ÐHwww.dakotavoice.com/2008/09/palin-long-known-supported-by-focus.htmlC:/Documents and Settings/Bob Ellis/My Documents/Websites/Dakota Voice Blog 20081230/www.dakotavoice.com/2008/09/palin-long-known-supported-by-focus.htmldelayedwww.dakotavoice.com/\sck.cqmxX[IÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÈØ­ Dakota Voice: Palin Long Known, Supported by Focus Action

Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Palin Long Known, Supported by Focus Action

The Rocky Mountain News reports that while some on the elitist Left went "Sarah-Who?" when John McCain announced Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate, she was no stranger to Focus on the Family.

The article says that in 2006, Focus Action, the political arm of Focus on the Family, contacted Kevin Clarkson, an Anchorage attorney who is an allied attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, about Palin's conservative credentials.

"There had been some entries made under her name in Wikipedia that were of concern to them (Focus on the Family)," Clarkson said. "The main one cited in Wikipedia was her veto of a bill that would've limited marriage benefits to married couples."

Clarkson explained that it was a convoluted process that led to the veto. Acting as legal counsel, Clarkson advised Palin to veto the bill that he said, because of confusing legislative machinations and existing court challenges, would've had the opposite effect and locked in benefits for all couples.

"She is on the conservative side of all issues," Clarkson said. "She is in favor of marriage being defined as between a man and a woman and she is pro-life. There is no doubt about it."

Tom Minnery, senior vice president of Focus Action, agreed.

As I researched Palin in recent weeks, this veto had been the only item I had encountered which I considered a negative. And since the rest of the information I found on her indicated a strong pro-family, pro-marriage defender, I figured there must either be some legal-ese reason, or that it was some sort of compromise that, in the scheme of things, was relatively small in impact.

I still don't know all the details of this veto, but if Focus Action and the ADF say it was unavoidable, then I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Posted by Bob Ellis at 4:00 PM

Labels: , ,

| Digg It | Stumble It | Reddit | | Yahoo Bookmark | Facebook |

2 comments:

GrannyGrump said...

I disagree with her failure to support school vouchers. But given the total package, I'm not complaining.

9/03/2008 6:49 PM
Bob Ellis said...

I'm with ya, GrannyGrump!

9/03/2008 7:31 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
 
Clicky Web Analytics