Critical of Palin? Bad man! Bad Christian!

Telling the truth about a politician who happens to be a professed Christian is somehow un-Christian? No wonder we got stuck with Bush for 8 years.............

Rod, keep calling them as you see them.

Tomorrow night, the Motley Crue! Frank, Duluth, your question for Fred Drier? Did you play football, had a detective show? You're not all that big. What's Rosie Grier like? That girl on the cop show, do you know if she's single?

Next week, Liz Taylor!

I saw that segment on Larry King. Good for you, Rod, for sticking to your guns. Larson is just a sock-puppet. I wondered what 'good judgment' means for Lars. Is it any substitute for basic knowledge?

I sorry to hear about your upcoming trial for heresy against the church, oops, I mean, the GOP (same thing, in the minds of many).

hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/0c03d39e-df44-41fc-af7d-f2f9a7f56b68

9/29/08 radio interview

Hugh Hewitt: Governor Sarah Palin, welcome to the Hugh Hewitt Show. Great to have you.

Sarah Palin: Hey, thank you so much. Nice to hear your voice.

HH: Governor, your candidacy has ignited extreme hostility, even some hatred on the left and in some parts of the media. Are you surprised? And what do you attribute this reaction to?

SP: Oh, I think they’re just not used to someone coming in from the outside saying you know what? It’s time that normal Joe six-pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency, and I think that that’s kind of taken some people off guard, and they’re out of sorts, and they’re ticked off about it, but it’s motivation for John McCain and I to work that much harder to make sure that our ticket is victorious, and we put government back on the side of the people of Joe six-pack like me, and we start doing those things that are expected of our government, and we get rid of corruption, and we commit to the reform that is not only desired, but is deserved by Americans.

HH: Now Governor, the Gibson and the Couric interview struck many as sort of pop quizzes designed to embarrass you as opposed to interviews. Do you share that opinion?

SP: Well, I have a degree in journalism also, so it surprises me that so much has changed since I received my education in journalistic ethics all those years ago. But I’m not going to pick a fight with those who buy ink by the barrelful. I’m going to take those shots and those pop quizzes and just say that’s okay, those are good testing grounds. And they can continue on in that mode. That’s good. That makes somebody work even harder. It makes somebody be even clearer and more articulate in their positions. So really I don’t fight it. I invite it.

HH: Have you followed the attacks on you, say, via Drudge or the blogs? Some of them are just made up and out of left field, others are just mocking. Do you follow those?

SP: No, I sure don’t, and thank God I don’t have time to follow those. You know, I think that those shots, too, though, no matter what we’re taking and receiving, it’s nothing compared to what real shots are against Americans in this world. Americans today who are worried about losing their home and figuring out how in the world they’re going to pay their fuel bill next month, and send their kid to college, and may be worried about losing a loved one that they’re sending off to a war zone to protect our rights. Those are the shots that Americans are taking, so all this political nonsense and the lies, the rhetoric that is spun out there about someone just trying to offer themselves up in the name of service to this great country, I’ll take it.

HH: Governor, you mentioned the people who are struggling right now. Have you and your husband, Todd, ever faced tough economic times where you had to sit around a kitchen table and make tough choices?

SP: Oh my goodness, yes, Hugh. I know what Americans are going through. Todd and I, heck, we’re going through that right now even as we speak, which may put me again kind of on the outs of those Washington elite who don’t like the idea of just an everyday working class American running for such an office. But yeah, there’s been a lot of times that Todd and I have had to figure out how we were going to pay for health insurance. We’ve gone through periods of our life here with paying out of pocket for health coverage until Todd and I both landed a couple of good union jobs. Early on in our marriage, we didn’t have health insurance, and we had to either make the choice of paying out of pocket for catastrophic coverage or just crossing our fingers, hoping that nobody would get hurt, nobody would get sick. So I know what Americans are going through there. And you know, even today, Todd and I are looking at what’s going on in the stock market, the relatively low number of investments that we have, looking at the hit that we’re taking, probably $20,000 dollars last week in his 401K plan that was hit. I’m thinking geez, the rest of America, they’re facing the exact same thing that we are. We understand what the problems are. It’s why I have all the faith in the world that John McCain is the right top of any ticket at this point to get us through these challenges. It’s a good balanced ticket where he’s got the experience, and he’s got the bipartisan approach that it’s going to take to get us through these challenges. And I have the acknowledgement and the experience of going through what America is going through.

HH: Governor, when you say things are tight right now, is that simply because of Todd being off not working? Or is it because of extraordinary demands on the fiscal resources of the Palin family? What’s the situation there?

SP: No, it’s just the great financial crisis that America is in as our savings accounts also, and a 401K, they’re being hit.

HH: Sure.

SP: Our stocks, you know, they took a hit yesterday. And then of course, just the same thing that other Americans are asking themselves today. We’ve got three teenagers. How are we going to pay for their college education? How are we going to make sure that we’re investing wisely today. We’re putting a lot of faith in other people who are using our money as investments. We have to count on the federal government to be overseeing these agencies and entities, making sure that we’re not going to get screwed on this deal, and that our savings are safe. So there again, John McCain’s got some great ideas on granting authority, for instance, to the FDIC, making sure that our deposits are insured. He wants to increase that deposit insurance cap of all of our money, our savings, from $100,000 dollars up to $250,000 dollars, so that families like mine, so that we don’t have to worry about our money being safe or not under FDIC.

