Sarah Palin: The Good, the Bad, and the Not So Ugly

Disclaimer: this blog may make you mad, you may disagree with my facts or opinions, you already may disagree because of the title of this post and be on the defensive. It's okay, I don't claim to be the end answer, just an opinion of a voter and an American citizen.

We've all heard the buzz about Sarah Palin; McCain's virtually unknown Republican running mate for the November election. I've heard several arguments/debates about this former mayor/current governor of Alaska; it seems as though people either love her or hate her.

I, for one, was initially shocked that McCain would choose someone with no foreign policy experience, someone he had met one time in person, and talked on the phone two times before choosing her as the next potential VP of the US; apparently his choice wasn't based on compatibility. He chose someone who has little experience in the real political circles of DC. I was shocked he choose someone who is younger than Obama (which, by the way, his age is one of the main reasons of people's hesitance of him -- so McCain basically chose someone who matched the exact reason people didn't like Obama...??).

However, when I watched her speak at the GOP the other night I was surprised at her beautiful speech reading ability, her sense of humor, and her ability to hold the crowd's attention. Her 35-min speech was written a week before she was even chosen (by Bush's former speech writer), and then tailored to fit her personality. The facts remain certain though: whomever the VP running mate was, the same speech would have been used, with a few variances.

This former beauty queen has obviously grabbed all the media spotlight, and more people tuned in to watch her speak than McCain's and Barack's acceptance speech. She's drawing a crowd. Go ladies! McCain has brought in a whole new facet into this election, his decision took the world by surprise, there is no arguing that!

With all this said, we still have to ask ourselves the question,
"If McCain is unable to complete the one presidential term he wants in the White House, would I be confident that Sarah Palin could run the most powerful country in the world?"

My answer is: no.

Yes, Palin was mayor. For a city of 9,000 people. Yes, Palin has been governor of Alaska for 20 months. Alaska: pop. 700,000 people. Yes, Palin is a reformer. Yes, she is pro-life and hunts and fishes and has 5 kids. Yes, her 17 yr old daughter is pregnant. Yes, her youngest son is months old and has Downs Syndrome. Yes, she lowered taxes and sold her Governor inherited plane on ebay.

Will her credentials be enough to withstand against communist dictators? Will it be enough to fight the Muslim terrorists and extremists? Will her experience help us get out of Iraq? Will her beauty pageant skills be strong enough to fight against countries who still make woman wear head coverings?

I don't ask that you accept my personal opinion of her, check out what the Economist has to say HERE.

This is what I know: Obama knew that people across the country were hesitant to vote for him because of lack of executive experience, lack of foreign policy experience, etc etc. He chose a running mate who balances out his weaknesses. He chose a running mate who can help him (not only get into the White House) but while in the White House.

Although Palin resume seems a little heftier than Obama's, the fact that she's virtually unknown in the political realm makes Obama's scorecard look more legit and credible.

"If elected vice president, Palin would appear to have the least amount of experience in federal office or as a governor since John W. Kern, Democrat William Jennings Bryan’s 1908 running mate, who had served for four years in the Indiana state Senate and then four more as city solicitor of Indianapolis." -- Politico

After all the hype goes away...will McCain still think his choice was the wisest one? After the media stops giving her all their attention, will McCain be doubtful and wished he hired her as an intern instead? No doubt -- she is definitely an up and comer. But I personally do not think she is ready to tackle the job of Vice President of the United States of America.

There -- I said it. Let the rude, mean and spiteful comments unleash.

(But before you do, watch Jon Stewart and his opinion of her HERE.)


Dave S. said...

Wow. You hit it right on the head. It all boils down to the fact that once the hype dies down, and it comes down to the bitter reality of her lack of credible experience to handle the VP role, McCain is going to wish he had chosen otherwise. In all honesty, it feels like the Republicans wanted to show that they could put a woman on the major docket too. I'm all for women holding any position, but c'mon people. Try approaching it with some responsibility.

Julie Hibbard said...

Obama 08
Palin is a nice lady. And, even if her husband is washing them, she just has too much on her plate at home.

Anonymous said...

It is a fact, that Sarah Palin has more executive experience than Obama who has taught law and spent a few years being a Senator (check his record for how involved he was with that.) Does youth make a person a poor leader? What does the Bible say about that?

If you read Obama's book and listen to him and explore his past and personality, you will see a man who has good intentions, yet still hasn't come to conclusions about what he believes in the world.

