“She is a Governor of Alaska, who happens to have made a choice to become a VP candidate ,that isn't a choice I have made ” makes more sense, ya you betcha!

Stockster: Roe v. Wade is an illegitimate activist decision. That in no way implies, much less indicates, opposition to abortion, nor are state laws in lieu of Roe v. Wade harsh. You _did_ see the Web page of state laws on abortion I've provided more than once on this site, didn't you? You _have_ read Roe v. Wade and in particular the part of the decision that is the worst example of “legislation from the bench,” what is commonly called the “trimester rule,” haven't you? (I have provided it before on this site, and of course it's freely available elsewhere on-line any time to be reviewed.)

Couric _should_ be sorry…

It's always funny how people read different things in the same material.

Then StockBoySF said:

pacatrue, I'm mad at you… those were exactly my comments!

Me too, Pacatrue!

Given her track record on veracity, I cannot give her the benefit of the doubt though.

While I agree that homosexuality as choice is a core belief of many homophobes (though many also think of it as a disease, which is not really choice-like), the supposedly critical question of sexuality as biological or choice has been a beef of mine for a long time. Namely, I don't reach anything like the same conclusions as those who condemn homosexuality do even if it is a choice.

What? If it's a choice, we are free to kick people out of housing, prevent them from visiting the one they love in the hospital, isolate them socially, and maybe even threaten them physically? But if it is not a choice, then all that is off? Religion is more a choice than not, at least in the U.S., and yet we have no problem saying that you can't discriminate based upon religion. We know it's a fundamental part of who someone is that we don't try to cure them of their Christianity or Judaism or Taoism. Love, desire, and sexuality are just as fundamental to our own identity as religious belief. Moreover, sexuality as biological often falls into the false trap of two simple categories — either homosexual or heterosexual. And yet all studies of sexuality reveal much more fluid categories than that.

In short, my moral beliefs seem to change very little whether sexuality is a choice or not.

Stepping off soap box. Back to the Palin interview….

I can only add a couple things… She came across as very sympathetic to the issues and very moderate… a lot of people will love her and McCain's ratings will go up if she does this well in the interview. And she will be inoculated- people will ask, “Everyone said she can't handle herself but I agree with her on a lot of this and she did great!” So whenever a charge is leveled at some post-debate performance / interview people will think that she just had a bad day.

Palin needs to be drawn out. For instance on the abortion issue that pacatrue beat me to… if McCain wants Roe v. Wade to be overturned and abortion made illegal, then who will be locked up if abortions are performed? Palin also said she is for equal rights for women, and that makes sense and everyone agrees with that. But will she actually FIGHT for equal rights and if so, what are her specific policy proposals? Same goes for other minorities, including gays and lesbians. She may have a best friend who is a lesbian, so what does that specifically mean?

Palin will wow people if she can talk in the generalities as she did in this interview. She came across very well (except for the global warming and which magazines / newspapers she read). Anyone who is even halfway inclined to support Palin will be able to imprint their beliefs on her and support her. The issue is having these folks do critical thinking as part of their evaluation process. Palin needs to be asked about specifics.

Like other religious right politicians she knows better than to say that homosexuals should be stoned to death. But her views are no more moderate than the people behind the Bush Administration. And that means more Monica Goodlings.

“… she is one of my best friends, who happens to have made a choice that isn’t a choice that I have made. …”

In her folksy, quaint way she said, “she's one of my best friends who happens to have made a choice I didn't make.”

With the abortion issue, she seemed to either not get it or avoid giving a straight response. We know she would not choose an abortion herself. That's a common decision on both the pro-choice and pro-life side. She did say she wouldn't lock up the woman who had an abortion, but would she lock up the doctor who provided one? That's the key difference between the pro-choice and pro-life positions.

Similarly on contraception. We know she wouldn't buy the morning after pill, but will she oppose it being available to women who would or not? Again, that is the policy difference.