HH: Governor, let’s turn to a couple of issues that the MSM’s not going to pick up. You’re pro-life, and how much of the virulent opposition to you on the left do you attribute to your pro-life position, and maybe even to the birth of, your decision, your and Todd’s decision to have Trig?

SP: Yeah, you know, I think that that’s been probably the most hurtful and nonsensical slap that we’ve been taking is our position that we have taken, pro-life, me personally, and saying that you know, even though I knew that 13 weeks along that Trig would be born with Down Syndrome, and I said you know, he’s still going to be a most precious ingredient in this sometimes messed-up world that we live in. I know that my son is going to provide a lot of hope and a lot of promise in this world, and I’m so thankful of course that I’ve had the opportunity to give him life and to bring him into this world. But I think yeah truly, that that’s been a hurtful slap that we have taken, because people just don’t understand. Ironic too, Hugh, that some would consider my position on life and trying to usher in a culture of life, respecting the sanctity of life in America, that that is seen as an extreme position when to me, an extreme position is one that Barack Obama took when he was in the Illinois State Senate, not even supporting a measure that would ban partial birth abortion, not even supporting a measure that would during, after a botched abortion and that baby’s born alive, allowing medical care to cease and allowing that baby to die. That to me is extreme. That’s so far, far left it’s certainly out of the mainstream of America. To me, that is the extreme position, not my position of just wanting that culture of life to be respected, and not wanting government to sanction the idea of ending life.

HH: Do you think the mainstream media and the left understands your religious faith, Governor Palin?

SP: I think that there’s a lot of mocking of my personal faith, and my personal faith is very, very simple. I don’t belong to any church. I do have a strong belief in God, and I believe that I’m a heck of a lot better off putting my life in God’s hands, and saying hey, you know, guide me. What else do we have but guidance that we would seek from a Creator? That’s about as simple as it gets with my faith, and I think that there is a lot of mocking of that. And you know, so bet (sic) it, though I do have respect for those who have differing views than I do on faith, on religion. I’m not going to mock them, and I would hope that they would kind of I guess give me the same courtesy through this of not mocking a person’s faith, but maybe perhaps even trying to understand a little bit of it.

HH: Governor, let’s close with some foreign affairs. It is reported that you had an Israeli flag in your governor’s office. You wore an Israeli flag pin occasionally. One, is that true? And two, why your support for Israel?

SP: Well, it is true, and I ran into Shimon Peres recently at a meeting, and he even pointed that out. He said I saw a picture of you on the internet, and you had an Israeli flag in your state government office, and I said I sure do. You know, my heart is with you. And all of those trials and tribulations throughout history that Israel has gone through, not only does that allow me to want to support that country, but Israel is our strongest and most important ally in the Middle East. And they are a democratic country who I believe deserves our support, and I know that John McCain believes as I do that Israel is our friend, and we need to be there to support them. They are there for us, and I do love that country.

HH: Last question, Governor. Have you and Todd heard from your son? And how is it on your nerves having your son deployed?

SP: That little stinker, I guess he’s called his girlfriend a couple of times, but can you believe he hasn’t called his momma yet? He’s over there. They were just leaving Kuwait heading into Iraq, and I am just so extremely proud of Track, my son, and all of the men and women, of course, serving in the military. I’m proud that my son made this independent and very wise decision as such a young man at 18, deciding you know, he realized there’s something he can do to help, to contribute, to help protect our nation, and I couldn’t be more proud of him and all those who choose to serve in our military. They’re serving for the right reasons. God bless them, God love them.

HH: Governor Sarah Palin, look forward to talking to you again, good luck on Thursday night.

SP: Thank you so much. Talk to you soon.

End of interview.

Rod: Keep up the good work. I don't always agree with you, but you are an honest and honorable person. (btw, I saw the latest Couric installment and I think Palin did much better. She may not tank Thur after all.)

Rufus: I recall Rod being critical of Obama. Furthermore, you seem to think Obama is worse than Palin on every single significant matter. That would be the mark of an idealogue. You also seem disappointed that Rod is not an idealogue.

Conservatives would widely agree that Obama's policies are much worse than Palin's - Rod would probably say as much. But more than a few honest conservatives have concluded that her intellect and/or honesty are considerably worse than his. It is a reasonable conclusion even if it isn't your conclusion. They are dismayed and a few are saying so. Most of them will vote against Obama anyway.

I think the problem is that if you are not an intellectual in a certain way you are considered not fit to lead our country. I did not say intelligent, I said intellectual.

I doubt that someone like Harry Truman, for example, rough as a cob but smart in a country way, would do very well in an interview with Katie Couric.

Ordinary people resent that people who are smart in a certain way seem to get to run the country, all along screwing things up royally for everyone, as in the present crises in the financial system.

Palin, admittedly, is not smart in this way. And that is her attraction to some of us, because the people who are smart in this way, like Barack Fannie Mae Obama and his quislings in the media, are thoroughly corrupt and complicit in f*cking over our country. It is only someone smart in this way, for example, who can rationalize the virtues of abortion and homosexuality, which every ordinary person instinctively knows are wrong. One reason the newspapers and network news are dying is that people are fed up with the intellectual condescension of their media betters.

Of all the people who are running, Palin is the only one who has no responsibility for the corruption of our financial system for personal financial and political gain. That should count for something, more than her poor performance in interviews.

