A debate is now raging — among women more than men – about whether Sarah Palin should have accepted John McCain’s invitation to become his vp. Interestingly, it is conservative evangelical women who are circling the wagons to defend her and professional and working class women who are questioning her appointment. (For more on this aspect check out

The crux of the debate is whether a mother of five, one of them a downs syndrome special child, another a pregnant teenager, should be running full time for the second highest office in the land.

As Sarah Palin becomes better known, her household situation raises more questions. For example, three days after giving birth to her Downs syndrome child, she returned to work in the governor’s office. Obviously too she decided McCain’s offer was more important than protecting her pregnant daughter from national scrutiny.  (So much, by the way, for Palin’s reliance on abstinence).

And there are other questions about Palin. She has now hired a lawyer to defend her in a case where she fired an underling who wouldn’t fire her brother-in-law who was in a bitter divorce case with Palin’s sister. She also once belonged to a party that wanted Alaska to seccede. Her husband was once arrested on a drunk driving charge. None of this may be relevant but it certainly raises questions about whether McCain vetted her sufficiently.

But we come back to the question of whether Palin can be a loving effective mother while being a full time vice president.

What do you think? Should Palin have accepted?

Is there anyone who thinks Palin should bow out of the race?


  1. 1
    Paul Costopoulos Says:

    Why should she? Her background is not worse than Dubbya’s or McCain’s or Jerry Falwell’s, all christian right luminaries or that of the Clintons back in Kansas and the cigar business in the white house.
    Where were dad and mom Bush when the twins were arrested for drinking under age and being in a bar?
    Asking for Palin’s resignation from the ticket would be shere hypocrisy or denial of a social reality that we can not escape. As the Boomers come into their own they will have to face their 70s behaviour and the consequences on their offsprings. Do what I say, not what I did never was a strong argument.

  2. 2
    John Says:

    I don’t think Palin should bow out. The problem is not Sarah Palin’s, it’s John McCain’s. Whether she stays in or drops out, he’s going to reap the results of his decision.

    His response to the right-winged conservatives who forced him to move outside his comfort zone brought a response that was both swift and highly questionable. Not good a good combination for someone who likes to question his opponent’s judgment and ability to act under pressure.

  3. 3
    Barbara Says:

    John is so right. Whether Governor Palin stays or not, this rash and unvetted choice by McCain will stick to him like ugly on an ape. Check out the interview on the CNN website between Campbell Brown and GOP campaign representative Tucker Bounds. He has absolutely nothing substantive to support the decision to select Palin as a running mate.
    The fact that Governor Palin is an evangelical Christian is all that matters to some groups of voters. Others find her behaviour problematic in so many ways. McCain could be a worse choice than Dubya ever was on the basis of his risky, gut-driven decision-making.

  4. 4
    SUZANNE Says:

    If she’s removed, should she remain as governor of Alaska?

    She’s good enough to be governor of Alaska, she’s good enough to be vice-president. Don’t you think?

    And what about Trig’s Dad? Doesn’t he have a hand in raising the baby? Does it have to be the mom ALL the time? Not in my house.

    I read somewhere that her ex-brother-in-law trooper tasered an eleven-year-old, which was one of the motives for firing the guy.

  5. 5
    cs Says:

    I think that Gov. Palin should bow out. It’s unfortunate that McCain would pass up an oppotunity to add Mitt Romney to the ticket. If the economy is the outstanding issue which it is, why would we not want an expert to get it back on track? And if you believe Romney doesnt understand economics you better take time to research both his public and civil background.
    Gov.Palin is simply not qualified to be Vice President of the United States in this time of economic crisis.

  6. 6
    neilmckentyweblog2 Says:

    Well, no Suzsanne. If you look back over American history you’ll find not many governors made it into the Oval office. George Bush was the last and look what a mess he made.

    Saying she is ready to be vice-president (or president) because she is governor of Alaska is like saying Prendergast is ready to be Pope because he is bishop of Ottawa.

    Thanks, cs, for your interesting comment. What do you bet it won’t be Romney yet when Palin finally craters?

  7. 7
    Barbara Says:

    Neil, what are you talking about? Off the top of my head (no research), I seem to recall Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, and Franklin Roosevelt had gubernatorial experience.

  8. 8
    Paul Costopoulos Says:

    You are right Barbara. However having been Governor does not make sure that you will be good on a national level. As for Ms Palin, she is no worse than many others including McCain.
    Whoever he may be, a vice-president can’t do much…unless the president dies or he is a Dick Cheney put there by real powers to check and control Dubbya.

  9. 9
    Chimera Says:

    I find it fascinating, Neil, that the anti-feminists are supportive of Palin’s decision to remain on the ticket despite being also a full-time mother (well…obviously not full-time; there is that one who slipped her leash ond dared to educate herself about sex with “disastrous” results), while feminists are questioning her choice.

    Er…whence came this rather oxymoronic piece of information?

