Palin was part of the Alaskan Independence Party

[Elrohir]

According to the McCain campaign, Palin was never a member of the AIP, and has in fact been a Republican since 1982. Developing.

After running an item yesterday alleging that Governor Palin was once a member of the Alaska Independence Party, Jake Tapper doesn't even bother to write a new item today to report that she is, in fact, a lifelong Republican. Instead, he simply updates the old post, and notes that this campaign has provided "some voter registration documentation."

We have provided ALL voter registration documentation, and the facts are clear. If the Alaska Independence Party at some point taught Governor Palin their secret handshake, there is no record of it. Otherwise, the only relevant criterion for membership in a party is registration--and Palin has never been a member of the AIP.

The Governor did appear at the AIP convention in 2000, when the convention was held in Wasilla. This would seem to be the only decent thing to do, given her responsibilities as Mayor of Wasilla, but apparently Tapper believes the press is owed further explanation.

Finally, Tapper notes that a spokesman for this campaign "would not comment as to why AIP officials are so convinced Palin was a member of their party." Apparently Tapper would not comment on how he managed to print a story that had absolutely no basis in fact.

See the Governor's voter registration document here.

 

[.Shane.]

The adjective was 'explicit'. That's a highly different thing. I'm not entirely aware of Republican thinking on this point. Teenagers generally manage to figure out how to get busy without being shown a diagram.

Well, the problem is in that minimal context, I'm not sure what she means by "explicit". Could be taken many ways.

But, as I said, she's in the eye of the storm and she can't win. This is more McCain's fault than hers, I think.

 

[MobBoss]

That said, if we're arguing over the quote, as I read it, she didn't say abstinence only. She advocated it as part of a sex ed and did say she was exposed to extreme (I think it was a different adjective) sex ed.

So, the statement is somewhat vague, I think.

BUT, she has done nothing to clarify.

Thank you. That is precisely my point. I also agree that the answer was vague and not quite indicative of abstinence-only as opposed to abstinence-inclusive sex ed.

Now, MB, what would you have her say? If she says she's for abstinence-only then a lot of the criticism of her parenting becomes valid. And if she says she wants to teach a more rigorous sex-ed then all the religious right voters would become indignant.

Not sure I agree with you here. For starters, her stance on this topic is most assuredly older than her daughters pregnancy. I would assume that there would certainly be more clarity on the issue if it were indeed the priority to her that the left seems to think.

And I dont think the religious right would be as indignant over abstinence-only as you think. The pro-life arguement is of simply far more importance to them, and in considering this, I think they would indeed be at least satisfied with abstinence-inclusive sex ed as opposed to abstinence-only programs.

To me, this indicates McCain's team didn't think this through well, because they've put her in a position where nothing she can say helps her.

Again, I disagree. She can vouch that abortion is indeed off the table and that her family remains staunchly pro-life and will stand by that belief.

 

[JollyRoger]

Again, I disagree. She can vouch that abortion is indeed off the table and that her family remains staunchly pro-life and will stand by that belief.

Really? A pro choice person could choose to have the child. The fact that she hid both her preganancy and her child's pregnancy from public view for a significant amount of time could imply that they were in the process of making that choice.

 

[MobBoss]

Really? A pro choice person could choose to have the child.

While true, I think you would have a hard time disagreeing that the majority answer among the pro-choice crowd would be for the 17 year old to have that abortion as its 'the right thing to do'. Pro-choice has always been pro-abortion.

The fact that she hid both her preganancy and her child's pregnancy from public view for a significant amount of time could imply that they were in the process of making that choice.

Sorry, Jolly, but sometimes your attempts at humor are simply just lame. This is one of those times.

 

[skadistic]

Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. It is pro- "giving people the choice to do what they and their doctor and family see as the right thing to do". You can be against abortion and still be pro-choice.

 

[JollyRoger]

While true, I think you would have a hard time disagreeing that the majority answer among the pro-choice crowd would be for the 17 year old to have that abortion as its 'the right thing to do'. Pro-choice has always been pro-abortion.

Then why are there many 17 years old having children in areas that vote overwhemlingly for the pro-choice party?

Sorry, Jolly, but sometimes your attempts at humor are simply just lame. This is one of those times.

That wasn't an attempt at humor. Why would a married governor with children already try to hide a pregnancy from the public?

 

[IglooDame]

According to the McCain campaign, Palin was never a member of the AIP, and has in fact been a Republican since 1982. Developing.

I find it shocking that a fellow (Jake Tapper) who worked for a lobbying organization utterly opposed to the NRA would have any bias against a VP candidate that is a lifelong member of the NRA, particularly when he implies that association with a political group a decade ago colors her current views on anything. Shocking.

 

[MobBoss]

Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. It is pro- "giving people the choice to do what they and their doctor and family see as the right thing to do". You can be against abortion and still be pro-choice.

Come on skad. Precisely how many people do you think are against abortion but still pro-choice.