McCain and Palin will be much more able to handle foreign affairs than Obama will. McCain is much more knowledgeable and ready to make decisions. Obama will have to be vetted and advised and he will have to rethink every move he makes.

As a Christian, does Obama's church membership/pastor's history of being rather radical and against the US and lack of Obama's faith in God/belief in the sancity of life for unborn children affect your thoughts about him at all?

It's hard to convey through writing, I am not criticizing your opinion, I respect it, I just truly interested on your thoughts about this.....

Joe Pena said...

A lot of people have been very critical on Palin's foreign policy experience. I admit that she has limited experience in that arena however, that is not a disqualifier. She has done more to reform the state of Alaska than what Obama has done as a part time US Senator. Lets look at the Obama/Biden ticket and their foreign policy experience.
1. Biden - voted against the first gulf war
2. Biden - voted FOR the surge. Obama did not think it would work.
3. Obama - took three days to "revise" his stance on the Russian invasion of Georgia
4. Obama- still wants to arbitrarily remove the troops after 16 months. that decision should be conditions based just like the recent Bush-Mailky 2012 agreement
5. Obama - voted FOR the 2005 Bush Energy Plan. McCain voted against it because of the excessive tax breaks to the oil companies.
6. Obama has been running for the President the moment he was sworn in 2005 and has had only one bill passed that he has authored out of 129.
7. As a state senator, he voted "present" 130 times on many controversial topics. And he voted against a bill protecting babies who survive abortions.

I think the democrats are worried about this ticket and as they see McCain & Palin campaign throughout Rural Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, Michigan, and Montana, then I think this election will swing back to our favor. I always told you that this election would be close and any thought of a massive Obama landslide is no longer a possbility. I can't wait until the VP Debate later this month!!!

Joe Pena said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Kunda said...

I'm less influenced by "experience" as much as I am concerned with accomplishments, and much more: character.

If we're to contrast Palin and Obama, let's call it a draw (for the sake of argument) that each lacks experience. Palin has quite a resume of accomplishments... things actually undertaken. Obama has written two books about himself.

Character is, I think, the most important trait. The person that most accurately views the world for the way it is, and can be shown to make good decisions in less stressful times has more of my confidence in times of chaos than someone who has neither of these.

Then again, my grievances with Obama are great, and at the very very bottom of the list might be "experience." I primarily disagree with his views on good and evil, the role of government, his view on economics, his stance on taxes, his stance on marriage, his stance on the unborn, his comments about dealing with hostile countries, his biblical interpretations and mischaracterizations, etc.

I have 2 questions for you, Ange.

"Yes, she is pro-life and hunts and fishes and has 5 kids." Do you really value equally one's fishing and hunting preferences as little or as much as one's stance on the unborn?

If so, I worry. if not (which I suspect) then why the dismissal of this as unimportant?

Second: You highlight her experience as a mayor and a governor with condescending comments about the population numbers. Can I ask how large a state would need to be to qualify it's leader as "experienced enough" to run for president (or in this case, vice)?

It seems to me rather, for lack of a better word, arrogant, to claim that "those" people in "those" states really don't "get" it because..... [this] [that] [size] etc etc. I'm not trying to be unkind or spiteful, but i would like to know what specific criteria would in your mind make a credible candidate.

"Will her experience help us get out of Iraq? Will her beauty pageant skills be strong enough to fight against countries who still make woman wear head coverings?"

That strikes me as quite chauvinistic. Or, at least an ad hominum attack that lacks and logical connection from point to conclusion. How exactly would participation in a beauty contest hurt, help or otherwise impact one's ability to do anything not related to a beauty content? That is, unless there is an inverse relationship between beauty and ability.

Will he wished he hired her as an intern?

Zing! I get it, topical humor!

No really:

"There -- I said it. Let the rude, mean and spiteful comments unleash."

I think those comments started with your post, Ange. You made a lot of unpleasant and unkind and uncharitable comments about Palin personally. That's a great deal different than agreeing with or attacking positions. I wouldn't begin to dismantle your post by saying that you're a [insert mocking name]. One, because that's unkind, and two because I know it's untrue.



Ange said...


The reason I threw in the hunting, fishing, 5 kids, beauty pageant stuff was because the media keeps playing off these facts as if it gives her more credibility. I don't read every article about her, but the ones I do read tend to always mention at least one or more of these characteristics. There is absolutely no correlation between these skills and her abilities, I for one think the media should stop talking about it.