Rod, you are smart in this way, as I--via Oxford and Yale--am. But I see the self-serving, rationalizing bullsh*t in it all too. Again, with Bill Buckley, who was smart in this way to the max, I'd rather be governed by the first 500 names in the Boston phone book (or the Wasilly phone book) than the faculty at Harvard (or Yale.)

The problem -- and it's a problem that gives the criticism of your treatment of Palin real validity -- is that your treatment of her is in no way commensurate with your treatment of the equally-unqualified-to-be-President Reverend Lightworker.

No rational, honest person can really believe that Obama has demonstrated the lack of "preparedness" or demonstrated a general disconnectedness we've seen from Palin. There are many reasons to criticize Obama, but no one can seriouly, honestly, intellectually say that he appears as unready and uncurious as Palin.

I just want to give you kudos, Rod, and to affirm your integrity in telling it like it is. I think what the author of the communication you quoted is missing is that there is a distinction between criticism of a person's policies or their behavior insofar as it's relevant to political office, and judging the state of that person's soul before God. In any case, keep up the good work.

Lancelot: Many of us who object to Palin's lack of intelligence are not nearly as shallow as you say. It is not a matter of speaking a certain way. It is a matter of being able to speak at all beyond teleprompters or brief talking points.

There are others too, who see a pro-lifer (that's great - really) but aren't willing to turn a blind eye to serious honesty issues, corruption concerns, and an apparent monarchical ruling style reminiscent of 8 yrs of W.

Rod,

I don't have a clue who Lars Larson is, but I wonder if your description of him ("robotically repeating the line that he trusts Palin's 'judgement'") betrays something not entirely pretty in your own approach to this matter. Doesn't Mr. Larson deserve to be respected for the sincerity of his views with the same measure you ask to be respected for the sincerity of your views?

It is your right, of course, to express doubts about Governor Palin and to even go on various network news shows to express them ("Larry King Live," "Good Morning America") as a kind of "token conservative." ("Conservatives bashing conservatives" does meet a kind of perverse standard for newsworthiness in the mainstream media.) Of course, it must be even kind of exciting for you. You may even be hearing from old buddies from high school and college days who report that they "saw you on TV." Whooeee!

Yet surely a part of you must wonder if you're merely being "used" by people who don't care a whit about the full spectrum of your opinions or who share a single one of your cultural views. Mind you, no one here is saying with any assurance that you're being "used" by these people. But somewhere deep down inside yourself don't you wonder if perhaps you aren't?

Rod, the MSM are rewarding you and you are getting more traffic and more exposure.

Actually, I don't know what my blog numbers are going to be for the month of September, but I was told by the folks at Bnet who track this stuff that I got a huge bump early in the month ... when I was posting like crazy defending Palin. So that works both ways. I'm going to say what I really think, no matter what it does to the traffic. I want as many readers as I can get, of course, but not at the expense of being dishonest.

I don't spend a lot of time talking about Obama here because I'm not going to vote for him, I think he's a pro-abortion extremist, and he simply doesn't interest me as much as Sarah Palin does.

BTW, I think that Hugh Hewitt interview was brilliant, in a Machiavellian sense. He asked her nothing but sympathetic, softball questions, and she hit the "Joe Sixpack" pander points perfectly.

"I think the problem is that if you are not an intellectual in a certain way you are considered not fit to lead our country. I did not say intelligent, I said intellectual.

I doubt that someone like Harry Truman, for example, rough as a cob but smart in a country way, would do very well in an interview with Katie Couric."

Harry Truman was a second term Senator. He had served as an artillery officer in WWI. He had extensive knowledge of national and international issues. Again, if you go back over the history of recent VP nominees, they are usually people who are well versed in foreign policy. If the president died, they would have been able to competently assume the office. The issue is not so much one of raw intelligence or being the right kind of intellectual, but rather has there been any interest or preparation to approach anything above state level issues. As an ordinary US citizen I feel that I should make an effort to be informed. I expect that of our candidates for office also. The following from the Couric interview tells me she has not made that effort.

“Couric: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?

Palin: I’ve read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.

Couric: What, specifically?

Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.

Couric: Can you name a few?

Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn’t a foreign country, where it’s kind of suggested, “wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?” Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.”

Steve

Reaganite, Larson repeated, over and over, that he respects Palin's judgment, and that he can't stand the "elite Eastern media." He didn't explain any of this, or try to make any sort of argument. Every time King would try to draw him out on this point, he just repeated the same lines. Like a robot.

And I do caution you to watch out questioning my integrity by assuming that being on TV is going to my head. When I was living and working as a journalist in New York, I did Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Court TV, and so on, a fair bit. Big whoop.

I don't really care whether or not Larry King, or Journalist X, shares my views on politics, culture, or what not. I was asked to come on TV and share my views. I did that. Am I supposed only to speak to journalists or audiences who share my views?

Meanwhile, I'd like to hear what anyone thinks about this YouTube video that has been making the rounds via email:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487

Reaganite: You're a reasonable guy, wouldn't it be honestly and legitimately newsworthy if a notable left blog or commentator voiced serious concerns about Biden or Obama?

Grace: That is so cool! I am a left leaning moderate, but hang out here because there are reasonable, honest people who have different opinions that I want to consider.

