Culture war over Palin? Lock and load.

It's full-on hysteria by both Left and Right. The firestorm over Palin's nomination is really starting to bug me. Please, can we stop looking for our politicians to be saviors, and judge them on the merits?

"Don't misunderstand me: there are plenty of good reasons not to vote for Sarah Palin, and to think she was a poor choice of running mates. I understand that. I honor it, truly. But that's not what this tempest these past few days has been about. It's been about putting Palin and women like her, and people like her, in their place. For every action there is an equal and positive reaction. Remember that."

rod, the ONLY reason she was nominated at all was precisely to fan the flames of this culture war garbage, distracting everyone from the GOP's dismal track record on anything other than rhetoric about "family values". her only qualification, it seems, is having a baby with down's.

this is why you want to vote for palin? because such has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of her demonstrated abilities or experience or even political philosophy.

Firstly, Rod, I hope your family is S. Louisiana is doing well. I spent the better part of last year in Shreveport, and have a great affinity for Louisiana.

Secondly, however, I must strongly disagree with you. Sarah Palin was put on the ticket PRECISELY to fan the flames of a culture war - or to put it in clearer terms - to get the Evangelical Base of the Republican Party to finally support the GOP nominee. At this point, it's ludicrous to support Palin on "the issues of governance" because with the record we have seen so far, she's a bigger flip-flopper than Kerry or McCain, or Biden or Obama. The ONLY issues she hasn't flipped on are her social views, and for many in the GOP, that's enough.

For me, it's not. I expect more from McCain. HE's the one running, but right now, it's Palin that people are rushing to vote for.

I only have one question.

Why, if not for her position on abortion?

As if on cue, Rod, your readers prove your points, with ignorant posts saying things like "her only qualification is having a down's baby." Holy crap, could you be more idiotic and offensive? You're talking about the governor of the largest state in the union, who took on and defeated an incumbent of her own party, bucked her own party to enact reform, and has the highest approval ratings of any politician in the country, and you reduce her accomplishments to ... her vagina.

Man, Kathy Shaidle is right: liberal men are the most sexist, misogynist pigs on the planet.

Rod, does it not bother you at all that Kenneth Anderson just made all that up? The Obama family has not been involved in any abortions, to my knowledge--and if we're going to talk about leaving the kids out of it, don't you think maybe you should not repeat imaginary scenarios that could be hurtful to two innocent little girls who should not even be imagined as pregnant, at their age? Anderson doesn't quote any spokespersons from Sidwell Friends or National Cathedral School on the subject of what would happen if a student there were pregnant. If, as he says, his own daughters go there, it would have been easy enough for him to inquire and find out. But he didn't bother--he just vilified the people who are supervising his daughters' education. This seems beyond bizarre to me. If he thinks they're such awful people, then why are they teaching his children? And his implication that feminists order men to drag unwilling girls to the abortionist is also beyond bizarre. It is completely untruthful.

This is just crap, Rod. It is scurrilous, crazy nonsense of the very kind you've decried on other issues. Is it impossible to defend Sarah Palin without lying and making up BS? If so, you really need to think about the nature of her candidacy.

You are absolutely right. After decades of being subjected to the piety and condescension of social conservatives, people are saying we've had enough. Don't talk to me about family values when your teenager is knocked up. Don't talk to me about the harms of feminism and affirmative action when you the only reason you are where you are is because of feminism and affirmative action. Don't talk to me about how your life is somehow more authentic or "touchable" because you go to an anti-Semitic church. Don't talk to me about the "culture of death" when you are on the ticket with someone who wants wage an unjust war and is indifferent to torture. Don't tell me you care about women when you are willing to send a 13 year old incest victim to prison because she doesn't want to carry her rapists' child.

Social conservative aren't the only people are angry. I am angry that we are going to have culture war instead of focusing on the real war. I am angry at people with seven houses talking about elitism of two-people who have worked hard their whole lives. I am angry at being told that my concerns are less important because I can't kill a moose or because I don't have chickens in my backyard or because my church doesn't believe gay people are a danger to my marriage.

Is you want a culture war, bring it on. Because there are a lot of angry people out there and they are convinced that the governor of Alaska isn't the answer to our problems.

Houghton -

Thanks for the post, but methinks, like Rod, you're too invested emotionally to see the facts.

As of Friday, here's what we knew:

Reformer? Not so much. She was FOR the bridge to Nowhere before she was against it.

Reformer? Not so much. She is involved in an ongoing ethics investigation, with two others in her past.

Maverick? Not so much. She claimed to be against Earmarks, yet pursued them AGRESSIVELY as both a Mayor and Governor.

Maverick? Not so much. She ran one of Ted Steven's 527's.

Reformer? Not so much. She asked for "Loyalty Oaths" from city employees while Mayor.

Maverick? Not so much. She took a town which had no debt, and left the town with a $20Million dollar long term debt when she left office, which comes out to $3000 PER CITIZEN of the town.

Foreign policy? Not so much. In fact, none.

Iraq policy? Not so much. In fact, none.

Tax Policy? See above. Claims to be fiscally conservative, but left her city with a huge debt.

Health Care Policy? Not so much? In fact, none.

Immigration Policy? Not so much. In fact, none.

What exactly makes her good candidate again, other than social issues?

Not all of us who are shocked by Palin's nomination are seeing the cultural issues as the cherry on the run-the-other-way cake.

Beyond the soap opera-ish teen pregnancy, husband dui, church speeches, etc., there are several other issues about Palin's track record that fatten this cake up.

Let's not forget the national incidents on record such as her past membership in Alaska's secession organization (Country first? Please! This issue is alone beyond ironic.) And let's not forget her abuse of power to try to keep the polar bears off of the endangered species list. The list is long, I won't post all of the issues here. As Rod said, "there are plenty of good reasons not to vote for Sarah Palin, and to think she was a poor choice of running mates."

