Ricci Levy

Palin rumor that could cost Dems the election!

Filed By Ricci Levy | September 10, 2008 12:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Living, Politics
Tags: anti-choice, election campaigns, John McCain, McCain/Palin, presidential election, Roe v Wade, Sarah Palin

I was at a dinner last night with someone who has, in the past, had access to private information about candidates that later proved correct. This person shared with us that the devastating rumor is around Palin's statement of her official position on abortion.

[RUMOR] When Palin announces her official position it will be that she, personally, does not believe in abortion and believes, based on her faith (is this sounding like Biden's comment to anyone else?) that life begins at conception, but she does not believe that there should be any laws restricting the rights of other women to make their own decisions. [/RUMOR]

I bracketed that with the word RUMOR because that's just what it is - a RUMOR. But I wanted to share it so everyone else I know would feel as frightened as I.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


[rumor]Pigs Fly![/rumor]

Indeed they do. And frogs bump their asses on the ground when they hop. :)

That's "pigs with lipstick," to ensure we get that right.

Did you see that she charged Alaska citizens for rape kits if they reported the crime to police? Add to that her refusal to let a raped woman have an abortion and I'm smelling a rightwing nutjob that could care less about women who have been raped.

But let's remember - we are the ones who keep getting excited about the facts, while there is a large portion of the population ignoring the facts and just getting excited about the candidate.

Someone noted that McCain and Obama are dead even in the polls this morning. That is NOT good news.

"We" consistently talk in white papers, the right consistently talks in sound bites - and people seem to have very short attention spans - sound bites work!

This is the danger of listening to national polling and not an aggregate of state by state polling.

McCain/Palin made up their ground nationally by making huge gains in the South, and have actually been losing ground outside the south since before the two conventions. Now, Virginia is in play, but the rest of the South isn't. I could care less if they win Mississippi by 70% or if they win it by 60%.

Oh, and the most recent polls show that Florida is back in play.

Ricci,
I recently heard a new nickname for Palin. "Caribou Barbie."

Wolfgang E. B. | September 10, 2008 1:03 PM

If Palin claims she's anything except pro-life, much of the Repub's conservative Christian base will stay home on election day.

John R. Selig | September 10, 2008 1:14 PM

No offense but I think there are plenty of other reasons not to vote for McCain/Palin and to vote for Obama/Biden than Palin's stance on abortion. I am a firm supporter of a woman's right to choose. However, there is such a long list of items about McCain/Palin and the Republican Party's platform that are frightening that Palin's position on abortion shouldn't have that much of an impact on voter's. If the Democrats can't make a strong enough case on why they should be in the White House regardless of Palin's views on abortion then they don't deserve to win.

It isn't necessarily making a strong enough case. Surely we can all agree that we have all the facts on our side, yes?

It's not about facts. It's about emotion and, believe it or not, something as simple as whether or not the voter simply likes the candidate - regardless of what they stand for or the facts that should make them a poor candidate.

After all - didn't folks vote for Bush over Kerry 'cause they'd more like to have a beer with Bush (yes, I know that was an oversimplification and it assumes that the election was actually decided by votes)

John,
While i would love to go back to my youthful days when campaigns were decided based on reason and logic based arguments, the reality is the Repugs have changed the game because they know they can't win with reason and logic based arguments.

They have to turn it into the equivalent of a WWE wrestling match.

The bottom line is that we have to get Obama/Biden ELECTED first before we can change this country. We can't afford to have any part of our rainbow coalition sitting on the sidelines pouting because the Repugs have the easier task of solidifying a monoracial base.

I dont care whether Obama's electoral vote total is barely past 270 or is a landslide blowout, just as long as he wins on November 4 and he's taking the oath of office on January 20.

Is anyone here educated enough to realize that overturning Roe v Wade will NOT outlaw or restrict abortion? It is totally consistent for a person to oppose abortion, oppose the constitutionally groundless Roe v Wade, and ALSO to oppose restrictions on abortion. What that person WOULD have to support is the right of the people of individual states to decide whether they will live in an abortion state or not. Just like they can decide whether or not to live in a Drinking state or a Gambling state.

But no one is going to decide which state to live based upon the legality of abortion. Who plans ahead to get an abortion?