    Bristol’s getting pregnant was not her mother’s doing, please and thank you. Although it probably is Sarah’s fault that her daughter knows nothing about contraception, and she will have to live with that, knowing that she put undue limitations on Bristol’s life when she could have helped her avoid a too-young marriage to someone she will probably divorce in two years. Bristol’s at an age where she will find out for herself what the grown-ups refuse to share with her. And this is a perfect example of why abstinence-only and copntraception-not-allowed does not work. My only question is: will she (Sarah) actually learn from this? We’ll see. There are others warming up in the bullpen…

    Most of Palin’s other “baggage” does not matter. That DUI is her husband’s problem, not hers. There’s a party that wants Alaska to secede? Wonderful exercise in contingency thinking!

    The brother-in-law thing is a whole different situation, though, and her judgment in that situation, or lack of it, might prove to be problematic. I’m not going to be irresponsible and speculate about the rumors of his abusing eleven-year-olds until the rumors have been proven to be true. This one will truly be a mare’s nest to untangle, and I wish everyone else the joy of it. I’m just glad it’s not my problem.

    My two cents’ worth for the record: leave Sarah Palin alone to make her own choices. And the voters will make theirs.

    BTW, I heard Barack Obama’s opinion about this pile-on-Palin: her personal and family lives are private and nobody else’s business. I agree. Shall we all back off and mind our own business?

  10. 10
    Paul Costopoulos Says:

    I agree what goes on inside a home, unless squarely unlawful, is nobody else’s business. The public actions of any politicians however are public domain and up for public scrutiny regardless of party, gender, color, religion nationality or sexual orientation. If we are to dissect Palin, let’s stick to the former mayoress, governeress and V-P candidate.

  11. 11
    neilmckentyweblog2 Says:


    Your are quite right about your list of governors who became presidents. But I think you’ve pretty well exhausted the list.

  12. 12
    exposrip Says:


    What “mess” has he made? Outside Iraq, where exactly has he been (and I’m just playing devil’s advocate here) so terrible? Last I checked, Carter wasn’t so great and apparently left a “mess.” Clinton benefited from REAGAN’S economic measures and is the one according to some pundits who swept the terrorist problem under the rug and it was Kennedy who escalated the war in Vietnam. See where I’m going?

    So foreign policy – and I’m not even talking Jeffersonian and Jacksonian politics here. Let’s keep it in the 20th – is pretty much in line with American standards.

    The deficit? That’s been a problem for years well before Bush. Perhaps it wasn’t wise to stretch the military but he made the decision. In the back drop of world history that’s a piss in the bucket what he did. Move on.

    In fact, America really needs to deal with this Social Security thing soon. Will Obama do it? Will he have the guts (like Reagan) to bring in the tightening of belts needed?

    That leaves the domestic front. Much that he’s blamed for (as are all President’s) as evidenced by Katrina were well beyond his control. President’s get too much credit and blame it seems. He has been credited by critics for at least making honest efforts to fix education. In international aid, the Millenium Fund has also been well received. Yes, he didn’t sign Kyoto but I feel the U.S. is right on that issue.

    Yes, there have been problems and setback and other triumphs but I wonder what “mess” has been left.

    Leadership is a widespread problem period. Singling him out, however unpopular he is, is a stretch for me.

  13. 13
    Barbara Says:

    exposrip, why then is Bush so very unpopular if he hasn’t been the perceived worst president in American history — and it takes some to earn that title!
    He has, among other things, trampled on the Constitution, alienated allies, built a no-man’s-land of a concentration camp in Guantanamo, encouraged torture, and created a monstrous mess for no good reason in Iraq, the consequences of which will last some time. He didn’t even find Osama. In doing all the above, he has spent the country out of a surplus into a huge deficit which the USA owes to China. To solve the economic problems associated with rising oil prices, he goes hat in hand to his friends, the Saudis. He has done little if anything to encourage independence on energy. That’s a mess. I can’t think of anything he’s done right. Even the educational reform (No Child Left Behind), is considered to be failure by very many. He behaves like a jackass in public. What am I missing?

  14. 14
    exposrip Says:


    Agreed on the Constitution but he’s not the only one. The attack on the Constitution has been going on for quite some time. The alienating allies thing is over done – and the end of the day there were some successes. For example, the EU cooperates behind the scenes against terrorism. Guantanamo runs against the grain of American history BUT it did have support among intellectuals like Dershowitz and Ignatieff. He didn’t find Osama, but Clinton failed to nab him when he had him in his sights. As I said, he just continued the deficit problem. He didn’t create it.

    In fact, if anything, his tenure (and his father) shows is that the Republican party IS ANYTHING BUT CONSERVATIVE. Big government, spending and interventionism is not the conservative way.

    American-Saudi relations go back to the 1920s and I’m not one to draw Michael Moore conclusions to this relationship which is rather complex. Independence on energy was supposed to happen in the 1970s. And there have been many jackasses in public: to me Chretien was a jackass.