Rod: "Actually, I don't know what my blog numbers are going to be for the month of September, but I was told by the folks at Bnet who track this stuff that I got a huge bump early in the month ..."

You can be certain this isn't hurting Bnet's ad revenues, either. I just noticed that the Obama campaign is running an ad on this page, featuring some scurrilous attack video with a 2 second clip of McCain talking about occasionally enjoying a game of chance.

One hand washes another.

Jury's still out on Palin, whom I like, but in a country with competitive elections, part of the deal is this--put yourself forward, get criticized.

Palin's not whining about it, why should some young fogy do so?

I don't want Joe Sixpack running the country, either. There is a reason he is still "Joe Sixpack" and not a leader. I don't want "Joe Sixpack" operating on me, doing my accounting, handling my legal cases, etc. I see who picks up sixpacks (and 24-pack cases) at the grocery store and Wal-Mart. I prefer an army run by trained generals, not draftee privates.

"I don't have any sympathy for you at all." ~~ Richard Bottoms

Being a liberal means never having to say you're sorry (or you were wrong).

"Hang in there, Rod. As I've said before here, you and folks like you are the only reason I continue to be interested in conservatism."

Amen to that. Many of the problems in the conservative movement are the result of our lack of self-criticism, and any movement that doesn't examine itself isn't worth the asphalt it marches on.

A commitment to the truth as we discern the truth always sets someone off.

Rob: I might join your movement if I didn't see so much hypocricy and willful denial. As it is I sit in the middle and criticize both sides.

J Dave G,

New Flash: It is possible to disagree with you and not be an "ideologue."

BTW: What is my ideology?

Daniel (and J Dave G),

I will grant that the Reverend probably has a marginally higher IQ than Palin does and that he is more intellectual, if by that one means more prone to think of the world as a set of mentally manipulable abstractions.

That said, I do not believe that the Reverend is any more *intelligent* than Palin in terms of intelligence defined the way Lancelot Lamar defines it.

I find the incessant citation of the Reverend's academic credentials nauseating, both due to the snobbery implicit in such citation and due to the fact that -- being able to claim some "elite" (heavy irony here) academic credentials myself -- I have perhaps a more realistic sense of what the value of such credentials is than the many in the Reverend's congregation do.

To take but one example, look where the Reverend's much-vaunted intellect and education have got him, so far as theology goes -- theology, which, given the Reverend's pretensions, ought merely to be self-recognition for the One.

And it is worth noting for what feels like and probably is for me the fiftieth time that the Reverend has had no *executive* experience other than running the Annenberg Challenge with "mainstream" and "respectable" William Ayers -- the one credential that the Reverend and his congregation are not so eager to claim.

In addition to having (virtually) no executive experience, the Reverend can claim no expertise to speak of in any particular area of public policy -- economic, financial, military, diplomatic ... what have you.

To the extent that the Reverend has articulated any positions at all on any of the issues, those positions are entirely formulaic left-liberal boilerplate regurgitated from every Democratic presidential campaign since George McGovern's in 1972 -- boilerplate that was already past its sell-by date in '72.

None of the Reverend's ideas suggest any realization that the world has moved on from the days when Bill Ayers and Bernadine Bohrn were trying -- and thankfully failing -- to stick it to every manifestation of "the man" except for Ayer's Daddy, who found both of them jobs once the game was done.

In some ways, the Reverend's whole career can be seen as a product of the belated surrogate parenthood of a series of aging Peter Pans and Wendy Darlings who have helped the Reverend out in the same way that Ayers and Dohrn were helped out earlier on by Daddy Ayers -- think Jeremiah Wright, think Alice Palmer, think Antoine Rezko, think John Kerry ... think, think, think.

The Reverend is not *Emmanuel Lewis* Lightworker for nothing.

He is the diminuitive, malleable, and photogenic child-star taken up as a secular-progressive Christ-child by aging baby boomers in the midst of mid-life or late-life crisis and taken up as well by impressionable children of every age.

Joseph Conrad once described a character as a "papier-mache Mephistopheles" filled with "dirt."

The Reverend is a papier-mache (would-be) Christ-child filled not with dirt but with a viscous mulch of every waste product emitted by left-liberals in the previous third of a century or more.

Not least among the malodorous ingredients of said mulch is full-throated and "eloquently" baritone advocacy for *exactly, precisely* the sorts of racialist mau-mauing cum insider grifting and grafting that were instrumental in wrecking our finances as a country.

History will short play pinata with the Reverend.

I for one will have my mackintosh and my galoshes on.

Don't say that you weren't advised to do so as well.

Not that any of this matters nearly so much as that ole stoopid moose from Wasilla and her horrible, Pentecostal, baby-belching womb.

Houghton:

I linked to that the other day. I think it has a fair amount of truth to it. One poster pointed out that it underplays the role that interest rates (artificially, inadvisedly low interest rates, apparently?) played in swelling the bubble; and obviosuly the CRA can't be wholly responsible for the huge uptick in 'innovative' mortagage products over the last few years.

This guy seems to make alot of sense:

"Bankruptcy, not Bailout, is the right answer"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html

Rod,

It seems to me that criticizing Palin for being "unprepared" is the latest amusement of the chattering class. What concerns me is that - just as Obama gets a total pass for his past actions (including his close association with a terrorist, his work with that terrorist to guide an organization (ACORN) that has committed massive voting fraud, his tactic of disqualifying his competitors - rather than debating them - in order to get elected) - so Palin's opponent, Joe Biden, is getting a total pass on his 30+-year record.