Point being, there are plenty of us who are seeing past the cultural hoopla of her nomination. Unfortunately most of America will buy into the cultural war approach as that's what the media they expose themselves to will show them.

Then again, maybe Palin thinks this too is 'God's war' as she stated about the war in Iraq, and God just thinks it's time for a cultural war here in America.

Amen?

Alicia, I'm with you - party of two, or will more join us?

I'll bring the potato salad.

I unpublished the superlong Ann Kilkenny letter, only for length. Comments of over 1,000 words in length, especially if they're not original to a commentator, are discouraged. I think the Kilkenny letter is real -- I just saw her on NBC criticizing Palin -- and I'm fine with you posting a link to it. Just don't cut and paste a very, very long e-mail from somebody else into a combox.

Re: MSM treatment of Palin. I am independent, but generally conservative. I wasn't too excited about McCain, until he picked Palin. Because of this pick and certainly because of the MSM treatment of her, I did 3 things I've never done before:

1. Signed up to be a volunteer on the McCain campaign.
2. Donated $1,000 to the campaign, which I will increase to the max.
3. Signed up to attend a rally in Colorado Springs with my family (wife + 5 kids and one due any day now).

Bring it. Never in my life have I been so disgusted with the MSM and the double standards. Bring it. We're outbreeding you punks.

What exactly makes her good candidate again, other than social issues?

You might consider asking the same question about Obama. I don't mind the media questioning Palin's experience, I just expect Obama to get the same treatment, by any objective standard he has less experience than Palin and, slight though it may be, Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden (and McCain for that matter) combined.

It's funny, I got called some names yesterday essentially for pointing out what Prof. Anderson is saying, and by quoting Ross Douthat on the topic. I guess since I pointed out that a lot of the people who might have some trouble with the cultural markers being laid down here by the Palins are also otherwise Republican or Republican-leaning folks (they tend to send their kids to schools like Sidwell too, ya know) and didn't use it as an opportunity to bash liberals (whether of the real or strawman variety), I was a terrible elitist for noticing this phenomenon a little early.

Oh, well, as pointed out above, in many ways this is much ado about a Vice-President. Let's see where this ride all ends.

Larry, you state:

You might consider asking the same question about Obama. I don't mind the media questioning Palin's experience, I just expect Obama to get the same treatment, by any objective standard he has less experience than Palin and, slight though it may be, Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden (and McCain for that matter) combined.

Why didn't you answer the question instead of deflecting to Obama? Obama was vetted and chosen by the people in the Democratic period during an intense, 18 month process, not one man.

That you couldn't or wouldn't answer the question speaks volumes.

Thanks.

Still, I had thought we were beyond this, and that the people spreading the garbage about Palin would be marginalized in the same way the "Obama is a Muslim" haters have been by the respectable right.

What marginalization? I certainly haven't heard anyone at the GOP convention take a moment to say that such rumors are beyond the pale, and they certainly aren't criticized with any real vigor on most conservative blogs I've seen.

Repeat after me:

"Abortion trumps all, abortion trumps all, abortion trumps all"

The Right smells victory is almost at hand. A Mcain-Palin administration would able to appoint at least three Supreme Court Justices in the next four years. Enough to overturn Roe v. Wade and throw the issue back to the States...

Sarah Palin was pick to solidify the Christian right base of the GOP and to allow him to refocus his own campaigning on the moderates and Reagan Democrats.

Intellectually sound conservatism with a focus on fiscal responsibility and limited government? Sorry, that's dead

"Abortion trumps all, abortion trumps all, abortion trumps all"

"You're talking about the governor of the largest state in the union"

winner for the most misleading statement of the thread. what states have less population (you know, the people who are governed) than alaska? wyoming? rhode island? anybody else?

and yes, given that there are plenty of female republicans with more experience and stature than palin, given that there are plenty of republican governors with more than 1.5 years experience on the job, given that there must be a hundred other prominent republicans who are more qualified than palin, i think her down's syndrome baby (constantly harped on by mccain's own campaign) is the only reason she's here. that's it. palin doesn't think people should have abortions and had a baby with a genetic disorder. congratulations, sarah. your reward is being a breathe away from the presidency.

and that's pathetic.

and for the "we're out breeding you punks" guy, your attitude is truly horrifying.

I've found the level of spite to be so jarring that it's moving me from being anti-McCain, to cautiously optimistic about McCain-Palin, to approaching a point where I feel almost obligated to vote for McCain-Palin to spite those trying to destroy her.

And THAT's precisely what McCain is counting on, Rod. Look at how he's greeting Bristol and her Baby Daddy in front of the national media. You think he doesn't know what he's doing? You thing Mr. Straight Talk doesn't know how to handle the media? He's inviting the very attacks you deplore because he knows it'll stoke you up, and he doesn't have to offer social conservatives a single thing policy-wise. All you'll get a place-holder at some foreign poohbahs' funerals.

I'm amazed that you guys can't see how cynically you're being played by McCain. You want outrage? Think about how cruelly McCain is using this Bristol girl as a political prop.

The Right smells victory is almost at hand. A Mcain-Palin administration would able to appoint at least three Supreme Court Justices in the next four years. Enough to overturn Roe v. Wade and throw the issue back to the States.

The issue does belong back with the states, but if the Right thinks Palin will effect this, then they're fools. Unless McCain dies in office (possible), Palin will either toe his line, or spend the next four years cutting ribbons for malls and monuments.

Oo, let's take a look at those conservatives listed and see how they're doing on the whole "out-breeding" thing.

Laura Schlessinger: one child. Also one divorce, I believe. And, like John McCain, her current husband neglected to be off with the old love before he was on with the new.
David Frum: 3 children--though his wife is 45 now, so chances are that will be it. Has said he believes in abortion rights during the first trimester, and has said he is "not pro-life."
Mark DeMoss: 3 children.
Byron York: nothing said of wife or family in his bio. Perhaps unmarried?
Peggy Noonan: one child, one divorce. Oh dear.
Mike Murphy: nothing said of family in official bio. Does he have one? Also "works as a writer and producer in the entertainment industry. Hmmm . . . .

Guys, if this is your shot at "out-breeding" us, I think you're firing blanks. ; ) I myself have four children. All with the same guy, to whom I'm still married. So does that make me "fecund and feminine" yet, or is five the cut-off point?

The issue does belong back with the states, but if the Right thinks Palin will effect this, then they're fools. Unless McCain dies in office (possible), Palin will either toe his line, or spend the next four years cutting ribbons for malls and monuments.

14 percent chance by Jan. 2013 that McCain will slip through the curtain and join the Choir Invisible ( according the SSA actuarial tables )

EddieInCA Wrote: Why didn't you answer the question instead of deflecting to Obama? Obama was vetted and chosen by the people in the Democratic period during an intense, 18 month process, not one man.

Larry Wrote: Fine, if you're such a fan of "democracy" then let "the peepul" decide if Palin is a viable candidate, but to be fair, she should get the same lack of criticism and hard questions that Messiah Obama has received from the "objective" press. As I said above, I don't object to the press questioning Palin, but the guy at the head of the ticket deserves even more scrutiny and questioning, and in Obama's case it has not been forthcoming. Evidently, there are some questions that you don't ask The Chosen One. I'm not claiming that Palin is an ideal candidate, but for an Obama supporter, and, let's face it, most of the MSM fits in this category, to question someone's, anyone's, lack of experience takes more than a little hypocrisy.

To which I'll respond thusly: Larry, for the 2nd time... Why can't you answer the simple question instead of deflecting the question to Obama? The question is simple. What are the reason's to vote for Palin, other than social issues, based on her legislative history?

Good post from liberal Steve Benen:
www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014537.php

"There was a carefully choreographed photo-op on an airport tarmac this afternoon, where John McCain greeted the Palin family. Watching the video, you'll notice that McCain lingers with Palin's pregnant daughter and her fiancee. All of this could have been done in private, of course, but the McCain campaign obviously wanted the media attention, and sure enough, news outlets were fascinated by the family drama."

He goes on to quote Josh Marshall:

"It was the McCain campaign that announced Palin's daughter's pregnancy. That alone might be understandable since it appears a supermarket tabloid was about to print the story. But it was the McCain campaign, entirely on its own, that dished up unsubstantiated claims about maternity tests and all sorts of other lurid nonsense that had never been seen in print anywhere. And now the McCain campaign has staged a ceremonial laying-on-of-hands on the tarmac in St. Paul in which Sen. McCain has given his official blessing to the young couple and embrace of Bristol's boyfriend Levi.

Let's be clear about what's happening here. Overwhelmingly, reporters are pressing eminently reasonable questions -- her role in troopergate, her lack of experience, her connections to the AIP, her history of earmarking and lobbyists, etc. Meanwhile, the McCain campaign is going absolutely non-stop about Palin's daughter. It is unmistakable."

Rod and you others need to understand that you're being manipulated in the most cynical manner by McCain, and all you're getting in exchange is a symbolic gesture.

Strange, I've had two comments posted here, but a comment I left on the "Why US elites hate religious conservatives" about a half hour ago hasn't been posted yet. Maybe it's because I had an HTML link in it? Anyway, I'm off to have some dinner and watch Palin's speech. I suspect she'll give a good speech, but that things will start going south again once the press interviews start and the National Enquirer starts amping up the checkbook journalism.

What I don't get about the reaction to the Palin pick is the anger and outrage coming from the McCain/Palin opponents. Read some of the comments here over the last couple of days. You'd think if she was such a disastrous pick they'd be elated. But they actually seem worried that the average American will prefer the ticket she's on over the sainted One and Senator Biden. You'd think that if she was that obviously craptactically awful that they'd just snicker and laugh at McCain and go on their way. No, instead they're posting on blogs like this like they've never done before with incredible anger and vitriol - as if McCain just insulted their mother or something.

(For the record, yes, there's over-the-top comments of adoration from her supporters too.)

I think this whole "St. Sarah vs. cruel-liberal-media-elite-baby-killers" is a pretty apt example of the "political narrative bullshit" Peggy Noonan is talking about.

Sorry I missed it, Rod. Good for you!

I agree with Peggy Noonan and Dr. Laura Schlesinger. I also don't get how she can accuse the media of dragging her kids into this when she is posing on the cover of several national magazines with some of them.

What Democrats, liberals, progressives, and the left more generally need to realize -- and realize fast -- is that regardless of whether or not Barack Obama wins this election, they have already *lost.*

As soon as they -- or their representatives and advocates -- forced themselves first into Sarah Palin's and then into Bristol Palin's pants they were *done.*

Any chance they may have had to broker a realignment toward the left was *finished.*

No one who "dares" not to be a Democrat, a liberal, a progressive, or on the left more generally should "lock and load," but neither should they feel in any way obliged to take even one tiny sip of the kool-aid cup filled with you-know-what that they have been poured and pressured to drink by Democrats, liberals, progressives, and the left more generally.

If they are on their best behavior, they should simply pour the cup out and walk away politely.

If they are not, they should toss the cup's contents right back in the face of those from whom it came -- which, let me be clear, does not include all Democrats, all liberals, all progressives, or all of those on the left more generally.

McCain is using Palin as bait. He has no intention of giving in to the conservative base. He's dangling her out there, hoping to reel in some votes, but if he were president, he'd relegate her to the pre-Cheney days of the Vice Presidency never consult her once about anything.

In 2000, I tried to warn "culture warriors" that Bush didn't care about anything but being President. McCain's the same way--he'll talk a good line, but he will never deliver any of the things the social conservatives are looking for. To get elected, he'll do whatever he has to, then he'll go his own way.

EddieinCA,

I'm running out of time here -- I swim in the evenings, and I would urge others here to take a blood pressure check once in awhile -- so I'm going to be somewhat brief.

First let me say that I was energized and excited about the Palin pick several days ago. Because of the over-the-top media reaction and hateful behavior of leftists, you can now add "enraged" that list. So yes, I certainly am having an emotional reaction to this -- as you are, as everyone is. I would say those are three emotions - excited, energized and enraged - are three things you don't want the conservative base to be right now. So am I "emotionally-invested"? You bet. As are many, many other individuals like me. When you've got mild-mannered, bookish Ross Douthat posting about how angry he is, then a sea change has occurred. And that's a bad, bad thing for Obama supporters.

A few weeks ago, I had described myself to a friend of mine (an Obama supporter) as "anesthetized" as far as the election was concerned. I was prepared for an Obama presidency. No longer. If Obama wins, he'll face a nation more divided than it was under Bush -- and it is primarily the fault of unhinged left-wing hysteria we've seen the past few days.

Now, having said that, I'm also able to analyze this all rather calmly, and I find what you've done in reply very interesting because it falls broadly into what I predicted Palin opponents would do. You've fallen into a fascinating trap.

I could dispute every one of your contentions point by point (and those who know me from this blog, know that I'm capable of doing it), and there are counter-facts to everything you've mentioned here. I'm too lazy to go into a point by point critique. Perhaps I will later. But what is more interesting is that you've chosen to put your own "spin" on her reformer credentials, and if that wasn't threatening to you, you would have simply dismissed it. Let me give you a few off the top of my head examples:

You say "she FOR the bridge to Nowhere before she was against it" - Here's what the New York Times reports (and I use it as an example because of how liberally-biased the NYT is, and how filled with bias this piece is):
---
In her Republican primary challenge to then Gov. Frank H. Murkowski — a former United States senator and longtime ally of Mr. Stevens and Mr. Young — she criticized wasteful state spending. For the bridge, the state had agreed to contribute almost as much money as the federal government. “We should treat our state budget the same way we treat our home budget,” she argued, calling for “a budget that is sustainable through the good times and the not-so-good.” Once elected governor in November 2006, Ms. Palin warned Alaskans that nationwide ridicule of the Gravina bridge would make it difficult to secure more federal money to meet rising cost projections. Last September, when Ms. Palin announced she was abandoning the project, she cited a growing financing shortfall. “It’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” she said. (Alaska was able to keep the federal money and direct it to other projects.) Since then, Ms. Palin has continued to battle the state’s Republican establishment, which derives much of its political power from its ability to direct the flow of federal earmarks, and this summer encouraged a protégé, Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, to challenge Mr. Young in the state’s Republican primary last month. The vote was so close that the results are not yet known. “She certainly represents a different pole in Alaska Republican politics,” said Steve Ellis, a spokesman for Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington group that tracks earmarks."
--

EddieinCA, you say "she is involved in an ongoing ethics investigation" without mentioning that it has all the hallmarks of a trumped-up "investigation" driven by political opponents, and that the narrative facts around it are overwhelmingly positive for her. Of course you don't want to mention this - and do you really think the commenters on this thread aren't aware of all of this? To me, that says more about your flawed reasoning here than anything else. You want to slap up your talking points version of this on a thread among informed people who know better. Even Keith Olbermann called this story a "nonstarter" and you keep flogging it (just like, I might add, your side kept flogging the tinfoil hat theories about Palin's Downs Syndrome son -- and it's going to be a long time before we forget that).

A couple of other examples: You stack her up against Obama - who is running for the #1 job, as opposed to the #2 job - and you do exactly what the Obama camp hopes you won't do. You cause us to wonder, "Okay, so what's Obama's foreign policy?" And we are reminded he opposed the surge, and failed in his one major foreign policy decision, that he was uncomfortable with questions about how or when to confront evil, that implied in his acceptance speech through poorly-chosen words that he might invade Pakistan, etc., etc.

You critique her experience as mayor -- yet a few days ago that was supposed to be irrelevant, and she was supposed to be the beauty queen ditz who was the honorary figurehead of a hick town named "Wasilly."

Well, which is it?

For example, the New York Times made much of the fact that Palin, "as the new mayor of tiny Wasilla, Alaska, in 2000, Ms. Palin initiated a tradition of making annual trips to Washington to ask for more earmarks from the state’s Congressional delegation, mainly Representative Don Young and Senator Ted Stevens, both Republicans. 'It was about being face-to-face with those who were actually writing the budget,' she told The Anchorage Daily News in 2006, boasting that she brought home more money for priorities like upgrades to the local sewer system."

So on the one hand, we're supposed to buy into the meme that she was merely the mayor of some tiny hick backwater hamlet and dismiss the experience as not worthy of consideration. And on the other, we're told we must take this experience very seriously, indeed - and that she took annual trips to Washington to interact with the state's congressional delegation. Her earmarks? Not a museum, but upgrades to the sewer system. And we know that Palin's policies about earmarks evolved -- like the rest of the nation -- as her political and executive experience grew and as she began to learn more and take on the corrupt establishment in Alaska. This is supposed to surprise me?

But it gets even worse than that, because we know Biden's son has been linked to earmarks and that Obama has quite a record on them: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/26/AR2008082603894_pf.html

"Sen. Barack Obama sought more than $3.4 million in congressional earmarks for clients of the lobbyist son of his Democratic running mate, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, records show."

So on the one hand, we have an outsider running for #2 who has by all accounts taken on the corrupt political culture in her own state, and on the other we have a man running for #1 who is anything but "change we can believe in."

See how that works? I am not saying it works for every voter - but I certainly think that thought process occurs for conservatives, center-right moderates and swing voters. Add that to the emotions of "excited, energized and enraged" among conservatives, and the continued over-the-top attacks, and you have a witches brew I do not think you want to concoct.

Another example: everyone today is buzzing about what her pastor did or did not say. Again, it's question-begging and reminds everyone of something Obama would rather not talk about: Reverend Wright. Amazingly, in the critiques of her pastor I've read, the left-wing bloggers always bring up Reverend Wright! "If it was good enough for Wright, it should be good enough for her," they say. Do they not realize what a terrible negative this is for their candidate? Anyone with half a brain will immediately flash back to an ecstatic Wright in the throes of prophecy shouting "G-d damn America!"

This is why I've said from the very beginning that Palin is perfect political jujitsu embodied, and it's why McCain released an ad today comparing her experience to Obama's. It's precisely the conversation the McCain campaign wants, and you keep falling for it.

At the risk of being called racist, I'll use an illustration from American folklore (this shouldn't be something people call racist, because it's from an African-American folktale and it's a very nice metaphor for what people do when they fall into traps unwittingly, but I know someone out there could cry "racist" if I use it). Anyway, Sarah Palin's positives are a little bit like the proverbial tar baby from Br'er Rabbit stories. She points out every one of Obama's weaknesses.

When people like you ask, "can we really put this woman a heartbeat away from the presidency?" the next question automatically is "can we really put this man, Obama, in the Oval Office given his similar lack of experience." The more you hit her, the more you get enmeshed in the noise, the weeds, the question-begging and the doubts that Americans have had about Obama from the very beginning.

This is sad. I had hoped with McCain and Obama that this election would be a reasoned debate about which way we want to go. Instead, it just seems to be bringing out more of the worst in everyone, including Rod.

Mr. Dreher writes:

"[M}maybe we really are a country with irreconcilable differences."

The light hath dawned.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

What is fascinating is that Sarah and Bristol Pailin's wombs have riled up more people on all sides than any other issue, including war, more war, national near-bankruptcy, health care, energy and theism vs. atheism.

You're right, this is fascinating (I'm not being snarky here). The sexual revolution is still at the heart of American politics.

Paging Thomas Frank....

This is sad. I had hoped with McCain and Obama that this election would be a reasoned debate about which way we want to go. Instead, it just seems to be bringing out more of the worst in everyone, including Rod.

It's worth remembering that while cultural conservatives obviously rejoiced in Sarah Palin's addition to the McCain ticket, because her pro life bona fides are solid, sincere and lived out in practice, nevertheless Palin herself has never put "culture war" issues at the center of her campaigns. She has always run as a classic Western libertarian anti-establishment figure (and in Alaska and the mountain west, that's fully compatible with social conservatism). Until 5 days ago, that was her political persona, and it is a key reason McCain chose her.

Who recast her as an icon of the culture wars? The blame for that lies with the cultural Left, which fears everything she stands for.

There's an element that would like Americans to regard her lifestyle as weird and creepy, while at the same time affirming the lifestyle of, say, Andrew Sullivan as entirely normal.

Well the good news in all of this is that we haven't had a peak oil thread in days.

It's your money, fbc, just don't come cryin' to anyone when these two so-called pro-lifers never lift a finger to save one unborn life or do anything about any conservative social issue should they be elected in November. You're being pandered to, chewed up and spit out by Republican elites. Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.

I'll be even more succinct why I am happy to have this culture war, if that's the one you want to declare. I'm pro-choice, my wife is pro-choice. We are both supportive of gay marriage and we think comprehensive sex education should be taught in school. So I guess we believe in the culture of death.

I also have two daughters around the same age as Palin, the model of social conservative values. Neither of my daughter is knocked up by a high school dropout. I don't need morality lessons from people who have dysfunction in their own families and I don't need to be told my values are flawed when I raised kids who don't get pregnant at 17.

...I raised kids who don't get pregnant at 17.
Posted by: Daniel | September 3, 2008 9:26 PM

What are you, some kind of elitist?

;-)

This is gotten so ugly, so fast that it feels like a pack of wolves are just tearing Sarah Palin to pieces. Rod, I know that you share some values with lefties and you try to keep a dialog going but honestly I personally couldn't keep a blog open through the horrible garbage that is being thrown here.

Obama has personally shown some class but his followers are sinking to the very bottom. At worst, Sarah Palin is a poor choice by John McCain for VP. How does that merit the personal hatred being directed at her?

The only question remaining is whether she has the kind of steel in her that Clarence Thomas showed when the pack of hyenas led by Joe Biden tried to rip him to pieces. It will not be her shame if she doesn't. The shame will lie elsewhere.

Daniel,

Help yourself to my cup of the kool-aid (ahem) that I mentioned in my previous post.

Well the good news in all of this is that we haven't had a peak oil thread in days.

Well, I had to laugh at Kunstler's Daily Grunt yesterday. Go check it out... http://www.kunstler.com/Grunt%20Archive.html I don't agree with him on this, but I did laugh.

Well, the rest of you have piled on Daniel, but I for one applaud him for raising his daughters to have sensible morals and life skills.

I'm still waiting for any of her supporters to give one policy reason to vote for Sarah Palin, other than her position on social issues.

One.

Fiscal responsibility?
Foreign Policy?
Domestic Policy?
Health Care?
Immigration?
Energy?
Earmarks?

Which one can anyone hang their hat on as a rock-solid Palin position?

Anyone?

Daniel said, "The other thing that makes me angry is to be told I'm a bad Catholic by someone who votes for politicians who support war and torture and capital punishment. Don't tell me I'm the problem when you've aided and abetted and cheerleaded for an unjust war and the politicians waging it....I'll be even more succinct why I am happy to have this culture war, if that's the one you want to declare. I'm pro-choice, my wife is pro-choice. We are both supportive of gay marriage and we think comprehensive sex education should be taught in school. So I guess we believe in the culture of death."

First of all, Daniel, where did I call you a bad Catholic? In your first post you wrote, "...my church doesn't believe gay people are a danger to my marriage..." and unless you've changed churches this is hardly an accurate depiction of Catholic teaching on the subject of gays and gay marriage. The Church teaches what I wrote. You dissent from Church teaching. The Church also teaches that abortion is a grave moral evil which may not legitimately be "chosen." So you would appear to dissent from Church teaching on abortion as well. Whether you are a bad Catholic or not is something far beyond my ability or role to discern, but it's pretty clear that you are a Catholic who dissents from Church teaching in several areas. As a Catholic who does not dissent from Church teaching my only concern in offering any clarifications is so that others who read what you write won't mistakenly assume you are positing Church teaching on abortion or gay marriage when you support these things.

And on that, secondly, when have I ever been a cheerleader for torture or unjust war or the death penalty? I never supported the war in Iraq, though I support our troops. I abhor torture, which is as intrinsically evil as abortion, though I confess that it took the repeated efforts of Mark Shea to clarify my thoughts on the matter (which were duplicitously engaged in the "shaky definition" trap; I still didn't condone torture in principle). I oppose the death penalty in nearly all cases, in alignment with Church teaching, and if I thought as a matter of prudential judgment that a certain criminal could be justly executed I would defer that judgment to the Church, should she through the Pope say otherwise. If I have, on occasion, voted for a Republican candidate it always was with extreme reluctance; I am sad that the Democrats' slavish commitment to abortion makes it impossible for me in good conscience to cast a vote for them, and the only Republican I might have supported with any enthusiasm was out of office before I was of legal voting age.

Thirdly and finally, while the selection of Sarah Palin makes me want to vote for the GOP candidates this year I am not unmindful of McCain and his issues. Living in Texas as I do I have the luxury of choosing a third-party candidate if I like, as Texas' electoral votes aren't seriously in question. But I like the choice of Palin; I like her pro-life values, and though I certainly don't condone the sin of fornication I think her daughter is making the best of a difficult situation without turning to the evil of abortion and killing her child. It is one thing to teach a child to avoid pregnancy and to live morally, and another to aid the child in achieving the death of one's own grandchild, something I would never do.

The culture war exists in microcosm in these conversations between you and me, Daniel. We will never agree, and will always see the other as being seriously, grievously, wrong on these matters.

Daniel, we are so blessed that you have come down to post on this blog and remind us how much better you are than the rest of us.

I'm guessing you didn't meant that to be ironic.

Heh.

EdddieinCa, shush, we're too busy watching her make her debut. Perhaps you'd heard about it. We'll deal with you later. She's not running for president - Obama is.

But the political jujitsu and question-begging effect is going strong! Keep doing it.

"I don't understand what you or Ross Douthat are angry about" - this may be one of the unintentionally funniest lines written on this blog in days. Now that's comedy!

They want a culture war? Fine. Ears back, fangs bared, let's have it.

Oh dear, whatever will we liberals do.

Karth, Mr. Dreher writes: "[M}maybe we really are a country with irreconcilable differences."...The light hath dawned.

Well, for now. Rod is mighty emotional.

EddieInCA, I'm still waiting for any of her supporters to give one policy reason to vote for Sarah Palin, other than her position on social issues. One. Fiscal responsibility? Foreign Policy? Domestic Policy? Health Care? Immigration? Energy? Earmarks?

I agree with Sarah on every one of these isses so far (except energy). You must be from California.

Daniel, I'm pro-choice, my wife is pro-choice. We are both supportive of gay marriage and we think comprehensive sex education should be taught in school. So I guess we believe in the culture of death.

AmCatholics in our time.

Even if it is true, the sight of this woman being attacked so despicably by the Left, has p*ssed me off to the point that I cannot bear not to rise to her defense.

Kirk: [hailing Khan] This is Admiral Kirk. We tried it once your way, Khan, are you game for a rematch? Khan, I'm laughing at the "superior intellect."

Khan: Full impulse power!

Joachim: No, sir! You have Genesis! You can have whatever...

Khan: [grabs Joachim in anger] FULL POWER! DAMN YOU!

Mr. Bottoms:

You are evidently referencing Star Trek. I wouldn't know for sure.

Stupid redneck that I am, I was busy reading Thucydides instead.

What that looks like, anon, is a McCain presidency and two or three Supreme Court nominees that WON'T be made by Barack Obama.

I donated money to McCain-Palin today (yes, I know the deadline passed since one of the candidates actually kept that promise) and it felt good. Keep it up Palin-haters. If I read much more, I might report to a phone-bank just to spite you.

"What that looks like, anon, is a McCain presidency and two or three Supreme Court nominees that WON'T be made by Barack Obama."

Yep, and an annual budget deficit of 1 trillion dollars by the end of his first term, wars in Iran, Afghanistan, and Georgia within the first year, and double-digit inflation due to an Arab oil embargo.

Let's not forget, with a McCain Presidency, we will likely see the Senate go back to the GOP. That means more spending. McCain will threaten a veto, but will he really do that to members of his own party after they have taken back control of the Senate? I doubt it. All of his rhetoric about cutting spending aside, as President he will be forced to veto the bill or pass it. He won't be able to cherry pick it like he can in the Senate. If he tries to stop too much of the earmarking from the GOP Senate, they will simply package the spending in attractive bills, like the funding bill for the wars that McCain wants to start.

In eight years we've seen the annual budget deficit go from a surplus of around $200 billion to a deficit of nearly a half trillion. Eight years and an increase in the debt of $700 million. By the end of McCain's first term we could well see deficits in the vicinity of $1 trillion per year. And we are to buy the talk that McCain will magically be able to stop his fellow Republicans from sending home the bacon? He hasn't stopped it when he was in their midst as a fellow Senator. President Bush never vetoed one spending bill during the six years he had a GOP controlled Congress. If McCain wins and gets the Senate back, he'll be as anxious as Bush was to keep the GOP majority going, so he won't veto those bills either.

McCain is talking tough on Iran, but if we invade of if Israel attacks them, look for an oil embargo to hit. We have at best 3% of the oil reserves, and use 25% of the oil that is pumped each year. We can drill every square mile of Alaska, the Continental Shelf, and all of the western states. We can't pump enough oil domestically to meet even 1/8 of our need for oil. The math doesn't lie.

Attacking Iran hands the Arab nations a gun to place at our heads. Imagine if you will the effects of a 1973 style oil shortage on our economy today. We have soldiers at war, an unstable currency, tremendous debt, and a greater trade imbalance than at any time in our history. Our manufacturing jobs are gone, our infrastructure is in disrepair, and we have stretched state and local budgets to the breaking point. If OPEC pulls the plug, we will be foundering in a matter of weeks.

I remember being in those lines back in '73, and remember being told that we could only get gas on alternating days of the week based on our license plate number. Do you honestly think that today's citizenry, spoiled as they are, will be able to put up with such inconvenience? Will Joe and Jane Boomer wheel their Hummer into the gas station and DEMAND that they be able to fill up now, because they have an important family engagement to go to?

And then there is Georgia. We are Georgians, says McCain. If we poke the Bear once too often we will be hit hard, and we will lose. Our military is in no position to go up against the Russian army, and Russia knows this. We can posture and prevaricate all we want, but we are impotent when it comes to Georgia and any of the other former Soviet satellites states. The Russians know this, but I have to wonder if McCain fully groks this fact. His tough talk on Georgia should be a concern, for it is the talk of a man who has not come to grips with the fact that he has nothing with which to fight that battle.

And sanctions in the UN...Rod, if the UN tried to sanction us, what do you think our reaction would be? Yep, that's exactly what the Russians will do if and when we try that trick. See that finger waving over in the eastern horizon? The Bear isn't waving hello.

Lower taxes, conservative judges, and bandaids for serious problems that face our nation. Kick the can down the road and hope it doesn't fall apart when you are in office. This is the McCain plan. It should scare folks who have children or grandchildren.

I truly feel sorry for Sarah Palin. She has no idea what she has put herself into. The GOP could well be ready to elect the next Herbert Hoover to the Oval Office, and she has hitched herself to that train wreck. I'd suggest she find a good biography of Charles Curtis and read it...soon.

You know Rod, I'd love to see what this "culture war" you want us to "bring on" would look like in your eyes? Do you mean the current culture war, which consists of talking heads like Rush Limbaugh, Al Frankin, Ann Coulter, and yourself all flexing their verbal muscles on blogs, in books and talk shows? People shouting at each other in virtual space, putting each other down, really hitting the talk show circuit, writing snarky books? Is that the kind of WAR you mean? Because if it is, who really gives a crap? It just debases the general discourse, and makes people treat each other poorly.

If we're gonna have a REAL culture war, are you sure you want to participate in that? I mean the kind of culture way they had in Rwanda, in Sudan, in the former Yugoslavia, in Iraq. The kind where you round up a bunch of your friends, and begin raping and murdering your way through Berkeley, driving those cockroach liberals out once and for all. Or you answer the door once night to a crew of me and 20 liberal buddies with machetes, and watch us play with the kids before we do you and the wife.

Is THAT the kind of culture war we should bring on?

Because honestly, if it's not, and we don't want to go the way of those other nations, maybe you and the people like you should bring it down a notch. And by "people like you" I don't mean conservatives...I mean the press and media in general, political talking heads, etc.

I once read a piece where a Bosnian Serb who was involved in ethnic cleansing, and later repented his behavior was asked how the hell it got so bad, after so many years of living together in peace. He said that for three years, all you could hear on any radio, or watch on any T.V., were extremist nationalists for the Serb, Muslim, and Croat factions, each claiming the others were evil and deserved to be driven out of the country or killed.

So what side of that culture war are you gonna be on, Rod? The machete wielders, or the hacked-to-pieces? The ethnic rape gang or the family of the raped?

You're always worried about Muslims dominating our country. Maybe the real threat is what we're doing to each other.

I'm not voting for McCain/Palin. I don't agree with their ideology. I think they're both fine people, but dead wrong as to the direction this country should go. Others feel quite the opposite of that. I respectfully disagree with them.

I sure as hell don't want to go to war with them. I've been to war, and seen war, and have no interest in seeing it again.

And regardless of how much we badmouth Palin, Obama, or Jesus himself, if you think it's really worth killing each other over, you've forgotten anything you might have known about Christ.

This is why i hate politics. People can blather on and on and on, argue point after point after point, knitpick every rule, law, event, blog, talk show, etc... where do you get? An election, and it all starts all over again.

It doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility that our next Secretary of Education would be the founder of the Weather Underground and that our next Attorney General might be his wife Bernadine Dohrn, a woman who went to prison rather than testify against a close friend of hers and her husband's who murdered several people.

Well, heck Rufus why don't you just have Obama pardoning Mumia and making him the Secretary of the Treasury while you're at it?

The Democrat-controlled Congress is fully in support of the Democratic party's nominee, so is there really any reason to think that it would fail to approve these august and distinguished candidates for the high offices that a President Obama would clearly see no reason for them not to fill?
Posted by: Rufus Thomas | September 4, 2008 12:26 AM

Maybe because those Congressmen would want to keep their jobs when the next election rolls around?

I'm tempted to say, as I said when I posted the first comment before shutting down my computer and going home, "Snap out of it, folks."

The overreaction to the Palin nomination by many on both Left and Right is, to me, a sign that these folks are more interested in fighting each other than in doing anything for our country. Please, let's judge her and each other on the merits, and stop acting like a bunch of hysterics.

Alicia,

Once more, with all due respect, if you feel this way about Sarah Palin, then how could you *possibly* vote for Barack Obama, whose campaign makes a concert by *New Kids on the Block* or *The Backstreet Boys* seem sober and full of gravitas by way of contrast -- and also full of substance. Again, I'm just sayin'..... : )

John E.,

The Secretary of the Treasury thing is entertaining hyperbole. Good on you.

But can you really put it past Obama to pardon Mumia?

I grant that he wouldn't do it on his first day in office, but on his last day I expect he'll be up all night cranked on Red Bull and diet pills -- just as Bill Clinton was -- pardoning every wannabe Che Guevara and political crony in sight -- which, in Obama's case, are two demographics that it's hard to tell apart sometimes.

As for your notion that the Democrats in Congress would not approve Ayers or Dohrn, well, why wouldn't they?

After all, their party's presidential nominee has already made it clear that no one need fear the "mainstream" and "respectable" Ayers and Dohrn -- perhaps not even the family and friends of those murdered by what one can only assume were the equally "mainstream" and "respectable" friends of Ayers and Dohrn.

If no one need fear Ayers and Dohrn, then why would any one need fear approving them for office?

Alicia,

The issue isn't what you think about the Republican party, it's what you think about the Democratic party. We may be about to move below the toilet and all the way into the septic tank. And since all of us here like you and respect you, some of us here would like to spare you being party to that. : )

"Even if it is true, the sight of this woman being attacked so despicably by the Left, has p*ssed me off to the point that I cannot bear not to rise to her defense."

Yeah, I am absolutely certain that the right wouldn't have had a field day with this. Rod would have had a field day with this himself. I guess that he owes Jamie Lynn Spears and her mother an apology though with his new enlightened thinking:)

Again, this is, of course, "only" speculation, but it is more *reasonable* speculation than your own.
Posted by: Rufus Thomas | September 4, 2008 11:25 AM

In the absence of any evidence, I suggest that there is no way to determine whether or not your speculation or my speculation is more likely to be true.

"You are confusing me with the moralizing social conservatives.

But since it is okay to judge people's moral DECISIONS, I am judging people WHOSE TEENAGER ends up pregnant. It represents a moral failure."

This is a great representation of lib-think.

The decision was not Sarah's. It was her daughter's. And yeah, it was the wrong one.

But in lib-think, the 17 year old doesn't possess free will and reason to make ANY decisions, good or bad (unless it is to have an abortion of course).

Rather, according to Daniel and lib-think, Sarah is 100% responsible, MORALLY responsible, for the decisions of her daughter. Bristol is just a victim of bad parenting.

Why? Because the evil conservatives DARE to make unpopular moral distinctions.

We'll just have to put Daniel on the honor system when it comes to reporting bad decision his kids make, but he's already implied that they don't do such things, so he says.

Oh, the vision of annointed will save us all (if we just accept that we're bumpkins and quit clinging to guns and God).

Thanks, Rufus. I'll try to respond to some of your points tomorrow if you are still reading. If not, to be continued, I'm sure.

Rufus Thomas, don't you think you're making a big leap when you go from he knows some disreputable figures to: "if anything, a *dishonorable* and even an indecent man,"

MH,

We all must draw our lines somewhere or other on where honor and decency end.

For me and for many millions like me, racist demagoguery of any sort, terrorism of any sort, and likewise any sort of acquiescence in or toward either one, are beyond the pale of honor and decency.

Barack Obama begs to differ with me and I beg to differ with him.

C'est la vie.

"Do you contend that un-wed teenage pregnancies only happen in screwed up families?"

Sometimes nothing you do works. However, what I have seen over time, is that in families where both parents are gone all the time, where the children are not a priority, there is more acting out by the kids. Spending time with your kids, where you live, (especially having extended family nearby), who you choose as friends all contribute. Just from a statistical basis, I am betting that it is more likely the Palin teen getting pregnant represents a family where the parents were not as available as needed.

Question back at you. Do you contend that if both parents spend every night out drinking OR every night working OR every night involved in political activities, their will be no difference in outcome for their children. Does parenting matter at all?

Steve

If I understand correctly, the MSM and the Left are being conflated here. If that's the case, it seems to me that the important question is, what is newsworthy?

The pregnancy is newsworthy because social conservatives want not only to tell us what to do, but what to believe, and even occasionally who to be (or not to be). No matter the self-fulfilling meme that they are victims in today's America, outcasts in a world shaped by liberal elites, they still want to impose their vision on everyone else. So when Palin comes along with this Do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do story, it's relevant.

The hooplah over the media coverage is nonsensical. Who Sarah Palin is is 100% relevant to the electorate, because she may be the VP, next in line to an old man of questionable health. It's the media's job to fill us in. What she believes is completely relevant. McCain's judgment in selecting her is absolutely germane, because we have to decide whether to elect him president. Questions about her electability aren't sexist; we are in an election and they're topical. Duh.

Nice spin job from the McCain campaign and its proxies, who are screaming about fairness and scaring the media into silence about these important topics. Once again, the loud, aggressive types are winning the argument.