  15. 15
    Barbara Says:

    I will concede that Bush was not the ideal Conservative. He did not fulfill the wishes of his Christianist supporters — many would claim he never intended to. And I’ll put Bush against Chretien anyday in a jackass contest. I was under the impression that Chretien was intentionally tweaking people — a skewed sense of humour. Bush, as the late great Governor Anne Richards of Texas said, was born with a silver foot in his mouth. And he was proud of it.

    Bush may not have been the first, but he had a knack for stubborn stupidity.

  16. 16
    neilmckentyweblog2 Says:


    I think Barbara has made the indictment against Bush very well. Certainly Bush has been the most reckless, lawless, cruel president in my lifetime and well beyond.

    I totally disagree with Barbara on Chretien. I’ll put the Canadian voter on a par with the American one any day of the week. And Canadian voters gave Chretien three straight majority governments and would have given him a fourth had he stayed. He deserves to be knighted just for keeping us out of the war in Iraq.

  17. 17
    Barbara Says:

    I wasn’t dissing Chretien, Neil. Perhaps my turn of phrase was too Yankee. I was saying Bush would beat Chretien anyday in the jackass sweepstakes. I chalked Chretien’s eccentricities up to his sense of humour. He has a self-deprecating sense of humour. I like Chretien. Bush, on the other hand, is a buffoon.
    Canadian voters aren’t as much fun as the American ones, though.

  18. 18
    exposrip Says:

    Thanks for your responses friends but let me continue further.

    Yet, the Democrats did nothing themselves with a majority to try and stop this monster. No one answered the question.

    Hm. Reagan and Nixon were hated too.

    Cruel? I have no idea what that means. How’s this for cruel:

    Does it qualify? Funny how no one talked about this at the time and I remember this very well because my buddy who owns a small business in North Carolina couldn’t believe the Democrats did this.

    Neil, I think part of the reason why they got mandates is because the conservative party was decimated and the ndp was never a real option. That they were given three mandates (of which I voted twice for them) doesn’t impress me. The Liberals are a bunch of loud mouth’d shnooks with idiotic ideas like “Carbon taxes” and Canadians are silent moutons. We’re not as actively and politically engaged as Americans and nor are we community oriented. Our political system is LESS transparent than the American one.

    Chretien wasn’t shrewed. Just a smart-alec. I didn’t like how he talked on the international stage at all. My friend in foreign affairs wasn’t impressed either. In fact, there was a video put together by a Quebecer highlighting Chretien’s own “Bush” gaffes. The title, I think, was “This is our leader?” Chretien wasn’t a leader but a ruler who presided over a people sleeping at the switch. What did he do of magnificent worth except to steer the ship in a typically mediocre fashion?

    They’re good to talk and take no action. Lotsa fluffs and lies. Red book anyone? I have no idea why we consistently DON’T call them out on what essentially added up to bankrupted intellectual leadership. Adscam was a criminal enterprise that bilked us out of OUR MONEY and YET PEOPLE ARE STILL READY TO VOTE FOR THESE GUYS? Oh wait, Justin Trudeau will come to save us all!

    BUT we jump all over Harper! NOW THAT’S RICH.


    They’ll have to work damn hard to get me back. And they’ll have to use more than empty words and promises wrapped in passionate and articulate rhetoric. No one in that party speaks my language.

    Maybe it’s the Eggo talking. I don’t know.

  19. 19
    Chimera Says:

    This is an interesting article by someone who has known Sarah Palin for the past fifteen years:

  20. 20
    Paul Costopoulos Says:

    Exposrip, let’s see how Harper will fare this time around. You are right about the NDP, I would vote for them ANYTIME IF they had the slimmest chance of forming a government. So it leaves the Lib. and the Bloc, No way i’ll vote Bloc…So, yes it will be Liberal again to try to avoid another Harper dictatorship.
    Barbara, I guess Ms Kilkenney somwhat dislikes Ms Palin.
    You both have given me a nice insight into the American way: Up with Big, down with the small ones.

  21. 21
    Paul Costopoulos Says:

    Oh yes, Expos, I have read that piece on the Health care bill. Maybe I misunderstood it but it seems it was more about protecting the employers than the employees.

  22. 22


    Yes, but America is a nation of entrepreneurs that create jobs. Those people need health benefits. Right now, small businesses can’t afford to provide it because it’s too expensive. So everyone loses.

    And it’s sad how limited we are with choices isn’t it? I’m happy that the Green party and NDP (even though I’ll probably never vote for them) exist but they’re too narrow in scope. That they exist is healthy. We need more choice.

  23. 23

    Good morrow, all!
    Chimera: “Sarah Baracuda”, eh? So the sop to the socons is a sociopathic Darwinist Stepford wife. The end justifies the means, and the mean justify their ends. If half of what the lady who wrote the article says is true, then Frankenstein created Woman. She makes Maggie Thatcher look like Mother Teresa. She has big brass ones, and they clang when she walks. 65 million years ago, she would have been a raptor. Imagine those children. No wonder the husband spends his days on the North Slope, drilling for oil, and goes out fishing the chuck on his days off. Those cute little earrings she wears, the spherical ones? I wonder…no, I don’t…I merely…digress…CTZen

RSS Feed for this entry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: