I dug up another quote by Sarah Palin and I thought readers should consider just how deeply offensive appeals to God during war time are.
It has been fun watching the Democrats and the media gun for Governor Sarah Palin. And when they dug up that terrible dirt about her claiming our troops fighting in Iraq were doing God's work, I was appalled. So I dug up another quote by Palin and I thought readers should consider just how deeply offensive appeals to God during war time are.
Well, I will tell you how it was. In the pinch of the campaign in Iraq when everybody seemed panic stricken and nobody could tell what was going to happen, oppressed by the gravity of our affairs, I went to my room one day and locked the door and got down on my knees before Almighty God and prayed to Him mightily for victory. I told Him that this war was His war, and our cause His cause, but we could not stand another 9/11 . . . And after that, I don't know how it was, and I cannot explain it, but soon a sweet comfort crept into my soul. The feeling came that God had taken the whole business into His own hands and that things would go right in Iraq . . .
So much for separating God from our war against terrorism! Maybe Jeremy Gerard at Bloomberg News was right when he wrote: “Gibson didn't ask (Palin) if she has any clue about the principle of separation of church and state on which her beloved United States was founded. I wish he had.”
Shame on Sarah Palin! Only one problem. This is not a Sarah Palin quote (sorry for that little act of deception). Substitute the appropriate battles (Gettysburg and Chancellorsville ) and this is Abraham Lincoln, by many considered our greatest president, seeking God’s help and guidance during a difficult time during the Civil War. (And of course we have those on the Left comparing Senator Obama to Jesus, the latest community organizer — and, geez, I thought he was preaching, not getting out the vote . . . oh well.)
Now, that said, let me be perfectly clear. Sarah Palin may not be ready to be president (she has more experience than Lincoln, but then Lincoln wasn’t spared personal attacks either). But is she any less qualified than Barack Obama who heads the ticket for the Democrats? They are both smart, charismatic leaders who, with a little seasoning, could be ready for the presidency in a few years, assuming you agree with them on the issues.
The problem for those supporting Senator Obama is that he is heading up the Democratic ticket and Governor Palin is the Vice Presidential candidate for the Republicans. The person running with the most experience and best equipped to be commander in chief is John McCain. Second most qualified, if you consider years of experience and exposure to international issues, is of course Senator Biden. Should we lobby for a McCain-Biden ticket?
The hysteria being displayed by the liberal-left over Palin is the hysteria of those who sense, rightly or not, power slipping from their grasp. She has a nice quality about her – a real, authentic voice that does not have the slippery feel of the Obama-Clinton style.
People like it. They like McCain for the same reason. The guy is real. He doesn’t duck and weave and bob – he just says it the way he sees it. So does Palin.
But in fairness, Obama has been in the national limelight for more than a year and he has been – to a degree – exposed to the American people. Palin is new on the national stage so it is legitimate to ask questions about her experience, her abilities and her positions on issues.
What is not legitimate is the kind of trash journalism and commentary being practiced by the celebrity/media Left at her expense. What is not acceptable is applying one standard to Palin, and another to Obama and the Democrats. It is a sad day for the Democratic Party and their friends in the media when they are concerned about a 17-year-old girl being pregnant but lionize two former married presidents who used their power to maneuver girls not much older than 17 into situations where they might have gotten pregnant. Please.
Here is the good news. Most Americans, I believe, are capable of seeing through the leftist agenda and getting to the heart of things. At the end of the day, Senator Obama is to the far left on domestic issues, lacks foreign policy experience and savvy and has barely functioned as a U.S. Senator.
Don’t blame Palin, Democrats, because you selected a guy who probably needed another four years. The Republicans chose a soldier and a leader who has been consulting with presidents for nearly 30 years. God willing, Palin will get the time she needs to expand her portfolio of experience and she sure as heck is smart enough and savvy enough to function at the highest levels of our government.
But come November, the presidential candidate for the Democrats will be a man who has spent less time as a functioning member of the Senate than Palin has as an active Governor running a state. American voters will have to judge if they think he is better prepared than McCain; heck, they might even pray about it.
Too true. Bob, in my online science Moderation “job,” I fequently lecture people about Wikipedia, and how it is NOT a credible nor accurate source.
Suzanne,
I hope you continue to log in to IC and at least read the articles and the discussion that follows. It’s only useful to a point to have people who share the same world view participating in discussion with out any input from the “out side”. The fact that there are 50+ comments to this article, mostly in response to your involvment, is a testament to that. Plus, it’s in your interest to be involved in actively seeking and understanding other view points, because if you didn’t, whether you admit it or not, you would end up being amongst those with a narrow “black and white” outlook that you apparently despise. Your ideology, which everyone has, would be influenced only by those you allow to influence it, unless it is your very ideology that has does the limiting on those who influence you, in which case the preponderant sources of narrow size and scope would already cause you to see things in more “black and white”.
As far as subscribing to an ideology, I think it’s fair to say that any reasonable (key word) person doesn’t just necessarily follow a set ideology, especially as it relates to politics. It’s a bad analogy, but even a blind person when being lead by a dog has to use their other heightened senses to figure where exactly they’re going. Point being, I know some pretty hardcore “conservatives”, but really they’re just hardcore republicans, who can be highly critical of many Rep. Leaders at times.
I think Suzanne that you are confusing those who just follow a party, absolutely, like a sports team or something, as opposed to those who have a certain world view and find that when it comes to politics and that world view, certain parties more closely share those values.
That’s how I arrived at my particular political posture. I literally sat down and realized that when I discussed politics with my friends, a lot was based on conjecture, theories, emotion, opinion, basically a pathetically limited understanding of what really is going on. So, I evaluated my philosophy. I looked at my morals, my ethics. I realized I have, probably because of my Catholic upbringing, a very Natural Law kind of philosophy. I looked at history and the many views of certain issues and I tried to be as open minded as possible. My family certainly does play a role, however not exactly how I would have thought. My parents are Republican, but my grandfather is about as ardent a Democrat as anyone I know, and I always got my “politics” from my grandfather. However, I quickly and surprisingly related myself with the “right”.
Even though I am a conservative, there are many issues where one can easily argue I stand on more of the liberal side, and even more still where I stand on more of the libertarian side. But at the core, I am what is and has been called conservative, and it is on those values I stand and look at the world.
Thanks.
correction
I meant to say
Your ideology, which everyone has one…
JD Will,
I am afraid you have me scratching my head, both as to what you are trying to say (about us) and where you stand (liberal, conservative or neither). You call yourself “center-righty”, but, please, give us more to go on than that. Also, you have twice put this Edge article in our laps, so you are determined we both read and comment on it. You also tell us you find Obama “engaging, intriguing and hyper-intelligent [and] … was considering him” without any reason you’d think so.
I find him intriguing too, but that is because he’s got a shady past he wants kept dark. Obama is unarguably intelligent, but hyper-intelligent? The guy hasn’t articulated a single coherent strategy on anything as yet, and certainly no policy we can dissect for content. It’s all platitudes. He’s just as cagey regarding his past and dealings. A con man is also intelligent and far better than, say, an astrophysicist at convincing others of his intelligence. Is that the measure of ‘hyper-intelligent’, a man who plays his cards so close few can trust him? Would a truly intelligent politician persist in politics that are as radically socialist and racially divisive as Obama’s? He talks of bringing us all together, yet succeeds only in driving us further apart. Wouldn’t the ‘hyper-intelligent’ statesman-politician have either found a way around that or gotten off the field as too divisive (even if it weren’t his doing)? Without his teleprompter, he stumbles, hems & haws, and sounds no more intelligent than the next guy caught unprepared. Try this test. Imagine he’s a got an ‘R’ next to his name, he’s old as McCain, and he’s white. Got that picture firmly in your head? Okay, is he still hyper-intelligent or just ordinary intelligent? At best we can call this guy above average intelligent, but he’s no genius. I will grant you he is engaging, and that’s about all he’s riding on. That and the black-glass ceiling his core constituency wants broken.
Center-right doesn’t really tell us much because most people, no matter how outrageous, think they (we) are close to center. For some, ‘center’ means where they think the center should be or would be given most people think ‘correctly’ (i.e., ‘as I do’). Saying you are right of center only vaguely tells us you share some opinions with those of us who are recognizably or unabashedly conservative. Therefore, boldly state where you stand on key issues (e.g., Iraq, illegal-immigrants, abortion, drilling in ANWR, &c), as that give a clearer picture of who you are.
As to the Edge article, here’s my analysis. It was written by a liberal who is “trying to reach out”, but who has no clue to who we are or what we represent. This pompous ass claims “we can [now] map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait”. So, there you have it folks. It’s not your fault you are a conservative, it is a birth defect. The rest of the article is similarly dismissive, demeaning and smug. No mention that many (if not most) conservatives share genes with siblings, parents, and offspring who are inexplicably liberal; and, no mention the misplaced faith in liberal-socialism to solve all the world’s ills without any loss in personal freedom just might be a mental aberration.
Worse, he has no clue to the history and true nature his own professed party. The whole article starts with a presumption that “the economic interests of working class and rural voters” is better served by Democrats. This is a presumption that has been proved false time after time; both logically and empirically. The most he can claim is Republican policies have also been sometimes unsound. However, that has been most pronounced when Republicans adopted the ‘progressive’ economic-playbook. Even then, Democrat policies have been far more disastrous than Republican ones, and have been consistently so since socialism became the norm. And, unless Democrats suddenly stop playing god with the market, there is little chance this guy’s argument will make any greater sense tomorrow.
He next claims “strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities” are what turn people against liberalism. Wrong. What turns people against liberalism is the failure of liberalism to deliver on inflated unworkable promises. We are also turned off by what is now paraded as ‘liberalism’ but which long ago morphed into something sinister (socialism), and the further left radical-Democrats push their party, the more those working-folks, farmers, and parents abandon ship. Classical-liberalism has little in common with the modern variety (American conservatism is, in fact, a good deal closer to classical-liberalism than is modern-liberalism). The very term conservatism connotes that which conserves, and the American version of conservatism seeks to conserve our founding principles and virtues, no more and no less. Of course, liberals make this claim also, but it is they who insist they can ‘tweak’ the Constitution without substantially corrupting it and make reference to international law to correct its supposed ‘defects’. Given sufficient ‘tweaking’, do they really believe our founders would still recognize it as their creation? How then do they call themselves liberal when they have strayed so far from liberalism? People sometimes wake up to the fraud and theft of their birthright, and that is why so many of us abandoned the liberal brand (though we have never abandoned classical-liberalism).
Yet, this is still not the height of this ‘gentleman’s’ hubris. He declares “Our diagnosis explains away Republican successes while convincing us and our fellow liberals that we hold the moral high ground. Our diagnosis tells us that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies …” I nearly choked on that one. Yeah, a fairy-tale also explains things away, but that doesn’t make it true. Let’s see, the party of segregation, moral-relativism, abortion, Bill Clinton, a record of pork and corruption so deep it makes Republicans look saintly, a media with a credibility problem, an affinity for radicalism, legislating from the bench … nope, no lack of moral clarity that I can see.
The article just gets better the further you dig into it. This pigmy with delusions of divinity (says liberals must take off their halos the better to see us) tries to get his short, fat arms around the moral underpinnings of religion, and can’t imagine a single reason for ancient religious practices beyond those of health or pragmatism. I am a rank amateur in religion, but even I could do better. And, then he has the gall teach this lack of comprehension to others as though the height moral philosophy.
I absolutely recommend everyone read this tripe, if only so you know what we’re up against.
If you want to see the true color of media bias, just take a good look at the Sarah Palin TrooperGate coverage. The media is not trying to find the truth, it is trying to “decimate” Palin, as Chevy Chase suggested Tina Fey do.
Palin recently sent an official document detailing the reason why she fired Monegan: insubordination. That Monegan did not fire Wooten is just further proof of his incompetence, but apparently Monegan himself was quite a character, going behind the governor’s back for his own political purposes. That he lasted as long as he did was surprising. Yet, I scourged Google News and could not find this tidbit in any major news organization. I stumbled upon it through other links.
The only thing liberals and conservatives have in common is personal accountability. Conservatives tend to hold themselves personally accountable for their own mistakes, just like the liberals hold conservatives accountable for liberal mistakes. I would not be surprised in the slightest if Palin still gets blamed when she is exonerated, though it will do the media little good. The 2000 election is a prime example. The Democrats lost the election, yet it could not be a gracious loss, it was a stolen victory. The criminal conspiracy to put Dubya in the White House went as far as the Supreme Court. The media made a one day event turn into a month long scandal. Great political theater, but typical liberal antics.
I’d said this before, but it bears repeating:
The core radical far Left is a dying breed. It’s been 40 years since their beginnings, and they are simply fading away; time itself is their enemy. Not for nothing are these sorts of Democrat nasty tricks and frenzied claims of dirty-dealing becoming more and more strident of late. If they do not win the White House this time around, they will never have a chance to again dominate politics as they would have it. So it’s time to bring out every piece of ammunition they have, right now!
An acquaintance in his early 60s mentioned a story to me that he remembered vividly. An old Conservative politician was engaged in an argument with a young Liberal peace activist in the late 1960s. “You can’t win this one, young man,” said the Pol. “That’s true,” the young man replied, “but I don’t have to. Soon enough, I’ll be at your funeral.”
The Shoe is on the other foot now.
This, I think, is where the constant barrage of smears, sly innuendos, cries of “they cheated,” conspiracy theories, dirty tricks and so on by the Democrat attack machine spring from. Clearly, the “Old Guard” Democrats are deeply worried that for them, it’s now or never.
A question for all of you:
In your opinion, what are the most important qualifications for President of the United States? Does Sarah Palin meet these qualifications?
Wow, an actual question from Suzanne. Are you seeking information, or are you preparing to spout leftist talking points? I’ll assume that you actually want to know the answer.
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Article 2, section 1. She qualifies.
In addition, she has more executive experience than Obama, Biden, and McCain combined. She has ran for and won offices at the local and state level with overwhelming victories. She is not in favor of people killing their unborn children. She has confronted and took down entrenched, corrupt politicians. She connects with people very well personally. She is a brilliant speaker, a tenacious leader, and does not back down.
She doesn’t plagerize from other peoples’ writing. She hasn’t described Obama as “…the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy…” She didn’t get a sweetheart loan deal with the help of Rezko. She didn’t associate with unrepentant terrorists like Ayers. She hasn’t hid her grades and test scores from college.
I could go on, but I anxiously await the rejoinder from Suzanne. But before she starts reciting “facts” about Palin, she should review this website and its links: http://sarahpalinrumors.blogspot.com/.
Maybe someone can give Suzanne a link, as long as it doesn’t contain too many words. Or, ask one of her friends to give her a call.
Or ask her whether Governor Bill Clinton was “qualified” to replace a sitting President of the United States in 1992 based on Clinton’s experience as governor of the state ranking 49 or 50 in all national standings.
Or just ask whether Obama has the qualifications to be President?
No. After all we’ve already said, and after all the information Suzanne said she has no intention of reading to understand the pressing questions she needs answered, what’s the point in continuing the discussion with someone who wants to convey the image she deeply cares, but not actually do the work necessary to understand what she’s talking about.
Oh, and she has been subject to the most nasty, unrelenting, cruel smear campaign imaginable and still is cheerful and positive. No one should have to put up with the hate, distortion, and character assassination that she has had to endure. But she has done so with class and nobility.
The most important qualifications would be those listed under the Constitution. She fits them just fine.
Any more questions?
Are these qualifications as listed under the Constitution the only qualifications to look for in a candidate for the Presidency?
Both Anderson and I cited the constitutional qualifications, Suzanne, but I wrote about several more things in addition. Are you going to respond to them?
Suzanne doesn’t know the difference between “qualifications” and “capabilities” — i.e. managerial experience (running a governmental or military entity, not a campaign or senate staff), political and economic judgment, leadership abilities, and the myriad of other factors that go into assessing the credibility of a political candidate.
She also apparently doesn’t know who is running for President on each ticket, and who is running for Vice President.
Suzanne,
I have a few questions for you. Does Obama meet the qualifications for the Presidency? Does he meet your standards for the Presidency? Is he more or less qualified than Hillary Clinton? Is he more or less qualified than his running mate, Joe Biden? I feel many people here are trying to help you get a better understanding of their point of view, but it would be interesting to get an understanding of yours from your own words.
Anderson: before you get any more invested in Suzanne, glance at her previous posts. She avoids listening to any news sources, but has firm opinions about the non-liberal biases of the news media because her friends and a 10 year old website told her that corporations own the major media, and corporations are “conservative”, therefore the media cannot be liberal.
