GOP was ignorant about Palin problems

In choosing Sarah Palin, the Republicans threw a Hail Mary pass. Yes, their receiver might have caught the ball, but she later fumbled it on the 5-yard line with time no time left in the game.

It's dizzying to watch the spin they put on this botch call. Do they really expect us to believe they knew all of about Palin's problems (true or not), and still decided to select her? They of all people should know that perception is big in politics. It's also nauseating that they expect the viewers not to see their blatant attempt to bring sexism into the spotlight by having only women defend the choice. Hypocrisy stampedes like a mad elephant in Minneapolis.

Obama, too, was born to a teenage mother

Not so very long ago, a high school girl became pregnant at the age of 17. Three months later, at 18, she married the father of her child - a marriage opposed by both sets of parents, and destined to fail. But the child still carried the father's name, and the name became famous.The teen mother's name was Ann Dunham. She was born on November 29, 1942. Her first child was most likely conceived very early in November 1960, about a month before Ann's 18th birthday. When this child was delivered on August 4, 1961, she named him Barack Hussein Obama II, after his father.

As Hurricane Gustav bore down on the central Gulf Coast this week, we were surprised by news breaking nationally that another 17-year-old young lady is carrying a child, and will in due time wed the child's father (also now 17) whom she loves. In this case, the formation of this fresh new family is supported by two sets of loving parents, with every expectation that both the child and the marriage will flourish.

And that child's name may also be remembered by history, as the first grandchild of the first woman to be elected to the office of vice president of the United States of America.

I suggest to my Democratic friends in Hawaii, be akamai in the way you regard the newer of these two stories. For it will be impossible to disparage one without soiling the other.

Candidate getting thrown under the bus

My crystal ball says poor Sarah Palin is in for a very bumpy ride. So now it comes out that the gun-toting NRA member evangelical, who preaches "family values," has a pregnant 17-year-old unmarried daughter. And there are other clouds over her head back home in Alaska that have been well known to both George Bush and John McCain but they are now just coming to light for the rest of us.

Palin better tighten her seat belt because the end is near. How does McCain get the evangelicals to line up behind him since many have been skeptical? Put an evangelical on the ticket for vice-president. Then have all the dirt come out. Obviously, Palin resigns "for the good of the Republican party" and McCain then picks his first choice of either Joe Lieberman or the Mormon and everybody's happy. Except Palin because she has been thrown under the bus. Well, that's politics.

Candidacy inconsistent with family values

The Palin pregnancy is indeed a private family matter and we wish the best for her daughter and new child. While we applaud the daughter's decision to have the baby, one must wonder why Sarah Palin, a champion of her party's faith-based "pray for abstinence" schemes and champion of "family values" would not have ensured that her daughter was provided with the right tools and values to make good life decisions.

Might there be a correlation between the unexpected pregnancy and Palin's singular focus on her political ambitions to the detriment of her family? Also, does Palin believe that it was a wise choice to get pregnant herself at such an early stage of her first state office seat, with such a steep learning curve, six years after her last child and at a risky age?

Palin must first demonstrate family values consistent with her party's agenda, prior to gaining the support of her conservative fundamentalist Christian party.

Media should give more coverage to Barr

I have become quite disenchanted with both of the presidential candidates and refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils this time.

We have a third candidate who is polling over 10 percent, yet not a peep from the media outlets save a few talk radio hosts who are mentioning him. I would like to see the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr included in the media coverage and the upcoming debates. What happened to allowing the voters the ability to make an informed decision? I've seen two interviews with Barr on CNN at an hour a piece and I think he has a great message that should be heard. When I first heard his basic platform I thought it a little radical, however upon hearing his in-depth explanations of the issues, I'm intrigued by what he has to say, and I think others would as well, if only they were given the opportunity to receive that information. The Libertarian party stands 100 percent behind the protection the U.S. Constitution provides the citizens of this nation. The two parties currently well represented continue to pull us further and further away from those protections.

I hope that you will consider some media coverage for Barr as he is a candidate who deserves to be heard.