Where is the intense, microscopic scrutiny of Biden's record? Where are the SNL skits and New Yorker covers of Biden's plagiarism, his open disagreement with Obama over developing coal resources? Indeed, where is the pushback from the conservative side on Biden - mocking his bogus working-class Scranton roots, his ridiculous statements, his #3 ADA voting record, all showing how unprepared he is to represent the American people as VP?

I have no problem with your criticism of Palin but why you see anything other than a demagogue in Obama is beyond me.

"I might join your movement if I didn't see so much hypocricy and willful denial. As it is I sit in the middle and criticize both sides."

There is actually a fair amount of conservative self-evaluation going on (and has been for years); you just never hear about it on Fox or Hannity or Limbaugh because the conservatives doing it are not of their stripe, and hence are not listened to.

There are whole books on it, actually; I'm reading one now -- "Beautiful Losers" by Samuel T. Francis, which came out in 1993. Pat Buchanan has written one more recently, and an older one was written by Justin Raimondo (sp?) but recently republished by ISI.

There is extensive evidence thought Biden has thought about, written about and talked about major national and foreign policy issues. One may disagree with his thoughts, but if he were elected as VP and had to assume the presidency, it makes sense that he would govern with a leftist POV. There is no evidence that Palin had done any of this. She cannot name even one newspaper she reads regularly or one magazine/journal. She was supposedly contacted about the possibility of being VP several months ago. How could she not prepare herself?

Steve

don, well said.

Rod,
I don't think Palin is a concern as VP unless McCain croaks in the first month. She is capable of learning, governing, and will get into the swing of things very quickly. The only difficiency she's displayed is poor national interviewing skills. The certitude in your critique of Palin's intelligence with such little information (and in fact, evidence to the contrary) demonstrates a lack of judgement on your part. It appears that calling the spade before anyone else is what makes a pundit sucessful and you're letting that cloud your reasoning. Good luck with that.

For many Palin defenders here, IGNORANCE seems to be most important qualification for the VP job. Congratulations.

Rob G: If more folks like you and Rod ever get some traction in the movement, I'd be very pleased. Sadly, idealogues tend to drown out the rest of us.

ISI - I've heard of that on Maclin Horton's blog. Are you the same Rob G that frequents that blog?

Don: Disagreeing with Biden's policy positions is fine. That he disagrees with Obama is to be expected. Palin and McCain are being criticized not because they disagreed on something, but because she took a position that McCaim slammed Obama for. That's legit.

Obama just isn't all that funny, but Biden is comical and I'd love to see what SNL could do with him.

"Are you the same Rob G that frequents that blog?"

Yep, that's me. I first heard about Mac's blog here.

Watsy, I don't mind the Palin skits at all. It's the lack of Obama/Biden skits on SNL that bugs me. (Jay Leno has a halfway decent Obama impersonator, BTW. Not as good as his 'Bush' guy, but still pretty entertaining).

Dude! You sound so different here. Fascinating.

I just can't wait for Larry to invite you back to discuss the extremism of Obama's abortion position. You're being used and you don't even get it.

Oh yeah, the whole Rufus - Reverend Lightworker thing grates my cheese as well, sig.

I can't imagine why someone would think their opinion would be taken seriously if they insist on using childish, esoteric slurs. Can you imagine how well McCain would fare in a debate if he insisted on referring to Obama as "Reverend Lightworker", or should Obama drop "Well, let's just see what Oldster McCrankypants has to say about Iraq, eh Chuck?" in a press conference?

Of course, were I a conversative I'd be largely disappointed in my party's ticket this time around; hence the snarling bitterness is partially understandable. Beyond the weakness at the top of the ticket, Palin is clearly an immense disappointment to large segments of the Right.

What was envisioned as the game-changing, "lock and load" vanguard of the Republican campaign has been revealed as an incurious, unprepared and wholly inadequate choice, catering only the most base anti-intellectual, ethnocentric (in its broadest sense) instincts of the party.

At the same time, powerfully positive elements of her persona, such as her respect for life, practical feminism, and genuine connection with something other than the lofty towers of upper-class America are being lumped together and tarred due to her very obvious failings.

We see in these sort of postings the sulky disappointment of a Right that has been defeated in the public forum on every major issue: Iraq, Afghanistan, No Child Left Behind, Gay Marriage, Abortion, and now, the final and most bitter straw, their stronghold of business, the economy and public finance. Rarely in American history has an extended administration been so utterly crushed in the final analysis by the weight of their own incompetence.

Incuriosity, orthodoxy, the politics of personal destruction and cultural division, and overreaching greed has destroyed them, and the power is slipping from their hands day after day. When this election is over, the final pieces will be torn from their dying grasp: The White House, the power to appoint Supreme Court Justices, and sufficient majorities in Congress to seriously impede progress away from their failed policies. As in the ancient ceremonies of courts-martial, their ribbons and rewards are being stripped, their rank torn from them, their uniforms torn and shredded before they are marched from the field by the righteous anger of the nation they've betrayed.

And yet, I can't take any real glee in this, although I wish I could. I fear my own party has learned their lessons at the feet of their Republican masters all too well over the last eight years. I doubt you'll see them surrendering the increased executive powers stolen by the Bush Administration, although they decried them. I doubt they have any more stomach for telling the American people the painful truth about the need for sacrifice, hard work, and repentance if we are to truly recover.

