The price of voting for Palin

Rod,

Please elaborate on Pakistan. I would like to hear your take on it given the fact that the Bush Administration just authorized a strike on terrorists based there.

You know, the kind of thing that Obama said he favored and McCain mocked him for:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/09/03/pakistan.attack.afghanistan.deaths/index.html

Neil

So, from where I sit, the only real risk in voting McCain-Palin -- and it's a huge one, possibly the biggest one -- is putting into office a bellicose, perhaps reckless, president.

perhaps a limited nuclear exchange in the Middle East, nothing to worry about.

I don't know that I can affirm the reward justifies the risk of a McCain presidency.
You (and I) would do well to keep those risks in mind. Not that Obama has shown himself in any great light while chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on European Affairs. Still, the foreign policy of an Obama presidency only worries me - that of "We're all Georgians now" McCain scares me.

I wish McCain many long and healthy years, but every time the libs say that Sarah would only be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office only makes conservatives even happier about his VP pick. It makes conservatives feel less fearful about something horrible happening to McCain.

So go ahead moonbats, the more you pile on Sarah, the more conservatives are excited about her.

It's "Operation Boomerang" time.

Kevin has a point. I was but a lass of twelve, but I remember how Reagan was viewed by many as an insane and possibly senile war-monger, with his withered finger poised over the "Destroy Entire World" button. No nuclear war ensued, and the Soviet Union crumbled.

Perhaps McCain would likewise seem crazy enough to prevent Putin and the rest from wanting to provoke him?

Rod, I think that Clark hit on something that I've been thinking about as you and Ross have gone ballistic about "the left's" treatment of Sarah Palin: who are you talking about? A few Kossacks? Andrew Sullivan and Richard Cohen (comparing Palin to Caligula's horse) have been abominable, but neither of them are exactly the Netroots writers of choice, are they? Could either be honestly described as "left"? But Obama said kids are off limits immediately, and the liberals that I have read (Yglesias, Klein, Drum, etc, etc) have had serious problem with her that need to be addressed by conservatives. Name names.

And I know this has been written a hundred times before, but when Ross writes that the MSM has been focusing too much on the Bristol Palin story (and I agree), don't you think that if Obama's children were pregnant that the exact same firestorm would ensue?

As far as Russia. Iran. Yep scary. I have an 18 year old son. I fear a McCain gov't sending our young men all over the world in a futile attempt to control rogue nations. However, I liked what I heard last night.....was it just me or did Palin sound like she wanted to focus on domestic developement of energy in order to FREE America from tyranny of rogue states? Almost isolationism. Good strategy. If we are producing our own oil and gas for the time being while simultaneously developing other sources of energy for the future so that we are becoming ENERGY INDEPENDENT, then we are less and less likely to we drawn into middle east politics. If Shiities and Sunnis are going to have a civil war and it doesn't affect our national energy needs, then let them have at each other. Notice we don't get involved in many civil wars like Rwanda because it has nothing to do with our oil needs. I support this long view.

We need to keep in mind where Palin may end up in the future and how that will impact us. Realistically McCain will be a one term president because of his age and health. Palin is then positioned to take on greater leadership. No, she is not an ultra-traditionalist but she is far more traditional than anyone we have seen in political life in a long time. Her foundation is truly evangelical Christian. She was formed from childhood in the kind of small town atmosphere that I think most lower 48 city dwellers relegate to history and think doesn't exist anymore. Andy Griffith Show Mayberry. Because of that she has an understanding of real life living that none of the other candidates have. She shares the values of the majority of middle class America. If we vote for McCain, we are voting to further the future influence of Palin.

Next on my list for shouting from the mountain top...

Spencer mentions something in passing that I believe should be a mandatory question during any presidential campaign: who do you have in mind for each of your cabinet officers?

It puts the harsh light of reality on all of the posturing and talk about abstract policy. Show us to whom you intend to delegate the implementation of policy.

It may be succinctly put, but not accurately put.
Obama is the one who has suggested invading Pakistan.
And McCain has stated definitively that the war was mismanaged from the start.
I don't fear McCain involoving us in unncessary war.

I call poppycock! Voting for McCain is not an endorsement for what Bush has done. We are not going to war with Iran. Russia is going to do what Russia is going to do no matter who wins.

And ask yourself, were we safer or less safe under Ronald Reagan? Lot's of people claimed to be shocked by Reagan's hard line against the Soviet Union, but history has vindicated Reagan. We did what we needed to do to win the Cold War.

And don't forget that planning for 9/11 started well before Bush took office. Ultimately, were we made safer by Clinton's approach to Osama after the first WTC attack in 1993? Did that stop the bombing of the USS Cole or the African Embassies? A vote for Obama is an endorsement of the Clinton foreign policies that lead us into 9/11 and the present War on Terror.

Palin gave a great speech and made it clear that the color alert will not go lower than yellow in her administration. I say hers, because I think she will be our next President. Her message last night was fear. The Council for National Policy (the Illuminati) have made their decision. She is their choice and there is nothing we can do about it.

Jeff
Rod, I think that Clark hit on something that I've been thinking about as you and Ross have gone ballistic about "the left's" treatment of Sarah Palin: who are you talking about? A few Kossacks? Andrew Sullivan and Richard Cohen (comparing Palin to Caligula's horse) have been abominable, but neither of them are exactly the Netroots writers of choice, are they? Could either be honestly described as "left"? But Obama said kids are off limits immediately, and the liberals that I have read (Yglesias, Klein, Drum, etc, etc) have had serious problem with her that need to be addressed by conservatives. Name names.

Hey, someone else has noticed that the actual people pushing nonsense about Palin are either supposed 'conservatives' like Sullivan, or morons like Cohen(1), or some random person who has earned the right to post diaries at DailyKos by possessing an email address and registering a user name.

What the actual left is talking about with regard to Palin is completely unconnected about what Rod has been asserting they're talking about for the last few days. But, as I've been pointing out repeatedly, it's not like the front page of DailyKos or Think Progress or Obsidian Wings or Eschaton or any of them are password protected. You can go right there and actually read with your own eyes what the left is actually talking about, like magic!

