Of course it was cruel and wrong.

There is nothing morally wrong with getting pregnant. In fact it's a good thing and society (and obviously the family) must support it.

Both the mother and the child (or children) are entitled to help. THAT's the part Sarah Palin did right.

But then that decision is not Sarah Palin's.  As you state, we can teach, and they can then chose to follow or ignore.  Some do, some don't.  Of my mother's 7, some of us did (2 sisters and a brother) and some did not (a sister and a brother).  But I am not klingon so I do not hold the parent responsible for the actions of the child (or vice versa) once they are making decisions on their own.

if Sarah Palin had failed to live what she taught, she would be a hypocrite.  But for all the dirt that liberals have dug up on her, the worst thing they have said is she did not abort Tripp, her DS son.  That may make her stupid in some books, but not a hypocrite in any of them.

It was her decision to continue pretending to be the conservative mother who knew how to raise children well when she so obviously failed at that task.

I am solely talking about her actions and her reactions to her children's actions, not her children's actions.

I don't think that was the worst thing people came up with. It was merely the most outrageously stupid example for Palin's incompetence that people could come up with.

Her handicapped son is a reason to support her, because she did stand firm and remained loyal to her principles on that account. And they were good principles.

She was and is not pretending.  But I dont think she claimed to be perfect either (which would be required to damn her with labels of hypocrisy).  Clearly she is a conservative mother.  And has failed once out of how many times?  My mother is not a failure because 2 of her 7 did not live by her teachings.  And just because a professor flunks some of his students does not make him a failure as a professor either.

Each man and his own poison.  Clearly what you see as outrageous or stupid or incompetance, I see as a principaled woman who lives as she preaches. That does not make her a saint or perfect, but it does make her ethical and honest.  A rarity in politics in America today.

During the campaign they did pretend that the two would get married. That was clearly not true. Either the fiance is right and it was all a show or he lies in which case he was a bad choice for husband. Either way, that marriage was not to be and I am sure they knew.

They behaved exactly like someone without moral values would have behaved: Sarah Palin was confronted with a daughter who was unmarried and pregnant so she claimed that she and her boyfriend were planning to get married. That simply wasn't the truth.

You misunderstand. I said it was a stupid example, not that it was true. If you had read my next sentence that would have been clear:

"Her handicapped son is a reason to support her, because she did stand firm and remained loyal to her principles on that account."

I do consider the choice of example outrageously stupid. Keeping the child was the right thing to do. It didn't show stupidity, it showed values.

Pretend?  from what I hear, it was planned.  Then they get a he said-she said crap.  But regardless, the guy got cold feet.  is that something that has never happened?  So Sarah is responsbile for cold feet now too?  That was lame Leauki.  Sarah Palin is not a controlling machiavellian Princess.  Like all of us, she plans, and some do not work out.  And THAT makes her a hypocrite?  You are really stretching now.  I know you dont like her, but it seems you dont like her because she is not omnipotent, not for any other reason (and then I am sure that would be the excuse for the dislike).

I wish I had your knowlege of what everyone knows.

I read the next sentence, and I apologize for not getting the intent clearly.  But I did not assign the "stupid" to your belief, but that of the pundits you were referring to.  I did not take it as your opinion of their actions.

No, what makes her a hypocrite is that she told an untruth. The pregnant yet unmarried daughter was an inconvenience during the campaign so she decided to claim that they were going to get married.

But it turned out they weren't.

Do you really think she didn't talk it through with both of them, explaining to them the importance of "family values" for the campaign?

Yes, it makes her a hypocrite.

If daughter and boyfriend had really planned to get married they would have done it when she was pregnant, before the birth. The only reason to claim that the marriage was planned for the near future was because it wasn't.

Yes, she is.

From all I have seen from her and according to what the former boyfriend of her daughter says that's exactly what she is.

I just saw the picture of Sarah on her last speech where she wrote "Energy" "Tax" "Lift american spirit" on her palm as a crib. Didn't she make fun of Obama for using the teleprompter.. it is sort of emberassing that she needs to write down such keyelements of the republicans' political program. One would think that she should be able to give a speech about her political position without a crutch like that.

