I appreciate your post. I found my original difficult, but essential to write. I bear Mrs Palin no ill will - but she is in so many respects (including this one) so ill equipped to be a heartbeat form the Presidency..
Paddy

Thank you for talking about the pink elephant in the room.

It is obvious Palin was chosen to herd in the Christian right family values crowd. But they themselves are hypocritical if they do not consider Sarah and her family’s family values i.e. her Daughter’s pregnancy.

They seem quick to “forgive” and not hold Sarah accountable if it is politically expedient, and chastise those of another political party.

How can we have someone who potentially shapes public policy for our nation when she can’t influence the Christian family decisions of her own daughter.
Through the eyes of these Christian moral family values organizations Sarah failed to instill Christian family values to her daughter.

I personally don’t care about it, but these organizations that base Christian Family moral values in political decision making should be concerned otherwise they are simply hypocrates.

Shouldnt these organizations be asking it she failed with her daughter how can she be expected to lead the country?

The silence on this subject with these organizations leads me to believe they are hypocrates, and use Christian moral family values merely as a tool for political gain.

I hope to read more on this subject because mainstream media and the campaigns treat this as a third rail.

Thank goodness for blogging!

That said, anyone who supports abstinence only education and wishes to ban abortions under all circumstances, should explain how this strategy would lead to anything other than an explosion of unwanted pregnancies with an endemic explosion of back-alley abortions and the imprisonment of young women and doctors. Without such an explanation, this point of view appears to be more a religious/moral position, rather than a policy position based on the interests of our citizens.

As for experience, I find it laughably hypocritical that the same party that elected someone whose only experience was as a weak governor over someone with experience in Congress, the Senate, and two terms as VP, wants to suddenly value experience. The fact is that ideology drives these decisions, the experience argument is simply a device used after the decision has already been made on ideology. Also, and more importantly, experience is horrible indicator of Presidential success. Some of our most successful Presidents have had very little experience, and some of our worst Presidents have had enormous experience. Consider this: Ideology aside, would you choose a candidate with over 20 years in Congress over a candidate who has had 2 years in Congress and 8 years in the Illinois legislature? If so, congratulations, you have just chosen James Buchanan (Considered the 2nd worst President ever) over Abraham Lincoln (considered the greatest President ever)

The 10 best Presidents ever (by consensus) have had 30% less experience in elected office than the 10 worst Presidents ever.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html