1) Richard Cohen is hated by the left. He's one of the faux 'liberals' who wanders around repeating Republican talking points. Media Matters, in particular, repeatedly features him.

Palin is a blank slate. Rod's infatuation with her candidacy is identity politics at its worst. We know virtually nothing about this woman's views on foreign policy and based on comments made by top McCain adviser Charlie Black we can expect nothing more that a McCain parrot - "She's going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years, and most doctors think that he'll be around at least that long."

With regard to domestic politics, Palin appears to be nothing more than a traditional religious conservative Republican. For all of her talk about reform, she was ready, willing and able to go to the feeding trough for federal earmarks again and again. More over, there is credible evidence to suggest that she used her authority as Governor to pursue a personal vendetta. Now that she has joined the Republican Presidential Ticket she has hired high priced lawyers to delay the investigation and gone back on her word to cooperate with the investigation.

The idea that the country needs an "average" person running running the country is anti-intellectualism pure and simple. This is the same kind of attitude that put our beer-drinking buddy GWB in the White House. Look where that got us.

McCain-Palin is the ONLY choice for change. Democrats live the "more of the same" as the foundation of their lives. More socialism, more death to the unborn with more tax dollars, more inner-city scum being paid for by rural America's beauty, more sodomy in our schools (if that is possible), more pimps as role models etc., etc,. Rod, there is too much to lose with the Marxist/Humanist ticket the democrats are selling.

The idea that the country needs an "average" person running running the country is anti-intellectualism pure and simple. This is the same kind of attitude that put our beer-drinking buddy GWB in the White House. Look where that got us.

Bingo!

This is what frightens my wife and I more than anything...

More socialism, more death to the unborn with more tax dollars, more inner-city scum being paid for by rural America's beauty, more sodomy in our schools (if that is possible), more pimps as role models etc., etc,. Rod, there is too much to lose with the Marxist/Humanist ticket the democrats are selling.

Ah, so the GOP are running on the "throw the bums out" plank? Aren't the GOP the "bums" in this case? And how does electing a President address the malaise at the root of the consumerist culture? Are we going to see a more activist FCC in addressing obscenity on the airwaves? Isn't libertarianism, or shall we say libertinism, and the focus on individual satisfaction as the "hallmark" of American liberty, partly to blame? Pimps are role models because large corporations actively seek new "product" to market to willing consumers.

Until we start addressing the true rot in our society, we're simply rearranging the deck chairs...

Can that be done? I can't remember, but I thought you voted for the ticket.
Posted by: Derek Copold | September 4, 2008 1:37 PM

Oh, shoot, you are right...

Nevermind!

I just have to throw something out there: It has been a real joy watching the very real, very left-wing media elites run away from Sarah Palin as fast as they can today.

Here's a concluding paragraph from Salon that encapsulates the new marching orders: "...while the selection of the Alaksa governor may not be the gender-gap-closing masterstroke that Republicans initially hoped, it also is not looking like the politically impulsive disaster that the Democrats had envisioned. What Sarah Palin may have underscored on her big night on center stage is that, in the end, vice-presidential candidates are mostly political afterthoughts for the voters."

Translation: "No, we didn't spend the past 96 hours trying to viciously destroy this woman. That never occurred (Jedi waves hand across face to blank memory). Anyway, she's really just an after-thought (another wave of the hand). Pay no attention. Nothing to see here. Move on."

You can't make this stuff up.

Slate has a slightly better grasp of reality: "It was clear Palin was having fun, and it's hard to have fun if you're scared or a lightweight. She had command, the same quality people attributed to Obama in 2004. Yes, she had speechwriters and she knows how to read a teleprompter. But there are plenty of politicians who've had great speeches and years of practice and still need lots of help. (One of them, actually, is Palin's running mate.)"

Mmm, yes, note how they mention the speech writer and the teleprompter? Did you know Palin's teleprompter malfunctioned during the speech? And speechwriters? Gimme a friggin' break. Psst, Obama has a speech writer, but the poor sap never gets any credit. As for Palin's speech, if she hadn't conceived big chunks of it and knew it from her gut, the teleprompter malfunction would have been a disaster.

Incidentally, did anyone see the sickening spectacle of Campbell Brown attempting to suck up last night? She was one of the worst offenders this weekend, Andrew Sullivan in drag. Now she just wants to be friends.

Never, never forget how they tried to destroy her. And take a moment to laugh at them today, because from here on out, it only gets more nasty.

Speaking from hard experiential evidence, D.C. and New York are filled with rabid leftists and, yes, real media elites. These are not figments of paranoid Red America's imagination. And, yes, they hate us. And, yes, they hate her.

No war with Iran?

I wish...........

Reports from the area point toward either a US-assisted series of bombing raids by the Israelis, or a US-led attack using only remote weapons (missiles and drones), before the end of the Bush lame-duck regime. King George will claim that his conscience won't let him do otherwise.

Powerline Blog, not much of a Palin fan, has this interesting analysis of newspaper headlines...

These were the headlines on the front page of the Washington Post last Friday, after Barack Obama's Denver oration:

Obama, Accepting Nomination, Draws Sharp Contrast Contrast With McCain -- 84,000 pack stadium to hear candidate close convention with policy specifics and pointed criticism of the Republicans

A Remarkable Event (bold in original) -- For the Descendants of King's Dream, a New Day Dawns

Witnesses To A Historic Moment (bold in original) -- At the Very Top of Invesco Field, Feeling More Than a Mile High

The Message That the Party Wanted to Hear

These are the Post's convention-related headlines today, after Sarah Palin's speech in St. Paul:

Palin Comes Out Fighting -- VP Candidate Dismisses Obama's Experience While Extolling Her Own

Striking Back at Critics, One by One

In a More Diverse America, A Mostly White Convention

----

Yeah, it's all in your feverish right-wing imaginations! There's no such thing as left-wing media bias.

Octupus: Bingo! from me too.

Anti-intellectualism is bad indeed, but we can't do anything about it. I'm pretty jaded on this score. There's an enormous voting block of people who really don't want their leaders to be much smarter than they themselves are.

What Jeff said.