I fear that all too soon we'll discover that there's really only one party in Washington, that of power and greed, and as "The Who" so aptly stated "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Without reading through all the posts in this thread, I want to offer my support for Rufus Thomas' opinion, posted at 8:34.

Rod, I think there's one thing that you apparently haven't learned yet--which is no crime because sometimes it takes a great deal of time and experience to learn, to wit: "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

Think about that phrase. Turn it over in your head. See if you can apply it in your life: "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

See, by taking your position that the McCain/Palin ticket is not perfect enough to vote for--and taking that position so publicly, I might add--you have thereby figuratively cast your vote for Obama, who you know would be much worse. And what's worse, you allowed yourself to be used as a tool of the MSM--of James Carville and his ilk. You have abetted Obama's campaign. "Oh, I'm just calling it like I see it," you say. But the truth is, you are hurting that which is good and helping that which is not.

And you purport to speak for the conservatives? For the Republicans? Lord, have mercy!

good=conservatives=Republicans? Lord, have mercy! ;)

Me too, brother.

Rod,

Hear, hear! (especially the update!)

JPL, I like your 1:25 p.m. post. Thanks for raising the level of the discussion.

If Barack Obama were president today... going by his pattern of behavior, I'd have to say his approach would be to comment about how recessions are bad, and it's unfortunate that this one has to be so rapid, because it makes things harder to deal with for poor folks. So, he'd promise a whole new round of "supports" for poor folks, including affordable housing and food and utility supports, and promise loans to help them out.

Then, he'd blame the greed of the Reagan era and deregulation and Bush's failed policies for the problem. The congress would load up the pork, quietly bail out the firms with the best lobbyists, and who would start spending like drunken sailors to try to prevent any of the mess raising it's ugly head until he's past election #2.

All carefully focus-group studied and neatly packaged and "media managed". All the while, the party rants endless tirades at "republican greed and recklessness" for the mess we're in.

This is Obama's wisdom. This is his preparedness. This is his studied and learned method of governance.

Oh, yeah, he's prepared to be president. he's informed. he's knowledgeable.

And the consequences of that wonderful preparedness and wisdom will be born by us all.

One gets the sense, from reading some comments here, that the head cheerleader and the high school quarterback are in the midst of a nasty break-up. Which is fine, but I'd rather tune in to the CW for that kind of drama.

I'd have to say that once the initial glow wore off, I didn't think Palin was ready and I still don't. Doesn't mean she can't be. And when she is, she'll be a formidable opponent. But no, not right now. Let the fresh Merlot age a bit.

And, for the record, I concur with JPL. I'd add that some folks are placing way too much emphasis on a quadrennial event. There's a good reason we turn over our leaders as much as we do.

Rod wrote: UPDATE: And you know what we get with this kind of thing?

I'll tell you what you got: John Roberts and Sam Alito.

If people had done what you did just this week, Gore would be president, and we certainly wouldn't have gotten Roberts and Alito on the court.

I told you many months ago, I'll say it again: it all comes down to the judges.

Right now you are assisting the people who want more abortions, not less.

Only one question for you, Rod.

Whom do you want to win?

What policies and people do you think are better for our nation? or, if it must be asked, which are the WORSE for our nation?

Answer that, and then move to effect the better outcome. If you can't bring yourself to do that, then consider yourself completely irrelevant and join the quisling snipers who haven't the courage to pick a side and fight for it.

Rod,I continue to respect your integrity, and may I just say, your eye-roll last night was the best TV moment I've seen all week.

Cranky wrote: "Answer that, and then move to effect the better outcome. If you can't bring yourself to do that, then consider yourself completely irrelevant and join the quisling snipers who haven't the courage to pick a side and fight for it."

Amen.

Rod, I'm done here. I'm going to do my best not to darken this blog again. It won't be easy. I may fail, but not without trying. I've been reading you for at least a year and a half. You don't know me, but I know you: we've attended church together. I looked through the crowd and thought to myself, "Hey, that guy over there is Rod Dreher! He's that up and coming conservative blogger from DMN." It was neat. But no more. You are obviously not up to picking a side and fighting for it (or at least defending it).

Since you're the one who brought up character, and since you've often blogged about your spiritual journey, let me add that I see this whole Palin thing as analogous to your journey into and then out of the Catholic Church. You learned about he priest scandal, and from then on the Catholic Church would never be perfect enough for Rod Dreher's ideals. Too bad, as I'm sure you've already experienced imperfections within the Eastern Orthodox Church. Remember that the Church is not a refuge for the saints but a hospital for sinners. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

It's not war, Richard, it's an old-fashioned playground slap fight.

Do I have that right? Just wanting to make sure I understand.

It is going to be about abortion. If McCain wants to pull it out, he has to refocus the electorate on that, and a fair number of folks will fall back in line and vote that way.

Therefore, whoever is running on the Republican ticket needs to be voted for, no matter what the qualifications (or lack thereof) because all other considerations are secondary and any other approach would be "making the perfect the enemy of the good."

Yep. Doesn't matter that the GOP had SIX years of control of the Congress and White House and failed to achieve anything more in the area of abortion except two judges, you have to vote "R". Never mind that there was no meaningful push for outright bans or test cases on the federal level, you have to vote "R". Never mind the war in Iraq and the senseless death there because its all about abortion. Never mind the budget mess and the financial crisis ( "Clinton's fault" ), its all about abortion.