She claims to be on a search for answers to her questions, but comments (#44) that she’s “really not shopping” for any contrary views — and besides, there’s a lot of words she’d have to read to educate herself to arrive at an informed opinion.
She claims to be a Ron Paul supporter who naturally gravitates toward Obama now that Paul is out of the race, ignoring what we all know that Obama and Paul have nothing in common except their opposition to the war (for different reasons), and that Paul supporters would naturally embrace Bob Barr if they wouldn’t vote for McCain. Just ask Dan Phillips how much he supports Obama!
She’s as disingenuous in her questions as she is vacuous in her thought process.
To Mr.Jackson
Your right about Obama and Paul. Right, except one thing, they’re not like every other candidate. That’s how someone like Suzanne connects with the two of them. I was talking with, basically being tag teamed by two friends, both have Obama bumper stickers, pins and are absolutely gaga about the guy. And at one point in the conversation one of my friends said something to the extent of “I would have definitely voted for Ron Paul, but he would never be allowed to president because of the establishment”. I’m thinking, these two candidates are nothing alike. Most notably being, that Ron Paul knows who he is and is unabashedly committed to his message, and to the PRINCIPLES behind that message. Obama just eloquently says change, plucks the heart strings of many, and appears to stand on nothing. But that is what scares me about this election, these two people invoked the spirit of revolution, of new beginnings, and that’s whats captured so many people. Policy is second to how they make us feel. And what’s worse is they’ve seem to have reached so many, especially my generation. Apparently many people have never considered the difference between Paul and Obama, just that are different from everyone else.
Notebartello: I’ve got friends like that too. From 2000-2007 they were strong supporters of the “maverick” John McCain who put principles before his party (i.e he bashed Bush). Then as soon as the primaries came, they abandoned McCain because he was an “unprincipled man” and hitched their star to Obama, who they claim has principles (as long as they don’t get in the way of funding his house or aggrandizing himself in other ways).
There’s a name for people who say they would have voted for Paul, but now gravitate toward Obama. Democrats.
I never trust people who claim to have no philosophy like Suzanne, or who say that principles matter over philosophy, but always end up strongly objecting to every conservative issue as unprincipled (only supporting conservatives who lose their party’s nomination, then immediately endorsing the Democrat candidate regardless of their unprincipled baggage).
It’s all smoke and mirrors designed to make them look thoughtful and progressive, while covering for the utter emptiness of their principles and thought processes.
Mountain Man,
I address some of the additional qualities you mentioned above plus a few of my own.
Executive experience: a lot of people have this but would not make a good president; many do not, but could make a good president. Her resume is not particularly impressive to me.
Tenacity: always a good thing if one’s judgement is excellent.
Does she have good judgement? Not much to work with at this point. She has a lot to prove to me in this area, which would require observing her in many more difficult situations. Since there’s no time for this between now and election day, I will not give her points in this area.
Speaking abilities: 1. presentation-she’s good at that
2. content-all I have been able to glean about this is a carefully scripted acceptance speech and plenty of campaign bites. I will say, however, that her “…don’t blink” responses in the Gibson interview, regarding her decision to accept McCain’s offer and in reference to the building tensions with Russia, were disturbing to me.
Fights political corruption: we all can appreciate this. Is she honest? I don’t know.
Anti-abortion: I uphold her right to her personal choice about this but do not favor this issue as an agenda for the Presidency.
Pleasing personality: well, this certainly would help every January, when we civic-minded citizens are forced to watch the State of the Union speech. Personally, I am not attracted to her as many others are. My instincts are telling me that something important here is missing. But of course, I’m sure those of you on this thread most likely reject the ‘validity’ of instinctual information.
Works well with others: some say she does and some say she is a tyrant. I don’t want anyone who is not skilled in this area or one who doesn’t listen.
Sophisticated and nuanced understanding of foreign policy? Frighteningly deficient here, in my opinion.
Ideologue? It appears so. I don’t believe an ideologue from any persuasion would be productive.
“It’s all smoke and mirrors designed to make them look thoughtful and progressive…”
You forgot “nuanced” and “sophisticated.”
Smoke and Mirrors Part II, with a bit of unsophisticated nuance thrown in for good measure:
Why are we talking about the VP candidate on the Republican ticket instead of the Presidential candidate on the Democrat ticket?
“Some say” Obama is a socialist. Well, I guess all we need to do to form an opinion is say “some say”. I don’t want anyone who is a skilled socialist as president.
Whew! This real good thinking is real hard work!
“Some say” has now become the new standard by which I shall form all my opinions about Obama and the Left.
No need to identify who the “some” are — just acknowledge that someone, somewhere, said something, then tell people I don’t want what “some say”, and use that to justify your biases … er, impartial, truth-seeking opinions.
And to think I wasted all those years getting a Ph.D. in the unnecessary effort to actually know what I’m talking about before I form a judgment.
An ideologue not productive?
Hum, you might be right.
Look no further than Jimmy Carter. Ah, bitter old can’t shut up Jimmy.
Ideologue? You can say he was.
Productive? Well actually yes, he produced the angst that ushered in Regan years. Oh and the Camp David Accords, which kind of fell apart due to..hum..oh yeah..Islamic terrorists.
SO I guess if you don’t want failed domestic and foreign policy you shouldn’t vote for an Ideologue. No one wants a repeat of the Carter years. Oh, except maybe Obama, he seems to idealize the guy, and talks of policy that models Carters.