That is the crux of this entire conversation.  Those who like Sarah want to believe the best of her, that she did indeed mean what she said about their marriage.  Those who do not like her will believe the opposite.  Speculation is not truth.  We weren't in the room so we can't know for sure.

Personally, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and take her at her word.  It costs me nothing.  At least unless and until she proves herself a liar in matters that can be measured, witnessed, gauged.

Just because I am willing to believe her in matters of family, doesn't mean I think Sarah would be a good president.  I could list a lot of reasons why she wouldn't be, but the heart of the matter is, I don't think she can handle the job.  And Obama is a great example of how bad things can get when someone who can't do the job, HAS the job.

But we can allow ourselves to induct a bit (Sherlock Holmes would call it "deduct", but it's not).

There are many politicians I like who I am convinced are liars and hypocrites anyway. Ariel Sharon comes to mind. I don't have to dislike someone to spot a lie.

If the daughter and her boyfriend had intended to marry, they would have done so before the birth. There was no reason not to do it. Everything would have been fine if they had got married before the birth.

But during the campaign when Palin said that they intended to marry in the near future, I knew they wouldn't marry.

"The first rule of politics: never believe anything until it's been officially denied." (Yes, Minister)

I cannot imagine a world in which the daughter and her boyfriend (and Sarah Palin) actually wanted to wait with the wedding until after the campaign. It's inconceivable. It's just not something that would happen in a family that works together:

"No, mom, I have decided to wait until after your presidential campaign as the conservative vice presidential candidate for the more moderate McCain. I wouldn't want you to get into the race without an single mother daughter."

It doesn't make sense. The only likely explanation is that they didn't intend to marry and announcing that they would in the near future was damage control.

It might cost you a Republican candidate who has a chance to win.

If Sarah runs and wins the primaries, Obama will win re-election, even if he did badly. As I said before in another tread: liberals are not afraid of Sarah, just convinced that they and moderates won't vote for her.

Obama has been better than I thought he would be.

According to whom?  Levi?  And he has no reason to lie, now does he (visions of dollars dancing in his head).  As i said, it is a he said, she said.  That hardly qualifies as irrefutable proof of anything except separate agendas. Yet you say because she talked to them about it, that makes her a hypocrite?  You are usually very logical, but here you fail.  Badly.

I am sure she did discuss the campaign with them.  But then none of it was a secret before she was chosen - not the pregnancy, nor the baby (Tripp).  And yet all of a sudden (since Levi was still a part of the family before she was chose - at least on a talking with everyong basis) as soonas she is chosen, then we must assume the worst?  Why has not one of this come out (before Levi decided to get his money and run)?  Probably because there is no there there.  But unlike you, I do not assume that I know.  I take it from the facts I have - notably that Levi was still around before she got the nod.

I love this most of all.  You now have put yourself in the same camp as the Bush Haters.  Claiming in one breath that she is both a genius and an idiot!  (Machievellian peopel are indeed smart - duplicitous and unethical, but very smart). According to you she is a hypocritical stupid genius!

one thing is certain.  You do hate her.  And that is clouding your logic.  I am not going to convince you of anything about her, but at least I am not contradicting myself with every post.

Itis often fun to use perjoratives to describe your enemy.  And often the perjoratives are denigrating intelligence.  But those who believe their own PR are doomed to failure, because they will underestimate their opponet.  WHile I denigrate liberals extensively, I will not underestimate them.  But you just did.

Only fools wage war on those that do not threaten them when real enemies knock on the door.  The liberals are scared of her (they badly underestimated the tea party groups as you apparently are as well).  If Obama can win, ANYONE can win.  He is a blithering idiot, and yet as long as his PR says he is a genius, people buy it.  I am not saying that Palin will win if she runs.  I will add "if nothing changes in the next 3 years".  Which given the pettiness of Obama and his inner circle, could happen.  But Obama is not a genius, and very vindictive.  Both of which are going to work against him.  he has the chance to change.  I just dont believe he will.

That makes one.  A clear majority of Americans disagree, and dont forget that a majority elected him.  So that means he has already run out of his honeymoon and they are eating at his base.  he has shown me nothing that would indicate he is more than a spoiled child.  And very ineffective (what exactly has he accomplished?)