Yes, if Roe v Wade is overturned, not all states will outlaw abortion. But some will, and this would reduce the real world choices available to a woman who needs an abortion and just so happens to live in the "wrong" state.

Traveling to another state to get an abortion isn't always possible. The overturning of Roe v Wade would have bad consequences for women in America, and we need to take that threat seriously.

I see that no one is listening to Barrack Obama.Everybody is concentrating on the spin not the issues.One spin thing I'm curious about is whether she took maternity leave after the birth of her son Trig or if she just whipped him out and went back to work.My sister is a retail executive with a larger customer base then the population of Wasilli and she just had a baby and is going to take seven weeks maternity leave and is dreading having to leave the baby with a caretaker to go back to work.Other than that I think everyone would be wise to start calling out the McCain Palin ticket out on the issues because that's where Obama and Biden shine.

Ricci, come one!

You know what happens when you tell other people about a rumor you don't want spread -- you spread it yourself! :)

Hold tight, everyone. No one said winning this election would be easy.

Someone, quite possibly someone on Bilerico, recently referred to Palin as the GOP's Fog Machine. Here, here! The only problem is they're creating much less of the fog than we are! And I've contributed it to it, too.

But now that we've all had our collective freak out about the monstrosity of values and positions she represents, let's get focused and get this business of NOT electing McCain/Palin done!

Meanwhile, didn't some inspirational Democratic figure once say something about only having to fear fear, itself? ;)

Dustin, I figured it would be shared by everyone. I hate to suffer an anxiety attack all by myself! :)

"Is anyone here educated enough to realize that overturning Roe v Wade will NOT outlaw or restrict abortion?"

That's a very disingenuous statement. There is no question that the overturning of Roe v. Wade will lead to both the outlawing and restricting abortions. If you want to try to refute my statement, give it a whirl. But using semantics will not be convincing.

"It is totally consistent for a person to oppose abortion, oppose the constitutionally groundless Roe v Wade, and ALSO to oppose restrictions on abortion."

It may be consistent for a person who opposes abortion to oppose Roe v. Wade (although not necessarily). But fortunately, we're not supposed to vote on civil rights (for the most part) in this country. So they don't get a say.

As for your constitutional assessment that the Roe decision is groundless, the right to privacy is the law of the land, and will only change if idealogues are placed on The Court for the purpose of overturning it.

"What that person WOULD have to support is the right of the people of individual states to decide whether they will live in an abortion state or not."

The same people who oppose Roe also oppose individual states allowing abortions. So while this might seem like a high-minded philosophical states rights issue, it's a red herring. The right wing will never give up until abortion is illegal in all 50 states. So, no, they wouldn't have to support states rights, either.

As far as living in an "abortion state" or not, strikes me very much like choosing whether to live in a Free State or a Slave State. Human rights aren't supposed to be popularity contests.

"Just like they can decide whether or not to live in a Drinking state or a Gambling state."

Why is it necessary to live in a place where everyone makes the same choices as you? If you don't want to drink or gamble, just don't do it. Are you afraid that without the imposition of law, you won't be true to your own convictions?

Roe isn't just about abortion. Without it, there is no right to privacy. And that means the government can outlaw sodomy, birth control, and any other personal behavior they dislike.

Actually, I would have thought the terrorist rumors and stuff would hurt Obama more.

It ain't Palin that could cost Obama the election, it 'small town values' voters who will not vote for an African-American no matter how qualified he is.

Monica, I think you are onto something, although these same "small town values" voters may not have turned out for McCain. Palin not only legitimizes the feelings of these voters, but she energizes them because I think they see her as one of them.

I just traded the original rumor for one that was more fun given to me by a friend - and wanted to share it! This time, I think I"d have to bracket it in JOKE!

I know that Sarah Palin admitted she's been to Canada AND Mexico, so she really has been out of the country. She also said she can see Russia from certain parts of Alaska. But, here's the rumor I heard. Although she's never been to Israel, I heard she once ate at a Jewish deli and her waitress had relatives in Israel. Again, just a rumor.
Actually I think claiming she has foreign affairs experience is like putting russian dressing and cole slaw on a bologna sandwich on white bread and calling it a corned beef special.

Maybe I could be an astronaut since I can see the moon from my backyard?

"Maybe I could be an astronaut since I can see the moon from my backyard?"

Heheheh! Good one. I can see horses from my house. Does that make me a jockey?