1. Favors teaching creationism. I believe I talked about this before, but it's a mischaracterisation of her position.
It is not. She uses the weasel words of the religious right "teach the controversy" and "don't be afraid of debate" to argue for getting religious doctrine taught in public school science classes. It's a similar tactic to calling creationism "creation science". When that failed, people with that same agenda called it "Intelligence Design". The courts didn't buy it. It's religion.
There is no scientific controversy that involves creationism. She was certainly NOT talking about discussing such a controversy in a comparative religion class or social studies class. She is in fact in favor of teaching religious doctrine in public school science classes.
3. Favors unscientific "abstinence-only" sex education. I don't favor abstinence-only if abstinence only consists of no biological discussion. But I also note that nobody ever seems curious how "scientific" sex education has worked over the years.
What? Of course we're concerned about these outcomes. The results of studies (even those conducted by pro-abstinence only groups) show that
compared to conventional sex ed programs, the abstinence only programs result in a slightly delayed first intercourse, but significantly higher rates of teen pregnancy and STDs. The simple fact is, conventional sex ed works better than abstinence only programs. The problem being, of course, that abstinence only programs have a gag rule on at least some very important things like birth control, prevention of STDs using condoms, etc.
Proponents of abstinence only programs support them based on religious convictions and not on the science.
I was going to give you her exact words in response to a survey done by a religious-right group (The Eagle Forum) in 2006, but since yesterday, they have pulled their blog. It used to be
here.
I do know part of it. She said, "Explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support." It's tough to teach biology without being explicit.
4. Vague stuff about women controlling their own destinies. I assume we're talking about abortion here? I'm personally pro-choice. But unlike the Obama camp, I know what would happen if Roe V Wade were overturned. Nothing. The issue would simply be turned back to the states, where it would die a well-deserved death. No state would ban it.
I don't know what's so vague about Palin's position. She is in favor of removing women's right to make reproductive choices. She wants abortion outlawed, even in cases of rape and incest, pretty much the most extreme anti-choice position. If she were V.P., she'd be the proverbial one heartbeat away from being in a position where she could appoint the next Supreme Court Justice.
Also, I think you underestimate the "pro-life" movement's ability to get laws passed that nibble away at reproductive rights.
5. Palin favors criminalizing homosexuals. This is indeed a very serious charge and I would be interested in Cleon's evidence backing it up.
I'm not sure about that, but she is on record as wanting to deny benefits to same sex partners. She is also in favor of a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. (I suppose it depends on how you define "criminalize". There will be same sex partners living as if married--what used to be called common law marriage. Would such an amendment make those couples criminal? It would certainly criminalize those who have public wedding ceremonies, including any ministers who perform the ceremony.)
So those are her negatives,
There are other negatives.
Most notably, she paints herself as anti-pork reformer, yet her history as Mayor and Governor belie that assertion. (She paid a lobbyist to win federal earmarks totaling something like $27 million for the small town of Wassila. She was in fact in favor of the "bridge to nowhere" until it became a national scandal when she hopped on the bandwagon against it.)
But if you believe that Sarah Palin is going to institute a theocracy, then by all means, shout it from the rooftops that she must be stopped. And I'll just do the dog laugh smily.
I don't have fears of a theocracy because we have a system of checks and balances and a constitution that expressly forbids it.
However, ignoring that strawman position, it is a perfectly legitimate criticism of Palin that she, like Dubya, exhibits a strong anti-science bent in favor of an extreme religious position. You can't dismiss this criticism just because she isn't at all likely to establish a theocracy.