Bob Stapler,
Point of order question. On many sites a thread is dead after a day, yet here this thread seems to be alive after four days. Is this the norm here? Should I expect a response to be read after five days?
I am working now, and would like to give you a proper response to your challenging questions, but cannot respond before tomorrow.
I have several disagreements with your parsing of the Edge article. I think the author (who was clearly talking to liberals) was sincere in trying to 1) confirm and engage them by putting them at ease with a familiar formulaton of conservatives 2) challenge them by showing some contradictions in their worldview and share a journey with them 3) drive home a point that the conservative moral foundation is something they need, and need to reconcile to their ‘whole’.
I am certainly not trying to say something about the conservative group here, but instead, to them about the communication divide that may be worth exploring.
No more time, hopefully more later.
jdwill07: There’s no set standard. When I write an article, I keep responding until no one wants to talk anymore. Other authors never respond at all to any comments made.
As for the comment sections, one of mine went on for about 300 entries over a couple of weeks. Again, it all depends on the mix of people involved.
Two people with opposing ideologies can argue ad infinitum and the end result will most likely be the same two people with the same opposing ideologies.
Does a person embrace a particular ideology based on logic? Probably not. Each of us is a unique combination of influences and programming which is really what determines one’s ideology.
Are those who are voting Republican in this campaign doing it because of ideology or because they believe another Republican administration offers real solutions? Does the Republican Party even represent the ideology of that voter? (or the Democratic?)
As a voter, what is the more important consideration? Ideology or practical reality? One example is the current meltdown in the financial industry. These unethical practices that have become the norm within our oldest and most esteemed financial institutions have been going on for a long time; a few people making lots of money while the rest of us watched our standard of living deteriorate and our options dwindle. (I started to smell a rat around 2000, and I am anything but knowledgeable in economics and finance). Now? Now these companies (several at least) will be rescued by the taxpayer, which is just another way of allowing profits to be privatized but losses, socialized. Is this because of the Republican agenda? I’d have to say yes (although the Democrats are complicit).
I do believe the incompetence of George W. Bush’s administration and the subversive (my word) agenda of the Neo-Conservatives, along with the Corporate dominance has taken us to the cleaners.
My common sense tells me that if the Republicans have been dominant for all but 12 out of the last 40 years, including the last 8 (Democratic congress the last 2), is there any practical reason for putting them back into office? I don’t think so.
Will the Democrats fix all the mess if elected? Impossible. No one could. Will they make a good stab at it? I hope so. I’m not about to vote for McCain for a lot of reasons and this is just one of them.
Some people say that “Two people with opposing ideologies can argue ad infinitum and the end result will most likely be the same two people with the same opposing ideologies.” But if one of those people admits their only source of information is friends and 10 year old websites, then they’re really not in a position to make any intelligent observations about ideologies.
Some people who say “does a person embrace a particular ideology based on logic? Probably not. Each of us is a unique combination of influences and programming which is really what determines one’s ideology,” has absolutely no idea of those unique influences might be, other than to mouth platitudes and then decry the lack of logic in ideologies.
Some people ask “As a voter, what is the more important consideration? Ideology or practical reality?”, and then use the “current meltdown in the financial industry.” Some people would point to studies on this subject going as far back as Verba and Nie in the 1950s, but this would require educating oneself about the subject. Unfortunately, there are a lot of words in these studies, and some people are not “really not shopping” for any contrary views. So some people would ask once again what the hell this woman is talking about when she mouths platitudes without understanding the substance of the issue.
Some people talk about “unethical practices that have become the norm within our oldest and most esteemed financial institutions have been going on for a long time;”, but fail to note that al lot of the regulatory excesses are traced to the Clinton Administration.
Some people talk about “a few people making lots of money” (we call them entrepreneurs and risk takers), and some people talk about “the rest of us watched our standard of living deteriorate and our options dwindle”. Some people might question why someone would just sit back and allow their SOL to deteriorate instead of bettering themselves like the majority of the people did. Some people might “smell a rat around 2000” without understanding that Clinton was president in 2000, and Bush didn’t take office until 2001.
Some people say they are “anything but knowledgeable in economics and finance”, but that doesn’t stop them from smelling rats and making categorical statements about people making supposedly excessive profits and not understanding even the vaguest things about a market demand economy.
Some talk about the “incompetence of George W. Bush’s administration and the subversive (my word) agenda of the Neo-Conservatives, along with the Corporate dominance has taken us to the cleaners,” without bothering to understand or define what a Neocon is, tossing out vague platitudes like “Corporate dominance” (this is a friggin capitalist system — what other institution is supposed to be “dominate?”), and then makes the absolutely incomprehensible analytical observation that “My common sense tells me that if the Republicans have been dominant for all but 12 out of the last 40 years, including the last 8 (Democratic congress the last 2)”.
What planet is this woman on? Is she talking about Democrat control of the House of Representatives houses of Congress for 55 of the last 75 years? Is she limiting her analysis only to both houses of Congress since 1995 (that’s 11 of the last 13 years?) Is she beginning her common sense historical Analysis with the Kennedy Administration that favored lower tax rates and lower capital gains taxes like present day Republicans? (And by the way controlled Congress from 1954-1995). Does she do anything more than string together random thoughts and pretend that she’s offering deeply felt fact based convictions?
Some people would think only a self-absorbed dilettante masquerading as a Ron Paul Obamacrat would use all of the above to arrive at the conclusion “I’m not about to vote for McCain for a lot of reasons and this is just one of them.”
Some people would say the person offering these positions is just ideologically-driven hack pretending to be a deeply thoughtful, caring observer of current events.
And some people would be right.
