Kinsley manages to link republicans to Republicans, Communists and Hitler all in one paragraph. I guess that's why he makes the big bucks while I post under a lame pseudonym.

Moving on, I think Palin is a brilliant choice for the GOP, like her or not. Here's six reasons why:

1) Fires up the base. The base, always iffy on McCain, is stoked for this first time in 4 years.

2) Changes the story. 'Nuff said

3) Captures the attention of the ladies. Sure, 95% of them won't change their votes- but if only 5% do, in the right states that's all it takes.

4) Experience was always overrated. Seven Dems all with more experience than Obama beat him with that stick for almost a year- and look who's got the nomination.

5) Here's hoping that this puts fiscal responsibility back on the table. Right now, McCain is tax cut and spend. Obama is tax raise and spend even more. Maybe now McCain will consider a balanced budget.

6) Most importantly, Palin has the courage of her convictions. Knowingly bringing a downs syndrome baby to term is about the most courageous thing I can imagine. It tops 5 years in POW torture camp in my book. The amount of sacrifice needed to raise a special-needs kid is enormous. For a career oriented woman to knowingly, willingly accept that responsibility when plenty of easier paths were available is worthy of considerable respect.

I am deeply pro-choice. But my hat is off to Palin for her courageous decision- I'm not sure I would have made the same choice and I'm not sure I want her appointing justices. But she has my respect for that.

I'm incredibly tired of the "she's so brave, she brought a Down syndrome baby to term" nonsense.

Does no one see the idiocy of this claim?

She's staunchly pro-life and, presumably, would support a legislative scenario that prohibited abortion (according to what I've read, even in cases of rape and incest). So in her ideal world--and, logically, as a woman of "convictions," in her practical world--there IS NO CHOICE. There is no "Should I abort?" Her moral calculus might allow for adoption, but it does not allow for any choice in the matter of bringing or not bringing a fetus to term. In fact, if she had her druthers, NO woman would have the choice of bringing a Down syndrome baby into this world, because her state or federal legislature or court would have made that decision for her. Forget bravery. Forget convictions. Forget strong moral fiber. Palin, if she is who she claims to be, never brought abortion to the table, because the right to abortion exists within a legislative framework she disavows.

So please--enough with the talk of bravery and sacrifice, of hard choices and inspiring selflessness. In Palin's World, abortion is murder, and no one deserves a pat on the back for NOT murdering someone.

(Also, if raising a Down syndrome child is the most courageous thing you can imagine, the badge of courage would be better affixed to those who will actually bear the burden of raising Palin's child, since being vice president apparently involves a hefty amount of sacrifice as well. Not that Palin would know that, since she's not sure what vice presidents do.)

So Palin would be an excellent choice if only she'd have killed her downs baby? Did someone mention Hitler and the master race?

Yeah, the lefties are a crackup.... on one hand they're calling us commies and hitler-like, and on the other hand, they suggest that Palin should have used a little progressive eugenics with a metal rod and a suction device -- in the name of love and tolerance of course. Then they parrot Michael Moore -- the Goebbles of our era. If they stopped looking at themselves in the mirror, and really LOOKED at their views in the mirror, they're feel shame, mature, and become more moderate/conservative. For some this happens in our teenage years... for others, it comes much later, or never.

Wow. Nice job completely missing the point of my post!

To recap: To Palin, abortion is murder. To NOT murder someone, especially one's own child, is not generally regarded as courageous behavior. Palin did NOT murder her own child. Therefore, Palin is not courageous in this regard.

To recap: To Palin, the ideal legislative reality would be that in which abortion is illegal. Logically, Palin acts in such a way that reflects this desire, namely, by not considering abortion an option in the course of her deliberations on bringing fetuses to term. Therefore, Palin did not CHOOSE to bring her fetus to term, since for her, there was never an alternative.

Get it now?

Hey, you wanna know what I did today? I decided NOT to kill my son, despite how unbelievably HARD it is to raise children. So much sacrifice! Can I have my vice presidency now?

"eah, the lefties are a crackup.... on one hand they're calling us commies and hitler-like,"

Wrong. I never descended into such tactics. But to suggest that "lefties" are somehow exclusive in their use of exaggeration and name-calling towards their ideological rivals is to admit total blindness to your own party's equally frequent descents into infantilism...

"and on the other hand, they suggest that Palin should have used a little progressive eugenics with a metal rod and a suction device -- in the name of love and tolerance of course."

Never my suggestion. Not my suggestion. Are you suggesting no Democrats have children with Down's syndrome? Are you suggesting no Republicans have abortions? What a load of hogwash. My suggestion, if I had one, is to disengage from the illogical claim that the decision NOT to murder one's fetus (for those that take this view) is somehow courageous.

"Then they parrot Michael Moore -- the Goebbles of our era."

Wow! Way to make my point for me! Lefties call Righties Nazis. And NOW (thank you for the gimme, Suzy), we see that Righties call Lefties Nazis. A perfect illustration of your (and everyone else who polarizes this claim) hypocrisy.

"If they stopped looking at themselves in the mirror, and really LOOKED at their views in the mirror,"

Enter joke about Palin being a beauty queen here...

..."they're feel shame, mature, and become more moderate/conservative. For some this happens in our teenage years... for others, it comes much later, or never."

Why "moderate/conservative" and not moderate/conservative or moderate/liberal? I agree that everyone needs to take a look in the mirror--and then immediately say "why the fuck am I thinking about myself again?" and set about the task of thinking of others. Clinging to terms like "pro-life," "pro-choice," "conservative," and "liberal" tell me absolutely nothing about the quality of one's character or decision-making ability. Get your head out of the old molds, Suzy, and if you can't, well then get your ass out there and adopt a Down's syndrome baby.