Once abortion has been dealt with, then we can work enacting peace on Earth

Rod, I'm a conservative who hasn't liked Bush from the beginning. Further, I have disliked him for all the right reasons from the beginning. So yeah, I agree with you about all these people who are recent bush-haters or who hate him for the wrong reasons. Sheesh, it's like they're bounders trying to gain entrance to my club.

To all those rationalizing why it's bad to criticize Palin, let me get a couple of things straight:

1) Am I reading you right that your main objection to Rod's post isn't that he's wrong, but that by voicing his opinion he's hurting McCain's chances? That electioneering takes precedence over honesty?

2) Am I reading you right that Palin's qualifications are irrelevant -- the only thing that matters is the R next to her ticket? And the judges that implies? Can you name ANY real Republican you would vote against if the alternative was a Democrat? Ralph Reed? Ted Kaczynski? Anyone?

I think that the more frightening point is that Palin seems to be an exaggeration of some of Bush's greatest vices--a wasted education, lack of curiosity about the world, a vapid bellicosity, and an unmerited hubris.

It's the inability to have civil discourse that is ruining this country. In my opinion, Reagan's 11th commandment is part of the problem. We can't expect our leaders to be perfect people--they are human after all. That means you aren't going to agree with everything they say or do, and that's OK, as long as you express your divergent views in a civilized way. The internet blogs are so filled with hate and rage, both on the left and the right, that it's scary. It also makes it hard to find common ground.

I am an agnostic. However, my actions are guided by what is best for the common good (or at least I try). It's not about what might be right for me. If that means criticizing Palin's knowledge deficits regarding important issues facing this country, in my mind, I've done what's "right."

I have a single question about all the Obama-haters posting in this thread - were you this frightened and hysterical about Kerry in '04? Gore in '00? Clinton in '92 and '96?

If you weren't, you might want to ask yourselves why.

If you weren't, you might want to wonder about how you have the exact same reaction to the Democratic candidate every single time.

I'm glad to see Rod has worked himself out of his Pavolvian response to Palin, but I hope he and KParker remember the reaction they're now getting and think about what it really means for conservatism.

Mike

JPL: Very well done - Rod, consider posting that.

BrianF: I noticed the very same thing.

All: An ideologue is someone who, often motivated by idealism, will: unwaveringly support their faction, vilify opponents, and stubbornly deny there is even the slightest flaw on their side. (There is one flaw they will sometimes admit - that certain adherents on their side are not ideological enough.)

The obvious problem is they behave as though some people are above reproach and that fault can only be found in their opponents. Other problems are less obvious. The most serious is that truth suffers. Ignoring problems with your candidate while exagerating the problems of your opponents will get you some votes, but it won't pass muster here, because the deceit is plain as day to honest thoughtful people. Rod, and most of his commenters are not for the Republicans, - sappy as it is to say - we are for the truth.

For millennia Catholicism has taught that we cannot achieve good by doing bad. We cannot stop abortion by pretending that Palin is ready to be president, or that she isn't lying thru her teeth about that bridge - or that waterboarding is not torture, or that there are WMDs in Iraq but we haven't found them yet, or any number of the deceits that right wing ideologues have been pedaling for 8 yrs now.

We cannot achieve good with dishonesty.

"I have a single question about all the Obama-haters posting in this thread - were you this frightened and hysterical about Kerry in '04? Gore in '00? Clinton in '92 and '96?"

First of all, I don't hate Obama, I hate his ideas. I know that's a tough thing for you libs to get your heads around, since for you a man IS his ideas, but it's the truth. I have nothing against him personally -- he seems like a smart, pleasant, sincere guy. I just think he's sincerely wrong on most things.

Secondly, I admit to having been scared of Clinton in '92, but after four years, he turned out to be not as bad as expected. Gore didn't really scare me (he bored me more than anything) and what bothered me about Kerry was the fact that he didn't seem to take the jihadist threat seriously enough.

Obama scares me worse than any of these, however, because A) he is proposing a multitude new programs and entitlements that we cannot possibly pay for, B) he is for all intents and purposes a "soft" Marxist, or what conservative scholar Paul Gottfried calls a "post-Marxist", and C) he is a radical pro-abort. As Doug Bandow wrote in 'Chronicles' magazine recently, about the only successful legislation he's been involved with in his career are laws that guarantee that every aborted child will in fact end up dead.

I don't see his foreign policy as being any worse than McCain's. His naive proposal for timetables in Iraq cancels out McCain's tendency to rattle his sabre. Both are globalists and interventionists, although they would probably intervene differently and in different places.

So there ya go. Any other questions, chief?

This is my first post to a political blog. Your response to this young Christian man evoked an emotional response from me, tears of relief and joy. You see, I grew-up in an ultra-conservative Christian home and was never encouraged to pay attention to my own emotional and cognitive processes, to ask difficult questions that naturally arose from within. Instead, I learned to attend to what others needed me to believe. In so doing, I silenced myself and became disempowered as a unique spiritual, intellectual and emotional being.