And, Rod, I'm glad you're back from whatever emotional roller-coaster you were on yesterday! :}

Palin did what Obama wants to do, tax the oil companies.
Bush has seen the light and is willing to withdraw troops from Iraq, just like Obama wants to do.
Obama wants to give the retires and small business owners a tax break, McCain want to give the rich the tax break.
Palin wants a complete energy package, just like Obama.

Let's dump McCain and just go with Palin and anybody else. McCain is the loose end that the Republicans are having a hard time getting on board with.

Meanwhile, Palin sounds more like Obama than she would like to admit. The only thing that separates her from him is the abortion issue. With a Democratic Congress that is of little consequence.

If anybody is voting for McCain because of that, they are wasting their vote.

There is no trouble we are in right now that the Democrats did not aid and abet. Have they actually tried to change anything? Have they actually shown any leadership on fixing the messes? Any? Who, then, will put the brakes on Obama? Do you really think that Obama is ready to play high stakes poker with Putin? This would just be silliness if it were not so dangerous.

Rod--I'm surprised that you haven't said anything about last night's mockery of community organizing and service values. The impression I've previously gotten is that activism at the community level is essentially a crunchy concept, so I would think that the lambasting of a man for choosing to engage in such wouldn't go unnoticed. Am I misunderstanding?

Houghton, neither Octopus, J Dave G, or I said that Palin was stupid. We are critical of the idea that "average folks" make good leaders. That all our countries problems will be solved if a hockey mom and a down-home fisherman would be put in charge. That going with your gut will solve our problems. This is a philosophy that diminishes knowledge and understanding. Read a little about the Dark Ages and the Enlightenment if you're interested in learning more.

Um, excuse me, Casey?

Octopus, at 1:32 pm:

"'The idea that the country needs an "average" person running running the country is anti-intellectualism pure and simple. This is the same kind of attitude that put our beer-drinking buddy GWB in the White House. Look where that got us.'

Bingo!

This is what frightens my wife and I more than anything..."

Begging your pardon, sir, for I know I'm addressing a serious intellectual, but didn't you mean to say "my wife and ME?"

I bet Sarah's command of grammar is stronger than yours, you sucker-covered cephalopod.

On the anti-intellectualism thing:

I once met someone who I believe was genius-level intelligence. He was utterly brilliant--it was amazing just to talk to him.

He was a terribly unsafe driver, naive about the practical workings of the day-to-day world, and so idealistic about people that had he not had a loving family I have a feeling he'd have been a "mark" for all sorts of nefarious types.

I'm not anti-intellectual, but I recognize that we're sometimes too inclined to see high academic skills or high I.Q. scores as a prerequisite for higher office. Some of our most disastrous leaders, though, have been very elite and intellectual, and some of our successful ones have not been. Sarah Palin seems to be an intelligent woman who understands how to get things done in the political realm; if she were running for president, like Obama, I might think she needed a bit more experience, but I think her experience level is fine for the duties she'll have as vice-president.

Begging your pardon, sir, for I know I'm addressing a serious intellectual, but didn't you mean to say "my wife and ME?"

I bet Sarah's command of grammar is stronger than yours, you sucker-covered cephalopod.

Ah, I stand corrected. The usage "I" and "me" is based on whether one is used as a subject or an object within a sentence. My apologies.

I'm not anti-intellectual, but I recognize that we're sometimes too inclined to see high academic skills or high I.Q. scores as a prerequisite for higher office. Some of our most disastrous leaders, though, have been very elite and intellectual, and some of our successful ones have not been.

I guess it depends on how you define "intellectual". I agree that high formal academic achievement does not necessarily correlate with being a great leader. Some people who have a great deal of academic achievement have tended to overestimate their intelligence, ability, and sense (e.g., Wilson, perhaps). But there have been many people lacking in formal education who have nevertheless been very learned, mainly due to intellectual curiosity and self-directed effort. Lincoln and Truman come to mind.

One the other hand, there are those who had the best education money could buy, but who had so little intellectual curiosity that it was entirely wasted on them. Such as those who insist on saying "noo-kyoo-lar".

Or, perhaps, "eye-rack".

(I wonder if she would have described Rudy Giuliani as "eye-talian"?)

I'm wondering how the "Drill, Baby, Drill" ethos fits into the CrunchCon world. Come to think of it what can we expect from a governor who's idea of energy policy means building (or giving tax breaks for building) infrastructure to further the ways oil companies bring supplies to market.

Kevin has a point. I was but a lass of twelve, but I remember how Reagan was viewed by many as an insane and possibly senile war-monger, with his withered finger poised over the "Destroy Entire World" button. No nuclear war ensued, and the Soviet Union crumbled.

Perhaps McCain would likewise seem crazy enough to prevent Putin and the rest from wanting to provoke him?

Putin/Medvedev have no respect for McCain. Further, they hold all the trump cards. You really want to see Europe try to go through winter without any oil/NG/fuel? How long do you think they'll last with world oil prices after they have to take already-precious stock from the Saudis? how long before they say, "look, America, we're good friends, but we have to side with heating our homes first and you second." And Russia would do it just to anger us.

You really want to see Russia and China cozy up and destroy our economy? They could. China has other markets, you know. It woulldn't take much for them to build new ones, either. That the markets might not bring in as much does not worry the chinese government. It'll be worth it to them to kick us in the nuts. Who knows, maybe they'll even start up the talk of "Chinese manifest destiny" again. They don't need us as much as we need them. Russia could get the Chinese to sign off on it with little more than the mention of another oil pipeline.

While we weren't watching, the rest of the world was simmering, playing global chess and wishing we'd just go away and let them be. When we didn't and we kept meddling in their affairs, the rest of the world started looking for an opportunity to throw us overboard. We were too busy playing monopoly on the chessboard, thinking ourselves too important and the rest of the wrld too insignificant. The thing is, we don't have long before the king is left unguarded. From there, it'll be easy for them to go in for the kill.

Palin doesn't understand this any more than McCain or Obama or Biden. No matter who wins this time around, we all lose.

