2008 6:27:43 PM

        Democrats today us the same IDENTICAL arguments to justify abortion that they used 100 years ago to justify slavery. People disagree about whether African slaves have human rights or are even fully human, they said; therefore, crusading northern abolitionists have no right to "impose their morality" on peaceful, church-going southern plantation owners. If you don't like slavery, they added, then DON'T OWN SLAVES.

        • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 7:22:24 PM

          100 years ago? In 1908? Almost 40 years after the end of the Civil War? Hmmm, me thinks i see a problem with your statement. I almost forgot how progressive the Republican party was in the progress of African Americans. Try explaining that to all the black people you see please.

  • Posted By: tlmtexas @ 09/09/2008 4:01:59 PM

    In thinking about Sarah Palin, the line from her speech needs a little tweaking: What's the difference between George W. Bush and Sarah Palin? Lipstick.

    • Posted By: milsgb @ 09/09/2008 4:55:35 PM

      Using the "pitbull" reference, didn't she just call herself and all other hockey moms b***'s? Hockey moms should be offended.

      • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 5:01:48 PM

        That had occured to me as well when she said that. It woud be funny if not for the seriousness of this election.

        • Posted By: AMiddleClassRepub @ 09/09/2008 5:53:53 PM

          Don't forget, Obama voted the party line 97% of the time. Funny how you want to continue to campaign against Pres. Bush. It's also funny that Obama appears to think he needs to campaign against Palin. I could have sworn he was running for President, not VP.

          • Posted By: mrzoid @ 09/09/2008 7:18:19 PM

            Yeah, voting against Bush so much has made him the "most liberal member of the senate.". Haha, inconcievable!

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse