Sarah Palin and the Mormon Vote
I’m not going to be voting for McCain and Palin this November. McCain’s choice of her has, if anything, hardened my Democrat leanings this year. I disagree with her on most every measure of politics. But I know a lot of LDS women are excited about the ticket: a mom, a conservative, a religious woman, a female leader who has a good chance of being the next Vice-President of the United States.
So I have a question for those of you who think Sarah Palin is a good idea: Does it bother you that she is a member of the Assemblies of God? One of the most vehemently anti-Mormon sects in the country? The kind that thinks we are of the devil, going to hell, members of the worst sort of non-Christian cult? Or is this all irrelevent to most LDS folks when it comes to picking a political leader? And does it/should it matter what her church teaches about us?
It should be irrelevant. There is no religious test, blah ditty blah. But I grew up (my teen years) in Alaska around many members of Palin’s denomination. (Not her congregation, I was in a different town.) I still have a hard time forgiving some things that they - teens and children - did and said to me and my siblings. So yeah, I kind of have problem with it. But it’s a personal problem. And I was never going to vote for the R ticket anyway, so …
I do wonder why so many Mormons are so eager to get in bed ideologically with evangelicals who are pretty sure we’re going to burn in hell.
Comment by Ana — September 9, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
If it’s ‘absolutely irrelevant’ (according to the Democrats) the Obama was a part of Jeremiah Wright’s church for so long, than it should be absolutely irrelevant what church Palin belongs to.
I love her.
Comment by Andrea R. — September 9, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
I agree. I’m going to vote for a moslum that thinks everyone should be put to death unless they convert.
If it dosen’t show this is scarsim.
Comment by King Of Texas — September 9, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
I’ve been wondering the same thing - why are Mormons so on-board to identify with the Conservative Movement of this country?
I’ve been in Conservative Churches and they are not friendly to the Mormon-faith. Not only do they think you’re wrong and unsaved, but they’d be more likely to link you/us to Muslims than Christians and in many of the churches they outright preach that they’d be willing to/or are already engaged in a war over it because “it’s been prophesied.”
Comment by Tracee Sioux — September 9, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
I tracted into a lot of AoG in Oklahoma, never taught a single first discussion to any of them, and most of them told me I worship Satan and I’m going to hell. But unless Ms. Palin pulls a Huckabee and tells everyone we’re a cult, I could care less which church she attends. I care more about her policies (which I’m almost totally against).
Comment by Steve — September 9, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
She actually consideres herself a non-denominational Christian. She was originally Catholic, then her parents joined Assemblies of God. She has been a member of many different churches and currently attends a non-denominational one.
But, in answer to your question - no, I’m not bothered by it.
Comment by Patti — September 9, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
Two weeks ago the Utah Democratic Party leveled similar charges against Palin, accusing her of belonging to an anti-Mormon organization. Upon further inquiry into the “anti-Mormon nature” of the Assemblies of God, they have now withdrawn and apologized for those comments. AoG has no official stance on Mormonism, and attitudes are varied based on individual congregations. No doubt that many (like the ones in Oklahoma mentioned by Steve) are quite anti-Mormon, but others (including the congregation stationed in Provo) are much less so. There is no documentation or reporting of any anti-Mormon rhetoric from the Wasilla AoG congregation that Palin used to attend (she now attends a non-denominational church), so labeling her church as anti-Mormon is not accurate. You can read the Tribune’s write-up on the episode here.
Comment by Christopher — September 9, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
Mormons are in a pretty nasty place politically as for aligning themselves with a party. The Democrats have a lot of sympathy for us as the victims of bias and prejudice, but tend to have social policies [most mainstream] Mormons can’t accept. We like the Republican social agenda better, but most of the people there hate our guts. What can you do?
Comment by Liz — September 9, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
With the treatment that Romney got this last go around I was totally disgusted with what is called the “religious right.” What bothered me the most was that it was not about Romney’s politics, but more about his religion. Totally turned me off. Check out this link from NPR and a story they did about Romney’s campaign, mormons and those who totally hate us.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18905399.
I think it sums up the problem. While living in UT I leaned more liberal. While living in CA I leaned more conservative. Now, I am just independent because I am disgusted with both parties.
As for Palin, until I hear it from her mouth, “You Mormons are SOB’s and are going straight to Hell!” I won’t pass judgment. She can feel what she wants, just as I do.
Comment by Katie — September 9, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
Interesting questions, N.O. No, it doesn’t bother me that Palin is a member of an Assembly of God congregation because she isn’t. Apparently she and her family attended one until 2002, but the fact that she left and now attends another congregation suggests she sees problems (political or otherwise) with AOG. For an LDS voter, that’s probably a positive sign, not a reason to reject her.
If you’re going to give a reason for voting one way or the other, it helps to get the facts right, or else you’ll end up saying something like, “Oh, well even though she exited the AOG congregation, I still won’t vote for her.” Which makes it sound like your voting preferences have no particular relation to facts. Which may explain your intention to vote for Sen. Obama. After all, he is very charismatic — a word which, ironically, derives from the Greek word for the gifts of the spirit that Pentecostals celebrate.
AOG as a movement might have an anti-Mormon streak, but there’s nothing like a political coalition to mute that sort of animosity. Perhaps widespread Mormon support for Palin the Evangelical will cause Evangelicals and even AOG folks to rethink their approach. What they think privately (”non-Christian cult”) is less important than how they speak and behave publicly.
Comment by Dave — September 9, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
Just because I think it is a good point, I want to quote the last line from the above mentioned article.
“I do hope that the country is ready for a Mormon president,” says Shelly Astle, another stay-at-home mom and faithful Mormon in Virginia, who worked as a Mitt Romney volunteer, “because I’d hope they’d be ready for a Mormon friend, a Mormon neighbor, someone just like me.”
Sums it up I think. We Mormons have gotten way to comfortable and the hard truth is that many of our neighbors probably have bad opinions of our religion. That is why it is important to be a member of your community as much as your ward. No better missionary then example.
Comment by Katie — September 9, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
I won’t be voting McCain/Palin because we disagree on too many issues vital to me when I cast my ballot. The rest of it doesn’t really enter in with me.
Comment by Melessa — September 9, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
If they haven’t in the past few decades with widespread Mormon support I really don’t see them doing so now.
Also, yes, it is true that her family recently left their lifelong church for the Wasallia Bible Church. However, two points: she still attends AoG when in Juneau and I’ve seen some of the vides of sermons from WBC - I’m making assumptions here but, based on what they preach I’m rather confident that when LDS come up it is probably NOT in a good way. I doubt that she has experienced a break with the doctrines of her youth and probably views the Mormon Republicans as fellow conservatives who will cast their votes for her ticket and will mostly eventually go to hell.
Comment by Tom D — September 9, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
warm AND fuzzy
Comment by mfranti — September 9, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
I had been resentful (and probably still am a little) of Romney’s treatment at the hands of some Christian Republicans, but I think I’ve outgrown that stage for the most part. The better response is to engage and try to convert (non-religiously speaking) people I interact with.
Plus, it’s pretty easy to support Palin, since she expressed support for Romney in the primaries (she didn’t endorse anyone, but she spoke favorably of him).
Comment by Adam E. — September 9, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
Tom Udall, a Mormon, is fast on his way to becoming a Senator from New Mexico, a state that is heavily Democratic and Catholic.
Comment by C. Biden — September 9, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
I try to focus on their behavior and their politics not their religion, race, gender or age. I was truly saddened at the way Romney was handled and by McCain’s fictions about Romney’s record and policies. And as I learn more about Palin’s politics and behavior the more I am bothered by her blatant lies (yes I know they all bend the truth).
She did not oppose the bridge project unitl it became a national pork barrel scandal. With her opposition she quietly diverted the 300 million federal dollars, that yours and mine hard earned dollars, to other projects in Alaska. She has not answered verified charges that she charged the state of Alaska per diem pay for time spent in her own home while away from the governer’s mansion in Juno. That is she asked and was paid as though staying in a hotel while she was in her own private home.
Ethical, truthful, just like you and me, I think not.
And dare I open this pandora’s box? If she had spent more time parenting and less as mayor and governor maybe she would have seen that her oldest was headed for trouble and the poor 17 year old wouldn’t be 5 months pregnant, impregnated by a guy who said on his facebook page that he did not want kids!
Will this be a marriage of political expediency to help Palin’s candidacy?
And by the way, as governor and when she may be VP, who will be caring for that 5 month old Down’s Syndrome baby that is making for great photo ops now?
I am all ears for the conservative fiction on this one both here and on the tele!
Comment by beth — September 9, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
It never occured to me to dislike her for her religion- I guess in my head, seperation of church and state should be applied by all- which is also why I am so annoyed when people tell me that they have been told how to vote in sacrament meeting. I can’t recall ever being told what to vote for or against in church, but I believe it when others tell me that they have.
Comment by spunky — September 9, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
Here’s some “friendly” articles from the national Assemblies of God magazine. You decide, friend or foe of Mormonism? The best part is the last section of both articles.
http://pentecostalevangel.ag.org/Articles2002/4579_spencer.cfm
http://pe.ag.org/conversations2002/4579_mormonism.cfm
Comment by Molly — September 9, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
The day she was nominated one of the pundits asked who she supported during the primaries. The response he got was that she supposedly was for Romney.
Google brings up nothing but Romney supporting Palin and not vice versa so I apologize for having no citation.
Comment by Tim J — September 9, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
I don’t care if someone thinks I’m going to hell. I only care if they want to take away my right to choose hell.
Comment by madhousewife — September 9, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
Ana: I’m with you — I don’t believe in religious tests either. OTOH the treatment we (and especially my kids) got from the hands of AG and other non-denominational ‘Christian’ folks wasn’t pleasant. Granted it was in the homeschooling setting, so perhaps I was dealing with the more ‘radical’ within those denominations. On the other hand, the contrast between the Fundimentalist Christian folks (rejection, ostracism and a ‘your going to hell litany) and those of the Left wing Christian denominations, pagans, jews and atheists was striking. I had a lot of work convincing the latter I wasn’t some kind of religously nutcase (the bad press we Mormons so often deserve ….. ) and didn’t hate them, but at least they gave me a chance and were kind to my children.
Andrea: I suppose it should be ‘absolutely irrelevant’ but well the right thinks it IS relevant. Have you seen this?. Obama got crushed in the media for Rev. Wright. If it’s irrelevant for Palin, then it should be irrelevant for Obama as well ……….
Dave: I’m voting for Obama because I agree with his policies (would have voted for Hilary had she been the nominee) and NOT because of Palin’s religion. But I admit if i was still a Republican, it would bother me — I’d want to know if she believed I was part of an evil cult and if she would let her children play with mine. Irrational? Probably, but there it is……
Comment by Not Ophelia — September 9, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
I agree with Liz (#8). Mormons should be anarchists, the free agency “party.”
Comment by LDS Anarchist — September 9, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
I wasn’t going to vote for her anyway, but one of the few times on my mission that I truly felt in danger involved some AOG members So if I were planning to vote Republican, I suppose it may influence me negatively. Any other religion wouldn’t matter, and I totally admit it’s an unreasonable bias. But it’s the same reason I can’t eat at Red Robin anymore after getting food poisoning once. I’m sure I’d never get food poisoning again, but ugh.
Comment by jjohnsen — September 9, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
“I don’t care if someone thinks I’m going to hell. I only care if they want to take away my right to choose hell.”
Well, if we are going to hell, presumably we can’t be trusted, can’t be leaders, etc. A bit problematic.
Her church means the same thing to me as Obama’s church [both seem to be a little more open about who they hate than are other churches], although that I bet his choice was more politically “inspired” than hers was.
Of course, for me, the real problem with her religion is that sit apparently leads her to church/state muddling, with intelligent design and other issues.
anyone whose religion is premised on who not to love is a bit troublesome. Proposition 9, anyone?
Comment by Natasha — September 9, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
There is no way I could vote for McCain/Palin. She was chosen for a political reason, not because she was deserving. I really do not think that she is ready to be president one bit. Setting aside her AoG beliefs and McCain’s alcohol connections and his propensity for war, there is more. She hasn’t demonstrated the ability and judgment needed to lead this country. We are in difficult times, we need someone with the ability and judgment to lead, not just experience. How can she be ready to be president and not be able to have an open press conference or multiple interviews?
I found this link to be very alarming about Sarah Palin, it put me over the edge with her.
http://opedna.com/2008/09/08/wasilla-police-billed-sexual-assault-victims-for-rape-kits/
Comment by rains — September 9, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
As mayor, she asked her town’s public librarian about banning books. Later she said it was “rhetorical.” Umm, okay.
Banning books? That’s enough for me.
(But of course, I’ve been an Obama supporter for a long time - I was his precinct captain in Iowa for our little community - but if McCain was the McCain of 2000, I wouldn’t have a problem with either one. But he’s clearly not.)
Comment by TAG — September 9, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
#27. TAG,
The book banning story has already been proven to be false. Don’t believe everything you read
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
Comment by Bill C. — September 9, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
What makes me most uncomfortable about Palin are her frequent invocations of “God” authorizing or approving a particular political decision.
A candidate’s religious beliefs do factor into my decision whether to vote for him or her, but I disagree with Palin and McCain on virtually every issue. Palin’s stated religious beliefs are less important than, say, her position on drilling in ANWAR. No doubt she’d say God told her that He approves of that, too.
Comment by ECS — September 9, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
billc, it looks as though it’s been slightly updated
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/704/
and thank you, thank you, thank you for using factcheck to check facts.
Comment by mfranti — September 9, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
# 28 Actually, your link states this
the librarian has said Palin asked a “What if?” question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin’s first term.
That doesn’t contradict the premise of the NYT article quoted by #27.
Comment by Natasha — September 9, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
i keep meaning to do a post on fact checking…maybe one day i will.
Comment by mfranti — September 9, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
Does’t bother me a bit. I like Palin, even though I’m far more liberal than she is. But I see a strong, opinionated woman who is blazing new territory for women and she’s a great role model for me. That said, the religious right make me CRAZY.
Comment by Lulubelle — September 9, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
Slight threadjack. A of G is a strong anti? Really? I don’t know a whole lot about them but I went to an Assemblies wedding when my Mormon cousin married one from their ranks. ‘Twas nothing but pleasant. The reception wasn’t so much, but the church was fine. =)
Comment by Phoenix — September 9, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
I was an Assemblies of God church member all my life til I married my Mormon husband. We got married in an AoG church, and I’ve never heard in my entire time there anything that was anti Mormon. In fact, truth be told, even though I joined the Mormon church for my husband, I think I like a lot of their teachings, and ways they teach better. They aren’t standoffish and critical towards non members like I’ve experienced so many LDS people are. At least, in my personal experiences with both churches/areas.
Her religion, just like any religion in a canadiate does not bother me. We all need to vote for who we feel best represents our personal views, and not vote for them based on anything else. That would be a bit discrimonitoy.
Comment by Sarah — September 9, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
Mccain and Palin are both anti-mormon. I would never vote for either of them for that and a myriad of other reasons.
Comment by susan — September 9, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
It bothers me as much as Huckabee bothered me.
But … I still won’t vote for Obama-nation.
Comment by queuno — September 9, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
Sarah thanks for your comment. I grew up with a bunch of Assembly of God friends in Missouri, but I was also ridiculed by them and a few other religious groups concerning my beliefs. Still they rocked as good good people.
Comment by susan — September 9, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
It matters what she thinks about our religion. It reveals a lot about her ignorance, judgment, and/or wisdom. But I’m not so ready to say we really know what she thinks.
Comment by Mark — September 9, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
OH I AM SO GLAD I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT KNOWS THIS!
I tried to tell people at the church about this… and because she has that conservative label slapped on her behind… they just don’t care!
Comment by bettynobaby — September 9, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
If the scientists are correct (see below) and 120 of accuracy hold, none of this chatter matters. I trust scientists. The graph from the article in the Post doesn’t show on the site. Bottom line, he wins.
In the Quake Model, Rumblings Favor Obama
“The researchers found that four markers or “keys” correctly predicted every presidential election over 120 years.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/24/AR2008082401664.html
Comment by Ruby — September 9, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
To weight in on your religion question: Governor Palin’s religion troubles me only to the extent which it implies a disregard for science and evidence, though I also admit that my information regarding the AOG could be erroneous and that an absolute belief in a young earth and rejection of evolution aren’t requisite. I do not care if her religion is anti-Mormon, both because I’m not paranoid enough to belief Mormonism would ever come into her oft-touted gun sights and because I think our system has enough checks and balances to prevent her from effecting us deleteriously even if it did.
Comment by Janet — September 9, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
She left the Assembly of God church eight years ago, or some number of years ago. I’ve heard different numbers.
I think, as in the case of Obama, that we’ve got to go to a lot of different sources to get at the truth with these candidates. Not one of us (maybe) knows these people personally.
I am frankly ashamed of our country right now.
I was in the grocery store and came face to face with the Enquirer, the US magazine, and all the rest, with the headlines about her “lies” and “dark family secrets” and all that stuff. What is going on? Is the woman not allowed to be who she is?
Comment by Catherine — September 9, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
Thank you for this blog. I have two main points here. The first part is about the Palin nomination. The second part is a thought about how we might resolve the pro-life, pro-choice impasse. (No point in women taking on small challenges!)
The nomination of Sarah Palin, while greeted by some women as a break through, appears, unfortunately, to be a cynical play by the Republicans to undermine our electoral process. If they really wanted a woman, they would have picked Christine Whitman, Heather Wilson, or Kay Bailey Hutchinson. They picked Palin becasue she was unknown and there is less time to find out who she really is that people are given to pick American idol from a similar group of strangers. They also picked her so that we would all talk about women and hunters and families and be distracted from the fact that it is impossible to get to know an unvetted VP candidate in 6 weeks.
The Republicans were not going to pick Romney, although he would have given McCain a lot of strength in economics and did a great job working for McCain after the primary. The nomination of Palin, a complete unknown with 6 weeks to go and her refusing to talk to the media (journalism degree?) was clever because Americans are honest people and take a nomination at face value and try their hardest to determine the merits of a candidate. So, instead of talking about real issues, the reality TV mode is switched on and you will here this and that and that and this about her - while you forget that this is the same party that has created such havoc for the past 8 years.
Interestingly, right at the time of the nomination, all the information about her AOG church - even the pictures of her as governor - were removed from the web. The Republicans don’t want you to know her, another intervention in our electoral process. My friends in Alaska are dumbfounded that women would support her. Her best friends (3 of 4) are not committed to voting for her - because she has no experience on the national and international level. She would be a great person to have lunch with, but not for President, not right now.
So, FMH, here’s how I see it - there is only one choice in this election and it is not the American Idol team of GI Joe and Superwoman - it is the people that you know, who are vetted, and who have the time to talk about education, the war, etc.
While I was working through this, I had another idea in response to a prayer. It came to me that there might be a positive way to overcome the impasse between pro-choice and pro-life groups. The impasse has been about laws and I think there are ways to get what we want without dealing with the law. I suggest there be a 3rd group: Choose Life. Who needs to change laws to help change environments so, as Obama has said, there are no unwanted pregnancies. There must be people of all parties who could come together in this without losing face or feeling they had lost their argument. It gives us all a role in creating a better country. What do you think?
Comment by Carolyn — September 9, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
Wow, Carolyn.
Comment by Ray — September 9, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
I’m not your target audience, NO, but in general, my feeling is: I don’t care what religion you are, so long as it won’t influence your policies. The minute you decide to let your personal beliefs carry through to your public policy is the minute I don’t want you representing me.
Comment by Quimby — September 9, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
What’s the point of this question? Almost everybody who believes in Hell believes I’m going there. If I let that bother me, I’d never leave my house. When the Vice President (or President for that matter) is likely to close my Church or send me to jail for it, I’ll worry, but that’s not going to happen. Rev. Wright would have had me going to Hell for being Mormon and for being white, but apparently Obama never noticed, somehow, so I’m not sure if I’m supposed to find comfort in that or what?
This is the President we’re talking about. Not the King. Not God. And, actually, this is the Vice President we’re talking about — something a previous office holder compared disfavorably to a bucket of warm spit. I’ll be happy when all the posturing and silly nonsense of this goes away. And I’m not talking about the candidates here.
Comment by Blain — September 9, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
Right on, Blain!
Comment by Patti — September 9, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
Carolyn this is not a new idea. Welcome to the women’s movement. We have been working at this for forty years now. Sex education for our children, insurance paid birth control, etc, every area of consideration to prevent unwanted pregnancies have been fought tooth and nail by those who need to control women’s reproductive lives. Mainly organised religion. If you know how to remove that obstacle let us know.
Comment by Ruby — September 9, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
“One of the most vehemently anti-Mormon sects in the country?”
Does the one Idahoan, Jim Spencer, create such a stir for a whole denomination?
I am impressed.
Comment by Todd Wood — September 9, 2008 @ 11:20 pm
i’m also with Blain here…. the argument about a particular religion that doesn’t care for us is probably a much smaller issue than the rhetoric of an entire party that believes religion is a crutch for less enlightened people.
Comment by zionssuburb — September 10, 2008 @ 6:22 am
For those of you who are bothered by Palin’s religious affiliation: Did Bill Clinton’s religious affiliation bother you as well? President Clinton is a Southern Baptist, and we all know how active the Southern Baptist church is against the Latter-day Saint faith. Hell, they even make and widely distribute slanderous films about us.
Comment by VeritasLiberat — September 10, 2008 @ 6:40 am
I’m not going to bother reading the comments–BUT WHAT ABOUT BARACK OBAMA’S PASTOR?
Hello, don’t be hypocritical here. His pastor bugs me. Her denomination bugs me a bit, too. But don’t go playing the game that everybody else is, where we beat down on Sarah Palin BECAUSE WE FEEL LIKE IT.
Barack Obama never saw that kind of scrutiny, nor the massive amount of lies circulating about him. So cut it out, FMH. Or at least be an equal opportunity scrutinizer.
Comment by Emily C — September 10, 2008 @ 7:42 am
Emily C, Obama left his church. He also publicly said he did not agree with the Pastor’s teachings, did he not? He had to answer for it, as did Romney for just about every entry in Mormon Doctrine. Both of them received all kinds of scrutiny, imo.
Apparently Palin is no longer a member of AoG, as has been noted already. If that is the case, then I am not too concerned. Otherwise, she should have to answer publicly for the controversial beliefs her church holds just like everyone else has had to.
Comment by adamf — September 10, 2008 @ 8:09 am
About Obama-Wright. It dominated the news for months with Wright’s politics being equated with Obama’s. Much of the press stating how much press Obama was getting was in fact anti-obama stories about Wright. Remember? I just pulled up a half-million Google hits on Obama-Wright; Obama was scrutinized every which way. Not about his own policies. Emma C could not be more wrong.
About Sara Palin and the Assemblies of God–There is a clip on Youtube right now of Sarah Palin back in her A of G. church preaching back in June. She may not be attending regularly, but she certainly is attending, Plus, her A of G church seems to be one of the speaking in tongues wackier ones. (Again, all hail You tube) Further she infuses her religious beliefs into pretty much every speech she gives and uses her refusal to accept a church-state separation as a political selling point. .As an example listen to any of those speeches out in the boonies of Alaska, which has some very fundie areas.
Plus, you referenced lies being told about Palin. Her life is a soap opera of immense, and it must be said, entertaining (if the stakes weren’t so high) perportions. Please point out one lie about Sarah Palin. Here’s a non-lie. She thinks pretty much all forms of non-barrier birth control (like the pill) are abortifactents and you shouldn’t be able to have them. She may be in a position soon to greatly influence that choice. Should she get to make your reproductive decisions?
DId you read that NYT article? She fired people right and left in Wasilla to test their “Loyalty” to her. Huh? No one has bothered to disprove this. It just happened. She’s only interested in toadies. Do as she says or you’re out. It’s why a city administrator had to be hired (again for a city of all of 8000 people) because she couldn’t administrate her way out of a paper bag. Not disputed. Is this the person we want potentially running our country? Absolutely not.
Here’s another non-lie. She built a sports complex on land that the city didn’t actually own. How dumb do you have to be to do that? I mean really. It wasn’t even an innocent mistake; they knew it at the time–thought they could use “eminent domain” but, you generally do that first, uh, duh. 1.3 million dollars in legal fees so far for a city of 8000. She could hardly have been a worse mayor.
SHe also perjured herself (in the legal sense) in her sister’s case against her brother in law–lied about his supposed abuse to his kids in front of a judge–which her sister admitted in front of a judge, which is why we know about the perjury. Laws are obviously for other people. We all know people like this. The mean girls at school who say horrible things behind others back and act all nice around the principle and the teacher –someone else always gets in trouble for their mistakes. Is this who we want elected?
Who cares about her gender or how many children she has, there are much more important issues. I am so mad I could, uh, use the top row of my keyboard with the shift key on.
Why oh why didn’t McCain nominate a woman whose politics I’m sure I disagreed with but was, you know, qualified, like some mentioned up-thread; off the top of my head, for instance, what is the matter with Kay Bailey Hutchinson? She is totally up for the job, I disagree with her on the issues but not on the matter of competence.
Fume fume fume.
Comment by djinn — September 10, 2008 @ 8:24 am
Oh my goodness, where have you been for the past year? The only reason you don’t hear any more scrutiny of Obama is because its all been debunked as bull shit. Palin has to play ball like everyone else.
Comment by cj douglass — September 10, 2008 @ 8:30 am
56 was @53
Comment by cj douglass — September 10, 2008 @ 8:33 am
Ana #1,
I am sorry that you had to go through this. Intolerance is not a personal problem. It affects all of us and all of us ought to confront intolerance.
Palin is still a member of a fundamentalist congregation that promotes attempts to convert Jews with deceptive tactics.
I am even more concerned by her efforts to impose her religion on non-believers by promoting creationism in the biology curriculum and attempted censorship of public libraries.
It seems that Palin is not committed to the principle of religious freedom.
Comment by Hellmut — September 10, 2008 @ 8:44 am
I don’t believe that for a minute. Much of the Democratic party establishment wanted Hillary; they would have done anything to discredit Obama.
As far as lies, it was IN CHURCH a few months ago that I heard people saying they wouldn’t vote for Obama because of being a Muslim. This was a hallway conversation during scouts, and because of my calling, etc., I didn’t feel comfortable correcting them. They are entitled to their opinion, however misguided.
But don’t tell me that there aren’t lies circulating about him!
Comment by Naismith — September 10, 2008 @ 8:45 am
I’m not a Palin supporter, but her religion is not relevant to me. As someone else pointed out–if I objected to Obama being put on trial for his pastor’s teachings, then I have to object to Palin being put on trial for the same thing. So I do.
Besides, as Carolyn pointed, there are a hundred other reasons not to support Palin. Religion is the least of them.
Having said that, I worked in an AoG mission for a year, and whoever says they’re not anti-Mormon must have been in a fairly polite congregation, because I never heard the end of it during my employment.
Comment by Bro. Jones — September 10, 2008 @ 9:08 am
I was having a rough morning until I read that Obama had escaped scrutiny. Now all that oxytocin from laughing my head off has cheered me right up!
Comment by Janet — September 10, 2008 @ 10:05 am
It is not a good idea for Palin to be VP. Why didn’t he choose someone else? Makes me wonder if McCain chose her because Palin would be a good little girl and follow Grandpa’s lead, whereas Kay Bailey Hutchinson would tell him where to go and send him the mapquest link for it. (I have tried to retract my claws) After the convention, I found this while looking for legitimate Palin info… extreme language but nothing that McCain wouldn’t use…ahh, humor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-QevraCQUc
I tried to keep an open mind until the convention speech. By the time she made the Pittbull/lipstick comment it was all over for me. It was like she was doing girl-talk-code: “Gee, if you are a sportsmom like me, we have so much in common! Lets get together over drinks while we hunt Democrats into extinction.” Then again, maybe I am jealous because I was never good at the girl talk thing, way too bookish and nerdy. While I do admire her because she fights corruption in Alaska, what about her family? I feel like a liberal hypocrite.
Questions about Palin’s views on anything: voting record, court & executive decisions, what she did with the Bridge to Nowhere money, abstinence are fair game. Especially abstinence because of her daughters pregnancy. Reproductive issues should fall into the realm of personal choice, but Palin wants to take that right away. So did Satan.
And so what if she can gut a moose. Try hooking live shrimp onto a 3 prong hook…
I thought Palin’s ruby open toe shoes were beautiful! And I’m probably going to Outer Darkness because I wore flip-flops 2 Sundays ago, my feet were so sore and I needed something comfy. Pass the marshmallows, I hope there is chocolate in Hades… or Spirit Prison.
Comment by KFJames — September 10, 2008 @ 10:21 am
#61 I just can’t say it enough: I heart Janet.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — September 10, 2008 @ 10:47 am
I have no issues with her religious leanings at all. She can be anti-Mormon if she wants. That is fine. So long as she doesn’t raise my taxes, increase regulations, etc. (of course, she couldn’t actually do those things as a vice-president, but you get my drfit), she can think whatever she wants about my chosen denomination. I have no opinion whatsoever about hers.
Also, it freaks me out that so many people talk about “reproductive rights.” Eww. When I grew up, I had no idea what an abortion was. Too bad my kids can’t have that same benefit. I don’t know how many people actually need this reproductive right but it grosses me out that we are all so public about it.
Comment by StillConfused — September 10, 2008 @ 10:53 am
Look, this girl is a giant Trojan Moose. If we are talking about her, we aren’t talking about the facts. What has John McCain done to support womens rights? NOTHING. What ideas does John McCain have to revive our economy, provide everyone with affordable healthcare, become active about protecting the environment, increase alternative energy, stop unnecessary wars, etc?
If we are talking about her, we aren’t focusing on the issues at hand. As long as we remember what it is that is actually happening. John McCain proposes continuing tax cuts and taxing healthcare. That’s it. Other than that it is another 4 years.
Who here has become better off during the last 8 years? I would honestly say our country has become way less secure under George Bush. McCain is more of the same. Palin is a Trojan Moose who distracts from the facts and lies constantly.
How is she ready to be president and not talk openly to the media?
I’m sorry Palin supporters, this has to be noticed.
Comment by baylee — September 10, 2008 @ 10:54 am
@ #65.
I agree with baylee. Our sons could go to war instead of missions. Anyone want that? I’m not talking about wars of good vs evil, I am talking about wars for oil and greed. Let’s vote for peace.
Power of example is more important that example of power.
Comment by QTinQC — September 10, 2008 @ 10:59 am
KF James — I think a lot of liberals, me included, need to stop feeling like we’re hypocritical for believing that BOTH personal achievement and familial security matter. We love our families just as much as conservatives do, certainly, but we’re so freaking afraid to speak in public about prioritizing family. The reasons are diverse, but when we do get all skittery and silent about it we succeed only in ceding the topic to the right and lending support to unkind assumptions that we do not prioritize family. Feh. Could Palin manage the demands of her current family situation right now while being VP? Could Edwards have managed a presidency with a dying wife? So long as we’re not judging their souls and only asking practical questions, I think we’re fine. (I think Palin’s not up to those demands regardless, but the question is fair.) Anyhow, stop beating yourself up, girl. You’re not a bad feminist just because you wonder if she’s prepared. You’d be a bad one if you assumed her XX chromosomes were sufficient in and of themselves.
CWC — I hear you too! Wanna come to my Obama fundraising party?
Comment by Janet — September 10, 2008 @ 11:07 am
that was *&^%$#% brilliant!
Comment by mfranti — September 10, 2008 @ 11:16 am
Instituting a draft equals political suicide. Not going to happen. And there is no way a Democratic Congress is going to let another president wage another war with out overwhelming public support. It would also amount to political suicide.
I thought Republicans were the war mongers.
How has he infringed them? Are women themselves worse off then they were 8 years ago? I’m puzzled by this.
Obama doesn’t want to provide “affordable healthcare”, he just wants everyone covered. And with the recent AP article about fewer med students choosing family practice due to lower salaries and too much insurance paperwork, I’m not sure the country could support it that plan anyway.
Like natural gas? I think Palin’s record shows she’s working on this more than anyone else in the election.
(raises hand)
Similar concerns were raised about Obama’s lack of availability early in the election process.
Well I agree, she has constantly distracted from the lies.
She’s running for Vice President. I’m sorry Obama supporters, this has to be noticed.
Comment by Tim J. — September 10, 2008 @ 11:16 am
Tim, 69. John McCain did not go to DC to vote on the Ledbetter bill - that would give women more time to identify pay inequities. Ledbetter is such a compelling figure -working so hard and honestly, only to find out at the end she was being paid half of what the men got for the same job. She was forbidden by company rules from asking about pay issues. Then our Supreme Court ruled she had to make her claim within 18 months of her first paycheck that was different. How many of us would know in 6 or 18 months about a pattern that takes years to see? How many of us don’t get what men in our position get at the same company? Lots. So, the fact that McCain was not concerned about this and Palin has no history in women’s issues except her own are serious flaws.
“She is running to be VP” for a 72 year-old man who has had melanoma twice and was a POW for 5 years, with all that entails. Seeing these guys at the VA, believe me, their health was affected by that experience and the PTSD never really goes away. So we are talking about a good chance that she will be the leader of our country.
Again, this is a big Republican joke on all of our country -especially that she won’t talk to the press. The last 2 elections, Bush did not meet with the general public/Democrats and now they want us to elect someone who won’t even talk to the press. Shame on all of us if we let this go.
Also, when I worked in DC and on government funds, had I claimed per diem when I was home or travel for my children, I would be in jail today. If that’s the way Alaska runs their shop, then she clearly doesn’t have appropriate experience to survive Washington. Holy cow, we just got Abramoff off to jail and DeLay creeps back into the convention, now do we need to be watching out for expenditures of someone who claims because the Bering Sea is between Alaska and Siberia that she has foreign relations experience?
Obama has been thoroughly vetted, this is a non-issue. Stick to facts. Choose Life, Choose Obama/Biden.
Comment by Carolyn — September 10, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
Thanks, Carolyn–I was going to comment on the Ledbetter bill as well, especially since McCain has spoken in support of pay equity but then failed to pony up. He also has spoken of wanting Roe revoked (interestingly he has also said, in the past, that if the GOP succeeded in repealing it, abortion should still remain legal in the same cases the church lists as potentially acceptable–though when encoded into law that would make a huge mess. I still respect his willingness to piss off the brunt of his party by even suggesting altering their platform, though, even if he’s suddenly and conveniently stopped mentioning this belief).
Comment by Janet — September 10, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
I’ll concede you the point on Ledbetter–McCain should have voted for it. I can’t find any direct quotes that Palin has said on the issue one way or the other. But this I will tell you, if it is voted on when McCain is in the White House and the Democratic Senate passes it, I doubt McCain would veto it. This is where I trust McCain. He has a habit of going with his conscience over party, at least he used to. I see his “no vote” not as a damning vote against, but rather a way to divest him of something he disagreed with his party about. And no, I probably wouldn’t give Obama the same benefit of the doubt.
The McCain is dying story is nonsense. I love how the media always brings it up with a “God forbid” as if it makes it sound less callous and insensitive. I have no doubt McCain isn’t in the best of health, but to say there’s a good chance he’ll die in a year or two seems strange.
It’s permitted in the State of Alaska and most other states. She’s also claimed far less than her predecessor. Not that it makes it right, but it is common.
The issue would go to each state to decide (which is how it should be) and not many states, very few in fact, would outlaw early-term abortion.
I guess he has, but he isn’t really all that more qualified because of it. Palin was thoroughly vetted and Obama sent 30 lawyers and investigators to Alaska to dig up dirt on her, and have away, for the most part, empty handed.
Comment by Tim J. — September 10, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
Well, either way we’re hosed.
McCain and Palin have both expressed anti-mormon sentiment. The Obama-nation has batted down one woman opponent and looks to bat down another woman opponent even more severely than the first one. As well as his comments about people like us who ‘cling to our religion and guns’ (even if we don’t have guns we’re still clinging to our religion).
As to Liz’s #8 comments about democrats sympathizing with Mormons, that’s not been my experience either. We Mormons are black haters and suppressors of women. That’s what I always get my my democratic associates.
So, whether DEMONcrat or rePUBLICAN party, I’ve decided to go independent (not that my single vote is going to make a difference). I hate to sound cynical, but we’re hosed either way.
Comment by Cybr — September 10, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
Sarah Palin’s attending a new church is clearly politically motivated. It tracks exactly with her ambitions of the governor’s office. Yes, there are some moderate AofG churches who don’t join in on the “mormons are cultists” rhetoric but make no mistake, a good majority of these members lobbied John McCain to not take Mitt Romney as a candidate becuase of his faith. There are several online tracts about us being non-christian and cult-like. No thanks, I’ll wait to cast my vote for another type of woman who isn’t associated with narrow-minded teachings. Don’t be duped people, the pentecosts and evangelicals who picket us at General Conference do not want us in office and in the same resepct..I don’t want them in office either. According to Wiki she spoke she was saved by AofG and all of her children are baptized in that faith. Doesn’t sound like she “distanced” herself too much from that church. Ron Paul has the same beliefs without being affiliated with haters. I know where I’ll cast my vote.
Comment by Karen — September 10, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
True, but it’s certainly earned him a lot of ill will from his side of the aisle. I wonder if he *would* continue to vote his conscience. Note how he’s stopped talking about how abortion is excusable in certain circumstances–it doesn’t seem to bode well. I understand he wasn’t most Republicans’ choice (weird primary season, all ’round) and that he is going to need to work with people who have been very angry at him, but he has dialed back on those conscience issues. To my chagrin. The torture one especially annoys me.
Of course you’re right about the state-by-state abortion thing, but there’s still problems rife in semi-legalizing it for, say, rape victims–even if most states keep it legal for the first trimester. Who adjudicates if the woman is telling the truth? Do we wait for the outcome of a trial (by which time she is not still in early pregnancy or possibly even her childbearing years)? Do we believe everyone on faith? If we do that, what about the way false reports of rape, which the FBI currently assesses as similar in statistical percentage to false reportage of other crimes, would skyrocket? And what that does to real rape victims? You don’t really need to address all that–I’m just interested in how the church’s moral position (which I find a very good one) really won’t work if made law.
And despite my many reservations about the McCain, I’d prefer him to the one currently inhabiting the office.
Comment by Janet — September 10, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Janet, you might want to read something I wrote on Mormon Matters a while ago.
When Moral Issues Become Political Issues
Comment by Ray — September 10, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Anyone seen or heard the music from the new musical “Wicked”? {Awesome music by the way I highly recommend it!} For some reason as I have read through everyone’s comments the song “Popular” has been playing through my mind…
“It’s not about aptitude, it’s all about popular.”
The sad sad truth about politics today is that it doesn’t matter a person’s credentials or brains or qualifications, it’s all about their looks and whether or not they are popular. McCain knew this. Obama knows this. This is why McCain chose Palin… she is reeking of popularity… she has the beauty and the attitude {regardless of her religion or other problems}. Heck, one of the news anchors said she was hot. Please. McCain knew this would favor his campaign and he chose her for her beauty and popularity. She brings to his campaign what he can not. Obama will become our next president because he is the most popular. He is dripping with charisma and he is a smooth talker. It doesn’t hurt that he is good looking. All great characteristics to make one popular. Most Americans will choose him because of that and many won’t know anything about him other than that he is a Democrat. I will be shocked if he doesn’t win.
In my humble opinion, politics are nothing than a huge popularity contest…much like it was in high school.
Comment by bookwormmama — September 10, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
i’m the opposite. i will be shocked if he does win. that mccain/palin ticket is going to be tough to beat.
Comment by mfranti — September 10, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
Karen,
The hypocrisy of your statement considering Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wright (Obama called him a mentor) and his narrow-minded teachings is revealing.
Should blacks not vote for Romney due to Mormonism’s history? What about Catholics(church of the Devil)?
There’s plenty to go around.
Janet you raise good questions about the abortion issue. Yes it would be tough to define. Let me make a parallel:
Abortion rights to the left are what gun rights are to the right. Most conservatives, while pro-life, don’t really get that worked up about abortion. They would be happy with some limits like banning late-term and partial birth abortions. Most on the left do not consider these limits that unreasonable.
I don’t think most on the left get real worked up about gun laws, but they would like some limits on assault rifles and semiautomatic weapons. Most people on the right do not consider these limits that unreasonable.
The problem lies in the far right and far left factions of these movements. The far left decries any limit on abortion to be a limit on all abortions, and the far right says any limit on guns limits 2nd ammendment rights.
It also affects how the two sides view each other. The right sees the left as baby-killers and the left sees the right as gun-toting bible thumpers. I’m pretty sure you haven’t killed any babies, and I’ve never been hunting in my life.
This is the key for me. And I and people like me hope his consience is named Sarah Palin. Again, not on social issues per se, but conservative issues.
Comment by Tim J. — September 10, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
You guys really need to see that McCain was pandering more to the conservatives than he was to women. Yes, being a woman helped, but after watching the speeches from his other choices, you’re seriously telling me he would have been better off with one of those guys?
Comment by Tim J. — September 10, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
Sorry, you “ladies.”
Comment by Tim J. — September 10, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
#67 Yes! Would you like to attend my Obama phonebanking party tonight? We’re calling rural Montana…should be fun. No one sleeps till Obama is elected!
#70 Hurrah! Lilly spoke at the convention and then again at the women’s caucus on Thursday. At the caucus she was good and mad. I got my picture taken with her and my son. And now I’m just braggin…
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — September 10, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
#72 I’m not sure if I’m getting your comment but to clarify, McCain did not just fail to vote- he explained that had he voted it would have been against Lilly Ledbetter and that the solution is for women to get more “training and education.”
Of course what Lilly Ledbetter lacked was not training nor education, it was an employer, a court and ultimately a country that believed that her value was equal to a mans. But we don’t.
McCains vote.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — September 10, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
A friend just walked in and told me that a very right-wing, Evangelical minister in Kansas was telling people that Obama is Mormon. Here we go! I had no idea.
Surely, sanity will reign eventually. Every demonination has their favorite casserole recipes. Maybe we can just have a big pot luck supper from California to DC!
Again, bless all the women who started and maintain this blog. It is the best.
Having done a small field test today, I think it is the pro-life people who have a very strong, positive reaction to the notion of CHOOSE LIFE. I am thinking of spending my Obama money on some bumper stickers and posters - if I manage to get the house cleaned and dinner made before I crash!
Comment by Carolyn — September 10, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
TimJ,
please check your facts
Comment by mfranti — September 10, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
No, no, no. McCain claims he votes independently, which is very different from voting independently. In fact he has voted lockstep with President Bush a whopping 95%. Not much independant about that. Just as Palin claims to have been a fiscally reponsible mayor, when in fact she raised government spending 33%,and taxes 38%, the largest increase in the town’s history. What they claim is almost immaterial, what they’ve actually done is not.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — September 10, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
I’m surprised no one has brought this up, especially here. Should conservative Mormons vote against McCain/Palin because she is a mother leaving her five children (including a special needs child) at home while she goes to work. Certain elements of conservative Mormonism are very defensive of (and about) the SAHM ideal.
Note, before responding, that this is NOT my opinion. I don’t fetishize the SAHM thing and I am fine with a woman with children and a family being VP or President for that matter. But I have a feeling that if Palin were a Democrat, we’d here a lot of criticism from LDS women about how she is leaving her family to pursue the cares of the world. So are these same women hypocritical if they vote for Palin?
Comment by AHLDuke — September 10, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
AHLDuke, my mom said something very similar to me the other day - and heaven knows there were more than enough Mormons who criticised Hillary Cllinton for working outside the home when she only had one child.
Comment by Quimby — September 10, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
Duke … you make it sound like Sarah Palin is abandoning her kids …. all she’s doing is the same thing fathers have been doing for centuries (with or without special needs kids)- heading out the front door to fiscally support her family. if that’s their choice - I think feminists would be the last ones to stand in her way.
i’m gonna put on my swimfins and dive back into my homework.
Comment by Mary Magdalene — September 10, 2008 @ 11:49 pm
I don’t think that’s what Duke’s saying at all:
But Duke’s got a point: SAHM are put on a pedestal; women who choose to have a job (particularly if their income isn’t exactly needed) are made to feel like something the dog puked up; and now there are all these Mormons jumping on the “Sarah Palin’s a Saint” bandwagon - a wee bit hypocritical.
The only shining light I can see in all this Palin Cheerleading (aside from the sparkle in my floors, which I’ve taken to scrubbing violently every time my husband turns to Fox News to laugh at the hypocrisy) is that, finally, Mormons are going to have to shut up when it comes women having jobs.
Comment by Quimby — September 10, 2008 @ 11:53 pm
Has anyone read anything more on Palin’s purported PTA activity? McCain and Palin herself have really played this up, but I read a column in the Anchorage Daily News (the best place for accurate Palin reporting) that she paid dues, but that was about it…does that give her “executive experience” as they’ve said? If so, I should be next in line for VP of the United States and why not, I’ve got more education than she does, I could easily be mayor of my small town (no one likes to do it), and I’ve got fourteen years to make it to Gov. of a small state and be at her age. Look for me in—oh, 2024!! That is if Jesus doesn’t show before then.
Comment by Pam — September 11, 2008 @ 12:08 am
I disagree that SAHM are always put on a pedestal- as a SAH without kids, and although I work part time from home, I find many women from church to dump their callings and assignments on me, as though I must be bored silly and need things to do. You know, like the one weekend when I taught the enrichment activity on the Sat. morning, picked up and drove 5 youth to a Sat. activity and home again, taught Sunday School and Relief Society and fixed/delivered a meal for a sister with a new baby on the Sunday. All the requests came with “I didn’t know who else had nothing to do, so I am asking you to fill in for me…” If there is a pedestal, perhaps it is because people assume SAHM have freer time than the men or women who work?
I have also found that the women in my ward with professional jobs- (i.e. an attorney, a photographer, a social worker) are better treated (respected?) than women with blue-collar jobs such as cleaner, secretary or sales clerk. It appears to me that people assume that if you CHOOSE to work (therefore have a fancy title and career- dr., lawyer, teacher) you are better regarded than those who are assumed to HAVE to work (sales, cleaner). Making career another type of invisible pedestal? I have also known families in need where in order to gain church financial support for food the woman was required to clean the chapel and work with the ward employment specialist- so very much encouraged to get a job. (maybe I was in a weird ward, but it felt like a bit of a caste system in a number of ways)
I don’t know- I am just not so sure there is a pedestal alone (or at all) for SAHM. However, I do think that there is a status for women (and men)- who have fancy career titles- mayor, governor, vice president- that allow a greater sense of “permission” or encouragement to work even in the Mormon realm. Perhaps this is how people who might otherwise think all women should be SAHM will justify voting for (Mrs., Mayor, Gov., VP) Palin.
Comment by spunky — September 11, 2008 @ 12:29 am
Quite possibly. My job is actually more professional than blue collar but it happens to have “volunteer” in the title. My actual responsibilities are fairly mundane but I take on lots of additional jobs, like fundraising (I love writing grants and asking for money!). I find that when I tell people my actual job title they look at me with that fake-smile that says “This must be a work for the dole thing” and say, “Oh, isn’t that nice.” When I give them a job title that includes my fundraising work they are suddenly impressed.
But at church, the minute I got pregnant, there was this expectation that I was going to quit; and when I didn’t more than a few people expressed their disdain.
Comment by Quimby — September 11, 2008 @ 12:39 am
Well, maybe not “the minute I got pregnant” - but, you know, when it became obvious that I was pregnant . . .
Comment by Quimby — September 11, 2008 @ 12:44 am
LOL- it would have been very scary if they were there the “minute you got pregnant”!
But I get your point- there is more pressure for mothers with pre-school aged children.
Comment by spunky — September 11, 2008 @ 1:28 am
But my experiences could also be a country/city thing. In city wards I imagine most mothers (even of pre-school children) work at least part-time, whereas, in the country, it’s not unusual but it’s more unusual, if that makes sense.
Okay - you do realise you’ve forever ruined sex for me!
Comment by Quimby — September 11, 2008 @ 1:36 am
Spunky, stop it! I’ve learned since I found this site that ruining sex for women is the responsibility of the patriarchy - or maybe I’m just reading Ruby’s comments wrong.
Comment by Ray — September 11, 2008 @ 4:27 am
I work per diem nights as a nurse and so far, no one has insulted me to my face, anyway. I’m otherwise home with my 4 year old. I’ve seen more LDS women working outside the home over these 15 years within the church. We’re moderately rural. The cost of living is forcing a lot of women to have to work but I also think it’s becoming more acceptable for women to just like working and using their intellect and skills.
Comment by Kimberly — September 11, 2008 @ 6:33 am
“and now there are all these Mormons jumping on the “Sarah Palin’s a Saint” bandwagon - a wee bit hypocritical”
Or they are developing tolerance. Rather than shouting, “hypocrite!”, feminists may prefer to draw on Mormons’ support for Palin to emphasize that, even if Mormon culture prefers a female “nurturer” and a male “bread-winner,” the choice should ultimately be left to couples and we should not judge one another based on that choice-just as we’re not judging Palin.
The “hypocrite” attack may make you feel better, and you may feel like you’ve scored political points (”look! I’ve spotted hypocrisy in politics!”) but it won’t advance the cause of equal treatment of women.
Comment by Adam E. — September 11, 2008 @ 6:36 am
Ahem…that is not to say that I’m not using my intellect and skills at home too because I do. I just really like the acknowledgement of a paycheck and the interaction with adults. It gives me a break.
Comment by Kimberly — September 11, 2008 @ 6:36 am
Adam E.-
You bring up a very valid point concerning advancing the cause of the equal treatment of women. No one takes women down as effectively as other women. Until we learn this, our advancement will continue in this painfully slow, meandering way.
We can, as women, support Palin’s choice without supporting her politics.
Comment by Kimberly — September 11, 2008 @ 6:40 am
Oh, and as soon as my little duck is in grade school, I will, without guilt or apology, joyfully return to work full time just because I love it and intend to work until I drop dead- with my dh’s full support (even though he does make more than enough for us).
I’ll deal with the ward harpies as they come.
Comment by Kimberly — September 11, 2008 @ 6:46 am
The trouble with extremists like Sarah Palin is that they make thoughtful moderation appear wimpy.
BTW, to “Just the facts ma’am” Ray, I cannot find proof that Ms. Palin ever bagged a Moose. I found a reference that her Dad is an avid Moose hunter, and I did find a charming photo of her showing off a bloody dead caribou she shot to her little girl. So, we might reasonably infer that she is a hunter - no doubt an admirable trait to many.
Comment by Betty Jo — September 11, 2008 @ 9:11 am
“Just the facts ma’am” Ray
I can see my kids reading that and never letting me live it down.
Comment by Ray — September 11, 2008 @ 9:21 am
here’s a nice summary
Comment by mfranti — September 11, 2008 @ 10:38 am
I just wanted to add that I, too, have spent a lot of time the last few days wondering how many people would be cheering for Sarah “my husband stays at home/ my 17 year-old is pregnant” Palin if she were a Democrat.
While I certainly don’t think either thing is really relevant to the race (along with her A of G affiliation or lack thereof), I can’t help but be irritated when I hear such warm support in her case.
I don’t think anyone can look me in the eye and tell me that if Palin was a Dem they’d be as accepting as they have been. We’d hear Bill O’ Reilly popping off about Bristol Palin’s “pinhead” parents (like he did when Jaime Lynn Spears got pregnant), and lots of SAHM’s shaking their heads at a mother who leaves her kids to work at such a demanding job.
Again, I don’t feel like either of these things matter. I just can’t stand the blatant hypocrisy.
Comment by Nicole — September 11, 2008 @ 11:51 am
Adam E, if I saw any support at all that Mormon men and women were becoming more tolerant (and weren’t just hypocritical here) I’d be shouting from the roof. Unfortunately it seems to be a Sarah Palin-specific phenomena - as Nicole said if she was a Democrat my feeling is that those same Mormons would be jumping on the “SAHM bandwagon” and condemning her. If it leads to greater tolerance, terrific. But I kind of doubt it will.
Comment by Quimby — September 11, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
Typical male response, berating a woman for usurping the patriarchy!
Comment by Quimby — September 11, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
I personally don’t think it’s a big deal.
Comment by Stephanie — September 11, 2008 @ 11:24 pm
Just saw #108 - Nice, Quimby.
Comment by Ray — September 12, 2008 @ 12:52 am
I joined the Church in 1983 while a college sophomore at Louisiana Tech University. I had a very positive experience with the Assemby of God church while I lived in a foster home between 1975 and 1981. While attending Northview AoG in Shreveport LA, I never once heard any derogatory comment about the LDS Church, or any other church that I can recall. The family’s 2 older sons were both ordained AoG ministers, and I never heard any derogatory comments, only a good-natured jokes towards me after I returned from my mission. I continue a warm relationship with my foster parents whom I consider to be some of the finest Christian examples I have ever met, that includes the past 25 years I have been a Latter-day Saint. Perhaps AoG has changed in the past 25 years, but John and Eleanor Winner have not. I’d like to think that some of our defining attributes as Latter-day Saints are to recognize truth, admire goodness, and confront evil whenever we encounter it. I ask all readers to be cautious in our judgements; this is what we ask of others…..
Comment by Randy Green — September 12, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
#106 Nicole - right on!! Exactly my thoughts.
Comment by Katreena — September 12, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
As a lifelong Mormon and Christian, I have found that it made more sense to vote for the Democrat. For me, it always seemed incongruous to vote for a Republican; their party’s platform has never made sense to me from a Christian’s perspective.
Re: Palin, I have been surprised that so many Mormons have embraced a woman who is clearly not putting her family first. (Isn’t that what the prophets have said that women are supposed to be doing, specifically women with children at home?)
Generally speaking, I always resented how marginalized I felt as a Democrat at BYU. I remember once in 1984 or so, the word “Democrat” being hurled at someone as an epithet. I hope things have improved for those “left of center” who walk that campus currently.
Comment by Julie Turley — September 14, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
I so don’t get this. This would mean that I would need to un-embrace at least half of my ward of women with children who work.
Comment by Stephanie — September 14, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
# 75 “about the state-by-state abortion thing” : A state cannot vote to take away a constitutional right. A woman has a right to privacy.
The issue being discussed is about taking away a woman’s right to make her own decisions which is protected from the tryanny of the majority. No republican, no democrat of either gender, no number of the above can take away a womans right to privacy under our constituion.
If we could just discuss how to control sperm production and ejection this issue would become very clear. I think the Jews back in histroy made it a sin to ‘waste your seed’. How about we make this the issue to discuss? SPERM CONTROL !
Comment by Ruby — September 14, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
You know what, Ruby? I am totally with you on that one.
Comment by Stephanie — September 14, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
What’s that I hear rumbling down my suburban street? Is it a go cart? A trolley? No indeed. It is the seven white horsemen of the apocolypse, heralded by Stephanie and Ruby finding common ground on the subject of subjugating sperm.
Have mercy.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — September 14, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
The mormon vote is not going to elect the presidential ticket. Mormons are 2% of the population over all. Concentrated 85%? in only one state, Utah, which has 3 electoral votes.
Even in Calif. with it’s 55 electoral votes, mormons are no more than 2% in any single precinct.
Catholics are 25% of the population. However I don’t know of any catholic states per say. Blacks are 11 or 12% concentrated in maybe one southern state. Probably Miss. but not enough to dominate in a high electoral count state. Together you would not determine the election results.
It’s the protestants( by religion) who will decide. Who decides for protestant women?
Comment by Ruby — September 14, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
amen CWC - bring on the Apocalypse … after this weekend, I sure could use a good end of the earth right about now.
thank goodness it’s Monday somewhere…
Comment by Mary Magdalene — September 14, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
#118 Um, an ejaculating man? A patriarchal banker? I give.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — September 14, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
It’s Monday afternoon here, Mary.
Hate to tell you this - this side of the weekend looks even worse.
Oh well, in Tuvalu I think it’s nearly knock-off time . . .
Comment by Quimby — September 14, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
#117 ” on the subject of subjugating sperm”.
You realize of course that this is a hypothetical discussion. I doubt seven men of any color would lead the charge on this discussion or it would be the topic ad nauseum already. It’s like we used to say, if men got pregnant abortion would be a sacrament. If women decided to turn the tables on them how would we do it? Hypothetically speaking.
I say right off the bat -introduce a constituional admendment to force mandatory sterilazation at puberty to be reversed when they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are indeed worthy to have a woman bring their seed to term.
What next? .
Mercy? For them? How much mercy have they ever alloted us? I’d be happy to have them begging for mercy for a change instead of it always being us. For real, not hypothetically.
Ps. I love your term but I like mine more
Comment by Ruby — September 14, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
Well, before my conversion to the LDS faith 15 years ago, I was Episcopalian. I don’t ever recall anyone else deciding anything for me, including my vote. Currently, the gay priest/gay marriage issue has torn the Episcopal/Anglican branches apart, so, I imagine the growing pains has affected their voting patterns as well. But, Ruby, there are so many branches of the Protestant denomination. It’s quite impossible to know exactly how any individual woman would vote since their political leanings are as diverse as just about any other group.
Comment by Kimberly — September 15, 2008 @ 7:50 am
um, did anyone see the SNL skit? (is that a stupid question?)
LMFAO! (laugh my freakin’ arse off…)
Comment by sare — September 15, 2008 @ 8:57 am
i created a ‘mormon’s for obama’ t-shirt if anyone is interested…
Comment by paul f — September 15, 2008 @ 9:05 am
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/palin-hillary-open/656281/
I know, Sare, that killed me! “Mine, mine, it was supposed to be mine!”
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — September 15, 2008 @ 9:06 am
Re: Stephanie’s response #114. I’m not saying that I necessarily agree with the statement that mothers need to stay home no matter what. But it has been counsel (even commandment if I’m not mistaken) that has been spoken by more than one LDS prophet: that if a mother does not have to work, she shouldn’t. I suspect your friends fall into the category of mothers who must work, but maybe I’m wrong.
I just wanted to note that the embrace of Palin–a mother of five who seems so driven career-wise–by conservative Mormons is very interesting to me. (I have been living far away from UT for quite some time, so maybe things have changed there.) Not that there’s anything wrong with her drive necessarily.
I miss living in Utah, actually. It’s a little dull voting Democratic in a blue state.
Comment by Julie — September 16, 2008 @ 7:02 am
Alright, I’ve now concluded Sarah Palin is a nut. I’m amazed my fellow Mormon women are like lemmings over a cliff to vote for here. Exhibit #28 on why she isn’t qualified to be VP:
From the AP newswire-
The pastor whose prayer Sarah Palin says helped her to become governor of Alaska founded his ministry with a witchhunt against a Kenyan woman who he accused of causing car accidents through demonic spells.
At a speech at the Wasilla Assembly of God on June 8 this year, Mrs Palin described how Thomas Muthee had laid his hands on her when he visited the church as a guest preacher in late 2005, prior to her successful gubernatorial bid.
In video footage of the speech, she is seen saying: “As I was mayor and Pastor Muthee was here and he was praying over me, and you know how he speaks and he’s so bold. And he was praying “Lord make a way, Lord make a way.”
“And I’m thinking, this guy’s really bold, he doesn’t even know what I’m going to do, he doesn’t know what my plans are. And he’s praying not “oh Lord if it be your will may she become governor,” no, he just prayed for it. He said “Lord make a way and let her do this next step. And that’s exactly what happened.”
Here’s the video from You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8twqZpUT2NQ
Comment by Mommybee — September 16, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
I am shaking my head as I read jabs about the other guy’s crazy religion as a reason to vote for Obama and his crazy religion. I was going to vote for him after the Republican version of Mormon hazing…until he whispered his disdainful “clinging to guns and religion” bomb after jettisoning his beloved loon racist pastor only under political pressure. How can anyone think that does not include Mormons of all people? I prefer sneering comments straight up and in the open so I know what I am dealing with over such arrogant secrecy any day. I think the problem is anyone who thinks one candidate over another will matter when they are all part of a warped and ugly system they cannot extract themselves from. I find it deeply troubling that good people say such antagonistic things about those they do know because they buy what they are being told by complete strangers. Sarah Palin is attractive because she is the only one in modern history who looks and acts like a real person (which I am sure will be beaten out of her). It is a reaction to the reality of our political system which we become victims to when we start coming up with goofy reasons to cover a blind allegiance to a party line. The real tragedy here is the lack of a real women’s movement that supports all women regardless of their political leanings. No wonder we never seem to break that glass ceiling.
Comment by Juliann — September 19, 2008 @ 10:17 am
juliann can you explain this to me?
Comment by mfranti — September 19, 2008 @ 10:33 am
Do you mean Obama’s comment? He was at a fundraiser in San Francisco, thinking he was safe to say what he really thought, and someone recorded him on a cell phone. He was referring to mid-Westerners who were “bitter” and clung to their “guns and religion”. I cannot comprehend how anyone could fault another’s religion after hearing that. Unfortunately, I don’t think Mormons have the luxury of voting on those who adore our religion if we expect to be part of the political system. I am disgusted with Republicans and their loon fundamentalist base. I would hope to have someone in office who at least respected some religion though….or at least had the courage to say what he thinks in public.
Comment by Juliann — September 19, 2008 @ 10:56 am
Ahh…Juliann- then that person would definitely not be a politician.
Comment by Kimberly — September 19, 2008 @ 11:14 am
juliann, i read the full quote in it’s context and i don’t think it was as bad as you make it out to be but I can see how someone would/could take offense( i did at first) to those words in a sentence- but put into context, it makes more sense.
would you like for me to find it and show you?
Comment by mfranti — September 19, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
Maybe we shouldn’t be worrying so much about what Sarah Palin thinks about Mormons and worry more about the fact that she’s a total idiot. Did you see the interview with Katie Couric? We would be in trouble as a nation if something happened to McCain and she became president.
Comment by Jen — October 1, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
Everyone loves her because she dresses, talks, and acts like a Relief Society President. That is actually the first thing that popped into my mind when I first saw her. I can see her in my mind at the pulpit of General Conference surrounded by flowers with the lighting and all…methinks she is a closet Mormon.
Comment by Emily — October 21, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
#129 #The real tragedy here is the lack of a real women’s movement that supports all women regardless of their political leanings. No wonder we never seem to break that glass ceiling.”
Comment by Juliann
There is a real movement that supports all women. Including lesbian women who we refused to leave out when we passed resolutions at the 1977 National Women’s Conference here in Houston. The National Organization for Women (that’s all women) is alive and well and working every day for all women. Look them up on line and join up. It’s your movement too. If you don’t support it or do anything to break glass ceilings it won’t get done. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution.
We didn’t leave out religious women either but they have continued to support institutions that relentlessly work against every effort we make.
United we stand or divided the glass ceilings stay in place.
Look up the Plan of Action that came out of that conference and see where a woman, any women were left out. Stop blaming the women who cared to do anything for not being perfect. What have you done?
Comment by Ruby — October 21, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
#129 #The real tragedy here is the lack of a real women’s movement that supports all women regardless of their political leanings. No wonder we never seem to break that glass ceiling.”
Comment by Juliann
This is a comment thread about Sarah Palin? The woman who charged women for their rape kits? And yes, she did. She signed the budget whilst redecorating her office fo 50K. In Wasilla. What’s more important, rape or curtains?
Not to mention that she seems to be doing her sweet little best to stir up racial unrest in this great country of ours. Oh, and did you hear that McCain most likely had type 3 melanoma, not type 2, 8 years ago (as per the NYT) that makes his chances of dying in office 2/3. And did you hear that Sarah Palin, a perfectly healthy 44 year old refuses to release any health records at all? At all? Not even a letter from her Dr. stating that she’s in good health? Huh? Either she had an abortion or had her tubes tied prior to Trig’s birth. My guess. Other fun Palin news: the cost of her per diem/costs of taking her children with her to state events has jumped to 21K, plus bonus backdating of forms to say that said travel was official.
Oh, and possible charges of intimidation of witnesses in the Troopergate controversy; hmmm, what have I left out? Oh, yeah, Palin trying to get Beluga whales off the endangered species list, all approx. 375 of them. ANd the 150K the RNC spent on her wardrobe, enough. Already.
Comment by djinn — October 21, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
That, up there, is Obama’s quote in context about small towns. Read it. He’s sympathetic, saying that such people have gotten the shaft for the last 25 years. He understands their anger. The only problem is that his quote is being read in the harshest possible light.
Comment by djinn — October 21, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
djinn, I voted for the man, but I also was raised in a small town like he describes. It’s not that the quote is being read in the harshest light possible; it’s that the quote is being read the way it is heard and understood in those small towns. You don’t say, “I understand your plight” by using the exact same language others use while calling you uneducated, bigoted, naive extremists - then complain when the people you are describing read it that way.
Comment by Ray — October 21, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
Too bad Ray, alot of the people Obama is talking about scare the rest of us. The people that get up in Palin rallies and yell “Kill him” referring to Obama; people who are quite willing to heap invective on someone because of the color of their skin. You should know better. Obama, it’s Obama, actually speaking with kindness. Not some white dude that doesn’t have to worry about being lynched.
But anyway, this post is about Sarah Palin, I just heard off the AP wire that she charged the state of Alaska an extra 55,000. to take her children on trips with her using gov’t aircraft. Thought I’d add that to my earlier post of maverickness. Finding mavericky ways to charge the government for stuff.
Comment by djinn — October 21, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
djinn, What I said was that someone can’t say what he said then complain when the people he described get mad. That’s all. I didn’t say he was wrong, or that I disagree with him. Is there anything about that statement (what I actually said) with which you disagree?
Comment by Ray — October 22, 2008 @ 12:10 am
Uh, no. Slinks off…….
Comment by djinn — October 22, 2008 @ 12:15 am
It’s cool.
Comment by Ray — October 22, 2008 @ 12:17 am
[…] there is another element to the Palin story: her connection to the strongly anti-Mormon Assemblies of God denomination . Certainly that is doing her no favors in Mormon housewife circles. Add in the “she should […]
Pingback by ledeagenda.com » Sarah Palin And The Mormon Vote — October 29, 2008 @ 6:41 am