Well, I certainly understand your reluctance to vote for McCain. It may be true that in his heart of hearts McCain would rather have Lieberman. But, he is scared enough of Soc Cons not to do that. Sure, I wish he loved National Right to Life, but at the end of the day, I'd rather elect someone scared of Nat'l Right to Life than someone scared of NARAL.
Also, while Palin will not be the driving force behind McCain administration policy I think there's a big lesson to be taught to the GOP here. McCain's campaign was in serious trouble. If he gets elected after picking Sarah Pain, that is a powerful message to the GOP about what direction they should be moving in.

I meant NOT trying to pick a fight. Sorry.

I don't like what I'm reading about her spending. I'm reading the "fact check" articles about her speech; like Bush, she's turned budget surpluses into debts, fought alternative energy, exported natural gas from Alsaka to Asia, depleting local supply in the middle of winter...and it goes on.

But I don't think McCain, if elected President, would allow her do do very much. He'll make her an "old school" Vice-President, who hardly ever gets consulted. He'll get a chance to do all the bi-partisan "maverick" stuff he's been wanting to do, and--once again--social conservatives will be kicking themselves for falling for it.

If you vote for them, you're voting for McCain--and he's tough, with a 90+ year-old mother, so any fantasy of Palin taking over for him is pretty much out the window.

“Jesus was a Community Organizer, and Pontius Pilate was a Governor.”

from http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/palin-palooza-wrap-up/

Hey, it's a great line, whatever your political persuasion, if you
have any sort of sense-of-humor.

Not really. It seems to come down, it seems, more to tastes.

A person making 10k a year, with a job with no prestige, no power, but they read poetry, or eat brie, even if it is a few times a year that they can afford it, or watch movies with subtitles, they're apparently elite.

A CEO with literally billions of dollars, prestige, education, power, and influence.. but he has a certain accent, uses the right (or doesn't use the wrong) vocabulary, eat a particular diet, looks like, at least, they don't read those books, or watch certain movies, and they're 'just plain folks'.

After all, apparently a United States President, son of a President, born in Connecticut, from old money, who went to a prep school and two ivy league colleges as a legacy, and owns a million dollar ranch, and all it takes is getting a Texas accent and avoiding 'two dollar words', and nobody calls HIM elite.

BlairBurton: "Jesus was a Community Organizer, and Pontius Pilate was a Governor." Hey, it's a great line, whatever your political persuasion, if you have any sort of sense-of-humor.

Not really. See Erin Manning's insightful reply and mine in the previous thread:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/09/palin_yes_she_can_comments.html

Some things rise above "great lines."

The convention, what I saw of it on five minute breaks from work, was inspiring and emotional. This sort of thing bothers me when it reaches near-hysteria, and I tend to tune it out. It was no different with Obama, of course.

Being in the military for the past six years has made me less emotionally invested in politics. Those of us who wear a uniform, or who are in Federal service generally, learn that we serve the people of the United States. If the people elect someone we don't agree with, it really doesn't matter. We go to work everyday and give it our best, because it's what the people wanted. If they elect someone we agree with, naturally, we're happy, but we don't get too tied up in it all.

My point is, if McCain is duly elected, then he is the people's choice, and that is the end of the story. He has plenty of great character traits, and I would appreciate having a veteran in the highest office for a change. Palin is really quite inspiring, even if I would never be so heavily involved in a career if I had young children. I don't presume my choices are the only right ones.

But as far as my vote goes, I cannot in good conscience help elect someone who might pull out of what few remaining treaties we have left with a country with 3,500 ready nuclear warheads, and God knows how many which could be re-commissioned relatively quickly. We have systematically and unilaterally withdrawn from treaty after treaty, leaving Russia with no honorable choice from its perspective but to draw the line somewhere. We would not have been so patient, were our roles reversed. But Russia has been biding its time, and building up its economy, investing in its military. We have ourselves heavily over-extended in two separate hotspots. Many conservatives have been worried about China's rise to power. While it has been swift, they have been blind to Russia, which has been there all along, weakened some after the fall of communism, but still there.

I don't think this will come to nuclear armageddon. But what 3,500 nuclear warheads get you is a certain level of immunity and impunity in a global strategy game. Because of the nukes and most of our troops on rotation to Iraq or Afghanistan, we are unwilling to ramp up to military confrontation. Russia knows this. Because of Russia's supply of natural gas and other petroleum to Europe, blockades and economic sanctions won't stick, either. All the cards are on Russia's side, and here's a few winners that could go into play if she doesn't get her way:
Russia can play havoc with any UN resolutions regarding Iran. It would not be too difficult to pare away even European nations given the threat of withholding natural gas. Russia can give Iran the latest air defenses and other military supplies, making any Israeli venture against Iran difficult. This might even up the brinksmanship between those two nations, and I can't see either country coming out ahead of that conflict.
Russia can "go Georgia" on any number of its former satellite states. The only country we will actually defend militarily, I think, is Poland. For all our talk, the others are not worth reverting to the draft in order to muster up enough troops to even spend American blood over.
Russia can, as previously mentioned, put a dent in Europe's natural gas supply. She needn't cut them off entirely, not all at once. Any pressure would be enough to destabilize their economies and send the futures markets into a tizzy.
Russia can side with China, economically and strategically. This needn't be a military alliance at all. With China's vast population and growing markets all over the developing world, Russia could effectively economically blockade us, in a complex series of maneuvers we'd not figure out until it was all said and done. Russia can be subtle. This may already have occurred, now that I think of it.

And I repeat, all we have are economic sanctions and the dubious recourse to military power. The sanctions won't work. There is no way to tell how far military power would escalate, and we don't have the strategic reserves to find out.

Russia's drawn a line in the sand. We need to go back to the drawing board, and figure out what our REAL non-negotiables are, instead of pretending like Georgia and the antiballistic missile system and NATO expansion are actually fundamental to our national security, or even our national interest. We needn't kow-tow to Russia, but certain strategic and diplomatic moves could make it so that Russia does not cross the very line in the sand it has drawn, and re-establish vital cooperation in the realm of securing nuclear weapons and materials, standing against transnational terrorist groups, and continuing global disarmament of nuclear weapons. All of which WOULD be in our national interest, and would bolster our national security.

I don't know for sure that Obama would make the right choices. But McCain has made abundantly clear his attitude towards the problem. I only hope that if he is elected, the magnitude of the possible consequences to our actions will give him pause. I have nothing against playing hardball with Russia, so long as our course of action and the consequences are clearly thought out.

J Dave G writes:

"Anti-intellectualism is bad indeed, but we can't do anything about it. I'm pretty jaded on this score. There's an enormous voting block of people who really don't want their leaders to be much smarter than they themselves are."

It's not so much anti-intellectualism as the fact that most voters find intellect or even basic knowledge of issues screamingly irrelevant. What the people in that enormous voting block you describe want is for their "leaders" to be of the same rotted moral fiber as they are; excessively sentimental, easily stampeded and willing to believe anything as long as said belief enables them to feel good about themselves. The ideology of Oprah Winfrey has at last triumphed.

This entire convention, particularly the Palin matter, was a celebration of collapsed standards.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Nothing will encourage our enemies more that what they percieve to be a weak president. When JFK made bad first missteps we ended up with missles in Cuba and the crisis. Nothing is better for our country than the enemy seeing our President as someone that is not only a strong, but also has shown a willingness to fight when threatened. The Soviet Union imploded as they went into massive build up to try and keep up with the US in the 80's knowing that the President was a life long enemy of Communism. McCain said in his speech that he hates war and having experienced it first hand, knows what war is and what sacrifices it demands. He has shown a willingness to fight and that when he fights, he will do so to win. That will lead the enemy to tread lightly when he is the commander in cheif. Should Obama get elected, we will be at war again and attacked very soon into his presidency. Frankly, I think that the enemy thought W. Bush was weak and would not respond forcefully and also think that his strong response had a lot to do with us not being attacked again.

The problem with labeling elitism as those with 'snobbery and condescension' is.. that is in the eye of the beholder. One person's snobbery is another person's.. well, simply not. It isn't even a set of consistent personal traits. Heck, I've seen it really narrowed down to, when you ask a person WHY they think another person is a snob.. a tone of voice, an expression, a way they move, or the kind of WORDS they use.

I recall the sort of 'afterschool special' style lessons as a teen that would be careful to note that some people others think are 'stuck up' often are shy, or socially awkward.

And yet, some forms of 'I'm better than you' never seem to be called 'elitist' even when it is openly stating that. Like, 'rural is always better than urban'. Or 'living in one place is always better than people who move around'. Or the 'common man' (which is always someone like the speaker, so, 'being like me') is better than someone who is not'.

I lived in Nashville for almost a decade. I am well aware of how people can be manipulated by the 'common man elitism', by people whose lives are anything but common. People who have fans who honestly think that they are the kind of people they sing about, because, well.. they sing about them so well. (And most of them don't even write those songs..) The 'I'm a common man, I drive a common van, my dog ain't got no pedigree' who, if you live where he does, you realize his 'common van' is a custom pickup that costs more than most of his fans make in five years, his dog is a purebred bluetick hound, because 'hounds are country', though the closest he comes to hunting involves a thousands of dollars a night lodge, etc.

And people BUY it. Yes, it is vague enough to be snobbery, but only certain kinds of snobbery ever get called elitist. You can honestly think anyone with a certain accent could never be a snob (and it happens to be YOUR accent) and that's snobbery.

Snobbery is thinking YOU are SOCIALLY superior to another group. In a world where having an advanced degree gets mockery, people without those degrees is what has cachet. If you notice that drinking fine wine will get you mocked, and, even if you hate it, drinking Schlitz makes more people like you, Schlitz drinkers are the snobs.

If you drive a ratty pickup truck, and get a shelter dog, and listen to country because you think it makes the right people like you, then yes, you are a SNOB.

I agree Karen.

Quick anecdote: I worked with someone once whose name was James, not Jim. His parents called him James, that's how he grew up, and that's what he preferred. He was a PhD chemist from England. I never saw him condescend to anyone and he was always a reasonable, level headed, normal guy who happened to be smart and have a funny name and a funny accent. But quite a few hourly employees there were convinced he was an unredeemable snob. Being merely different was plenty enough for them to label him "elitist". It was blatantly unfair.

Sure, there's elitism on the left, but let's be honest, many of Palin's supporters are the same kind of bigots who despised James.

That's fine Scurvy, but kinda beside my point, eh.

I thought it was pretty condescending when Guiliani and Palin made fun of Obama for being a community organizer. All he was doing was helping people who'd lost their jobs to help their community and vote. Even if he's voting for the other team, there's honor and dignity in that kind of work.

And the actor who played Frazier Crane is a Republican, btw.

I'm always taken aback by people's professed love for Palin. She may be pecan pie on a stick eventually, but unless you are from Alaska, I am betting you really have no idea who she is. I would think to yourself, do you really know her stances and policies?

Even though pro-life is important, is it more important than unjust war and torture? Is there really a difference between those killed in the womb vs. those children killed on the street in Baghdad?

I wouldn't dare tell anyone how to vote. To me it is a private affair, but I have to think that anyone who would change their vote or base their vote at this time on Palin is buying a sales pitch. I simply haven't seen or heard enough of her in the last week to develop any impression of her, and a canned speech isn't going to cut it for me.

Sorry, just the way I feel.

Is it just me or is anyone else concerned about a "traditionalist pentecostal" being held by the second highest office in the free world?

I'm not sure if I read the post correctly. I think you refer to yourself as the 'alternative right,' but the GOP is heavily influenced by the very people Palin has energized. I'm not sure how that constitutes alternative. A less theoractic mindset would be alternative, one that acknowledges our country as a secular republic in which people people have freedom of and from religion, or a Goldwater or Rockefeller Republican, now extinct, would be alternative. Also, in the Richard Spencer quote he refers to the neocons using Reagan as a Trojan horse, in an admiring way. I prefer no Trojan horses from either side. I think the American electorate deserves to know exactly what we're voting for, be it Democrat, Republican or any other party. Why in the world would he want to use Palin as a Trojan horse? To deceive the public? To lull us into voting for one thing while the plan is to deliver another? I find nothing admirable in this, but rather the toxicity that has become American politics. If Palin wants to replace the Constitution with the bible, let her say so.

To bill: thank you for pointing out the distastful nastiness expressed by both Giuliani and Palin by belittling Obama's work as a community organizer. These individuals work in churches, schools, senior centers, homeless shelters, to help needy folks get what they need. They are doing the work that Jesus himself would have done when confronted by such horrible conditions.

In a real sense, the Republican use of the term "community organizer" is a way for them to say he's an uppity N-word without really saying it. Giuliani himself mocked Obama's speech by saying that "only in America" could Obama become the nominee. As if to say that America is so great and so open a society, that even a lowly community organizer (see above) can become a nominee for president. The irony there was that he was mocking America, not Obama.

Further, a Georgia Congressman just the other day was comparing Michelle Obama and Sarah Palin, and he actually called her (Michelle) "uppity." A reporter, trying to rescue the congressman from himself, asked for a clarification, and the guy actually repeated the word. A white, conservative, southern, (presumably) Christian man calling an African-American, progressive, midwestern, Christian woman "uppity." I would have been shocked if I wasn't already convinced of the Party's inherent racism. This is how they plan to win, by the way. Jesse Helms must be smiling in his eternal dungeon.

And on the subject of Kelsey Grammer, he may be a Republican, but he's one sick, drug-addicted dude...sorta like Rush Limbaugh.

If by coming from a particular place, you mean a debauched town where life is so bleak that it is the meth capital of Alaska, OK.

If by coming from a particular you mean shifting around to 5 colleges in 6 years and coming out with a license to read a teleprompter, OK.

If by coming from a particular place, you mean a gal who blocked her own mother-in-law from running for mayor in favor of someone from her own developing political machine, OK.

If by coming from a particular place, you mean a couple who farmed out the raising of their children to nannies and the odd neighbor or relative so that their eldest son's grades were so poor and his behavior so troublesome he was turned down for college and had no choice but to join the military and their eldest daughter fell pregnant at 16, OK.

If by coming from a particular place, you mean a woman who had an affair with her husband's business partner and played a part in his divorce, OK.

Your insinuations about the rootless cosmopolitan disgust me.

I was just overlooking the imagery on this site, and the other religio-political sites, and I wonder why none of you use the image of Jesus or a cross. Is is a theological thing? I mean, your main point is that you want Christianity and the Christian core of the Republic more strongly represented in our politics, but you have only an elephant and the preamble there on your site. Are you ashamed of Jesus? Or would it be a graven image or something?

News flash: If "pro-life" Republican officials wanted abortion to be illegal, it would be illegal already.

20 of the last 28 years we've had "pro-life" Republican presidents; "pro-life" Republican control of the House for 14 of the last 28 years and the Senate for about 20 of the last 28 years.
Two-thirds of the current Supreme Court justices were appointed by "pro-life" Republican presidents.

But still abortion remains legal. In fact, abortions go up more under Republican presidents and decline under Democratic presidents.

Gas prices went up during all three Bush terms of presidency? You think Texas oilmen don't know how to make for cheaper gas? Of course they do. Obviously, it's not a mistake.

Same principle applies with abortion. It's off the table for anyone without blinkers on.
This year we've got a chance to pass a verdict on the Iraq war, torture, domestic spying, and Halliburton capitalism. It's probably about all our votes are good for anyways, since whether O or M is elected, the course of the next presidency will largely be determined by events and interest groups anyway.

Up or down vote on the Bush record. Don't f' this one up. Conservatism is a fragile flower in this country, and may not survive a yes vote.

This woman doesn't strike me as a traditionalist; she strikes me as a complete whack-job. And you are right, I think, McCain will be bellicose (in the name of honor), vindictive in his politics, haphazard in his decision making, and thoughtless and knee-"jerky" in his reactions to international happenings.

I seriously comtemplated voting for him, not all that long ago. However, my conscience simply will not allow me to do so. And frankly, I believe that a man like Obama, who asks us to care for one another, even is we have to use the government to manage the logistics for some of that, is not too far off the message of Jesus to love and care for those around you, and also the one who has no cloak, no shoes, no food. I can live with that, I hope you all will consider it, too. For surely we will not be able to live with much of what McCain has become.

Rod, Sarah Barracuda is conservatisms extinction comet. If you want a ying Christianist to the yang islamists, be honest about it.

The nail in the coffin for me when it came to having regard for a McCain ticket (and I used to be a real fan of the man) came during the 9/11 "Tribute" at last night's event. It truly struck me as the most exploitative move I've ever seen at a convention, possibly in politics overall (and that's saying something, looking at both Democrat and Republican history).

"as much as I like Palin, especially for the enemies she's made"

Rod Dreher, you are what grifters refer to as a mark.

Look, we know enough about Barack Obama to decide if you like him for President or not. We know enough about John McCain to make the same judgment.

But, Mr. Dreher, I do not believe for one bleepin' second you know enough about Sarah Palin, her abilities, her beliefs, her policies, her experiences or her accomplishments to have the slightest bleepin' idea if she'd be a good President or Vice-President.

Certainly you might be intrigued by her. Certainly you might be very impressed with what you have seen so far. But your infatuation with Governor Palin is the equivalent of a baby being transfixed by a jangling set of shiny keys.

Good grief.

Mike

Let me get this straight. You think that McCain's bellicose foreign policy might start actual shooting wars that would end up killing a lot of already-born human beings. But you're willing to take that risk because it might bring to power a "fresh face" who is pro-life -- at least for the UNBORN -- and who TALKS a very good game about being a frugal reformer.

Don't you want to check out how well her actual deeds measure up to her words? A few examples:

[1] EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE. When Palin became Mayor of Wasilla in 1996, a new full-time city administrator position (at $60,000/year) was added to the payroll to cope with the burdensome day-to-day responsibilities of governing this 5,000-citizen metropolis.

When Palin took office, the town had no debt. When she left office 6 years later, taxes had increased by 33% and the town had a $22 million debt. And what was that debt used for? A badly needed sewage treatment plant wasn't glamorous enough for our Sarah. Instead, $15 million went for a multi-use sports complex, which was touted as a profit maker, but turned out to be a money loser. (Doesn't that sound just like the $3-trillion Iraq war that was going to "pay for itself"?) As an added "benefit", construction of the sports complex was rushed through so hastily that Wasilla didn't have clear title to the property on which it was built, generating 7+ years of expensive litigation.

[2] GOVERNMENT WASTE. Palin is flat-out lying about her position on the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere". While running for Governor, she actively supported the project. Only when it later became a national laughingstock did she make a big show of "rejecting" the project, but never returned the money (keeping it for "other purposes").

Actually, Palin is -- as The Wonk Room at the Center for American Progress dubbed her -- "Earmark Queen of the Earmark State". As Mayor of Wasilla, she actually hired a lobbyist to bring home the bacon for her little town, and personally travelled to Washington to make the case for special favors. And she was astonishingly successful at getting the lion's share of the earmark goodies on offer when Sen. Ted Stevens' influence was strong:

–- Average State = $50/person in 2008
-- Alaska = $506/person in 2008
-- Wasilla = Over $1000/person in 2000-2003 (when Palin was mayor)

The "particular place" that Palin comes from is where government doesn't have to make hard choices, because citizens can have "extras" paid for by somebody else, either taxes from oil production or earmarks from Washington. How's that going to work out for folks in other 49 states? Do you want more of the same on a national level?

Right now you seem to be almost swooning for the smart and pretty "pit bull in lipstick". McCain gambled and picked Palin after meeting with her for less than an hour. Apparently the potential "wow" factor from springing a big surprise was more important to McCain than taking the time to thoroughly investigate her policy views.

But voters have nine weeks till election day. Don't you think you might want to spend it learning a little bit more about Miss Congeniality before inviting her to the prom?

The idea of voting for someone based on who their political enemies are is laughable. If that's really what's motivating "conservative" thought it's no mystery why there's not much there anymore. Couldn't we stop arguing over who had an idea and actually argue the idea for once?

I don't quite understand the love at first site the Right is having with Palin. We've known her for barely a week, and know precious little about her. Give the woman some time to prove herself, or fail to do so as the case may be. If she is all she's cracked up to be, she can make a clean run for president in 2012 and fight her way to the presidency the way McCain and Obama did -- earning their votes over the course of several months of scrutiny.

Mainly I worry that, in lieu of her own fully-formed ideas about foreign policy, Palin will adopt those of McCain's and his advisors, which are neocon all the way. There's no indication that she would do anything else.

I was reminded, when thinking about the "9/11 Tribute", and in what bad taste that seemed to be, that common decency seems to be gone from much of what the R.'s are doing. You can disagree with people, even hate their actions, but decency is important and a mechanism of communication and then, possiblely, change. McCain once struck me as a supremely decent man; I am not so sure lately.

Upton Sinclair said (As I recall), that "When facism comes to American it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." It seems to me that the Republicans, which I used to be, are treading terribly close to making his prediction come true. Let us hope that this will not be the case.

There is something like a 125 chance, based on the statistics kept about these things, that McCain could die before the election. The chances of him dying in office will not lessen with the lengthening of his time there. What if he does a "William Henry Harrison"? That possibility scares me very, very badly. All the more so when he clearly had competent, experienced people to choose from...it a puzzle to me, and very sad.

I am not voting for a vice president. I am not planning ahead that the President might die. Who knows, McCain could live another 20 years.
This is not about Palin, it is about McCain and his choice. She is his
window dressing. If McCain wanted someone with substance who was a
female, he could have picked Condi Rice, Elizabeth Dole, or Kay Bailey
Hutchinson. As a lifelong Republican, I no longer view the GOP as a
political party, it is a religious party. And the evangelicals are
easily swayed. They get Palin and unfortunately that is all it takes
to make them happy.

Pro-lifers win a powerful exemplar of pro-life values in a high place

They sure do! It's just what I want my daughter to look up to: abstinence-only and teen pregnancy and how such a blessing to her and our lives it will be if she gets knocked up at age 17.

You forget the medical care of Palin's unwed pregnant daughter is being paid for by the State -- Governors get their healthcare from the taxpayers, remember? Pro-life values means if the girl is an unwed pregnant 17-yr old girl, a state-supported pre-natal care means she's a lazy sponge and a parasite on the system. But if she's the governor's daughter, a state-supported pregnancy is her due. To have the state deny her and her baby proper care would be churlish and un-Christian.

Pro-life values means it's a moral outrage when it's a welfare mother, but it's a blessing when it's the Governor's daughter.

And who's going to pay for the birth? The shotgun-married 18-yr old father? I sincerely wish him luck in landing a job with his education level and skills that pays enough to raise a family and to afford the premiums for family healthcare insurance. Many Americans with more education and years of experience don't have that. Heck, most Americans have trouble getting a job that even provides healthcare coverage just for themselves, let alone affordable family coverage.

Of course, he probably won't have need of luck. The powerful friends of the family he's marrying into will see to it that he gets a well paying job and his wife and infant's healthcare needs are seen to. (I wonder what the employment prospects of a 17-year-old mom without a high school education are like? Good thing there's minimum wage ... ooops! Those pro-life and self-proclaimed pro-family Republicans have been against that for years!)

Too bad the rest of teen-aged Americans from small towns with a high school education and a family to care for can't get the same. Heck, too bad tens of millions of Americans, young and old, big city and small town, can't get the same.

If these people were as pro-life as they claim to be, they'd be falling over themselves to make sure 1) every unwed pregnant teen has healthcare, because prenatal healthcare means reduced infant and mother mortality, 2) good jobs with family health care benefits are available to fathers or mothers, and 3) young people have access to contraceptives as well as the knowledge of how to use them, because the powerful exemplar of Palin's daughter is proof that pro-life values of abstinence-only sex ed doesn't work.

If your pro-life values are no abortion even if pregnant by rape or incest then dammit why don't those values include teaching ALL non-abortion birth control methods, not just abstinence-only?

And why do pro-life values include support for rapists' reproductive rights? Your 14-year-old gets raped and pregnant ... and you then want to force that child to have the rapist's baby? How much trauma and suffering do you want to make your daughter endure? How much of a life do you want to shortchange her, how big a burden are you going to force her to carry, against her will, an unwed teen mother with a rapist's baby and the stigma of that?

The rapist forced against her to do something she did not want to do, and now the pro-life values exemplars want to, too. How can this be justified -- forcing a real living breathing human being to have a criminal's baby against her will -- for the sake of clump of cells put in her body unwillingly in a brutal crime?

And I've noticed just how compassionate these people really when it's not one of their own who got knocked up. Other unwed teens who get pregnant are criticized and their parents are condemned and branded as failures, as bad parents. That's what these pro-life values people did to Jamie Lynn Spears and her parents. The media was then accused of glamorizing teen pregnancy. Why are these people now glamorizing teen pregnancy? Spears was in the public's eye for a few months, Palin's daughter will be for four years. What an exemplar that will be!

And then there's the wonderful compassionate conservative example of Genarlow Wilson. As a 17 year old black teen he was sentenced to 10 years in prison and labeled a sex offender for having consensual sex with another teen. No plane flight to St. Paul for him. No handshake with a presidential candidate in the national spotlight. No fame. No future. Of course he didn't get his girlfriend pregnant, so that could be why he didn't get the same pro-life values treatment another young teen-aged man got after he had had sex with his teen girlfriend. Or maybe it was because the the girl Wilson had sex with wasn't a governor's daughter who got the VP nomination. Ya think? Certainly being black didn't help him any. Because black teens who knock up black teen girls are irresponsible, immoral, degenerate, and give in to wild temptation. They and their unwed black pregnant teen girlfriends are exemplars of what's wrong with this nation. Another pregnant black girl, another state-supported pregnancy, another black baby, another blight on this nation. No one with pro-life values talks about blessings there. Hmmm. Wonder why not?

I also noticed when Palin announced her daughter's pregnancy, she had said her daughter had a choice in her pregnancy and that she's proud of her daughter's choice. I support that, and honor her choice. But I want for my daughter exactly what her daughter had: A choice.

Pro-life, pro-hypocrite. You're right, it was a powerful example of pro-life values.

The blind optimism with which the radical right and the media has latched onto Sarah Palin and the reversals on long held positions, to hang onto that optimism is incredibly disturbing. This same uncanny optimism is what allowed the Bush administration to trample on the constitution, allowed our POWs to be tortured, put the US into trillions of dollars in debt, and to increase the power of the government. A complete reversal on long held conservative ideals.
With Sarah Palin we have a candidate who LIED three times (that we know of so far) in her first address to the nation. Since when is dishonesty a conservative value?
She stated that she said "Thanks, but no thanks" on the bridge to nowhere,when she had not only supported building bridge but kept the 30 million in earmarks for after the project was cancelled.
She said she saved the tax payers a lot of money by selling a private jet on Ebay for a profit, but had actually sold it to one of her campaign contributors at a loss of half a million.
She said she was against waste and corruption in government, yet accepted 27 million in earmarks for a town the size 9000 people, hired a lobbyist to after earmarks and petitioned Ted Stevens herself for $100 millions in earmarks and she the subject of a corruption investigation.

Why all the angst? Vote for her if you wish. She won't win.

"2. The administration would be dispositionally favorable to social conservatives and our concerns, as opposed to unremittingly hostile."

And how has that worked out for you over the last twenty years?
Gay marriage will be an accepted feature within 10 years, abortion is still legal and if you can look at this country's popular culture and seriously contend that there has been a move towards religious piety then you are more deluded than I imagined.

How long are you going to let the Republican party play you like this?
Have you no self-respect?

Heidi Renee, you are right on point!

Pro life values?
What's pro-life about lugging a 5 month old baby around the bedlam of a Convention for 4-5 hours, like a sack of potatoes to be used for photo ops?
The lack of reaction of that baby almost makes me wonder if he wasn't drugged so as to keep him quiet.
But then, it's par for the course for that crowd: every sperm is sacred ...until it comes out! Then, hang on, you'll be exploited for all you're worth.

But both McCain and Palin have sons in the military serving (or soon to be serving) in Iraq. Can anyone believe that they would needlessly put their own children at risk with unnecessary wars?

Dude, WTF? You forget about Iraq? Unless you somehow think starting a war with a country that didn't attack us, had nothing to do with 9/11, and had no WMDs was somehow necessary.

McCain doesn't need to start unnecessary wars. He wants another 100 years of sending other people's kids to the one Bush started.

Are you sure you want to sell your soul for the prospects of a VP pick?

1) McCain votes with Bush 90% of the time. Which for those that want out of Iraq specificly -- we aren't leaving.
2) McCain seems to want a war with Russia and Iran. Reagan didn't pick fights -- he ended them. McCain seems to want to pick a fight.
3) McCain has been a strict constitutionalist which means you may not get the supereme court justice you want.
4) McCain has being lying a lot -- how do you know that he is telling the truth now about your social issues vs what he said 5 months ago which were opposite.
5) This is probably the most important: VPs have traditionally done very little. We have no proof that McCain will keep the new tradition. Plus its looking like there will be fewer ties in the senate so the President of the Senate may not be needed.

Remember you aren't electing Palin -- you are electing McCain. IMO after he is elected he will go back to the way he was and thumb his nose at those he had to pander to to get elected. Why? Thats what politicians do.

At the DNC, Bill Clinton spoke at LENGTH about how a Gov, From a small state did just fine as President (speaking of himself). Then, a Gov is nominated (Palin) and, surprise, she is considered unqualified. Does that sound partisan?

You can be sure McCain will do what is best for America.

If Obama gets a sweet house loan out of it, I'm not sure he really cares what happens to tax dollars.

He wheels and deals in money, grants, and self interest. Is that a change?

Now he's given almost a Million $'s to an organization FAMOUS for HISTORIC voter fraud for the Democrats.

Another bad association for Obama.

How many of these before people realize they picked a below average politician when they picked OBAMA (oh, wait, the PEOPLE didn't pick him, the DNC and Superdelegates picked him, NOT the people).
Good Luck to us all.