What it takes for someone to run a state of 700K is drastically different than running a country of 300 million people. Illinois has 11 million...and I know Obama and Palin had different roles; but #'s DO play a HUGE part...

You're right Robert, I did make several uncharitable comments about Palin. I believe she is a great person who may be a potential future President, but in my opinion, she is not capable of running this country at this time.

And finally, to Robert and anonymous -- I'm not dismissing the fact that she's pro-life as unimportant. I am pro-life myself, but I know there are more issues than just this one that we as a country have to deal with. I will not vote for someone based on one issue that I agree with. Because once that issue is handled -- then what? Will the abortion rate go down? History shoes the #'s do not decrease, we have to decrease the # of unwanted pregnancies. We have to tackle the root of the issue, therefore eliminating the need for abortion.

Robert -- if you still have an issue with my post then I'll arm wrestle you for it on Thursday at Islands.

Robert Kunda said...

"I will not vote for someone based on one issue that I agree with. "

I will sort of cede that point. Re: abortion, I can imagine a candidate that I would vote for that was pro-abortion given the right set of circumstances, however, in this case, I don't consider one's stance on abortion as a single issue. This involves a fundamental understanding of life.

If you build your house on sand, I doubt the integrity of the resulting structure.

"Will the abortion rate go down? History shoes the #'s do not decrease, we have to decrease the # of unwanted pregnancies."

History most certainly does not show that. Abortion rates have grown exponentially in the last quarter-century or so. If you want some specific numbers, email me and I'll provide you some hard data. Unwanted pregnancies are not the "cause" of abortion. Acceptance of abortion is. For a topical example, see Sarah Palin. The overwhelming majority of down-syndrome children diagnosed in the womb are killed. Certainly, such an ailment is unwanted, but the treatment isn't killing the host. She recognized this. Most people do not. No one supports killing toddlers for reasons comparable with abortion; choice, rights, economics, etc.

It's because we (collectively) don't accept the unborn as valuable like we would a young child. The problem isn't unplanned pregnancies. Though, even if I grant you that, the one sure-fire way of preventing pregnancy is no sex. Would Obama support teaching that?

"We have to tackle the root of the issue, therefore eliminating the need for abortion."

I agree, but I disagree with your wording. There isn't a "need" for abortion. There is a desire to make one's problems "go away." As above, no one says they have a "need" to kill their toddlers.

And you better hit the gym for arm wrestling. Or I should!

Dennis Beckner said...

I'm voting for McCain/Palin because it's a solid ticket which demonstrates the ability to hold tight reins on their conservative values for the long haul even in the face of opposition. I love the history of defending this country and the message we would send to the world by electing them -mess with us and we'll take care of business. I don't get the impression the world would fear Obama. Like Clinton, I think an attack on our military would go unanswered or not be forceful enough to send the right message. To me, everything else the media is harping about is fluff trying to pose as legitimate issues.

Anonymous said...

I love it ange!
I do have to say, I think the candidates have the opposite problems, which is why I think they both are shaping out to become equal in ability and favor. Obama has no good experience, but his VP does. Mccain has all the experience, and his VP has none. So would I vote for a president with experience?....or would I vote for one with little experience and quite frankly changing opinions because of this inexperience, and hope that his VP eventually takes over? I am a little torn, but for now I stand by my decision to endorse mccain, call me crazy. Although I think Obama has some great ideals, he can't enforce them. I'm gonna have to stick with my candidate purely because he has given us a plan for the future...not just ideals.

I've got it....McCain/Biden 2008. Get rid of the inexperience and have a great president and vp. Then bring Obama into the cabinet for a think tank. Man I wish Colin Powell would have ran. I like that man. Any who that is my long/short of it all.


John Whittaker said...

I think that the point is being missed a bit here. At least from my perspective, when reviewing the choice of Sarah Palin, we shouldn't be looking at how well she stacks specifically to the competing party's offering in a vacuum. Rather it should be in comparison to whether she was/is better than her contemporaries, in comparison to the competing party. So saying that Palin is better than Obama/Biden is pointless, practically everyone with a conservative bent is going to agree with this. The real question is whether having her on the ticket as compared to other choices that were available was the wisest decision.