Regarding post 59, Suzanne, just substitute the name Obama instead of Palin, and your statements still hold. He was in the US Senate for a mere 149 days before he started campaigning for president. We just don’t know much about him, even after two years of him on the campaign trail.
Please note, HE is the one who is running for president, Palin is not. HE is the one who keeps his transcripts a secret, so we don’t know how he did in college. HE is the one who chooses strange friends and mentors. HE is the one who says he will cut income taxes for 90% of us but doesn’t tell us how this is possible when 35% of people already don’t pay income taxes.
And, we have absolutely no way to determine if X or Y will make a good president. Talk about change is cheap. “Good” is a fluid term. Only after a president leaves office is it possible to make such a judgment.
You know, you have a way of completely ignoring specific points brought up, and you instead just meander on your merry way. There are nearly 80 comments on this thread, many of them directed at you. You have yet to address anything in any substantial way, but instead seem to pretend that these comments don’t exist.
Have you graduated from high school yet?
And now Sarah Palin’s e-mail has been hacked.
What is the media’s response? She had it coming:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5830813&page=1
She’s getting hammered, as usual, this time for her e-mail practices. No condemnation on the attack or the invasion of privacy, which is something liberals complain about all the time. Nope, she had it coming. Had they actually found something of worth, that would be plastered all over the news, despite the source. I am getting sick of this garbage.
JD Will,
I understand. I work also and can’t always spend as much time as I’d like discussing politics. I do look forward to hearing why you think there is some substance to this guy Obama. I don’t think he’s quite as scary as some folks, but I am decidedly against his program; which is joke. I think he’s just one more slightly corrupt politician, one to whom winning has become more important than substance, and one with a past he knows can hurt him and he’s unwilling to divulge. He’s also one who drank so much of the Kool-Aid, he is no longer accessible to reason.
I am not that crazy about McCain either, but at least I can tell who he is and predict the kind of policy he will follow. He has been hailed as a maverick, but this is hype and really means he too drinks the Kool-Aid (see http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72173). He believes in global-warming, continues to push amnesty despite the strong passions against it, co-authored McCain-Feingold, continues to vote against ANWR drilling, voted with the gun-control lobby, aquiesced in the Ginsberg confirmation and abetted in the blocking of Bush appointees. If this is the measure of a maverick, it is a strange measure. These are more the hallmarks of an appeaser. I plan to vote for McCain, but I’d have been a lot happier voting for a real conservative instead a milquetoast. McCain won’t play politics with the war on terror and he won’t waste all the work done by our troops the way Obama certainly will. He will also be more fiscally responsible than Obama. Other than those things, however, there’s not much policy difference between the two. However, McCain beats Obama on character hands down, and character should always be weighed in our calculations as we can never know what the future will bring.
FYI: PBS/AMERICAN EXPERIENCE will be rerunning their excellent series on the
Presidents (Reagan through G.H.W. Bush). You can watch online or check your local listings.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/
Mountain Man — make that 81 posts.
Thank God for the electoral college, and the fact that our on-line TV guide devotee lives in Texas, where her vote for Obama ultimately won’t count.
JD Will,
I think you are too generous in your assessment of both Mr. Haidt’s motives and his appraisal of conservatives. The whole article reeks of condescension and concludes Democrats have to take their “halos off’ to think about ‘conservative’ moral values, that “… we have nothing to learn from [conservatives]”. He clarifies the ‘halo’ remark later in the article, and no where admits liberals are, in any sense, morally deficient. He further unflatteringly compares our moral values to those of backward cultures having no relevance to the question whether western morality is maintained by some while despised or neglected by others raised in the same moral/cultural milieu. Essentially, Haidt is patronizing us as a bunch of superstitious but harmless yahoos. How, then, do you conclude from his remarks Haidt thinks our ‘moral foundation’ might be something liberals should learn to respect or, G*d forbid, emulate.
My moral foundation has changed very little from the time I thought myself a ‘liberal’. What did changed is I woke up to the fraud and stopped paying it lip service. I stopped supporting illiberal ideas just because they were couched in smug phrases and given the brand-name ‘liberal’ by a bunch of socialist counterfeits. I wised up to waste and theft cloaked in bogus claims of ‘justice’ and endless ‘caring’ that has no bottom and no point. I stopped calling myself a liberal because I no longer wish to be associated with a brand of politics that compromises principles to the detriment of future generations just so it can feel smuggly superior without cost. I began to acknowledge some of the debt and duties I owe G*d, just as once I neglected them. I do not regard myself superior to liberals, I regard what he calls ‘liberalism’ a kind of mental disease affecting otherwise decent, even intelligent, people. That is the how my morality differs from Mr. Haidt’s.
***sound of crickets chirping***
…and deer browsing for the acorns and foxes in the oak trees.
…and empty-headed leftists pretending to think…
Anybody seen any good TV shows lately?
Sometimes being mind-less is beneficial…just being, as in human being.
Well, you are certainly mindless.
I knew you would jump on that one, Phil!
We have spirited debates with the occasional liberal who pops in to actually discuss issues, but no tolerance for people who wallow in their own ignorance and refuse to engage with anything other than empty minded platitudes.
Suzanne,
I read the article you mentioned from the Economist. How in the world could you possibly say it was balanced and fair?
There is a genuine chance that, even after almost eight years of George Bush’s calamitous presidency, the voters may actually opt for another stint of Republican administration.
Mr McCain still has to surmount some sizeable obstacles. One problem is something that he, like Mr Obama, can do nothing about: his age. At 72, he would be the oldest president ever inaugurated, apart from Ronald Reagan in his second term.
