TexasCHLforum.com

Mike from Texas wrote:Do you think the other candidate is the better choice? I sure hope not.

Of course not. Obama is a monster and would be a disaster for this country. McCain is clearer the lesser of the two evils. It's a shame that these are our choices, though.

KBCraig wrote:drw, do you think that this one press release covers everything that has been said or done within the Palin family regarding this unplanned pregnancy?

No, I certainly don't think that, of course.

I think the horse is now dead, though, and I'm not going to beat it any more. I apologize for the distraction that I brought.

Bart wrote: Some of us don't think Bristol or her boyfriend did anything wrong. I love how this will annoy the Obama supporters and others who think the big government nanny state should stick its nose into people's private lives.

Many of us here disagree. We think Bristol did do something wrong, but realize that we have no stones to throw.

Regardless, I appreciate Palin's honesty.

drw wrote:If the announcement of Bristol's out of wedlock pregnancy was intended to combat the allegations about Trig, why not just make a statement denying the allegations? I'm struck that they have not come out and just said that Trig is Sarah's baby, period. Why not just face your accusers and make a firm statement?

I looked at this as a much more tactical decision than just denying the accusation. Think of what would have happened if they had not said anything now about the daughter's pregnancy, but just denied the claims. There would still have been lingering rumors and claims that could not be firmly squelched. And in a couple months, as it gets much closer to the election, the daughter's pregnancy would have come out anyway. It would have been a bombshell to drop just before the election and attack Palin's conservative credentials and her ability to raise her children the "right" way.

This way, the claims of the earlier baby being the child's are firmly disproven and can never be brought up again. They also make the liberals look much more like idiots for ever starting the rumors and claims. And, it stops the actual pregnancy from becoming an issue in the future.

All in all, I think announcing this now was a much better strategic move for the candidacy.

srothstein wrote: All in all, I think announcing this now was a much better strategic move for the candidacy.

I don't read the entire thread, but get the gist of it given what else I've caught in the news today.

I did think that Lawdog's blog post on the topic - http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2008 ... there.html was quite interesting.

I don't think the Obamabots will make a big deal out of this (the daughter's pregnancy vs the big deal they've already made of the rumors Palin's youngest son wasn't hers)...but if they decide to, well, something about glass houses, and throwing stones (assuming the info in Lawdog's post is true).

drw wrote:

Mike from Texas wrote:Do you think the other candidate is the better choice? I sure hope not.

Of course not. Obama is a monster and would be a disaster for this country. McCain is clearer the lesser of the two evils. It's a shame that these are our choices, though.

You shouldn't be shamed by your choices. They are what they are and people should buck up and choose a candidate to support and exercise their constitutional right to vote be it for a Dem, Lib, Rep, or Ind. We should all respect the selection process, or work to change that process (or better yet, get involved in supporting whomever we prefer early in the process).

Why play into the hands of the liberals by expounding their mantra that we conservatives have got to hold our collective noses to vote? There is not a person alive that would appeal 100% to everyone, but there needs to be one who appeals to more than 50% of the country in an electoral way.

srothstein wrote:All in all, I think announcing this now was a much better strategic move for the candidacy.

Can someone explain this to me. The Left is attacking Palin because her daughter plans have the baby and also plans to marry the father. Are they upset because she's not having an abortion, because she's getting married, or because she has the support of her family and is unlikely to go on welfare?

jimlongley wrote:And mathematically, the daughter could not have given birth to the baby in May and be five months pregnant now.

That is some really fuzzy math.

John wrote:

drw wrote:

Mike from Texas wrote:Do you think the other candidate is the better choice? I sure hope not.

Of course not. Obama is a monster and would be a disaster for this country. McCain is clearer the lesser of the two evils. It's a shame that these are our choices, though.

You shouldn't be shamed by your choices.

Nah. Generally, I would agree with you. When I see Obama supporters, I see brain washed people intent on destroyng my country. I disagreed with Clinton, Kerry, and Gore politically. I see Obama as doomsday. Call it drama or hyperbole, but that's how I feel.

anygunanywhere wrote:

drw wrote:[trying to be unpopular here]

If the announcement of Bristol's out of wedlock pregnancy was intended to combat the allegations about Trig, why not just make a statement denying the allegations? I'm struck that they have not come out and just said that Trig is Sarah's baby, period. Why not just face your accusers and make a firm statement?

McCain chose Palin in order to appeal to socially conservative people. I was excited about her candidacy, and I gave her the benefit of the doubt regarding the Trig allegations. But to have a 17 year old daughter become pregnant out of wedlock is simply bad fruit, and nothing has been said to indicate that a mistake was made, or that what the young woman did was wrong.

Any excitement I had about Palin is gone, and I can't be the only prudish conservative out there with the same feeling. I wonder if McCain's goal of reaching out to conservatives has backfired here.

[/trying to be unpopular here]

Statements like yours are totally inappropriate.

Mrs. Anygun and I happen to be one of those out of wedlock parents. Our oldest was at our wedding and was jibbering about wanting his Mommy as we exchanged vows.

I am about as socially conservative as a person can be. People have errors in judgement but our first son was never thought of as a mistake and there was never a question that he would not be kept.

You can't hold a child's error in judgement like an out of wedlock pregnancy against the parents.

How many children have you raised? Keep trying to tell me how you would love and support them at a time of crisis in their lives. Based on your statements I can just imagine how it would be around your house.

Anygunanywhere

I will hold a candidate and spouse up to the candle flame, but their MINOR children are not fair game. Bristol IS a child. I do not expect perfection from anyones minor children. God know the grief I gave my parents (dad is a episcopalian pastor of 37 years) and he is about the most decent man I've known. I could tell you some stories about Biden's early 20's daughter that make Bristol look like a saint. But She is neither running for office, or as the "first lady/man"

Well...the other shoe fell:

http://www.obamacrimes.com/

This is going to be a fun 60 days!

Tom

An appropriate comment on the national reviews website. Oh, and BOTH those guys were married, and one was cheating on a dying lady. Scum.


"When John Edwards's and Jesse Jackson's 'troubles' came to light, nobody asked about proper birth-control techniques. Those questions are reserved for the teenage daughters of female conservative candidates"

tbranch wrote:Well...the other shoe fell:

http://www.obamacrimes.com/

That silliness has been going on for a year now. During the primaries, they made the same claim about McCain being ineligible because he was born outside the United States. Wasn't true for McCain, and it isn't true for Obama.

KBCraig wrote:That silliness has been going on for a year now. During the primaries, they made the same claim about McCain being ineligible because he was born outside the United States. Wasn't true for McCain, and it isn't true for Obama.

Never said it was. The two extremes will make for an interesting ride though...

Tom

lawrnk wrote:

jimlongley wrote:And mathematically, the daughter could not have given birth to the baby in May and be five months pregnant now.

That is some really fuzzy math.

I don't know if you're agreeing with me or not, but think about it. If she gave birth in May, and she's five months pregnant in September, it would mean that she got pregnant in April at the latest, while she was still pregnant. Not really a very realistic scenario.

Having siad that, I had a daughter come home pregnant a lot of years ago, and I did what every GOOD father should, I supported her, I supported her decision to consider abortion, I supported her decision to think about carrying to term and giving the child up for adoption, and I supported, and still do, her decision to keep the child, and I truly love the grandson that resulted.