Okay, I got it now. Palin did not, not murder her child so she isn't, not ever not going to be against not having another life saving anti-abortion contrary idea. Makes perfect sense to me. ;-)

Do two "nots" in one sentence really confuse you? That's so cute.

How about this?

"To REFRAIN from killing one's child is NOT morally courageous."

Better? Good boy. Gold star for you--and a drink box!

(1) I thought we were discussing this article -- this article did descend into those name calling tactics and disinformation. I wasn't attacking you, just the tone of this article and most of the left posting here. (2) I didn't say you said, but it has been said on this board by many and all over the web. The left calls for the right to stop it, but seldom calls for their own side to stop it. (3) Seriously, read about Goebbles and Moore -- they both believed that their ends were so important that it justified the means of twisting the truth, attacking/mocking anyone that disagreed, using political-correctness in the extreme. Basically, being Hollywood democrats. (4) It isn't hypocrisy that when someone attacks you, to demonstrate their own failings in the same area (point out their hypocrisy). (5) I am a moderate. I don't mind moderate liberals -- both of the ones I've met in my 44 years were nice people. Most that associate with liberals, usually aren't moderate. Look at Obama -- many liberals think he's a moderate centrist? Really? This guy is far left. But honestly, Clintons were moderates (Hillary would have been a tougher choice for me) -- the Dems went for the hard left instead. (6) I'm not in the old molds. My views on Abortion (since you attacked them) is pro-Roe-V-Wade. The problem is I read the ruling and opinions of the justices. They felt 1st trimester it wasn't a life, and they didn't want to legislate religion (so protect the rights of the mother), the 3rd trimester / viability, the baby was a life with rights that should be protected. And the 2nd trimester was ambiguous, and they should leave it to state's and communities. I agree. It is the fanatical left that wants to guarantee 3rd trimester partial-birth abortions, fights against parental notification, and Barack actually voted against guaranteeing born life-fetuses getting pre-natal care. Which view is more moderate? And my view is pro-choice (1st trimester), pro-life (3rd trimester), and states' rights in the second trimester. What are your views?

"1) I thought we were discussing this article -- this article did descend into those name calling tactics and disinformation. I wasn't attacking you, just the tone of this article and most of the left posting here."

We are discussing the article. But more to the point, we're discussing MY response to YOUR response to the article. You resorted to name-calling in response to PERCEIVED name-calling on the part of the article's author. I should point out, however, that the author never called YOU (whoever "you" supposedly are, since you're a self-described moderate, and this article appears to address dyed-in-the-wool Republicans) "hitler-like" or a "commie." It compared a reversal of posture by the Communist Party towards Hitler to the reversal in posture by the Republic Party towards the preeminent importance of experience in presidential politics. So you responded to a straw man with insults that were not only not in kind, but also non-existent.

Also, phrases like "most of the left posting here" are a form of disinformation--and I know you hate that, so let's drop it.

"(2) I didn't say you said, but it has been said on this board by many and all over the web. The left calls for the right to stop it, but seldom calls for their own side to stop it."

Well, then let me be the first to speak: Lefties, righties, libbies, GOP-ers, wingnuts, extremists, blowhards, fanatics, Moore disciples, Limbaugh apostles, and fundamentalists of all stripes--hear me now!!! You impoverish the national discourse by resorting to name-calling and poorly-reasoned debate. Shape up your act because your enemies have no choice but to respond with insults when you insult them!

OK? Can we agree that both sides have a lot of work to do in this area?

"3) Seriously, read about Goebbles and Moore -- they both believed that their ends were so important that it justified the means of twisting the truth, attacking/mocking anyone that disagreed, using political-correctness in the extreme. Basically, being Hollywood democrats."

No, YOU seriously, read about Goebbels. Now go back and read about him again. If your only point of comparison is that both he and Moore "twisted the truth," then you'd better lump every propagandist in history in the Goebbels camp, which is essentially every and all politicians. Your comparison is a weak one because it illuminates nothing about Geobbels or Moore; instead, it manipulates the reader into thinking that Moore, as a propagandist, shares a moral culpability for his mis-information on the same order as the man widely considered the architect of Kristallnacht. This is misleading and a gross over-generalization.

Also, "Hollywood democrats" are like Goebbels? See above.

"4) It isn't hypocrisy that when someone attacks you, to demonstrate their own failings in the same area (point out their hypocrisy)."

Um, yes, that is the very definition of hypocrisy. You attacked an alleged connection between the Republican Party and Hitler, then used the same tactic to connect a Democratic propagandist with Goebbels--and then lump "Hollywood democrats" in there. This is not "demonstrating an opponent's failings." Unless you're being satirical. Which you weren't. So you're a hypocrite.

"(5) I am a moderate. I don't mind moderate liberals -- both of the ones I've met in my 44 years were nice people. Most that associate with liberals, usually aren't moderate. Look at Obama -- many liberals think he's a moderate centrist? Really? This guy is far left. But honestly, Clintons were moderates (Hillary would have been a tougher choice for me) -- the Dems went for the hard left instead."

You've met two "liberals," yet proclaim that "most that associate with liberals usually aren't very moderate." How do you expect me to respond to this? What if I said, "I've met two conservatives, so I can pretty confidently state that those that associate with conservatives usually aren't very moderate." Do you get it? Do I have to spell out the disconnect in your statement?

Anyways, this is getting far off-topic. You've yet to truly address my original post, which was not an invitation to discuss the merits of Roe v. Wade but rather to point out an inconsistency in your original post.

Go back and read my post again and respond to THAT.