For me to read this post was to see a concrete example of truth-telling instead of crazy-making. As someone who has read your column in the DMN for years, often in disagreement with your conclusions, your calling out reality here gives me a renewed sense of faith that I can engage in authentic dialogue with someone I often disagree. And, I personally believe that if our society is to survive, more of us must begin to interact and collaborate with this oft-missing quality.

Rod,
You are absolutely right to express your doubts about Palin, on television, on the web, on a soapbox in Central Park (or the Dallas equivalent), or anywhere else you can get people to listen before they vote on November 4. It is brave of you to do so, and ludicrous for anyone to say this makes you a bad Christian. We need conservatives like you and Kathleen Parker to keep us from walking into a disaster, not just for the conservative movement, but for the country. Palin is not qualified. Nothing she could say in the debate tomorrow will change that.
CatherineNY

MBunge (and J Dave G),

For what it's worth -- like Rob G. -- I don't hate the Reverend.

I *love* him in fact.

I just think it would be a catastrophe for the country for him to be the President.

I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

I did not vote for President at all in 2000 or in 2004 because I could not stomach either of the major party options in either of those two elections and could not locate a third party candidate whom I could support.

Over the years I have voted for Democrats twice as often as Republicans.

I am a registered Independent.

My views are closer to those of a European Christian Democrat than to those represented by either of the two major American parties at this point in time.

I am not Roman Catholic, but my political views are broadly in sync with Catholic Social Teaching.

I am left of center on economic issues, right of center on social issues, and centrist on foreign policy.

I am more communitarian than libertarian, but also more subsidarist or distributist than statist or collectivist.

In addition to Bill Clinton, Democrats I have voted for in the last twenty years include Max Cleland, Tim Kaine, Zell Miller, Sam Nunn, Mark Warner, and Jim Webb.

I can bear voting for Democrats who resemble the "old school" Democrats of the era from 1932 to 1968.

I can't bear voting for the Reverend, who -- unlike Al Gore and John Kerry, with whom I also was less than taken -- consorts with terrorists and racist demagogues, who shows nothing but disdain for those of my social class, and who, in an event, is unqualified for the Presidency either by prior executive experience or by demonstrated expertise in any area of policy.

He doesn't inspire me. I can't sit through one of his speeches. I don't find him eloquent or articulate.

He just doesn't appeal to me at all.

At best, he makes me feel embarrassed for the country and at worst he makes me feel enraged at how much worse he is going to make the country for my children as they grow up.

If feeling that way makes me an "ideologue" or a "hater" then so be it.

I repeat -- "Those are the breaks."

Welcome to the intellectual environment created by Atwater, Rove, Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, O'Reilly, Hannity, Kristol, Podhoretz, et al.

Rod, I am from Dallas, and have GREATLY enjoyed your very thoughtful columns over the years in the Dallas Morning News, as do my friends and family. We discuss them a lot, and very much appreciate your viewpoints and appreciate debating them even though we don't agree on some of the issues (I'm a liberal Democrat). We consider you the David Brooks of Dallas. Please stick to your guns and don't let the "Rovian" attack criticism get to you. You are a refreshing breath of "fresh air". And kudos to Wick Allison for his most recent post in D Magazine about the current problems with the Republicans and why he is now supporting Obama. I found out about your blog and Allison's column thanks to the links from Andrew Sullivan's blog, another person who I greatly admire for calling it like he sees it. Peggy Noonan was so right in her original assessment of Palin. Too bad she wasn't courageous enough to keep it up! Thanks for all you do!

This is like coming to a fork in the road and saying "I'm not moving until they build a new choice".

Question -- my dad voted for Perot in '92. By your logic, did he vote for Clinton?

Again, too bad the terms of the conversation are such that I can't disagree with you without being either an idiot or a traitor, but there we are.

Richard

Why do I get the impression that your "very thoughtful young conservative intellectual" is not hearing your message. Probably too busy working up his YouTube presentation of Rev. Wright, William Ayers, and Mohammad Atta voice clips - running over a picture of Sen. Obama in Kenyan tribal dress. Because your e-mailer is such a good Christian and all.

With as little offense intended as possible, may I humbly suggest that trying to combine religious values with conservative politics does not reflect favorably on either the conservative movement or religion in general?

Not to mention that religious conservatives get the religious part so breathtakingly wrong. Good on the "thou shalt not kill" part vis-a-vis abortion, not so much as concerns gun control or capital punishment. And the whole "small government is good, you're on your own" philosophy completely misses the boat on "love thy neighbor".

Rodney,

So you said Two Mules for Sister Sarah is not exactly ready for a prime time spot in the White House.

In response, you Theoconserative and Neoconservative pals attacked.

You.

Threatened.

You. And the family.

And, like Kathy Parker, threatened to take away your Magic Theoconservative Decoder Ring.

Hate to type, "I told you so," but I told you so.

Welcome to the Cadre of Logical Unbiased Growth. Here, in the CLUB, the only qualification for membership is the logical application of knowledge free of hypocrisy and rigid ideological stereotypes. You'll need a spine - and a sense of humor.

Lancelot: "Ordinary people resent that people who are smart in a certain way seem to get to run the country . . ."

Would that "certain way" include being articulate, curious about the world, well-read and thoughtful? I don't believe those qualities are exclusive to any political party or persuasion.

Rufus wrote: "Him-At-Whom-We-Must-Not-Laugh"--love that.

Kirk wrote: "making the good the enemy of the perfect"--this thread is so long already, so just ITA.