The point being, if they are still pro-choice then they really arent against abortion. Not to any real extent to be honest.

Now they may be apathetic to abortion, sure. But those lines are pretty static....if one actually IS against abortion, then one cant really be FOR it.

@Jolly: of course it was an attempt...and you denying it is actually funnier than the original joke. Btw, whats your proof that Palin 'hid' anything?

 

[JollyRoger]

if one actually IS against abortion, then one cant really be FOR it.

I disagree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it.

 

[.Shane.]

The point being, if they are still pro-choice then they really arent against abortion. Not to any real extent to be honest.

Utter and complete nonsense. In fact, its insulting, but I doubt you care.

 

[MobBoss]

Utter and complete nonsense. In fact, its insulting, but I doubt you care.

Again, I disagree. I dont think the point is nonsense at all. The two camps are along very well defined lines, and I stand by my comment that someone who says they are pro-choice but against abortion doesnt really make much sense at at they are simply giving form to their apathy at best. If you are truly against abortion, then be against it. If you are for it, then be for it. Let your yes be yes, and your no be no.

I personally find it insulting for someone to espouse such lukewarm and nonsensical beliefs. Its the tofu of belief. pffft.

 

[IglooDame]

Come on skad. Precisely how many people do you think are against abortion but still pro-choice.

The point being, if they are still pro-choice then they really arent against abortion. Not to any real extent to be honest.

Now they may be apathetic to abortion, sure. But those lines are pretty static....if one actually IS against abortion, then one cant really be FOR it.

@Jolly: of course it was an attempt...and you denying it is actually funnier than the original joke. Btw, whats your proof that Palin 'hid' anything?

*raises hand*

To the extent that I can know the future, I'd not consent to my wife getting an abortion. However, I am okay with Roe v Wade and with abortion as a legally permissible action.

 

[bhsup]

I personally find it insulting for someone to espouse such lukewarm and nonsensical beliefs. Its the tofu of belief. pffft.

While I agree with you, shouldn't you then be applauding my firm stance on voting and McCain?

 

[.Shane.]

Again, I disagree. I dont think the point is nonsense at all. The two camps are along very well defined lines, and I stand by my comment that someone who says they are pro-choice but against abortion doesnt really make much sense at at they are simply giving form to their apathy at best. If you are truly against abortion, then be against it. If you are for it, then be for it. Let your yes be yes, and your no be no.

I personally find it insulting for someone to espouse such lukewarm and nonsensical beliefs. Its the tofu of belief. pffft.

Its called civility and respect. Unlike you, I can and do respect the viewpoint of the overwhelming majority of pro-life people that I meet and know. I do not consider them to be anti-woman or anti-choice, just because they don't see eye-to-eye with me. So, while I know we're on opposite sides of this fence, its sad to learn that you don't have the common courtesy to accept my point-of-view as honest and sincere.

I have 3 kids. We only planned for 2. But when the 3rd came along, the option to abort never even came up. Neither my wife or I even thought of it as in the realm of possibility. I know a lot of my friends and peers who feel exactly the same.

That said, I don't feel its my place to force that decision on your or your family. Its too bad you don't, can't, or won't understand that. And by "understand", I don't mean accept. I can understand your point of view, while I might not accept it personally. Too bad you can't do the same.

 

[JerichoHill]

Pro-choice has always been pro-abortion.

I am pro-choice, but most certainly NOT pro-abortion. I just don't like government telling people how to run their lives. I thought that was a conservative principle?

What Shane said. While I am against aborting any baby I am responsible for (unless my wife was raped or was gonna die from childbirth), I'm not going to force my viewpoint on others. They can make their own decision and live with it. I want the government to not have control over personal decisions...

 

[bhsup]

I am pro-choice, but most certainly NOT pro-abortion. I just don't like government telling people how to run their lives. I thought that was a conservative principle?

A conservative principle has also always been that, you know, we don't think people who have done nothing wrong should be killed by the State. It is also generally frowned upon to kill the elderly just because they are in a nursing home.

 

[Bill3000]

A conservative principle has also always been that, you know, we don't think people who have done nothing wrong should be killed by the State.

Unless you're catholic and thus anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and anti-war, as well as probably being anti-stand-your-ground, this is not true.

 

[bhsup]

Unless you're catholic

Meaningless and irrelevant

anti-abortion

Yes...

anti-death penalty

They've obviously done something wrong to warrant the death penalty.

anti-war

Of course I am anti-war. Do you think people honestly just want war for the sake of having a war?

anti-stand-your-ground

If someone is forcing me into a position where I have to stand my ground, they are obviously doing something wrong.

 

[MobBoss]

*raises hand*

To the extent that I can know the future, I'd not consent to my wife getting an abortion. However, I am okay with Roe v Wade and with abortion as a legally permissible action.

In other words you are apathetic to what other people do, but only against it in a single instance. I wouldnt label you as being against abortion considering that you are ok with Roe v Wade....you are simply not willing to see your wife make such a choice.