It is difficult for me to see how Palin was a superior choice. Granted she gave a solid performance in her debut speech and has created a great deal of buzz, but my prediction is that she will not do much for the ticket after the novelty wears thin. I've felt for some time that the thing that McCain has had going for him with voters who are undecided, is that he's experienced and would be a better choice to handle a potentially hostile Russia, etc. Given McCain's age and health issues, Sarah Palin as VP choice nullifies this to a degree.

On the other hand, if the Dems can get behind someone from their bench without much in the way of experience to run the free world... Why not the Republicans too?

Robert Kunda said...

Hi John,

I don't disagree, really. I do have a question relating to a "what's the point? approach. I'm not saying that you didn't make a point, but what exactly follows from your point?

We can (and do) differ in our views of Palin being a good or bad choice as a VP, but seeing as that decision is already made, I think it's much more productive to start comparing what our options are, not what they could have been, right?

When it comes down to whom we must choose based on the options available, I doubt we differ much on the conclusions for future decisions, though we might Monday morning quarterback the decision differently.

Shouldn't we be doing homework right now, anyway? You have a paper due, mister!

Ange said...

Okay here's the bottom line (from what I can gather):

- People either love or strongly dislike Palin
- Comparing Palin to Obama is like comparing apples to oranges
- Adding Palin to the Republican ticket has given McCain a MUCH better chance of winning the White House
- The Democratic party is now scrambling to find dirt on her

Chances are, she won't even stop into office. The last VP to step into office was Gerald Ford when Nixon resigned.

The novelty of Palin will wear off, the debates will give us a better sense of her leadership and stances on issues.

Anonymous said...

The media is playing up the five kids, baby with down's, hunting etc. not because they think it's important to the job of vice president. They are doing it because they are elitist and think these are reasons to summarily dismiss her.

There is a big difference between holding an executive position of mayor or governor, no matter the size, and being a senator. A governor is responsible for the defense, safety and budget of their state and the people it in. This is clearly demonstrated in the incompetent bumbling of the Mayor of New Orleans and Governor of LA when Katrina hit.

A senator on the other hand has only two jobs: Propose legislation and vote on legislation. During his tenure in the Illinois senate, Obama voted "present" over 2200 times. That means he was there but decided not to do what he was elected to do.

The Russian invasion of Georgia was a good example of Obama's international leadership skills. He said the UN should appoint a commission on the matter. I guess he is unaware that Russia is a member of the Security Council and has veto over any such commission.

He does not understand the nature of our enemies and, as a result, will not protect our nation.

The bad guys, who think nothing of strapping a bomb belt to a teenage girl and sending her into a crowded market, are not going to sit down and "negotiate".

Setting all this aside, what I can not understand is how, as a Christian, you would vote for a man who recently stated if one of his daughters made a mistake, that he would not want her punished with a baby, over a woman who knew her child was going to be Down’s Syndrome and chose to have it anyway.

Your pastor, Rick Warren, asked him directly when does someone become a person. Obama said that answer was above his pay grade.

Well according to his voting record, he considers it sometime after a child is born, since he voted against giving a baby that survives an abortion comfort and medical attention.

40 million Americans killed by abortion. With as many as three Supreme Court judges to be appointed by the next president, an Obama presidency will guarantee the abortion slaughter continues.

That might not be the reason you want to vote for Obama, but that will be the result if he wins.


Josh Peters said...

I've enjoyed reading the comments thus far and appreciate everyone who has voiced an opinion.

The media, which is a whole separate dysfunctional conversation to be had, has picked up these sound-bytes concerning "family, down syndrome, hunting etc,." because they are the very things the GOP and the McCain campaign are using to create her public image. Until Palin begins to do substantial interviews with the media we will be forced to listen to the same recycled stump speeches from the campaign (which is constantly reminding us that she is a hockey mom, etc..)

And on a general note: many pro-choice people are very much pro-life but find there to be a greater issue of freedom that is often not acknowledged in the conversation. On a only-slightly-related note, why aren't there more pro-life people who are pacifists when it comes to war and death penalties? McCain uses/promises strong hawkish language/behavior while maintaining he will also be the pro-life president. These don't line up for me.

Robert Kunda said...

I don't want to try and tackle too many things at once, so I'll reply to your last.

"On a only-slightly-related note, why aren't there more pro-life people who are pacifists when it comes to war and death penalties? McCain uses/promises strong hawkish language/behavior while maintaining he will also be the pro-life president."

The pro-life position holds at its foundation that it is wrong to unjustly end a human life. To simplify it down—it's wrong to murder.

The position continues with the recognition of the unborn as human, and both innocent and defenseless. People worth protecting from harm. The position is that murder is wrong, not that killing is wrong. Murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. Allow me to explain further.

While both killing and murder result in the ending of a life, one (murder) does so with out justification. Our legal system recognizes this all the time. That is how we separate a killing done in elf defense vs. a premeditated murder deserving of prosecution. (In fact by California law, killing an unborn child is considered murder. See: Scott Peterson. The language of the law specifically identifies abortion as an exception to this. Under California law, therefore, abortion is in fact killing, though not legally murder.)

Do you see how this would have little to do with the position one takes regarding say—a just war or the death penalty? ... Or even self defense?

I hope I've made that somewhat clear. You'll have to forgive me if it was worded poorly. I'm exhausted and starting to nod off.

If I have answered your question, though you may disagree, I'd like to return the favor. Could you elaborate a little more for me on an early comment you made?

You said, "And on a general note: many pro-choice people are very much pro-life but find there to be a greater issue of freedom that is often not acknowledged in the conversation."

I'd wait for your reply, but online posts aren't generally helpful for back-and-forths, so let me post some initial thoughts so you can see where I am going, perhaps making it easier for you to identify just what it is that I am asking—so we don't talk past each other.

What do you think it means to be pro-life? As I discussed above, it does not mean against any form of killing whatsoever. If it did, all pro-lifers would (as you began) have to be pacifists. But it would also follow, that many "pro-choicers" (I prefer pro-abortion. Though, I would prefer anti/pro abortion rather than the choice/life terms, for clarity) would have to be pacifists too. And, by following your statement out logically (that many pro-choice people are pro-life, too) if pro-life meant pacifism (no killing of any type) then by definition they couldn't make exceptions for anything, even the freedom that you mentioned. So pro-life doesn't mean pacifist on my terms, and it logically can't on yours.

I'm being rather long winded, so I'll skip some of the filler points and get right to mine. You said that (please, correct me if I am putting words in your mouth) pro-choice people that do "support life" recognize certain issues of freedom as perhaps higher than life.

In short, that statement affirms that the unborn is a living human, does it not? If it does not, and the unborn is not alive (which is rather difficult to argue scientifically) then what do you mean that some pro-choice people are pro-life? How can you be pro-life when the claim is that there is no life there?

On the other end, if the unborn are alive, then what freedom arguments would justify killing them? Last point, and I think the largest: If you respond with an argument advocating as freedom (or something else) as sufficient for ending the life of the unborn, why would/could this or that argument not be used for a newborn or a toddler?

I hope I've been fair... and understandable!

Good night!

John Brown said...

You either “love her or hate her?” Well, 80 PERCENT of those who voted her into office as governor two years into the honeymoon now still love her.

Ronald Reagan was also not a “DC political insider” and most would agree he did quite well.

Speechwriters? Obama has three. (Jon Favreau, Adam Frankel and Ben Rhodes, ages 26, 26, and 30 FWIW. Gasp!) Pretty standard stuff. Ted Sorenson wrote many of JFK’s speeches including the “ask not what your country can do for you” and “Ich Ein Berliner “ variety.

Few variances? You might want to read that speech again. Highly personal narrative of Palin but no doubt the theme was indeed overall crafted as the message of the McCain campaign. EVERY campaign does that. Seems like the Obama campaign has had some theme about, oh yeah, “change” for about 18 months now……and Biden carried it on in his convention speech as well……with his speechwriters too.

Yes, Palin is Governor of a state with 700,000 people, ranked 48th in population in the US. Biden, the other VP candidate is a Senator of a state with 850,000 people, ranked 46th. Two past Presidents, Arthur and Coolidge both came from the 2nd least populated state, Vermont.

Two days before Obama’s acceptance speech Bill Clinton said no person is really prepared to be President until they sit in that chair. When asked if Gov. Palin would be in over her head if something happened to McCain and she became President, no less than Henry Kissinger said that “any President” has a retinue of advisers that they receive data and advice from. There is not really much of a vacuum…..except when Carter was in office. LOL. And remember how qualified he was? He was an officer on a nuclear sub and a “brilliant man”. Okaaaaay.

Small town mayor? Small state governor? OK. How about executive responsibility of a 63 Billion dollar budget. That’s Billion with a “B”! How about negotiating a multi-billion dollar oil pipeline with “big oil”? How about executive leadership of a government staff of 15,000? And you don’t get to vote “present” as a governor. Obama voted “present” some 160 times in just his 144 days in the US Senate. Oh he was there….but wouldn’t take a stand on an issue because it make a problem in his bid for Prez. And of course, it is much more common for a governor to be elected to president than a senator.

You as much as admit that Palin’s resume has more heft than Obama’s but the problem you have is “she is virtually unknown in the political realm”. Not anymore. LOL. But seriously, just because the chattering elites in New York, Washington and Hollywood don’t know her or about her and just because she did not graduate from an Ivy league school or go to the proper prep schools and vacation in the Hamptons, does that really make her any less qualified?

Bottom line…..I will take a person with the character of her convictions than a politically correct individual who will tell me what I want to hear. I like the bottom of the GOP ticket better than the top of the Dem ticket.

Thanks for a place to share my thoughts……and to read yours.

PS. Your wrong on this but a great team player! :>)

John Brown said...


Your comments about her being a "beauty queen" were rather "snarky". :)

She says she did so to earn money for a college scholarship.

Some "feminists" CAN be pretty, conservative, and be feminim. LOL. But they are summarily disowned by the NOW crowd.

(Oops, I'm in trouble now!)

Luke St.Hilaire said...

politics are dumb

Anonymous said...

Okay, where do I begin. Not only does she not have much experience, as she so eloquently reminded us during her 1 and only debate (which was completely monitered and approved by the big man himself) when she admitted to being a Washington "outsider", but keeps referring to herself as "one of us". Well, I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want someone like "me" in the second highest position of the Free World. Maybe it's because I live in Trabuco Canyon and the view that I have from my kitchen window is of Oak trees and not Russia. Maybe being sooo close to Russia makes her more qualified??? Now, let's talk about family values... what makes me think that she is concerned about the rising cost of college tuition considering her 2 oldest kids never graduated from high school. Her oldest son Track was a bit of a trouble maker in high school and he flunked out of school. Her 2nd child, let's see got pregnant at 17 and has also dropped out, oh yea, but she's getting married to her boyfriend so I guess that makes it all better. Where was the talk about purity and abstinance? oh, right Mrs. Palin was busy running her state and protecting her sister (cause you know, blood is thicker than water). Now, she has been accused of "over using her power" but this of course is Obama's fault. Even though she was completely open to the investigation until they found her guilty of something. I would like to say "Sarah, be a woman, have some integrity, own up to your mistake". She proclaims to be a Christian, but where's the fruit?? On another note, I feel McCain picked her as a crafty move. At the Civil Forum when Pastor Rick asked both candidates what they thought on abortion McCain said that he was against it and that was all he said (sometimes by not saying anything people can fill in the blanks with whatever they want to believe, whether that person believes it or not-It's a sly tactic). Obama answered that HE himself is against abortion, then he continued to explain himself. With McCain people just assumed that he doesn't believe in abortion at all, but that's not true. Palin and McCain do not agree on this topic. Cindy and John McCain were on The View and they said they believe it's ok for abortion only if the mother's life is at risk. In fact, McCain and Obama believe the exact same thing on the issue of abortion. Well, I think that if someone is against abortion, then they should be against abortion competely. If it's true that one life is no more valuable than another then what makes a mother's life more valuable than the unborn child????? When I was pregnant I went through genetic testing and was told that my life could be at risk if I continued with my pregnancy. I chose to continue with my pregnancy anyway, because I felt that my life was not more valuable than my unborn child's (now he's a Freshman in college) Surprisingly, I am pro-life, but I do feel that if conservatives believe that abortion is wrong then it should be wrong ALWAYS. If you believe in God, then you have to believe that God has a purpose for that pregnancy, whether your life ends or not. It is ultimately God's decision. I think McCain "spins" words to please the ears of the voters. I also remember him saying at the Civil Forum that religion is a "personal matter", well, I have big issues with this one. If you are a believer in Jesus Christ then you have a duty and an obligation to spread the Gospel. We are commanded to do so. So, by saying that it's private and you don't like to discuss it in public then what kind of witness are you? How much do you really know about your savior. It's easy to say you're a Christian, but you have to ask yourself... Am I producing any fruit? Am I making people sin with my actions? Who will be in heaven because of me? If you don't have positive answers to these, then I have to question your intentions.

Obama 08