Hawkish foreign policy, irresponsible tax cuts, more talk about religion and abortion: all this sounds too much like Bush Three, the label the Democrats are trying to hang around the Republican’s neck. We preferred McCain One.
These sound bipartisan and balanced? Maybe you should read more and look at the titles just a little less.
And someone up there mentioned something about catastrophic financial upheaval? How would you like to buy a slightly used insurance comany?
Bob Stapler,
First, to answer your questions as to where I stand on some issues.
1. Iraq. I supported this war because there was enough track record on Hussein to show he would sooner or later he would get WMD and likely use them surreptitiously. He invaded Iran and Kuwait and was clearly megalomaniacal; he had provably gotten too close to a nuclear weapon by 1991 when we caught him out. And waiting for him to die and Uday to take charge seemed no option. I never cared that we didn’t find recent WMD’s ready on the shelf; an open minded reading of the Duelfer report shows Saddam intended to reconstitute and had hidden many assets to that end. Further, once we committed in Iraq, any retreat would have been a disaster due to Iran being unleashed. I am holding judgment on the Iraqi prospect of becoming a Middle East beacon, but we (and they) are better off for many reasons.
PS. I hope this country does something big to honor our military for the amazing counterinsurgency feat they have pulled off in spite of many missteps by the administration and the best efforts of Iran and Syria to derail the effort.
2. Illegal immigrants. What part about illegal don’t people understand? We, as a sovereign nation, need to be able to meter the flow and quality of immigration. Not doing so threatens to overwhelm infrastructure (medical, educational, etc.). Further, our maintaining of our national identity and advantage requires immigrants to assimilate our language and laws, not supplant them. I do support a guest worker program and respectful, humane treatment of people who only want to earn a living for their families and return. This, however, should not erase the blue collar path to the middle class. I have two Indian coworkers who have spent 10 or more years earning the right to citizenship and consider them valuable additions to our society. It is a denigration of their honest efforts to allow others to scoff the law.
3. Abortion. Roe v Wade is unconstitutional. Laws regarding abortion should be made by the people through their legislatures. I personally believe life begins at conception, nothing else makes scientific or moral sense to me. But I am willing to respect other people who have differing views, even though I disagree. I would not support Draconian legislation to outlaw abortion, partially because it would simply drive it underground and have ugly unintended consequences.
4. ANWR and AGW hysteria are both symptoms of a green movement corrupted by radicals and gone insane. One might have thought the radical socialists and outright communists in the US had been discredited by a triumphant American economy and social ideal and the collapse of their pet, the USSR, but one would have been wrong. They have retrenched in their cradle, the universities, and have co-opted a native green movement (which I supported in the 1970′s and 1980′s). The philosophy that informs them is anti-growth, and essentially a self-culture-loathing that would obliterate Western Civilization if it could. I find the statements that the debate is over, and recent commercials that state ‘we aren’t just asking anymore’ frightening. There is a Luddite-like mob mentality being cultivated and we may reap a whirlwind and/or economic disaster. Meanwhile, China and India will eat our lunch and dump more carbon than we can negate, even if we take to teepees and scavenging for nuts and berries.
Now, I have studied the AGW science debate a bit, contrasting sites like ClimateAudit and RealClimate (also ClimatePolicy, ScienceBits, and Prometheus). My result? CO2 and other gases are contributing to warming, which has raised a degree since 1860, but not nearly as much as the Medieval Warm Period. I am a software engineer, not a meteorologist, but my reading of the IPCC result is they have not done sufficient science to properly rank greenhouse against other cooling/warming forcing agents. They haven’t even properly isolated CO2 from water vapor effect. Most notably, they don’t know clouds and if you read the IPCC report carefully they admit it. Given we seem to be entering a solar minimum of unknown duration it will be interesting to see how the new high priests attempt to spin the dropping temperatures we are very likely to see soon.
Geologically we are more likely due an ice age than a Jurassic one. Carbon dioxide existed then at average concentrations of about 1200 ppm, but have since declined. Today, at 380 ppm our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished … I am not so sure our freeing up of sequestered carbon is not a good thing, long scale, though I certainly am not arrogant enough to prescribe this. Prometheus is probably the most sane of the AGW believing sites in that it preaches adaptablity which is a good strategy given that climate change is probably inevitable no matter what we do.
Now, you may be saying, “center-righty?”. But wait.
I am more Hamiltonian than Jeffersonian. I support:
a. A strong central government with certain social programs and standards mandated (and partially funded) to the states.
b. Unions as a counter to mega-corporations, but not via strong arm tactics and unsecret ballots.
c. A welfare safety net.
d. Universal health care in some hybrid form that provides basic care to all and stepped up services for those who can pay.
e. More regulation (rules and audits) of the market and businesses – Current events show that greed and hubris are a human condition that needs moderating.
f. Free markets and trade within reason, but with an eye to protecting and advancing the American middle class. We have often been played for suckers by a greedy elite with powerful lobbyists. Some populism is in order.
f. Education vouchers, to spark competition, but again, national standards, and a commitment to a public education system. It is part of what made our country great.
My overarching theme is balance.
I am running out of time, but to address my characterization of Obama:
1. By hyper-intelligent I am trying to combine his empathy (seeing into the other at an individual level) and his apparent questing for a more complete understanding of the human condition (I am reading Dreams of My Father). Comparitive to many contemporary politicians, he comes off as being a step above in intellectual curiosity. I don’t pretend to know the depth and breadth of his knowlege, but he appears to be a lot more intellectually active than any of the primary candidate field of either party. Is he on par with Reagan? Probably not, but this could be inexperience. Beyond this, I can’t really defend this characterization. Could he be fooling me? Maybe.
2. In a presidential election we are given what appears to be a binary choice. Within that I been keeping an open mind and collecting information about the candidates (the Saddleback and Columbia events were very useful). However, beyond binary is the thought of a Democratic House, Senate, and Executive. This gives me pause. And I detest Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. However, taking Obama at face value, I keep finding myself drawn to him. I have taken the time to research Dr Cone (the real mind behind Wright), but having lived long in Detroit, I am not easily stampeded by black liberation theology. It is a factor, however, not to be denied.
3. I have many of the same problems with McCain as yourself. I am watching Sarah Palin on TV as I write this. I am impressed with her, and have high hopes for her political future. But, she seems rough, needing more maturation as a national level politician. She does not put me over the top for the Republicans, who have made a sorry hash of things since their ascent in 1994. So I am in a quandary, to some extent. My default position is a Republican president to counter the Democratic impulse to behave irresponsibly in foriegn policy. McCain serves that purpose, but as you note, he is wrong on AGW and immigration.
Finally, my last post about the Edge article says what I needed to say there. Ships passing, perhaps. I think you zeroed in on certain hot button terms and went around the underlying theme of it. For example, “strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities are what turn people against liberalism”, you interpreted liberalism as the newer derogatory term when the author meant classical liberalism. You might disagree with the author in either case.
Perhaps more later.
BTW – The line: “This pigmy with delusions of divinity …tries to get his short, fat arms around the moral underpinnings of religion… was a snorter. Does it really describe the author? Not so much, but a good line, nonetheless.
To detn80r69,
I thought the article balanced, but that is just my opinion. I remember McCain in his other days, perhaps more on his game than now and I suppose that is what I related to in the article.
I’m not sure anyone with an opinion is called ‘bipartisan’ any more but bipartisan is absolutely what our Congress must do to solve some difficult problems. I don’t think the Democrats have done a good job, by any means, either. But this is what we have to work with. I want solutions, not politics. Call me an idealist, whatever. My choice is to go for the best person, in my opinion, for this job, regardless of the party.
Thank you for your input.
Suzanne, Has it dawned on you that no one is taking you seriously anymore? All there is left is to mock your cluelessness. Probably time for you to move on.
Susan,
How is Barrack Obama going to unite the country when he can not even unite the democratic party?
“Suzanne, Has it dawned on you that no one is taking you seriously anymore? All there is left is to mock your cluelessness. Probably time for you to move on.”
Mountain Man, has it dawned on you that this one little simple-minded liberal has several of you allegedly sophisticated conservatives worked up into a lather? It’s rather entertaining to read.
Simple minded is correct. And actually treating a liberal as if they’re a serious person is probably a mistake.
But this is what distinguishes our side from yours. We get upset over blatant displays of ignorance disguised as thought. You guys don’t recognize the difference, and therefore don’t see the problem.
Palin as a sex goddess ?
The Republican vice-presidential nominee is a woman all right. But does she need to be sexually attractive ? This question might seem irrelevant or even outrageous but it is not. Several women have been nominated, or at least been candidates, to top level political posts in the past few years. Some, like Angela Merkel (Germany) or Tzipi Livni (Israel) are not very attractive. Others, like Ségolène Royal (France) or Palin are and this is obviously part of the assets they are banking on. As a conservative, I feel deeply indebted to the long line of my predecessors in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The least thing we can say about this intellectual heritage is that it is consistently and adamantly opposed to the use of female beauty as a symbol of the good and the right. This has routinely been pooh-pooed as “misoginy” of late. But doing so is anachronic. Thinkers of the past, from the writers of the Pentateuch down to Luther were not so much preoccupied of men vs. women issues, as feminism is, but rather of the humans vs. divine contrast. As such, they searched for the right symbols to represent the divinity and consistently rejected all things related to the feminine. It is easily acknowledged that the early worshippers of YHWH were innovators in that they claimed that their God was the only one in existence. But it is much less easy for us to see that they were just as radically innovating by claiming only male aspects for their unique deity. Prior to Yahwism, all religious representations carefully balanced male and female symbols. Mesopotamian and Egyptian pantheons were about as exactly coed as any modern college. Female deities featured prominently in myths and were not simply auxiliaries of male ones. Ishtar was as important in Mesopotamia as Marduk and Isis as Osiris in Egypt.
By contrasts, Yawists rejected the “Baals and the Ashtoreths” and in so doing they mostly rejected the Ashtoreths. YHWH is sometimes called in Hebrew texts “Adonai” which is usually translated “Lord”. But this is also the approximate meaning of “Baal”. This, and other clues, seem to indicate that YHWH is a “Baal” whose worshippers stripped of its Ashtoreth and then declared unique. One immediate consequence of declaring God unique is to create the concept of Idolatry to encompass, and therefore reject, every other form of worship. It is noteworthy that Jewish writers often associated Itolatry with feminine related symbols, from the wives of Solomon who lead him to idol worship in his old age to the “whore of Babylon” in Revelation.
God, in all forms of Monotheism, stands for truthfulness, loyalty and order. Idolatry, by contrast, is synonymous with deceit, confusion, treachery, betrayal and, ultimately, violence.
Idolatry, as everyone can tell, is back among us with a vengeance. Huge crowds routinely gather for pop-music concerts that have all the attributes of the Bacchanalia. Anyone with a pretty face can show up on television and attract a following even on the basis of a totally vacuous or patently unrealistic message or platform.
In such a context, is it wise to chose a sexually attractive woman (even moderately so) as the figurehead of a conservative party ? I doubt it. At least I doubt our intellectual forefathers would recognize this party as the one of their descendants.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
Benjamin Franklin